Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


Abortion Mandate in Health Care is Not “Choice”

posted by Jay Sekulow

Barry, I disagree that “any sensible health care reform” is going to have to cover, as you call it “reproductive health care,” or as I would say, “abortion.”  Americans do not want their federal dollars paying for abortions.  Let me set the facts straight. 

 

You cite polling numbers from the pro-abortion groups Guttmacher Institute and National Women’s Law Center. I would note, however, that polling data from non-partisan sources show that Americans are increasingly opposed to abortion.  A recent Gallup poll shows that for the first time since 1995, more Americans call themselves “pro-life” than “pro-choice.”   

According to another recent Gallup, President Obama’s decision to overturn the Mexico City Policy, which prohibited federal funds from going to overseas “family planning” clinics that provide abortion services or counseling, was one his most unpopular decisions.  Only 35 percent of Americans approved of his decision, while 58 percent disapproved.  If American’s don’t want their tax dollars spent on overseas abortions, they certainly don’t want those dollars spent on abortions here at home.

 

Under the House health care plan, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (right now Kathleen Sebelius, known for her pro-abortion stances) and a Health Benefits Advisory Committee will be tasked with coming up with what “essential benefits” must be covered by all private and public health care plans.  Given President Obama’s statement on the campaign trail that “reproductive care is essential care, basic care so it is at the center, the heart of the plan I propose,” it is likely that the “essential benefits” that they come up with will include abortion.  Individuals and employers will be forced to have coverage that includes these essential benefits, or pay a tax penalty.

 

You trump the need for “choice” in your post – I agree. Americans should be able to choose a health care plan that does not mandate abortion coverage.  They should also be able to choose to not have their taxpayer dollars fund a procedure that involves the taking of a human life.

 

This concern is generating bipartisan support on Capitol Hill.  A growing number of Democrat lawmakers in the House have said they would vote to oppose a health care bill unless it explicitly includes language removing the abortion mandate from health coverage.

Finally, I think the issue is more complicated than simply wanting “health care to be equal for all.”  It is even more complicated than saying “[w]omen have the Constitutional right to choose.”  The Supreme Court has found a Constitutional right to privacy that includes the right to have an abortion.  However, that right is subject to limitations, such as the government’s interest in “preserving and promoting fetal life.” (Gonzales v. Carhart)   

 

For health care to truly be “equal for all” it must consider the need to preserve and protect the unborn.  Under the health care plans being considered in Congress, state laws protecting the unborn, such as parental notification laws and informed consent laws could be preempted. 

 

This is not equality and it is not what Americans want.  Any health care reform legislation must include protections against taxpayer funding of abortions and mandatory abortion coverage.  It must also respect and protect state abortion laws and the deep divide of conscience in the country of when life begins and that abortion takes a human life.

 

To subscribe to “Lynn v. Sekulow” click here.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(62)
post a comment
RJohnson

posted July 23, 2009 at 4:35 pm


“They should also be able to choose to not have their taxpayer dollars fund a procedure that involves the taking of a human life.”
Then we clearly need to have two plans…one that includes the full range of family planning options (for those who want their taxpayer dollars funding this), and a plan that does not include abortion or contraceptive services (for those who do not want their tax dollars funding these services).
Any other alternative, such as removing abortion and contraceptive services from ANY publicly financed healthcare option, opens a door that I don’t think you really want opened. For example, as an opponent of the war in Iraq, shouldn’t I and others of like mind be able to not have our taxpayer dollars funding a national defense policy that includes that conflict?
There are many people who do not want their taxes funding a variety of things this nation does. Should each group, or for that matter each individual, be given the option of selecting which of those services his/her tax dollars fund?
That is what we have elected representatives for, Mr. Sekulow. Elections matter. The people spoke at the ballot box, and will speak again in 18 months.
Special pleadings (which is what your statement is, Mr. Sekulow), were given a deaf ear and short shrift under the Bush administration. When the GOP held sway in Congress there were many initiatives enacted that were unpopular, and I would daresay many that were opposed by a majority of Americans. Thus the GOP lost their control in 2006, and lost the White House in 2008.
Elections have consequences, Mr. Sekulow. You would do well to learn that.



report abuse
 

A. Ammerman

posted July 23, 2009 at 5:11 pm


Mr. Sekulow,
Your blog mischaracterizes polling data released by the National Women’s Law Center. The public opinion research, conducted by the Mellman Group, actually found broad public support for reproductive health services- including abortion- in health reform.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 23, 2009 at 6:04 pm


We do not need to have to plans funding the options to kill children through any tax dollars.
These views of letting others kill children under the headship of the United States of America is flat out wrong.
So, if your trying to get me to go along with the view of your throat being slashed through private personal decisions of a doctors office and thinking it is a good idea to have it funded through policies of our government. Nope!!!!
C



report abuse
 

POvidi

posted July 23, 2009 at 7:23 pm


Enough of “the rights of the unborn”. Excuse me, but when was it determined that a fetus was valued more than a woman? Why is it that the rights of women (especially poor women) fall below those of a parasite? If my strong language offends you then too bad. I’m offended constantly by the violent and ignorant rhetoric of the pro-life movement. Until a fetus can survive on it’s own without siphoning nourishment off of it’s mother it does not count as a human life. Sentimentality cannot change facts and truth. Pro-lifers only want to keep poor women in destitution. Where is all of their religious fervor for these kids when they’re living out the womb and under the poverty level?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 23, 2009 at 9:18 pm


Ah…POvidi. So you would agree that a woman has the right to kill her newborn? I mean, after all, that ridiculous little thing is just sucking the life out of her via her breast. He can’t survive without his mommy. What rights are you talking about with regard to a fetus versus a woman? Because if we’re talking about the basic right to life, then so sorry, but the fetus wins out almost all of the time. And what a ridiculous notion that pro-lifers care nothing about women. Granted, way too many forget the value of the woman making these decisions and that saddens me. However, I, personally, actually do care for these women who make this kind of mistake. Do you have any idea how many women deal with the aftereffects of abortion for the rest of their lives? People like you only care about the quick fix. Not what the future holds for such women, and certainly not about any emotion attached to the abortion.



report abuse
 

Lauren

posted July 23, 2009 at 9:50 pm


“I mean, after all, that ridiculous little thing is just sucking the life out of her via her breast. He can’t survive without his mommy.”
What of formula or the use of wet nurses of yesteryear? PO vidi is discussing pregnancy; a different physical reality then a nursing baby.
“What rights are you talking about with regard to a fetus versus a woman? Because if we’re talking about the basic right to life, then so sorry, but the fetus wins out almost all of the time.”
Just as you and I cannot be legally forced to give blood, donate a kidney to another a woman cannot be legally forced have another use her body against her will; this includes early pregnancy.
“And what a ridiculous notion that pro-lifers care nothing about women. Granted, way too many forget the value of the woman making these decisions and that saddens me.”
It saddens me too that the woman behind the womb is often forgotten when she is pregnant.
“Do you have any idea how many women deal with the aftereffects of abortion for the rest of their lives? People like you only care about the quick fix. Not what the future holds for such women, and certainly not about any emotion attached to the abortion.”
Yes, some women regret their abortions while others are utterly relieved. Websites are out there of women who are tired of this myth that is perpetuated that all women fall into a depression/mental illness due to their abortion; an example: i’mnotsorry.net.
“People like us” care about the woman, her fetus, and her choice to become a mother. It is my wish that someday the only people to get pregnant are those that are happy, willing, and able to become parents. That can only happen through education and more support for pregnant women/mothers academically and in the work place. Instead of insultingly referred to us “wanting a quick fix” perhaps it is the prolife movement with its cries for making abortion illegal with complete disregard for the reasons women seek abortions—reasons that require money and effort upon all of society—, that want the quick fix…



report abuse
 

Joe

posted July 24, 2009 at 12:32 am


RJohnson, elections matter? How very democratic of you. Can I assume, then, that you oppose having abortion-on-demand imposed on us by the courts?



report abuse
 

Gwyddion9

posted July 24, 2009 at 1:12 am


POvidi
July 23, 2009 7:23 PM
Enough of “the rights of the unborn”. Excuse me, but when was it determined that a fetus was valued more than a woman?
When Conservative Christianity decided that it is their right to determine what everyone should or shouldn’t have. When they decided we needed to be saved to their religion and their god and their beliefs. Like most in this country, we don’t need them or nor did we ask them to save us. Personally, when comparing their religious beliefs to mine, it’s a no brainer. Why should i settle for second best, if that?



report abuse
 

kelly

posted July 24, 2009 at 2:21 am


” it is likely that the “essential benefits” that they come up with will include abortion. ”
But you don’t know that for sure, do you?
I don’t want to cover vasectomies, erectile dysfunction, or in-vitro fertilization either.



report abuse
 

Tiffany

posted July 24, 2009 at 9:20 am


The sad part about this argument is most women/girls that get abortion profess to be born again believer in Jesus Christ. That let me know that until we christians can stop the abortions in our own homes we will not be able to effectively stop abortions in the marketplace. Lets be real, the United States is a christian nation. Christians are the majority in this country. The question is how did abortion get to this point in the first place. It is not because we christians turned a blinds eye to situation it is because we were and are the ones seeking the abortions. I bet if you took the age group of 30-45 at any church in America, if the women are truthful over half has had an abortion. And all of them know other christian women/girls that have had an abortion. I am pro-choice because I realize it is not up to the government to legislate morality. The government is not going to stand before the King of Kings For My Sins, I will. It is up to me to teach my children that taking a life through abortion is wrong. It is my hope that that is what we all will teach our on children.



report abuse
 

Gwyddion9

posted July 24, 2009 at 1:05 pm


Tiffany,
Just because the majority of the people in this country profess to be Christian, does not make us a Christian country. Besides, of all the Christian sects in this country, they really don’t see eye to eye on everything.
The “this is a Christian country” is a lie perpetuated by Christian conservatives. Somehow if they say it enough, it will come true…sorry, no it won’t.
Tiffany said, “I am pro-choice because I realize it is not up to the government to legislate morality.” Actually, I’m glad to hear this however, please also understand that it is not up to any church or religion, in this country, to legislate morality either.



report abuse
 

jimbino

posted July 24, 2009 at 5:33 pm


Jay,
There is one simple concept that you fail to get: the rights of a woman over her own body do not depend on majority vote of the American people. Indeed, her right to abort would hold regardless of a Constitutional amendment to the contrary, since it is well established that our rights are natural: they are not granted by our government! It is our government’s job to secure our natural rights.
That said, I agree with you that folks should have the right to opt out of any insurance plan that is disagreeable to them. For my part, I will opt out of any plan that covers spouses, children and people with prior medical conditions.
That’s what I do now as a voluntarily uninsured person. Still, the problem I now face is that some 50% of the nation’s medical care is subsidized by my taxes!



report abuse
 

Steve

posted July 24, 2009 at 6:10 pm


The American Center for Law and Justice advocates for freedom, as long as that freedom corresponds with their limited view of judeo / christian doctrine.
They thrive by using standard psychological techniques. Bombard the people who listen to their broadcast with the same message over and over again. Use forceful statements, make each issue critical and repeat, repeat repeat.
Like most religious organizations, they have a hard time with honesty. Why don’t they come forward and state that they were founded by Pat Robertson? Why don’t they publicly state the Sekulow’s salary? Something about the rich having a hard time getting into heaven seems to be overlooked by this particular group.
Keep your laws off my body, Mr Sekulow. It is your religion that drives so many women in our country to have an abortion. Sex and the urge to reproduce has been around much longer than your god. People are going to have sex. Not all of them want children. To offer abortion to only those who can afford it, legally or not, invites “back ally” abortions that often take the life or health of the woman. That is one of the primary reasons we need access to safe abortions for all people.
If you consider yourself “pro-life” then why are you not advocating for the thousands of innocent victims of the US as we wage offensive wars across the world? Why are you not advocating for the thousands of victims of Israel’s policies in Gaza or the West Bank. Why are you not advocating for the Native Americans who were displaced, tortured and killed by our “christian country” as you purport us to be.
By the way, I find no biblical reference outlawing slavery, in fact, the bible advocates slavery! So I guess when this country outlawed slavery, maybe that was the start of our “ungodliness”?
PS: I am an adoptive father. The birth mother of my child did have an option to abort, and she choose not to. She planned for and went through with an adoption. Having a choice is what this is all about. She had a choice, and I would have supported her right to choose abortion if that was the right choice for her. Yes, there are psychological scars from aborting, but there is also pain in adoption and abusing your own unwanted child. Life just isn’t as simple as these folks would like us to believe.
Steve
Oregon



report abuse
 

Karl

posted July 24, 2009 at 6:26 pm


Tiffany,
Do you really believe that it is not up to the government to legislate morality? Is killing your neighbor an immoral act? Is killing a dog after a dog fight an immoral act?
Jimbino,
There is just one simple concept that you fail to get. Those natural rights that you claim should be given to the unborn too.



report abuse
 

Karl

posted July 24, 2009 at 6:33 pm


Sorry, my first comment should have been directed at Gwyddion9 instead of Tiffany



report abuse
 

Gwyddion9

posted July 24, 2009 at 7:33 pm


Karl,
“Do you really believe that it is not up to the government to legislate morality? Is killing your neighbor an immoral act? Is killing a dog after a dog fight an immoral act?”
Regarding the neighbor, it depends on the situation. As far as the dog, I don’t agree with dog fighting or cock fighting, for that matter. It is “humans” who put the animals through this. After being discovered and having arrested the humans who did this, if it was necessary to put the dog down, than yes, it would be moral. But you’re mixing two completely different situations. Humans have a choice, animals do as trained/forced or simply do as they will by natural instinct. Apples and oranges.
An abortion is up to the woman to decide. While I would hope the woman is given other options so she can make a decision that is in her best interest, the choice is still hers and not yours or mine or anyone else’s. While I personally do not like the idea of using abortion as a form of birth control, and granted, some use it for this, I recognize both religiously and morally, that it is HER decision to make and no one else’s. She must deal with the consequences and repercussions of the decision but there is assistance for these, if needed but it still doesn’t change bottom line, it is HER decision.
Perhaps society should monitor Christian churches to determine what is taught and said so society is protected AND society can determine what is right and not right and what they can and can’t do because some Christian sects think they have the self appointed right to speak for everyone and determine what others can and can’t have.
I don’t think you’d approve of this action and neither would I but it’s the same concept that some Christian sects seek to impose on others. Your religious beliefs stop at other peoples noses.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted July 24, 2009 at 10:45 pm


Karl,
There is just one simple concept that you fail to get. A fetus cannot be given rights that conflict with the mother’s rights. A fetus exists by the woman’s permission and permissions are not rights.



report abuse
 

Jacquee

posted July 25, 2009 at 1:32 pm


“O Lord, you have searched me and you know me. You know when I sit and when I rise; You perceive my thoughts…You discern my going out and my lying down; You are familiar with all my ways. For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are wonderful, I know that full well.” (Psalm 139)
“He said to me: It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To him who is thirsty I will give to drink without cost from the spring of the water of life. He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son. But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars — their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.” (Revelation 21:6-8)
“For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him.” (John 3:16-17)
Shalom



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 25, 2009 at 5:56 pm


What does Christianity have to do with grouping it in a conversation of it abortions being Christians? Yes Christians do fall short of the mark. It is the Christians who walk around thinking that they are better then others in fact as if they never sin when all the while they are sinnining. This is what conscerns me, the hypocritical Christians who sit in church and say I am perfect and you are not. The judgement type of individuals, this is why people are not attracted to the Christian faith.
If you are going to bring up Christianity and put others down who were mislead by the public school system or the very definition of a fetus not being a baby, then we have a problem
Call yourself pro-choice and I’ll call you a pro-murderer.
Then get back to me about the Christianity thing, Tiffany.
As for a baby having rights, yes it is in our Constitution, posterity rights. I think some of our political figures are forgetting that our people are being developed into full grown babies in the womb. Did they forget that they are people?
People Live , C



report abuse
 

Ryan

posted July 25, 2009 at 9:08 pm


The problem with abortion isn’t merely that it exists. It’s why it exists. Until we realize the reasoning behind a woman wanting, emphasis on wanting, to have an abortion we will never find a solution. “The heart of the matter is a matter of the heart.” It is desperately wicked; search yours and tell me otherwise.



report abuse
 

cara floyd

posted July 25, 2009 at 9:10 pm


Yes, yes, yes
The conservative kind of view is looking kind of refreshing after a day full of hot air from the lefties. I just can’t seem to find one pair of socks which match, all the better. Bella is a bit squeemish and don’t forget the Pringles folks.
I decided to lighten it up a bit, it seems some people are a bit set in there ways of killing little people. So off to the races my friends and have a big bucket of chicken.
C



report abuse
 

Jacquee

posted July 25, 2009 at 10:18 pm


At one time I too was foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. I lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating others. But when the kindness and love of God my Savior appeared, He saved me, not because of righteous things I did, but because of His mercy. He saved me through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on me generously through Jesus Christ my Savior. Trust in God and devote yourself to doing what is good. Do not harden your hearts, for the word of God is living and active.
Why am I here…to sing out for those who do not have a voice. This world is so mired down in sin it has become acceptable to cast blame everywhere, and unacceptable to be accountable to oneself. Maybe there should be legislation on illicit sex…or being too
promiscuous…or being sexually immoral. It would certainly cut down on disease! Yet again…we would have to be accountable to ourselves and that makes us uncomfortable. “Girls just want to have fun!” Of course you can’t blame the guys, because they fight back…so go for the one who has no voice…the child.
And don’t show me any pictures that would make me feel guilty!! I don’t want to see them. I want to live in denial. Its not right to make me feel guilty. But you see, no one can make you feel guilty…deep down, when God created us, we have a need to be loved and to give love. So the idea of destroying someone we should be loving and nurturing goes against that.
Where does God fit into this…He’s the creator. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
And men, before you go spouting off about anything…you need to take some serious inventory! Because of your sexual immorality, need for pornography, whining, begging, pushing, nagging and whatever else you devise to get your need satisfied, get these women pregnant and you run off or advise them to get an abortion.
Who are you to advise these women about a choice and whether what is in her womb is a child or not!?!? And women…why are you listening to them? (AGAIN!?!) They took advantage of you once and now you are going to let them do it again. The Lord says, use wisdom!!
Your right to choose is BEFORE you take your clothes off! AMEN!



report abuse
 

Boris

posted July 25, 2009 at 11:17 pm


The truth:
At one time I too was foolish, disobedient, deceived and enslaved by all kinds of passions and pleasures. I lived in malice and envy, being hated and hating others. But like many women often do, when I found myself no longer attractive to men I turned to religion.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted July 26, 2009 at 12:13 pm


Maybe there should be legislation on illicit sex…or being too
promiscuous…or being sexually immoral.
Boris says: Maybe there should be legislation against dangerous religions like Christianity… or being deluded by religious beliefs… or promoting dangerous ideas like the ones above. i used to support religious freedom. But now I see we must stamp out all religion before it’s adherents stamp out humanity.



report abuse
 

Mary-Lee

posted July 26, 2009 at 12:22 pm


i used to support religious freedom. But now I see we must stamp out all religion before it’s adherents stamp out humanity.
Don’t worry, Boris. These anti-choicers are not religious. What they are is desperately committed to their own superiority and their so-called right to preach that superiority to the world.
“Look at me! Look at me!” That’s their soul-saving message to the world.
Ignore them. They’ll persist for a while, but then they’ll go looking for other pastures to graze.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 27, 2009 at 2:48 pm


Well, I am a person who does have wisdom and knows that in a person reproductive system is a place where babies grow, females of course.
If you want to live in denial and give people the false representative action of choosing to murder children under a pro-choice policy, then I would tell you that you are giving others the preception that these children are not children.
When you stem yourself to the beginning as to how you were formed and then write some ludicrous idea of giving people the perception is they just remain ignorant to the belief system of murdering their children through abortion is not that, then I would have to say to you that you are giving others a gift of nothing more than sin.
On a further note, the fact is that we are formed from a male and a female egg and sperm connecting giving way to life as male and female. Now, if America wants to call these children some form of living tissue other then the fact that they are our posterity, then I would have to say to America, you have some exsplaining to do. I want to protect these children and give them a defence other then the lame excuse of letting others treat them like less then human.
Pippy L.
Pippy likes amimals and bright color clothing and she wants to spend time with people who love her, wrather then some so called friends who wish to one up her in whatever way possible, including these blogs. Pippy knows the difference between what is right and wrong and she finds people who let others choose to murder their children an associate to the problem. Pippy loves boats, children, cars, clothing and jewelry. If you ask me why I am writing about Pippy, I find her funny.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted July 27, 2009 at 8:41 pm


Calling abortion murder won’t make it so. Making abortions illegal won’t deter women from getting them, it will only make abortions dangerous.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 28, 2009 at 3:31 pm


Mr. Sekulow,
You repeatedly make the same mistake of the rest of the fervent “pro-life” crowd: using the terms pro-choice and pro-abortion interchangably. I can only assume that you do this to hedge the argument to your favor, as nobody smiles at the thought of abortion. To be pro-choice is NOT to be pro-abortion. To be pro-choice is to recognize a necessary evil, and recognize that it is a personal choice that the government should not be involved in.
You also say that “They [Americans] should also be able to choose to not have their taxpayer dollars fund a procedure that involves the taking of a human life.”
I would love to agree with your statement. I would gladly embrace the ability to choose to not have my taxpayer dollars fund procedures that involve the taking of human life. Unfortunatly, my taxpayer dollars have funded a meaningless, unnecessary war in Iraq for the last six years. They’ve funded tens of thousands of deaths, both foreign and American. They’ve funded the torture and abject humiliation of fellow humans who deserved such treatment no more than you or I.
If I am granted the ability to choose where my tax dollars go, would you kindly represent me in the lawsuit to have them refunded?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted July 28, 2009 at 5:04 pm


No, Mr. or Mrs. pro-choice, this does not take you off the hook as to enableing the murder. You give it valueable way of choice and you contribute to the murder by way of your election ticket. One more thing, you also don’t protect the children or make sure our posterity is being protected and defended, such resources are stated in The United States Constitution. I suppose your one of those individuals who sit on the side lines while the murder takes place and then say, ow I didn’t do it so I can’t be held accountable for the activity. Alot of so called Christians are that way, whatever, if it does not pertain to me and my kids then why should it matter to me?
I think this is a very selfish and self centered aproach to life, protecting yourself or making sure you get what you want, while all the while, children are being snuffed out continuously by your election ticket.
C
Now, I can’t make people protect children, but I can make the people who continually let the murder take place understand they are giving a way for the murder to continue and thus I feel a partially contributing to actual act.
p.s. On a lighter note, I wish it would all stop and I could say that people care about people enough to say I love that child enough even though the child is not mine that I want to make sure it gets a good home and a life of which our country can say WE DID IT. WE GAVE CHILDREN LIFE INSTEAD OF MURDER BY CHOICE, BY WAY OF ELECTION TICKET.



report abuse
 

V

posted July 29, 2009 at 11:13 am


C,
You call abortion murder, but that is debatable. It may be fixed solidly in your mind and in your faith that life and soul begin at conception, but not everybody agrees with you. I certainly don’t. My personal belief is that a fetus is not a living “human” until it is capable of living and breathing separate from the mothers body – i.e. “cut the cord”. But, typical of the religious right, you don’t care about anybody else’s beliefs, because you and you alone are right.
The decision to abort a pregnancy is a question of the circumstances of the situation weighed against the individual’s core values. If the individual has a very strong faith, and believes that life begins at conception, then they will almost always decide against it. There are safe alternatives that do not involve the “murder of a baby” (as defined by your personal values). If the pregnancy is almost sure to result in the death of the mother and the fetus, then that is a VERY strong circumstance to be weighed against the value system.
A peron’s values, many of which come from faith and religion, are the sliding scale against which the circumstances of the situation must be weighed when deciding what is the best thing to do. I understand and respect that, but by making laws that define the rules by which abortion is and is not allowable, you are doing the people a GREAT disservice.
If your wife (or you, if you are a woman) were to land in the hospital near death – and the doctor tells you that your wife is dying because of complications of an unexpected pregnancy – and that if you don’t abort there is a 99.9% chance that both the mother and the fetus will die long before the pregnancy comes to term – what would you say? Would you let your wife die, because of your belief? Would you choose to abort? I think that if you had to weigh the life of your wife against the .1% chance of your child being born, you would choose to save your wife. If you did not, then I can only commend you on the strength of your faith – because that is a decision that I absolutely could NOT make myself.
Assuming that you would choose to save your wife, ask yourself this follow-up question: What would you do if the doctor said that your wife HAD to die, because his hands were tied: abortion is illegal? The “choice” to abort was taken away from you by people who had no idea of the situation you were to find yourself in. Would you let your wife die, or go seek an illegal abortion? This is a situation that REAL people have had to face – questions that REAL people have had to answer. It is not “theoretical” by any means.
If it is against your personal beliefs and values, then by all means – don’t have an abortion. If you believe that life starts at conception and that it is wrong and evil to murder babies, then by all means – fight the good fight and convince others of the evils of abortion. But DO NOT PUT INTO LAW when abortion is and is not allowable. To do that is to impose your personal value system on the people of a nation – which is the opposite of protecting and defending the posterity and free will of its people.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 2:22 pm


==Enough of “the rights of the unborn”.==
Just like last century, when many said, “Enough of the Rights of Negroes!”
== …when was it determined that a fetus was valued more than a woman?==
Inheritance law says that “furture interests” begins at conception. Thus, the unborn are treated as persons, and the Constitution protects persons.
== Why is it that the rights of women (especially poor women) fall below those of a parasite?==
We YOU a “parasite” before you were born?
== If my strong language offends you then too bad.==
If our strong language offends you, then too bad.
==I’m offended constantly by the violent and ignorant rhetoric of the pro-life movement.==
To use YOUR words, “too bad.”
== Until a fetus can survive on it’s [sic] own without siphoning nourishment off of it’s [sic] mother it does not count as a human life.==
The unborn, from conception CAN live outside the womb [born], if even for a few seconds. Even by YOUR standards, that’s a person.
==Pro-lifers only want to keep poor women in destitution.==
Oh, THAT tired, old argument that’s been refuted over and over.
== Where is all of their religious fervor for these kids when they’re living out the womb and under the poverty level?==
It’s right there.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 2:27 pm


==Making abortions illegal won’t deter women from getting them…==
So, then, making them illegal won’t take away their Right to choose. That’s what we’ve been saying! Glad you agree.
==…it will only make abortions dangerous. ==
If it is dangerous if they choose still to get an abortion, THAT’s their choice. We’re not required to make it easy. We’re required, so far, not to interfere with their choice. That choice may be difficult, but that’s not our problem.
Roe says the Right to choose is the important element. That doesn’t mean that we must provide alternatives.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 29, 2009 at 2:31 pm


==If it is against your personal beliefs and values, then by all means – don’t have an abortion.==
We’re not selfish; we wanna help the Constitution protect ALL persons.
==If you believe that life starts at conception and that it is wrong and evil to murder babies, then by all means – fight the good fight and convince others of the evils of abortion.==
That’s what we’re trying to do.
== But DO NOT PUT INTO LAW when abortion is and is not allowable.==
If the unborn are persons — and the law treats them as persons — they are protected by the Constitution.
== To do that is to impose your personal value system on the people of a nation – which is the opposite of protecting and defending the posterity and free will of its people.==
And, yet, pro-choice=pro-abortion=wrong-choicers are imposing their Will on the rest of us.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 30, 2009 at 5:04 pm


A woman eight months pregnant was killed recently. The killer cut her open and took the child. The child was found the other day. Alive.
Regardless of the method, the child was born. Is that child a person? YES!
Had the child been taken at one month and lived ten minutes, the child was a person for ten minutes.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted July 30, 2009 at 5:24 pm


Nothing will ever make Mr. Incredible a person.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted July 30, 2009 at 6:33 pm


If the unborn are persons — and the law treats them as persons — they are protected by the Constitution.
Boris says: If that were true why were abortions openly advertised and performed in the United States before during and after the Constitution was written? Had the men who wrote the Constitution wanted to make abortions illegal they would have. Instead they made it illegal for people like Mr. Incredible to force their religious delusions on the rest of us.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 30, 2009 at 6:59 pm


Boris
July 30, 2009 6:33 PM
If the unborn are persons — and the law treats them as persons — they are protected by the Constitution.
If that were true why were abortions openly advertised and performed in the United States before during and after the Constitution was written?
———————————————-
The nation was young, the legal thinking was young and there was no adequate case law. We have that now.
If the Founders wanted so-called “separation of Church and State,” why did it take until, what, ’47, to “establish” what they didn’t establish?
Boris
July 30, 2009 6:33 PM
Had the men who wrote the Constitution wanted to make abortions illegal they would have.
—————————————————
Had they wanted so-called “separation of Church and State,” they would have written it into the Constitution. Instead, SCOTUS, in ’47, unconstitutionally amended the Constitution.
Boris
July 30, 2009 6:33 PM
Instead they made it illegal for people like Mr. Incredible to force their religious delusions on the rest of us.
——————————————————
Nobody is forcing you, are they? If they are, why aren’t you converted?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 30, 2009 at 7:01 pm


Boris
July 30, 2009 6:33 PM
If the unborn are persons — and the law treats them as persons — they are protected by the Constitution.
Boris says: If that were true why were abortions openly advertised and performed in the United States before during and after the Constitution was written? Had the men who wrote the Constitution wanted to make abortions illegal they would have.
—————————————————
Don’t YOU people argue that the Constitution is a “living” document, changing with the times?



report abuse
 

Boris

posted July 30, 2009 at 7:37 pm


The nation was young, the legal thinking was young and there was no adequate case law. We have that now.
Boris says: Right, Roe v. Wade is the case and now it is settled law. That law will never be overturned.
If the Founders wanted so-called “separation of Church and State,” why did it take until, what, ’47, to “establish” what they didn’t establish?
Boris says: Article Six of the United States Constitution provides that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States”. Prior to the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, this was the only mention of religious freedom in the Constitution.
Had they wanted so-called “separation of Church and State,” they would have written it into the Constitution. Instead, SCOTUS, in ’47, unconstitutionally amended the Constitution.
Boris says: The first amendment to the US Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” The two parts, known as the “establishment clause” and the “free exercise clause” respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court’s interpretations of the “separation of church and state” doctrine.
Nobody is forcing you, are they? If they are, why aren’t you converted?
Boris says: The fact that you do not believe in separation of church and state and want to impose a Christian theocracy on the rest of us means you do not support religious freedom. You have a very narrow-minded view because of your delusion that your religion is the only true religion. Suppose the separation we were talking about was between our government and another religion like Hinduism or Islam. Then you would be against having a theocracy in this country. If you could understand that then you would understand why I support the separation of church and state.
If the unborn are persons — and the law treats them as persons — they are protected by the Constitution.
Boris says: The unborn are not persons they’re potential persons. So your argument fails absolutely.
Don’t YOU people argue that the Constitution is a “living” document, changing with the times?
Boris says: I’m not part of any group that believes anything. You are. But you are and you don’t believe that and you can’t have it both ways. This is why you lose every debate and argument on this blog too. All of your positions are too asinine and contradictory to be defensible. Plus you are so inept and uneducated not to mention indoctrinated that you couldn’t win a debate even if you had the facts on your side. But you don’t and you know it too. We all do.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 30, 2009 at 10:43 pm


Boris
July 30, 2009 7:37 PM
“The nation was young, the legal thinking was young and there was no adequate case law. We have that now.”
Right, Roe v. Wade is the case and now it is settled law. That law will never be overturned.
——————————————————————–
Except when the suggestion of the establishment of “personhood” for the unborn comes along and/or somebody realizes that the law already treats the unborn as persons — that is, jural persons — just like corporations. When THAT happens, as Justice Blackmun said in Roe, itself, SCOTUS will assign constitutional protections to the unborn persons.
Boris
July 30, 2009 7:37 PM
“If the Founders wanted so-called ‘separation of Church and State,’ why did it take until, what, ’47, to ‘establish’ what they didn’t establish?”
Article Six of the United States Constitution provides that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States”. Prior to the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, this was the only mention of religious freedom in the Constitution.
——————————————————————–
That’s cuz everything the up to the Bill of Rights is about government, not about the relationship of government to citizen[s] and to the People.
Boris
July 30, 2009 7:37 PM
“Had they wanted so-called ‘separation of Church and State,’ they would have written it into the Constitution. Instead, SCOTUS, in ’47, unconstitutionally amended the Constitution.
The first amendment to the US Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” The two parts, known as the “establishment clause” and the “free exercise clause” respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court’s interpretations of the “separation of church and state” doctrine.
——————————————————————–
There is no mention of the phrase, “separation of Church and State.” The Court got that phrasing from the Jefferson letter to the Baptists. Jefferson had nothing to do with the drafting of the constitution. The letter was not law. It was not legislation acting toward amending the Constitution. SCOTUS has no authority in amending the Constitution, as it did in ’47.
Boris
July 30, 2009 7:37 PM
“Nobody is forcing you, are they? If they are, why aren’t you converted?”
The fact that you do not believe in separation of church and state…
——————————————————————–
So, we get it; you believe in things you cannot see with your own eyes, even though you claim that the only things you believe are things you can see with your own eyes.
Boris
July 30, 2009 7:37 PM
… and want to impose a Christian theocracy on the rest of us…
——————————————————————–
Again, people like you like to misrepresent our arguments.
Nobody here is trying to impose a theocracy. You’re listening to the Devil again. The Devil is the only one who tries to instill fear. God doesn’t give us a spirit of fear.
Boris
July 30, 2009 7:37 PM
… Means you do not support religious freedom.
——————————————————————–
The settlers did not come here to establish a smorgasbord of religions. They, themselves, say that they came here to advance Christianity. They came here to escape a system by which the Church of England told them they must worship God through the Church, that the Church is the mediator, not Christ. They came here to escape the system by which the King was made head of the Church. THAT’S the reason for the First Amendment which is a one-way street: the State cannot impose “religion” on the People. The First Amendment imposes nothing on a person, nor persons, nor the People. The imposition is on the State.
Boris
July 30, 2009 7:37 PM
You have a very narrow-minded view…
——————————————————————–
Translation: “Unless you agree with me, you have a very narrow-minded view.”
Boris
July 30, 2009 7:37 PM
… because of your delusion…
——————————————————————–
God neither gives me, nor gave me, delusions. Before faith, the Devil gave me delusions. I’ve escape the Devil’s trap.
Boris
July 30, 2009 7:37 PM
… that your religion is the only true religion.
——————————————————————–
(Joh 14:6) Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Boris
July 30, 2009 7:37 PM
Suppose the separation we were talking about was between our government and another religion like Hinduism or Islam. Then you would be against having a theocracy in this country.
——————————————————————–
I’ve already said that no one is trying to impose a theocracy here. The Devil has told you a lie, and, of course, having nothing to protect against it, you listen to it.
Boris
July 30, 2009 7:37 PM
If you could understand that then you would understand why I support the separation of church and state.
——————————————————————–
You support the so-called “separation of Church and State” because you think it says what you want it to say, and you push your dream-up understanding of it rather than what it means according to the true history.
Boris
July 30, 2009 7:37 PM
“If the unborn are persons — and the law treats them as persons — they are protected by the Constitution.”
The unborn are not persons they’re potential persons.
——————————————————————–
The law treats them as persons just as a treats corporations as persons — jural persons. So, they are persons. ALL persons are protected by the Constitution.
Boris
July 30, 2009 7:37 PM
So your argument fails absolutely.
——————————————————————–
As you can see, no it doesn’t.
Boris
July 30, 2009 7:37 PM
“Don’t YOU people argue that the Constitution is a ‘living’ document, changing with the times?”
I’m not part of any group that believes anything.
——————————————————————–
You are part of the group that calls themselves, “atheists.” Atheists believe that there is no God.
Boris
July 30, 2009 7:37 PM
You are.
——————————————————————–
As God wants, I have fellowship, in Christ, with other Christians.
Boris
July 30, 2009 7:37 PM
This is why you lose every debate and argument on this blog too.
——————————————————————–
Just cuz you have a closed mind, doesn’t mean I’ve lost anything.
Boris
July 30, 2009 7:37 PM
All of your positions are too asinine…
——————————————————————–
Translation: “Any position that doesn’t agree with me is asinine.”
Boris
July 30, 2009 7:37 PM
… and contradictory…
——————————————————————–
And he contradictions that you say you think and choose to believe are there exists only in your head.
Boris
July 30, 2009 7:37 PM
…to be defensible.
——————————————————————–
God has done the defense. He wins all the time.
Boris
July 30, 2009 7:37 PM
Plus you are so inept…
——————————————————————–
Translation: “Anybody who doesn’t agree with me is inept.”
Boris
July 30, 2009 7:37 PM
… and uneducated…
——————————————————————–
Translation: “You can’t know anything cuz you don’t agree with me.”
Boris
July 30, 2009 7:37 PM
… not to mention indoctrinated…
——————————————————————–
It’s YOU people who want everybody indoctrinated to YOUR way of thinking.
Boris
July 30, 2009 7:37 PM
… that you couldn’t win a debate…
——————————————————————–
I already have.
Boris
July 30, 2009 7:37 PM
… even if you had the facts on your side.
——————————————————————–
I already have the facts on my side, but you’re too blind to see them.
Boris
July 30, 2009 7:37 PM
But you don’t…
——————————————————————–
But I do.
Boris
July 30, 2009 7:37 PM
… and you know it too.
——————————————————————–
I DO know that I have the facts on my side.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted July 31, 2009 at 3:18 am


DO know that I have the facts on my side.
Boris says: Name one. Just one.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted July 31, 2009 at 3:43 am


Boris
July 31, 2009 3:18 AM
DO know that I have the facts on my side.
Boris says: Name one. Just one.
——————————————————————–
That Roe, courtesy Justice Blackmun who wrote the majority opinion, tells us that, had “personhood,” by law, been brought before the Court, SCOTUS would have had to rule the other way.
How ’bout another? You asked for one, just one. Here’s a bonus, an extra without extra cost:
Inheritance law, for instance, already treats the unborn child, beginning at conception, as a person with “future interests.”



report abuse
 

Boris

posted July 31, 2009 at 10:11 am


Fetuses will never considered persons with rights that are superior to the mother’s in this country. This only occurs in Christian fascist and communist theocratic dictatorships. So why don’t you move to a nation where you can be with other Christian fascists who hate sex, women, children and freedom?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 1, 2009 at 4:23 am


Boris
July 31, 2009 10:11 AM
Fetuses will never considered persons with rights that are superior to the mother’s in this country.
——————————————————————–
Except that the Constitution protects ALL persons in this country. If the Legislative defines “personhood” as beginning at conception, constitutional protection begins them.
However, actually, we don’t have to wait. The law already treats the unborn, beginning at conception, as persons. They are “jural persons,” just like corporations. The law says that they have “future interests.” In order to enjoy those future interests, they must survive. Survival is the business of the State.
Boris
July 31, 2009 10:11 AM
This only occurs in Christian fascist and communist theocratic dictatorships.
——————————————————————–
Name one, and cite the proof.
Boris
July 31, 2009 10:11 AM
So why don’t you move to a nation where you can be with other Christian fascists who hate sex, women, children and freedom?
——————————————————————–
Why don’t YOU move to a country more to your liking, like North Korea, or Cuba, or Iran.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible

posted August 1, 2009 at 4:32 am


begins them. — – > begins then.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted August 2, 2009 at 12:07 pm


I got this pre recorded phone call regarding this issue and when it was over a live person got on the line so that I could voice my opinion on this issue. When I told her I was pro choice she politely hung up. It is my strong belief that no one has the right to mandate anything when it comes to a persons choice whether to give birth or not. If someone wants, needs or chooses to have an abortion, it’s their body, their conscience, their choice. Making people have babies they don’t want leads to child abuse, child neglect, over population and tax burdens on people who shouldn’t be forced to support these unwanted children. Pro lifers, let me ask how many unwanted children you’ve adopted or how many drug addicted mothers have you helped through a pregnancy she didn’t want? I think people just need to mind their own business and stay out of everyone’s personal lives and personal business.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted August 2, 2009 at 6:13 pm


Except that the Constitution protects ALL persons in this country. If the Legislative defines “personhood” as beginning at conception, constitutional protection begins them.
Boris says: Yeah, that’ll happen. You might as well wait for congress to give personhood to dogs because that’s far more likely.
Survival is the business of the State.
Boris says: Oh really? So you think that the State should decide matters of life and death contrary to your Republican leaders. So you want to take this decision away from medical professionals and insurance companies and give it to the government. So you’re on board with nationalizing the health care system at least partially. President Obama needs bipartisan support to get this thing through.
Name one, and cite the proof.
Boris says: In nations that have similar repressive religious theocracies that make women second-class citizens like say Ireland and Saudi Arabia, abortions are illegal. Of course abortions are performed at the same rate in these theocracies as they are in nations where abortion is legal. The difference is that women die every day in these countries from botched abortions. This is the kind of holocaust fundamentalist Christians want to inflict in this country on our female citizens. It’s not about protecting life. Where’s the concern for the safety of the woman’s life or her privacy? It’s all about sexually hung-up and repressed Christians who cannot enjoy intimacy trying to make sure no one else can either.
Why don’t YOU move to a country more to your liking, like North Korea, or Cuba, or Iran.
Boris says: North Korea sounds frighteningly like the Christian concept of heaven. “Just consider for a moment what their [the devout’s] heaven looks like. Endless praise and adoration, limitless abnegation and abjection of self; a celestial North Korea” – Chris Hitchens. I should point out to you and the rest of the Christians that threatening atheists with hell without offering them some noticeably better alternative is a complete waste of time. All you’re doing by offering heaven as some kind of reward is offering an equally frightening alternative.
Currently abortion is allowed in Iran in a limited scale, only in the event that the pregnancy threatens the life of the pregnant woman. Any other form of abortion is strictly illegal. However, there is widespread violation of the law. In Cuba abortions are legal during 1st trimester only.



report abuse
 

N. Lindzee Lindholm

posted August 4, 2009 at 12:28 am


http://www.discoveringjesusfishing.net
A democracy is government of the people, by the people, and for the people. If 58 percent of Americans were not in agreement of Pres. Barack’s reversal of the Mexico City policy that put a hold on taxpayer funding of overseas abortions vs. a mere 35 percent that supported this decision, and if people now more than ever identify with being pro-life, then the Pres. should listen to the American people as well as the Legislature, and mandatory abortion coverage should not be allowed in the national health care proposal.
In addition to the unborn, many more groups of people are at risk with the national health care plan and are at the fringes of the life issues including those with MS, the elderly, those with chronic pain that may not be covered to receive cortisone shots, and other select groups. Let me ask you a question. If you were deciding a life and death matter, would you take time to review your options and seek all the knowledge you could about it so you could make an informed decision? How many members of Congress or the Senate have a firm grasp on what the 1000 page proposal says and what cuts and additions are being put on the table? Those in the Legislature and the American people deserve the right to know the knitty gritty details about this plan before signing on. The Pres. and the Legislature should not try to deceive people by trying to push the plan through as fast as possible before people know exactly how it will affect them since the plan has the potential to impact generations to come.



report abuse
 

Husband

posted August 13, 2009 at 10:58 am


I have to disagree with the blanket statement, “Americans do not want their federal dollars paying for abortions.”
Obviously (as in, observably) many, many Americans do want their own tax dollars paying for a full range of reproductive health choices, Jay, including termination of unwanted (and sometimes unsupportable) pregnancies. You simply don’t even want them having any choice in the matter whatsoever.



report abuse
 

Husband

posted August 13, 2009 at 11:20 am


The phrase “kill children” is about as accurate as the phrase “death panels”. I.E. not at all.



report abuse
 

Husband

posted August 13, 2009 at 11:26 am


“Lets be real, the United States is a christian nation.”
That, in itself, is not an “honest” statement, Tiffany.



report abuse
 

Daniel

posted August 25, 2009 at 7:03 pm


Boris,
I know that, according to medical studies, children in the womb have heart beats at approximately 22 days from conception and brain waves at approximately 42 days. Prior to the earliest trimester abortions, the child already has all the organs he or she will ever have. The size of the child in no way reduces their ability to feel pain or reduces the value of their lives. Surgeons have studied pre-born children and found that by 13 weeks (some as early as 8-10 weeks), the child is capable of feeling pain from an integrated nervous system that is not a mere reflex. Nerves, spinal cord and thalamus are all in place. EKG and EEG analysis has shown pre-born children to be very sensitive to pain, touch and sound. Medical studies have shown that all human genes and chromosomes are present in the newly conceived human child. Amazingly, when a woman and a man unite egg and sperm, the result is a human being 100% of the time.
The child is a separate and distinct human biological and spiritual (according to my beliefs) life from the mother or the father at conception and, as such, should be protected from physical attack. The baby’s blood type is even often different from the mother’s, further illustrating it’s separate and distinct biology from the mother. The conceived child has his or her own genetic code separate and distinct from the mother of father. The Constitution says to secure the blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our posterity (children). It does not say as long as the mother allows it. The Constitution is a document of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That means for human life, for whom the document was written. It made no provision to redefine or devalue human life at any stage of development. Amendments to the Constitution that reduce the value of human life can be called into question. Women have reported that during abortions that children in their wombs thrashed wildly during the procedure. I think that fits violent death with pain and suffering. Cruel and unusual punishment for a child who has done nothing wrong. Christians are not the only ones who oppose such abhorrent treatment of children in the womb. I also believe that we all have immortal souls and that aborted children are still spiritually alive. Their pain and suffering will be known in the Afterlife, when they all testify to the facts. Time is on their side. I think the idea that a conceived child can be physically terminated and not have any identity after being aborted is a very convenient belief. I just don’t think it’s the truth.
As far as reading about parallels between religious beliefs, there have been plenty throughout history. I can selectively choose to believe what I read too. Authors make mistakes and can easily misapply or misinterpret data. Some “information” may be supposition, not fact, especially researching data that goes back 2,000 years or more. Perceived parallels do not disprove the existence of Jesus or change the identity of Jesus in any way. As far as God and the Bible are concerned, you can either believe it or not. Extending what you read to “Christianity is the product of the biggest fraud and cover-up in history” is ridiculous. Atheist propaganda is no better than any other propaganda. In any case, I think the rights of Americans to freedom of expression and freedom of religion and to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are more important than your perceptions. So is the safety of children in the womb. I have no interest in my tax dollars funding someone’s “choice” to end a child’s life.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted August 26, 2009 at 1:55 am


Daniel,
I know that, according to medical studies, children in the womb have heart beats at approximately 22 days from conception and brain waves at approximately 42 days. Prior to the earliest trimester abortions, the child already has all the organs he or she will ever have.
Boris says: But it doesn’t have all the rights it will ever have yet. Even if we say a fetus is a person two people sharing the same body cannot have equal rights. One person will always have rights that supercede the other person’s rights.
Amazingly, when a woman and a man unite egg and sperm, the result is a human being 100% of the time.
Boris says: Not true. Over 15 percent of pregnancies end with miscarriages. My mother was healthy and fit and she had a bunch of them, I don’t even know how many. Not what I’d call intelligent design. How do you explain that may I ask?
The child is a separate and distinct human biological and spiritual (according to my beliefs) life from the mother or the father at conception and, as such, should be protected from physical attack.
Boris says: No, the mother needs to be protected from the physical attack of an unwanted fetus.
The baby’s blood type is even often different from the mother’s, further illustrating it’s separate and distinct biology from the mother.
Boris says: You don’t believe in biology. Except when it’s convenient in an argument or necessary like when you get sick.
The conceived child has his or her own genetic code separate and distinct from the mother of father. The Constitution says to secure the blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our posterity (children). It does not say as long as the mother allows it.
Boris says: This is where your argument implodes. Abortions were performed and openly advertised at the time the Constitution was written. Had our founders wanted to make abortion illegal they would have done so then. The fact that they didn’t implies any laws against abortion are unconstitutional.
The Constitution is a document of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That means for human life, for whom the document was written. It made no provision to redefine or devalue human life at any stage of development. Amendments to the Constitution that reduce the value of human life can be called into question.
Boris says: Yes and you are attempting to devalue women from human being to breeding pig.
Women have reported that during abortions that children in their wombs thrashed wildly during the procedure. I think that fits violent death with pain and suffering. Cruel and unusual punishment for a child who has done nothing wrong.
Boris says: A fetus the size of a raisin cannot be felt at all let alone thrashing wildly. Late term abortions are illegal unless the woman’s life is in danger.
Christians are not the only ones who oppose such abhorrent treatment of children in the womb. I also believe that we all have immortal souls and that aborted children are still spiritually alive.
Boris says: You also believe in angels, demons, Satan, that dead people came back to life, climbed out of their graves and appeared to many other people in Jerusalem and a lot of other ridiculous nonsense. There is no such thing as a soul or immortality. Grow up.
+
Their pain and suffering will be known in the Afterlife, when they all testify to the facts. Time is on their side.
Boris says: Belief in an afterlife may be an almost universal neurosis but that doesn’t make it any less stupid or insane not to mention unverified scientifically. The fetuses are going to testify? How is that going to happen? What mechanism is going to allow fetus spirits to talk exactly? That’s insane.
I think the idea that a conceived child can be physically terminated and not have any identity after being aborted is a very convenient belief. I just don’t think it’s the truth.
Boris says: Christianity doesn’t allow the truth to be told or known because it has it’s own version of “truth.”
As far as reading about parallels between religious beliefs, there have been plenty throughout history. I can selectively choose to believe what I read too.
Boris says: Skeptics don’t use selective observation to come to a predetermined conclusion. That’s what religious people do.
Authors make mistakes and can easily misapply or misinterpret data. Some “information” may be supposition, not fact, especially researching data that goes back 2,000 years or more. Perceived parallels do not disprove the existence of Jesus or change the identity of Jesus in any way.
Boris says: What disproves the existence of Jesus is the fact that not one contemporary secular historian wrote one word about him. The fact that apologists have to use second century historians to support their claims about the Bible, historians who wrote 60 to 82 years after the supposed death of Jesus Christ proves just how weak the case for a historical Jesus really is. And Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius don’t even mention Jesus of Nazareth but only the existence of Christians.
As far as God and the Bible are concerned, you can either believe it or not.
Boris says: No, it doesn’t work that way. Intelligent educated people CANNOT believe the Bible because it is ridiculous.
Extending what you read to “Christianity is the product of the biggest fraud and cover-up in history” is ridiculous.
Boris says: “When the conception of a purely spiritual Christ could no longer successfully be imported to the turbulent masses, who clamored for a political savior, it was found necessary or expedient to substitute the idea of a personal Messiah… The swell of this tide carried the Church Fathers to the limit of recasting the entire four gospels in terms of a human biography.” Alvin Boyd Kuhn, Lost Light. That’s the fraud and cover-up.
Atheist propaganda is no better than any other propaganda.
Boris says: Telling the truth about Christianity is not propaganda.
In any case, I think the rights of Americans to freedom of expression and freedom of religion and to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are more important than your perceptions. So is the safety of children in the womb. I have no interest in my tax dollars funding someone’s “choice” to end a child’s life.
Boris says: But you have no problem with your tax dollars going to kill people overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan do you? Well I have a problem with my taxes being used to fight illegal wars that kill innocent women and children every day. We all have to pay taxes that go to pay for things we do not want to support. That’s the way it is in a Republic. Get used to it or else move to one of the Christian fascist or communist dictatorships where abortions are still illegal.



report abuse
 

Daniel

posted August 29, 2009 at 4:30 am


Daniel,
I know that, according to medical studies, children in the womb have heart beats at approximately 22 days from conception and brain waves at approximately 42 days. Prior to the earliest trimester abortions, the child already has all the organs he or she will ever have.
Boris says: But it doesn’t have all the rights it will ever have yet. Even if we say a fetus is a person two people sharing the same body cannot have equal rights. One person will always have rights that supersede the other person’s rights.
Daniel answers: It is a human being and a person. It has rights and is separate and distinct from it mother, who has no right to attack the child.
Daniel: Amazingly, when a woman and a man unite egg and sperm, the result is a human being 100% of the time.
Boris says: Not true. Over 15 percent of pregnancies end with miscarriages. My mother was healthy and fit and she had a bunch of them, I don’t even know how many. Not what I’d call intelligent design. How do you explain that may I ask?
Daniel answers: A miscarried baby is still a human being genetically as it was when it was conceived. We disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden, which was where His design for us started. Humans (Adam and Eve) went from being able to converse with God directly to having to live on Earth first before being reunited with Him. We went from being directly protected by God and immortal to being mortal and exposed to all forms of diseases and physical failings. Our disobedience means our human condition is our fault.
Daniel: The child is a separate and distinct human biological and spiritual (according to my beliefs) life from the mother or the father at conception and, as such, should be protected from physical attack.
Boris says: No, the mother needs to be protected from the physical attack of an unwanted fetus.
Daniel answers: The mother is responsible for the pregnancy through her own actions 95% of the time. If she does not want a child, she needs to take proper precautions. If she doesn’t, she has no business harming the child. She can have the child and let someone adopt it if she needs to.
Daniel: The baby’s blood type is even often different from the mother’s, further illustrating it’s separate and distinct biology from the mother.
Boris says: You don’t believe in biology. Except when it’s convenient in an argument or necessary like when you get sick.
Daniel answers: Sorry, but separate and distinct biology is relevant. Separate person.
Daniel: The conceived child has his or her own genetic code separate and distinct from the mother of father. The Constitution says to secure the blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our posterity (children). It does not say as long as the mother allows it.
Boris says: This is where your argument implodes. Abortions were performed and openly advertised at the time the Constitution was written. Had our founders wanted to make abortion illegal they would have done so then. The fact that they didn’t implies any laws against abortion are unconstitutional.
Daniel answers: In the 1700′s, abortion law allowed for the ending of a pregnancy prior to the time of the Quickening, which is the first time a mother could feel the child move in her womb (approximately 16 weeks). There was no inclusion in the Constitution because there was no medical controversy due to primitive means of detection of biological viability. Therefore, there was no available proof of the level of biological activity prior to 16 weeks. We are not in the 1700′s anymore. We have an obligation to protect human life at all stages of development. We know that biological human life begins at conception. The size of the child in no way reduces their ability to feel pain or reduces the value of their lives. Surgeons have studied preborn children and found that by 13 weeks (some as early as 8-10 weeks), the child is capable of feeling pain from an integrated nervous system that is not a mere reflex. Nerves, spinal cord and thalamus are all in place. EKG and EEG analysis has shown preborn children to be very sensitive to pain, touch and sound. Medical studies have shown that all human genes and chromosomes are present in the newly conceived human child.
Daniel: The Constitution is a document of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That means for human life, for whom the document was written. It made no provision to devalue human life at any stage of development. Amendments to the Constitution that reduce the value of human life can be called into question.
Boris says: Yes and you are attempting to devalue women from human being to breeding pig.
Daniel answers: Women who are actively having sex know how to protect themselves from pregnancy. The child is the result of their neglect of those options. No conceived child deserves death from an abortion from a woman’s negilgance. If they’re having sex, they know what they are doing. Allowing the child to be aborted who is the result of the mother’s own willful actions is morally wrong. If a woman is raped, the baby is still a human being. The death of the person in the womb is not the answer. A compassionate choice of raising the child or giving the child up for adoption would show the love that the child needs. If the mother shows love instead of fear, she is someone to admire. She will find a way to raise her child or give it up for adoption. Then it’s up to the fates for the child, like it is when all of us are born. Conceived children need our love, not our hate.
Daniel: Women have reported that during abortions that children in their wombs thrashed wildly during the procedure. I think that fits violent death with pain and suffering. Cruel and unusual punishment for a child who has done nothing wrong.
Boris says: A fetus the size of a raisin cannot be felt at all let alone thrashing wildly. Late term abortions are illegal unless the woman’s life is in danger.
Daniel answers: Then call them liars because their real life experience contradicts your perception of the situation. I believe them. They were there. You weren’t. The baby was in them.
Daniel: Christians are not the only ones who oppose such abhorrent treatment of children in the womb. I also believe that we all have immortal souls and that aborted children are still spiritually alive.
Boris says: You also believe in angels, demons, Satan, that dead people came back to life, climbed out of their graves and appeared to many other people in Jerusalem and a lot of other ridiculous nonsense. There is no such thing as a soul or immortality. Grow up.
Daniel answers: Just because you’re narrow-minded about spirituality does not change how the universe works. Science will always be insufficient to answer questions with impunity because we are simply too limited as a race. We are a tiny speck in the majestic whole of the universe. We have great limitations of perception. If we have a soul, we will not be able to get rid of it. Deal with it.
Daniel: Their pain and suffering will be known in the Afterlife, when they all testify to the facts. Time is on their side.
Boris says: Belief in an afterlife may be an almost universal neurosis but that doesn’t make it any less stupid or insane not to mention unverified scientifically. The fetuses are going to testify? How is that going to happen? What mechanism is going to allow fetus spirits to talk exactly? That’s insane.
Daniel answers: We occupy a speck in the universe and claim to own it’s secrets through science. That’s what is truly delusional. We probably know about 1/10,000,000,000 about what the physical and spiritual universes truly contain with unknown amounts of undiscovered dimensions. In the spiritual world, I believe every conceived child on Earth has a corresponding soul that cannot be destroyed. You can’t control this idea in your mind, so you reject it. So everything you reject does not exist, is that it? If the spiritual world exists and you reject it, where does that leave you?
If God is in the spiritual world and He created everything, I think you can bet He would communicate with us in some way. Welcome to the Bible. What you do to other people when God is not directly in control here on Earth reveals a lot about the nature of your soul. So if God wants good people in Heaven, why would He allow people into Heaven who victimized and killed people on Earth? So people who are victimized and killed in this world can testify as to what happened to them. No victims on this Earth will be missed. And Jesus, who died for our sins, decides who enters Heaven. Heaven is the only safe haven in the spiritual world. Time is one of the great powers of God and it inexorably pulls us to our spiritual destiny. It is relentless. Think of God as the ultimate scientist who who knows every molecule, atom and sub-atomic particle and can utilize them without limit. Parting the Red Sea as an example. I know, you’ve read about a corresponding theory about that. What a surprise that would be. Parting the Red Sea just in time for the people of Israel to cross to avoid destruction by the Egyptians and then closing up to destroy the Egyptian pursuers is not some random geological event. It was the hand of God.
In case you missed it, believing in God is a matter of faith. Having a faith is a vital part of being free. Being opposed to abortion is more than just a matter of faith. It is the opposition to the destruction of human biological life, which is identifiable genetically from conception. God expects us to protect human life, whether that person believes in God or not. I believe the aborted conceived children in the Afterlife will look not at all deformed. They will all be brilliant, as they will no longer have the limits of the human mind to constrain their ability to express themselves. The Bible says we will have spiritual bodies in the Afterlife. So they will be able to express themselves through their spiritual bodies. Aborted children will know exactly what happened to them, exactly who did it to them and exactly how to describe the experience. We all have permanent accountability for the lives we harm on this planet. And, since we are mortal, we know that time will come. Jesus, who knows all things, will decide who is guilty. He will also decide, most critically, who will be forgiven. We will all be guilty of something.
Daniel: I think the idea that a conceived child can be physically terminated and not have any identity after being aborted is a very convenient belief. I just don’t think it’s the truth.
Boris says: Christianity doesn’t allow the truth to be told or known because it has it’s own version of “truth.”
Daniel answers: Since you naively grovel at the feet of everyone who postulates that Christianity is a fraud, pardon me if I don’t consider your version of the truth too seriously. Atheists have their own versions of truth. Public schools are an atmosphere of forced atheistic content with no free option for students to learn about God. In my opinion, it is unlawful censorship, based on an interpretation of Church versus State that had no legitimate standing to remove the rights to any public expression of religious worship. Conceptual communication, such as Thomas Jefferson engaged in when he talked about the separation of Church and State, is not a basis to remove Constitutionally protected rights to Freedom of Religion or Freedom of Expression.
Jefferson himself never took it upon himself to remove the teaching of Christianity from America’s schools, even when he was President. This is clear evidence that he had no problem whatsoever with the teaching of Christianity in America’s schools and that removal of Christianity from America’s schools was not in his mind when he made his Church versus State comment. Jefferson’s own words, inscribed in marble on the Jefferson Memorial in Washington D.C. state, “Almighty God hath created the mind free. All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens… are a departure from the Holy Author of our religion.” Another quote on the Memorial is, “No men shall…suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion.” Jefferson was not a man given to support the idea of censorship of religion in any way.
So someone took on a mission that Jefferson was not on with an intent that Jefferson did not have when this Church versus State case hit the Supreme Court. Church versus State has been misinterpreted and misapplied versus what Jefferson intended. He wanted Religion to be safe from State interference, not the State to restrict religious education. In any case, in a Constitutional case, the rights of plaintiff and defendant are inviolable, regardless of the argument presented. In a Constitutional case, the Court cannot decide in favor of one side to remove the Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of the other side. There is no Constitutional freedom for one citizen to censor another, which makes the case involving Church versus State even more ridiculous. In my opinion, there is no power in the Constitution for government courts to reduce any American citizen’s Freedom of Expression or Freedom of Religion, especially one resulting in a collective suppression of the rights of all Americans who have the same beliefs as the litigant who lost. Especially when Freedom of Religion was Constitutionally protected at the time. In my opinion, in an incident where someone opposes worship of God in public because of it’s religious content, when you make it a Constitutional case with a result (whether intentional or not) of suppressing Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Religion of the opposing litigant and all like-minded people in the country, it is a wild legal exaggeration of scope that lays the groundwork for religious intolerance. The Constitution, a document dedicated to protecting the freedoms of all Americans, was not written to be used or amended to unilaterally remove any rights of American citizens for any reason. Unilateral removal of freedoms is a totalitarianist mechanism (sweeping removal of freedom) that is expressly against the duty of the Constitution that was written to be dedicated to preserve the freedom of all Americans.
Daniel: As far as reading about parallels between religious beliefs, there have been plenty throughout history. I can selectively choose to believe what I read too.
Boris says: Skeptics don’t use selective observation to come to a predetermined conclusion. That’s what religious people do.
Daniel answers: Atheists often make the mistake of thinking they are non-biased when they often cannot hide bias against Christianity. So, again, you’ll gobble up every non-Christian postulation as absolute fact.
Daniel: Authors make mistakes and can easily misapply or misinterpret data. Some “information” may be supposition, not fact, especially researching data that goes back 2,000 years or more. Perceived parallels do not disprove the existence of Jesus or change the identity of Jesus in any way.
Boris says: What disproves the existence of Jesus is the fact that not one contemporary secular historian wrote one word about him. The fact that apologists have to use second century historians to support their claims about the Bible, historians who wrote 60 to 82 years after the supposed death of Jesus Christ proves just how weak the case for a historical Jesus really is. And Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius don’t even mention Jesus of Nazareth but only the existence of Christians.
Daniel answers: Roman contemporary secular historians at the time of Jesus would have had no interest in writing about Jesus. And the Jewish High Priests did not believe in Him. But the Romans did pay attention to Him later when they made Christianity the official religion of the Holy Roman Empire centuries later. Christianity could only begin when Jesus had died (a new phase of God’s relationship with us). And only the people closest to His apostles would have had the motivation and opportunity. We believe in a spiritual, living Jesus. What secular historians wrote or didn’t write is irrelevant.
Daniel: As far as God and the Bible are concerned, you can either believe it or not.
Boris says: No, it doesn’t work that way. Intelligent educated people CANNOT believe the Bible because it is ridiculous.
Daniel answers: Then go live in a Communist nation, because that’s how it works in America. Educated people understand that being narrow-minded is not intelligent.
Daniel: Extending what you read to “Christianity is the product of the biggest fraud and cover-up in history” is ridiculous.
Boris says: “When the conception of a purely spiritual Christ could no longer successfully be imported to the turbulent masses, who clamored for a political savior, it was found necessary or expedient to substitute the idea of a personal Messiah… The swell of this tide carried the Church Fathers to the limit of recasting the entire four gospels in terms of a human biography.” Alvin Boyd Kuhn, Lost Light. That’s the fraud and cover-up.
Daniel answers: Always nice to believe in people who write in Marxist prose. Political content for the masses. Couldn’t have found a more anti-Christian bias than that. And the information found from the far past cannot be properly verified for accuracy. There was much disinformation in the past as there is today. We don’t know the motives of people who wrote information from 1,000 years ago or more.
Daniel: Atheist propaganda is no better than any other propaganda.
Boris says: Telling the truth about Christianity is not propaganda.
Daniel answers: Your perception of Christianity is hardly anyone’s interpretation of the truth.
Daniel: In any case, I think the rights of Americans to freedom of expression and freedom of religion and to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are more important than your perceptions. So is the safety of children in the womb. I have no interest in my tax dollars funding someone’s “choice” to end a child’s life.
Boris says: But you have no problem with your tax dollars going to kill people overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan do you? Well I have a problem with my taxes being used to fight illegal wars that kill innocent women and children every day. We all have to pay taxes that go to pay for things we do not want to support. That’s the way it is in a Republic. Get used to it or else move to one of the Christian fascist or communist dictatorships where abortions are still illegal.
Daniel answers: Where in my statements did I support any foreign wars? Abortions are not medically necessary in about 99% of pregnancies. They are also immoral and wasteful of tax money needed for people in truly dire medical need. Exception cases could be allowed to by submitted by physicians if they could prove the continuance of the pregnancy would physically kill the mother.



report abuse
 

Daniel

posted August 29, 2009 at 4:41 am


Boris,
I know that, according to medical studies, children in the womb have heart beats at approximately 22 days from conception and brain waves at approximately 42 days. Prior to the earliest trimester abortions, the child already has all the organs he or she will ever have.
Boris says: But it doesn’t have all the rights it will ever have yet. Even if we say a fetus is a person two people sharing the same body cannot have equal rights. One person will always have rights that supersede the other person’s rights.
Daniel answers: It is a human being and a person. It has rights and is separate and distinct from it mother, And should be protected from physical attack in any form from anyone.
Daniel: Amazingly, when a woman and a man unite egg and sperm, the result is a human being 100% of the time.
Boris says: Not true. Over 15 percent of pregnancies end with miscarriages. My mother was healthy and fit and she had a bunch of them, I don’t even know how many. Not what I’d call intelligent design. How do you explain that may I ask?
Daniel answers: A miscarried baby is still a human being genetically as it was when it was conceived. We disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden, which was where His design for us started. Humans (Adam and Eve) went from being able to converse with God directly to having to live on Earth first before being reunited with Him. We went from being directly protected by God and immortal to being mortal and exposed to all forms of diseases and physical failings. Our disobedience means our human condition is our fault.
Daniel: The child is a separate and distinct human biological and spiritual (according to my beliefs) life from the mother or the father at conception and, as such, should be protected from physical attack.
Boris says: No, the mother needs to be protected from the physical attack of an unwanted fetus.
Daniel answers: The mother is responsible for the pregnancy through her own actions 95% of the time. If she does not want a child, she needs to take proper precautions. If she doesn’t, she has no business harming the child. She can have the child and let someone adopt it if she needs to.
Daniel: The baby’s blood type is even often different from the mother’s, further illustrating it’s separate and distinct biology from the mother.
Boris says: You don’t believe in biology. Except when it’s convenient in an argument or necessary like when you get sick.
Daniel answers: Sorry, but separate and distinct biology is relevant. Separate person.
Daniel: The conceived child has his or her own genetic code separate and distinct from the mother of father. The Constitution says to secure the blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our posterity (children). It does not say as long as the mother allows it.
Boris says: This is where your argument implodes. Abortions were performed and openly advertised at the time the Constitution was written. Had our founders wanted to make abortion illegal they would have done so then. The fact that they didn’t implies any laws against abortion are unconstitutional.
Daniel answers: In the 1700′s, abortion law allowed for the ending of a pregnancy prior to the time of the Quickening, which is the first time a mother could feel the child move in her womb (approximately 16 weeks). There was no inclusion in the Constitution because there was no medical controversy due to primitive means of detection of biological viability. Therefore, there was no available proof of the level of biological activity prior to 16 weeks. We are not in the 1700′s anymore. We have an obligation to protect human life at all stages of development. We know that biological human life begins at conception. The size of the child in no way reduces their ability to feel pain or reduces the value of their lives. Surgeons have studied children in the womb and found that by 13 weeks (some as early as 8-10 weeks), the child is capable of feeling pain from an integrated nervous system that is not a mere reflex. Nerves, spinal cord and thalamus are all in place. EKG and EEG analysis has shown children in the womb to be very sensitive to pain, touch and sound. Medical studies have shown that all human genes and chromosomes are present in the newly conceived human child.
Daniel: The Constitution is a document of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That means for human life, for whom the document was written. It made no provision to devalue human life at any stage of development. Amendments to the Constitution that reduce the value of human life can be called into question.
Boris says: Yes and you are attempting to devalue women from human being to breeding pig.
Daniel answers: Women who are actively having sex know how to protect themselves from pregnancy. The child is the result of their neglect of those options. No conceived child deserves death from an abortion from a woman’s neglect of her options to prevent the pregnancy. If they’re having sex, they know what they are doing. Allowing the child to be aborted who is the result of the mother’s own willful actions is morally wrong. If a woman is raped, the baby is still a human being. The death of the person in the womb is not the answer. A compassionate choice of raising the child or giving the child up for adoption would show the love that the child needs. If the mother shows love instead of fear, she is someone to admire. She will find a way to raise her child or give it up for adoption. Then it’s up to the fates for the child, like it is when all of us are born. Conceived children need our love, not our hate.
Daniel: Women have reported that during abortions that children in their wombs thrashed wildly during the procedure. I think that fits violent death with pain and suffering. Cruel and unusual punishment for a child who has done nothing wrong.
Boris says: A fetus the size of a raisin cannot be felt at all let alone thrashing wildly. Late term abortions are illegal unless the woman’s life is in danger.
Daniel answers: Then call them liars because their real life experience contradicts your perception of the situation. I believe them. They were there. You weren’t. The baby was in them.
Daniel: Christians are not the only ones who oppose such abhorrent treatment of children in the womb. I also believe that we all have immortal souls and that aborted children are still spiritually alive.
Boris says: You also believe in angels, demons, Satan, that dead people came back to life, climbed out of their graves and appeared to many other people in Jerusalem and a lot of other ridiculous nonsense. There is no such thing as a soul or immortality. Grow up.
Daniel answers: Just because you’re narrow-minded about spirituality does not change how the universe works. Science will always be insufficient to answer questions with impunity because we are simply too limited as a race. We are a tiny speck in the majestic whole of the universe. We have great limitations of perception. If we have a soul, we will not be able to get rid of it. Deal with it.
Daniel: Their pain and suffering will be known in the Afterlife, when they all testify to the facts. Time is on their side.
Boris says: Belief in an afterlife may be an almost universal neurosis but that doesn’t make it any less stupid or insane not to mention unverified scientifically. The fetuses are going to testify? How is that going to happen? What mechanism is going to allow fetus spirits to talk exactly? That’s insane.
Daniel answers: We occupy a speck in the universe and claim to own it’s secrets through science. That’s what is truly delusional. We probably know about 1/10,000,000,000 about what the physical and spiritual universes truly contain with unknown amounts of undiscovered dimensions. In the spiritual world, I believe every conceived child on Earth has a corresponding soul that cannot be destroyed. You can’t control this idea in your mind, so you reject it. So everything you reject does not exist, is that it? If the spiritual world exists and you reject it, where does that leave you?
If God is in the spiritual world and He created everything, I think you can bet He would communicate with us in some way. Welcome to the Bible. What you do to other people when God is not directly in control here on Earth reveals a lot about the nature of your soul. So if God wants good people in Heaven, why would He allow people into Heaven who victimized and killed people on Earth? So people who are victimized and killed in this world can testify as to what happened to them. No victims on this Earth will be missed. And Jesus, who died for our sins, decides who enters Heaven. Heaven is the only safe haven in the spiritual world. Time is one of the great powers of God and it inexorably pulls us to our spiritual destiny. It is relentless. Think of God as the ultimate scientist who who knows every molecule, atom and sub-atomic particle and can utilize them without limit. Parting the Red Sea as an example. I know, you’ve read about a corresponding theory about that. What a surprise that would be. Parting the Red Sea just in time for the people of Israel to cross to avoid destruction by the Egyptians and then closing up to destroy the Egyptian pursuers is not some random geological event. It was the hand of God.
In case you missed it, believing in God is a matter of faith. Having a faith is a vital part of being free. Being opposed to abortion is more than just a matter of faith. It is the opposition to the destruction of human biological life, which is identifiable genetically from conception. God expects us to protect human life, whether that person believes in God or not. I believe the aborted conceived children in the Afterlife will look not at all deformed. They will all be brilliant, as they will no longer have the limits of the human mind to constrain their ability to express themselves. The Bible says we will have spiritual bodies in the Afterlife. So they will be able to express themselves through their spiritual bodies. Aborted children will know exactly what happened to them, exactly who did it to them and exactly how to describe the experience. We all have permanent accountability for the lives we harm on this planet. And, since we are mortal, we know that time will come. Jesus, who knows all things, will decide who is guilty. He will also decide, most critically, who will be forgiven. We will all be guilty of something.
Daniel: I think the idea that a conceived child can be physically terminated and not have any identity after being aborted is a very convenient belief. I just don’t think it’s the truth.
Boris says: Christianity doesn’t allow the truth to be told or known because it has it’s own version of “truth.”
Daniel answers: Since you naively grovel at the feet of everyone who postulates that Christianity is a fraud, pardon me if I don’t consider your version of the truth too seriously. Atheists have their own versions of truth. Public schools are an atmosphere of forced atheistic content with no free option for students to learn about God. In my opinion, it is unlawful censorship, based on an interpretation of Church versus State that had no legitimate standing to remove the rights to any public expression of religious worship. Conceptual communication, such as Thomas Jefferson engaged in when he talked about the separation of Church and State, is not a basis to remove Constitutionally protected rights to Freedom of Religion or Freedom of Expression.
Jefferson himself never took it upon himself to remove the teaching of Christianity from America’s schools, even when he was President. This is clear evidence that he had no problem whatsoever with the teaching of Christianity in America’s schools and that removal of Christianity from America’s schools was not in his mind when he made his Church versus State comment. Jefferson’s own words, inscribed in marble on the Jefferson Memorial in Washington D.C. state, “Almighty God hath created the mind free. All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens… are a departure from the Holy Author of our religion.” Another quote on the Memorial is, “No men shall…suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion.” Jefferson was not a man given to support the idea of censorship of religion in any way.
So someone took on a mission that Jefferson was not on with an intent that Jefferson did not have when this Church versus State case hit the Supreme Court. Church versus State has been misinterpreted and misapplied versus what Jefferson intended. He wanted Religion to be safe from State interference, not the State to restrict religious education. In any case, in a Constitutional case, the rights of plaintiff and defendant are inviolable, regardless of the argument presented. In a Constitutional case, the Court cannot decide in favor of one side to remove the Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of the other side. There is no Constitutional freedom for one citizen to censor another, which makes the case involving Church versus State even more ridiculous. In my opinion, there is no power in the Constitution for government courts to reduce any American citizen’s Freedom of Expression or Freedom of Religion, especially one resulting in a collective suppression of the rights of all Americans who have the same beliefs as the litigant who lost. Especially when Freedom of Religion was Constitutionally protected at the time. In my opinion, in an incident where someone opposes worship of God in public because of it’s religious content, when you make it a Constitutional case with a result (whether intentional or not) of suppressing Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Religion of the opposing litigant and all like-minded people in the country, it is a wild legal exaggeration of scope that lays the groundwork for religious intolerance. The Constitution, a document dedicated to protecting the freedoms of all Americans, was not written to be used or amended to unilaterally remove any rights of American citizens for any reason. Unilateral removal of freedoms is a totalitarianist mechanism (sweeping removal of freedom) that is expressly against the duty of the Constitution that was written to be dedicated to preserve the freedom of all Americans.
Daniel: As far as reading about parallels between religious beliefs, there have been plenty throughout history. I can selectively choose to believe what I read too.
Boris says: Skeptics don’t use selective observation to come to a predetermined conclusion. That’s what religious people do.
Daniel answers: Atheists often make the mistake of thinking they are non-biased when they often cannot hide bias against Christianity. So, again, you’ll gobble up every non-Christian postulation as absolute fact.
Daniel: Authors make mistakes and can easily misapply or misinterpret data. Some “information” may be supposition, not fact, especially researching data that goes back 2,000 years or more. Perceived parallels do not disprove the existence of Jesus or change the identity of Jesus in any way.
Boris says: What disproves the existence of Jesus is the fact that not one contemporary secular historian wrote one word about him. The fact that apologists have to use second century historians to support their claims about the Bible, historians who wrote 60 to 82 years after the supposed death of Jesus Christ proves just how weak the case for a historical Jesus really is. And Pliny, Tacitus and Suetonius don’t even mention Jesus of Nazareth but only the existence of Christians.
Daniel answers: Roman contemporary secular historians at the time of Jesus would have had no interest in writing about Jesus. And the Jewish High Priests did not believe in Him. But the Romans did pay attention to Him later when they made Christianity the official religion of the Holy Roman Empire centuries later. Christianity could only begin when Jesus had died (a new phase of God’s relationship with us). And only the people closest to His apostles would have had the motivation and opportunity. We believe in a spiritual, living Jesus. What secular historians wrote or didn’t write is irrelevant.
Daniel: As far as God and the Bible are concerned, you can either believe it or not.
Boris says: No, it doesn’t work that way. Intelligent educated people CANNOT believe the Bible because it is ridiculous.
Daniel answers: Then go live in a Communist nation, because that’s how it works in America. Educated people understand that being narrow-minded is not intelligent.
Daniel: Extending what you read to “Christianity is the product of the biggest fraud and cover-up in history” is ridiculous.
Boris says: “When the conception of a purely spiritual Christ could no longer successfully be imported to the turbulent masses, who clamored for a political savior, it was found necessary or expedient to substitute the idea of a personal Messiah… The swell of this tide carried the Church Fathers to the limit of recasting the entire four gospels in terms of a human biography.” Alvin Boyd Kuhn, Lost Light. That’s the fraud and cover-up.
Daniel answers: Always nice to believe in people who write in Marxist prose. Political content for the masses. Couldn’t have found a more anti-Christian bias than that. And the information found from the far past cannot be properly verified for accuracy. There was much disinformation in the past as there is today. We don’t know the motives of people who wrote information from 1,000 years ago or more.
Daniel: Atheist propaganda is no better than any other propaganda.
Boris says: Telling the truth about Christianity is not propaganda.
Daniel answers: Your perception of Christianity is hardly anyone’s interpretation of the truth.
Daniel: In any case, I think the rights of Americans to freedom of expression and freedom of religion and to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are more important than your perceptions. So is the safety of children in the womb. I have no interest in my tax dollars funding someone’s “choice” to end a child’s life.
Boris says: But you have no problem with your tax dollars going to kill people overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan do you? Well I have a problem with my taxes being used to fight illegal wars that kill innocent women and children every day. We all have to pay taxes that go to pay for things we do not want to support. That’s the way it is in a Republic. Get used to it or else move to one of the Christian fascist or communist dictatorships where abortions are still illegal.
Daniel answers: Where in my statements did I support any foreign wars? Abortions are not medically necessary in about 99% of pregnancies. They are also immoral and wasteful of tax money needed for people in truly dire medical need. Exception cases could be allowed to by submitted by physicians if they could prove the continuance of the pregnancy would physically kill the mother.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted August 30, 2009 at 4:39 pm


Daniel answers: It is a human being and a person.
Boris says: If A has the potential to become B, it follows that A is not B. Likewise, a potential person is not an actual person. The reason why a zygote at conception is a potential rather than an actual person is because it has none of the organs, limbs or other traits recognized of a person. It is simply a genetic blueprint, and aborting it is not the same as killing an actual person. Your answer is refuted.
It has rights and is separate and distinct from it mother, And should be protected from physical attack in any form from anyone.
Boris says: Wrong, no it doesn’t. By law a fetus is a potential human being that has no rights that conflict with a woman’s rights. A woman must be protected from an attack by an unwanted fetus. Your answer is refuted.
Daniel answers: A miscarried baby is still a human being genetically as it was when it was conceived. We disobeyed God in the Garden of Eden, which was where His design for us started. Humans (Adam and Eve) went from being able to converse with God directly to having to live on Earth first before being reunited with Him. We went from being directly protected by God and immortal to being mortal and exposed to all forms of diseases and physical failings. Our disobedience means our human condition is our fault.
Boris says: Humans were designed by evolution’s bottom up design mechanism not by human like top down design from a magic fairy. Plus the Garden of Eden story is myth and no intelligent person has ever taken that story literally even the early Church Fathers. “What man of sense will agree with the statement that the first, second and third days, in which the evening was named and the morning, were without Sun, Moon and Stars, and the first day without a heaven? What man is found such an idiot as to suppose that God planted trees in Paradise, in Eden, like a husbandman? I believe that every man must hold these things for images under which a hidden sense lies concealed.” – Origen.
“The essence of Christianity is told us in the Garden of Eden story. The subtext is, All the suffering you have is because you anted to find out what was going on. You could be in the Garden of Eden if you had just kept your $#*&ing mouth shut and hadn’t asked any questions… ‘Get smart and I’ll bleep you over,’ sayeth the Lord. Is this not an absolutely anti-intellectual religion?” – Frank Zappa
“The roots of this antagonism to science run very deep… We see them in Genesis… in which the first humans are doomed and cursed eternally for asking a question, for partaking of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge… [Eden] is more like a maximum- security prison with twenty-four hour surveillance. It’s a horrible place” – Ann Druyan
Daniel answers: The mother is responsible for the pregnancy through her own actions 95% of the time. If she does not want a child, she needs to take proper precautions. If she doesn’t, she has no business harming the child. She can have the child and let someone adopt it if she needs to.
Boris says: Women get abortions for many different reasons. Many women find out after they get pregnant that the potential father is someone that they do not want to have anything to do with any longer let alone for the rest of their lives. Sometimes precautions don’t work. Adoption is always an option but we can’t force women to bear children they do not want and then give them away. Despite what you Christians believe women are not breeding pigs. Your answer is refuted.
Daniel answers: Sorry, but separate and distinct biology is relevant. Separate person.
Boris says: Only evolutionary biology is relevant and you don’t accept it. Therefore you cannot use it to defend your archaic anti-scientific beliefs. A fetus that cannot live outside the womb is NOT a separate person. It is totally dependent on another human being. Your claim is refuted.
Daniel answers: In the 1700′s, abortion law allowed for the ending of a pregnancy prior to the time of the Quickening, which is the first time a mother could feel the child move in her womb (approximately 16 weeks). There was no inclusion in the Constitution because there was no medical controversy due to primitive means of detection of biological viability. Therefore, there was no available proof of the level of biological activity prior to 16 weeks.
Boris says: Anti choice propagandists love to publicize how quickly the embryo supposedly reaches its potential of a recognizable human form. Photographs of 8 to 12-week fetuses are crucial to their demonstrations. They emphasize — with great exaggeration — that the central nervous system begins working at 20 days, the heart at 24 days, and brainwaves at 43 days. What they don’t tell you is that these are simply the first cells to maneuver themselves into place, and it will take months to construct these organs. Normally it takes until the 5th month of pregnancy before all the organs (except the brain and central nervous system) are completed, and by this time 99% of all abortions have already been performed. The brain and central nervous system are the fetus’ most complex and longest running construction job, and will not be completed until the 7th or 8th month of pregnancy. Interestingly, it is not until the 7th or 8th month of pregnancy that construction is complete enough for a fetus to survive premature birth. Although pro-life literature leaves the impression that the 8-week old fetus is marvelously complete, the fact is that it would die immediately upon premature birth, precisely due to its lack of completeness. Your answer is refuted.
We are not in the 1700′s anymore. We have an obligation to protect human life at all stages of development. We know that biological human life begins at conception.
Boris says: Biological human life began only once: at the dawn of humanity, with the rise of the first human beings. Since then, there has been a continuum of human life: every sperm, every egg and every zygote have been full-fledged signs of human life, complete with all the characteristics of normal cellular activity, and all 46 human chromosomes. Your answer is refuted.
The size of the child in no way reduces their ability to feel pain or reduces the value of their lives. Surgeons have studied children in the womb and found that by 13 weeks (some as early as 8-10 weeks), the child is capable of feeling pain from an integrated nervous system that is not a mere reflex. Nerves, spinal cord and thalamus are all in place. EKG and EEG analysis has shown children in the womb to be very sensitive to pain, touch and sound. Medical studies have shown that all human genes and chromosomes are present in the newly conceived human child.
Boris says: The reactions are automatic neurological reflexes, and fetuses cannot feel pain because their brain construction is incomplete. Eventually, two pro-life scientists, K.J. Anand and P.R. Hickey, undertook extensive research to prove once and for all that aborted fetuses feel pain. But their results pointed to the opposite conclusion: that it was unlikely that fetuses could feel pain until the beginning of the 7th month, when the lobes of their growing brains had drawn together and established synaptic contact. Therefore from all the scientific evidence gathered so far, the pro-life effort to turn the 8-week old fetus into a functional person is a failure. Your answer is refuted.
Daniel answers: Women who are actively having sex know how to protect themselves from pregnancy.
Boris says: Young Mormon women who grow up in compounds are not taught that sex produces children. Other people are badly misinformed about sex by their religious parents most of whom don’t even have sex anymore. Your answer is refuted.
The child is the result of their neglect of those options. No conceived child deserves death from an abortion from a woman’s neglect of her options to prevent the pregnancy.
Boris says: It isn’t a child it’s a fetus. Again you must distort the language to defend your position. Every child deserves to be wanted by their parents, but you want to force parenthood on people who don’t want it or are not ready for it. Your answer is refuted.
If they’re having sex, they know what they are doing. Allowing the child to be aborted who is the result of the mother’s own willful actions is morally wrong. If a woman is raped, the baby is still a human being. The death of the person in the womb is not the answer. A compassionate choice of raising the child or giving the child up for adoption would show the love that the child needs. If the mother shows love instead of fear, she is someone to admire. She will find a way to raise her child or give it up for adoption. Then it’s up to the fates for the child, like it is when all of us are born. Conceived children need our love, not our hate.
Boris says: You want women who are brutally raped by a monster to bring this monster’s child into the world? You’re sick, twisted and dangerous. Rapists should not be reproducing.
Daniel answers: Then call them liars because their real life experience contradicts your perception of the situation. I believe them. They were there. You weren’t. The baby was in them.
Boris says: I have real life experience with abortions. I’ve already refuted your lie that fetuses can feel pain. Your answer is refuted.
Daniel answers: Just because you’re narrow-minded about spirituality does not change how the universe works. Science will always be insufficient to answer questions with impunity because we are simply too limited as a race.
Boris says: Your religion’s answers have all been refuted by science, which is the reason you hate science.
We are a tiny speck in the majestic whole of the universe. We have great limitations of perception. If we have a soul, we will not be able to get rid of it. Deal with it.
Boris says: There is no evidence for a soul and we happen to know how and why that particular superstition evolved. Deal with that. Hahaha. Scientists know a lot more than you think they do too.
Daniel answers: We occupy a speck in the universe and claim to own it’s secrets through science. That’s what is truly delusional. We probably know about 1/10,000,000,000 about what the physical and spiritual universes truly contain with unknown amounts of undiscovered dimensions. In the spiritual world, I believe every conceived child on Earth has a corresponding soul that cannot be destroyed. You can’t control this idea in your mind, so you reject it. So everything you reject does not exist, is that it? If the spiritual world exists and you reject it, where does that leave you?
Boris says: Where is your evidence for this spiritual world exactly? You don’t have any and where does that leave YOU? Wish thinking and avoiding life with childish escapist fantasies. You’re the one who cannot accept reality so you must reject it in favor of your religious superstitions.
If God is in the spiritual world and He created everything, I think you can bet He would communicate with us in some way. Welcome to the Bible.
Boris says: Okay, use the Bible to prove the earth moves and that it is not stationary. Welcome to the flat immovable earth sitting on a foundation supported by pillars and orbited by the sun every day unless someone stops it for a while. ROFL! Welcome to talking animals and vegetation, demons, angels, Satan, seraphs, unicorns, flying serpents, satyrs, cockatrices, giants, dragons, fiery serpents and the most retarded nonsense man has ever dreamed up. Welcome to the Buy Bull.
What you do to other people when God is not directly in control here on Earth reveals a lot about the nature of your soul. So if God wants good people in Heaven, why would He allow people into Heaven who victimized and killed people on Earth? So people who are victimized and killed in this world can testify as to what happened to them. No victims on this Earth will be missed. And Jesus, who died for our sins, decides who enters Heaven. Heaven is the only safe haven in the spiritual world.
Boris says: Needless to say the existence of heaven has not been verified scientifically.
Time is one of the great powers of God and it inexorably pulls us to our spiritual destiny. It is relentless. Think of God as the ultimate scientist who who knows every molecule, atom and sub-atomic particle and can utilize them without limit.
Boris says: God the scientist? The Bible displays its (and God’s) knowledge of biology by having goats copulate while looking at streaked rods. The result is streaked baby goats (Genesis 30:37). The author of Genesis (God?) believed that genetic characteristics of the offspring are determined by what the parents see at the moment of conception. This is a laughable belief. God the scientist! Sure. Plants are made on the third day (Genesis 1:11) before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (Genesis 1:14-19). A God that doesn’t understand photosynthesis! Hahaha.
Parting the Red Sea as an example. I know, you’ve read about a corresponding theory about that. What a surprise that would be. Parting the Red Sea just in time for the people of Israel to cross to avoid destruction by the Egyptians and then closing up to destroy the Egyptian pursuers is not some random geological event. It was the hand of God.
Boris says: The Egyptians have no record of this event or any of the other events supposedly recorded in the Bible. The Bible says every firstborn Egyptian animal and child all died on one night. Had this catastrophic event actually occurred it could not have gone completely unnoticed and unreported in the mountain of historical inscriptions we have from ancient Egypt. “Absolutely no trace of Moses, or indeed of an Israelite presence in Egypt, has ever turned up. Of the Exodus and the wandering in the wilderness – events so crucial in the Biblical recitation of the ‘mighty acts of God’ – we have no evidence whatsoever… Recent Israeli excavations at Kadesh-Barnea, the Sinai oasis where the Israelites are said to have encamped for forty years, have revealed an extensive settlement, but not so much as a potsherd earlier than the tenth century BC.” – William C. Dever, Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research. “The hypothesis of a God who selected out a small tribe as his chosen people and communicated the law to them while they wandered in the Sinai Desert is falsified by the absence of evidence required by that hypothesis” – Victor Stenger
In case you missed it, believing in God is a matter of faith.
Boris says: Right and faith is believing what you know ain’t true.
Having a faith is a vital part of being free.
Boris says: Being free in the Bible means something very different from our usual notion of being able to make choices. It compares more closely with being free of lice. In Romans 6:17-18 it is clear that the believer is no closer to having free will. Free simply means “available for subjection to God” instead of to the biblical notion of sin.
Being opposed to abortion is more than just a matter of faith. It is the opposition to the destruction of human biological life, which is identifiable genetically from conception. God expects us to protect human life, whether that person believes in God or not. I believe the aborted conceived children in the Afterlife will look not at all deformed.
Boris says: Where is your evidence that biological organisms can even have an afterlife?
They will all be brilliant, as they will no longer have the limits of the human mind to constrain their ability to express themselves. The Bible says we will have spiritual bodies in the Afterlife. So they will be able to express themselves through their spiritual bodies. Aborted children will know exactly what happened to them, exactly who did it to them and exactly how to describe the experience. We all have permanent accountability for the lives we harm on this planet. And, since we are mortal, we know that time will come. Jesus, who knows all things, will decide who is guilty. He will also decide, most critically, who will be forgiven. We will all be guilty of something.
Boris says: That’s a nice little escapist fantasy of which there is one big problem. It isn’t true.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted August 30, 2009 at 4:44 pm


Daniel answers: Since you naively grovel at the feet of everyone who postulates that Christianity is a fraud, pardon me if I don’t consider your version of the truth too seriously.
Boris says: No I don’t. Most critics don’t know where Christianity actually came from. Others try to prove Jesus wasn’t who he supposedly said he was. That’s wrong because Jesus Christ never even existed and Christianity evolved from Egyptian sun-worshiping cults.
Atheists have their own versions of truth.
Boris says: No, atheism is often the naked pursuit of truth. Name one lie atheists tell.
Public schools are an atmosphere of forced atheistic content with no free option for students to learn about God.
Boris says: Which God? We have Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Deists and people of many different religions or no religion at all in our public schools. Suppose the majority of people in this country were Muslim and your children were Christian. Would you want Islam taught in our public schools? Do you rednecks ever think about the implications of the things you demand? “A prayer in a public school! “God gas no place within these walls, just like facts have no place within organized religion” – Superintendent Chalmers (The Simpsons)
In my opinion, it is unlawful censorship, based on an interpretation of Church versus State that had no legitimate standing to remove the rights to any public expression of religious worship.
Boris says: We’re not going to brainwash public school students with delusions about angels, or that demons cause diseases or that an absurd being like Satan is to blame for all the problems in the world. We need children who will grow up and solve problems so they have to know the real root cause of them. You have the right to practice your intellectual perversions in your own home and your tax-exempt churches but NOT in our public school system.
Conceptual communication, such as Thomas Jefferson engaged in when he talked about the separation of Church and State, is not a basis to remove Constitutionally protected rights to Freedom of Religion or Freedom of Expression.
Boris says: “State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights… Erecting the ‘wall of separation between church and state,’ is absolutely essential in a free society” – Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson himself never took it upon himself to remove the teaching of Christianity from America’s schools, even when he was President.
Boris says: That is just a lie. “I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies” – Thomas Jefferson
This is clear evidence that he had no problem whatsoever with the teaching of Christianity in America’s schools and that removal of Christianity from America’s schools was not in his mind when he made his Church versus State comment. Jefferson’s own words, inscribed in marble on the Jefferson Memorial in Washington D.C. state, “Almighty God hath created the mind free. All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens… are a departure from the Holy Author of our religion.”
Boris says: The problem with that is Jefferson’s religion was deism, not Christianity. You Christians point to any mention of a God or creator and assume that mention is about your God. Our founders believed in Nature’s God, NOT the absurd Christian God. Christians wouldn’t have given God second billing to Nature.
Another quote on the Memorial is, “No men shall…suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion.” Jefferson was not a man given to support the idea of censorship of religion in any way.
Boris says: Engraved on the Jefferson Memorial is his vow of “eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man” – without mention that he said it while denouncing those who wanted to establish Christianity as the official religion.
So someone took on a mission that Jefferson was not on with an intent that Jefferson did not have when this Church versus State case hit the Supreme Court. Church versus State has been misinterpreted and misapplied versus what Jefferson intended. He wanted Religion to be safe from State interference, not the State to restrict religious education. In any case, in a Constitutional case, the rights of plaintiff and defendant are inviolable, regardless of the argument presented. In a Constitutional case, the Court cannot decide in favor of one side to remove the Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of the other side.
Boris says: You don’t have the right to force your religious superstitions on public school students.
There is no Constitutional freedom for one citizen to censor another, which makes the case involving Church versus State even more ridiculous. In my opinion, there is no power in the Constitution for government courts to reduce any American citizen’s Freedom of Expression or Freedom of Religion, especially one resulting in a collective suppression of the rights of all Americans who have the same beliefs as the litigant who lost. Especially when Freedom of Religion was Constitutionally protected at the time. In my opinion, in an incident where someone opposes worship of God in public because of it’s religious content, when you make it a Constitutional case with a result (whether intentional or not) of suppressing Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Religion of the opposing litigant and all like-minded people in the country, it is a wild legal exaggeration of scope that lays the groundwork for religious intolerance. The Constitution, a document dedicated to protecting the freedoms of all Americans, was not written to be used or amended to unilaterally remove any rights of American citizens for any reason. Unilateral removal of freedoms is a totalitarianist mechanism (sweeping removal of freedom) that is expressly against the duty of the Constitution that was written to be dedicated to preserve the freedom of all Americans.
Daniel answers: Atheists often make the mistake of thinking they are non-biased when they often cannot hide bias against Christianity. So, again, you’ll gobble up every non-Christian postulation as absolute fact.
Boris says: No I do not. My approach to debunking the lies of Christianity is not the common approach.
Daniel answers: Roman contemporary secular historians at the time of Jesus would have had no interest in writing about Jesus. And the Jewish High Priests did not believe in Him.
Boris says: Events like the supposed slaughter of innocents by Herod, dead people coming back to life, climbing out of their graves and appearing to many people in Jerusalem, a special star appearing (Matt 2:2), Jesus being followed by ‘crowds’ (Matt 5:1), ‘Great crowds’ following him (Matt 8:1) could not have gone completely unnoticed and unreported by every secular historian of the day or indeed by anyone who could write. This proves these events are fictional.
But the Romans did pay attention to Him later when they made Christianity the official religion of the Holy Roman Empire centuries later. Christianity could only begin when Jesus had died (a new phase of God’s relationship with us). And only the people closest to His apostles would have had the motivation and opportunity. We believe in a spiritual, living Jesus. What secular historians wrote or didn’t write is irrelevant.
Boris says: The fact that not one contemporary historian mentioned a word about Jesus proves he never existed. The events and people described in the New Testament cannot be substantiated anywhere. There is no evidence that there were ever any Christians in first century Palestine.
Daniel answers: Then go live in a Communist nation, because that’s how it works in America. Educated people understand that being narrow-minded is not intelligent.
Boris says: Huh? People are not allowed to believe the Bible is nonsense? Educated people understand very well that there is no one on Earth more narrow-minded than a Bible believer and like you said, being narrow-minded…
Daniel answers: Always nice to believe in people who write in Marxist prose.
Boris says: Alvin Boyd Kuhn was not a Marxist nor did he write prose. He’s one of many Bible scholars to prove Christianity is a hoax.
Political content for the masses. Couldn’t have found a more anti-Christian bias than that. And the information found from the far past cannot be properly verified for accuracy. There was much disinformation in the past as there is today. We don’t know the motives of people who wrote information from 1,000 years ago or more.
Boris says: Then how can you claim to know the motives of people who wrote 2000 years ago? Thanks for refuting your own claim.
Daniel answers: Your perception of Christianity is hardly anyone’s interpretation of the truth.
Boris says: Wanna bet? Obviously you’ve never been on a college or university campus. It’s your perception of Christianity that doesn’t fit the interpretation of truth.
Daniel: In any case, I think the rights of Americans to freedom of expression and freedom of religion and to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are more important than your perceptions. So is the safety of children in the womb.
Boris says: In the few remaining Christian fascist and communist dictatorships where abortion is still illegal an average of 186 women die every day from botched abortions. Studies like the most recent one from Johns Hopkins show that women get abortions at the same rate in countries where abortion is illegal as they do in countries where abortion is legal. Making abortions legal doesn’t increase their occurrence and making them illegal won’t reduce them. What making abortions illegal would do is make them much more dangerous. For get my perception, please tell us all why your ideology is so much more important than public safety.
I have no interest in my tax dollars funding someone’s “choice” to end a child’s life.
Boris says: I have no interest in funding the murder of innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan. We all have to pay taxes for things we don’t support.
Daniel answers: Where in my statements did I support any foreign wars?
Boris says: Whether you do or not, you’re still paying for them. Where’s the outrage? You’re a Christian so naturally you love war and killing. It’s what you people are best known for.
Abortions are not medically necessary in about 99% of pregnancies. They are also immoral and wasteful of tax money needed for people in truly dire medical need.
Boris says: Those are just your opinions, not facts.
Exception cases could be allowed to by submitted by physicians if they could prove the continuance of the pregnancy would physically kill the mother.
Boris says: Suppose the potential mother says she’ll strangle the baby and leave it in a dumpster if she can’t get an abortion or try to do the procedure herself. You would make a murderer out of her and lock her in prison right? A passerby just found a baby that was just a few hours old on someone’s lawn in my city two nights ago. Fortunately it was warm outside. The community is hoping someone will step up and adopt this baby. Interested? I didn’t think so.
What you have done is repeat claims that I have already refuted earlier. Now all of your claims have been soundly refuted and most of them twice now. Plus they aren’t even your claims I recognize them from creationist websites, which is why they were so easy for me to refute. That and the fact that your claims are retarded. Like your religion and your Buy Bull.



report abuse
 

Daniel

posted September 10, 2009 at 3:16 am


Daniel: It has rights and is separate and distinct physically and spiritually from it mother, And should be protected from physical attack in any form from anyone.
Boris says: Wrong, no it doesn’t. By law a fetus is a potential human being that has no rights that conflict with a woman’s rights. A woman must be protected from an attack by an unwanted fetus. Your answer is refuted.
Daniel’s second answer: The conceived child is a genetically whole individual human life (modern science has verified what could not be verified in the 1700′s, that a child is genetically 100% human at conception) and genetically different from mother and father and, as such, is a human biological individual genetically separate and distinct from it’s mother and father with an inviolable biological privacy of it’s own. That the Constitution says to “secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity” (children) makes our obligation to protect the biological privacy of the conceived child clear. Only with the child surviving can that child experience liberty as freedom as a living human being who can make decisions to exercise that liberty outside the womb and have liberty from death. Death and liberty are diametrically opposed for a conceived child who would be successfully born without medically detrimental intervention in the form of abortion. If the child could speak English while being aborted, I have no doubt he or she would say “Stop doing that!” America should give conceived children rights of birth expectations to protect it’s liberties and it’s right to be born.
Daniel answers: If they’re having sex, they know what they are doing. Allowing the child to be aborted who is the result of the mother’s own willful actions is morally wrong. If a woman is raped, the baby is still a human being. The death of the person in the womb is not the answer. A compassionate choice of raising the child or giving the child up for adoption would show the love that the child needs. If the mother shows love instead of fear, she is someone to admire. She will find a way to raise her child or give it up for adoption. Then it’s up to the fates for the child, like it is when all of us are born. Conceived children need our love, not our hate.
Boris says: You want women who are brutally raped by a monster to bring this monster’s child into the world? You’re sick, twisted and dangerous. Rapists should not be reproducing.
Daniel’s second answer: What is sick, twisted and dangerous is the insistence of atheists to reduce the value of human life. First abortion, then euthanasia to kill the elderly. How many more expendable human lives are there? The child of a woman who is raped is not the father. Attributing the rapists’ characteristics to the child is totally inaccurate, disgusting and immoral. The child is a new genetic and spiritual human being.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted September 10, 2009 at 3:10 pm


Daniel’s second answer: (Which is the same as his first and has already been refuted) The conceived child is a genetically whole individual human life (modern science has verified what could not be verified in the 1700′s, that a child is genetically 100% human at conception) and genetically different from mother and father and, as such, is a human biological individual genetically separate and distinct from it’s mother and father with an inviolable biological privacy of it’s own.
Boris says: The problem with Christian liars like you is that you can see your stupid arguments destroyed and then turn around and make them again as if nothing has happened. A fetus (NOT a child) is not 100% human upon conception. It cannot live outside the womb and the definition of a human being is one who can.
That the Constitution says to “secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity” (children) makes our obligation to protect the biological privacy of the conceived child clear.
Boris says: I also refuted this asinine argument by pointing out that abortions were legal and I openly advertised during the time the Constitution was written. Therefore making abortions illegal is unconstitutional. Case closed. You’re just beating your head against the wall. And lying.
Daniel answers: If they’re having sex, they know what they are doing. Allowing the child to be aborted who is the result of the mother’s own willful actions is morally wrong.
Boris says: According to who or what? That’s just your opinion and your opinion means nothing to me or anyone else. Your religion isn’t the moral compass for the rest of the world. Your religion is the most immoral cultural disaster and human tragedy the world has ever seen.
If a woman is raped, the baby is still a human being. The death of the person in the womb is not the answer. A compassionate choice of raising the child or giving the child up for adoption would show the love that the child needs. If the mother shows love instead of fear, she is someone to admire. She will find a way to raise her child or give it up for adoption. Then it’s up to the fates for the child, like it is when all of us are born. Conceived children need our love, not our hate.
Boris says: So should we force victims of rape to carry the fetus to term? People like you are sick, twisted and very dangerous. Fortunately you are just another lunatic fringe minority no one pays any attention to anymore.
Daniel’s second answer: What is sick, twisted and dangerous is the insistence of atheists to reduce the value of human life. First abortion, then euthanasia to kill the elderly. How many more expendable human lives are there? The child of a woman who is raped is not the father. Attributing the rapists’ characteristics to the child is totally inaccurate, disgusting and immoral. The child is a new genetic and spiritual human being.
Boris says: Why do you have to support all your arguments with lies? I happen to know the majority of atheists do not support euthanasia unless the patient demands it. Daniel you are a shameless liar and as evil and rotten to the core as any person on this planet. People like you disgust me and make me determined to wipe what’s left of your evil, false and mind numbing religion off the face of the earth.



report abuse
 

Daniel

posted September 10, 2009 at 5:23 pm


Boris,
The fact that abortion existed in the past has already been refuted by the fact that medical technology can now determine that the child is 100% genetically human. Case closed. They had no technology in the 1700′s to make that determination. That’s why abortion existed at that time. They could not determine medical human activity from the child in the womb before 16 weeks. Now we can. That’s the second time that point has had to be made. In my opinion, they are individual and separate from both parents genetically with an inviolable biological privacy of it’s own. And the discussion of that point is certainly the right of all Americans who want to protect conceived human life. Conceived children do not deserve forced biological death. That the Constitution says to “secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity” (children) makes our obligation to protect the biological privacy of the conceived child clear. And I believe they are also 100% spiritually human. And that they will testify to what happened to them in the womb. No one will stop them. A human being is a human being. And trying to kill a human being at any stage of development is morally reprehensible. Your argument is overstated and hardly “refutes” mine.
We would not survive without the Earth. Would you like to ask God to take the Earth away, since we would not survive without it? On Earth, we are spiritually premature compared to our destiny in the Afterlife. Would that make killing us here any more moral to you? Would that make our screams of pain and death any less real? Campaigning to invalidate human rights to life like abortion is harmful to the human race. We are not expendable as a race, so by extension, we are not expendable as individuals at any point in our development. To sustain each other is the basis of preserving human survival. Don’t tell me you wouldn’t stand in line in the Afterlife to testify about what happened to you if you had been aborted. I wouldn’t believe you or any other “pro choice” (the child has no choice, hence no liberty) person who claimed that they wouldn’t. Your view of life would have been totally different. Aborted conceived children will stand up for themselves. Viability outside the womb is a ridiculous argument. We know the conceived child is a genetically separate biological human life from the mother and needs to be protected from violent biological attack in order to be properly born physically.
As for the elderly, we will see how far the laws go to restrict their rights to refuse euthanasia will go. And at which point they no longer have any say. A slippery slope for the elderly. The laws can change and become more dangerous to them.
Your anti-religious hysteria (your quote was,”People like you disgust me and make me determined to wipe what’s left of your evil, false and mind numbing religion off the face of the earth.”) is rampant intolerance and displays symptoms of an obsessive need to control. The exact opposite of freedom. Calling people evil because they disagree with you is irresponsible. Calling people evil because they want to stop the killing of children in the womb is outright laughable. Why do you hate human life and human free expression so much?
You lied about aborted conceived children not feeling pain. That’s disgusting. You even want to tell conceived children what pain they’re feeling. No wonder you don’t understand freedom and the violation against freedom that censorship represents.
Thomas Jefferson was very aware of one thing called balance. That’s why he used the words Church AND State, since he expected both to survive permanently. He did not want the State to reach into the Church side of the equation to censor religion in any way. That’s why he never tried to stop the teaching of Christianity in America’s schools. He considered Church and State to be in balance because Christianity was taught in America’s schools. That way, religion wasn’t censored. And Americans would be educated enough about religion and state to be in balance in the information they received about each. That way, they could make an informed decision about each. Now, they are out of balance due to religious censorship due to misinterpretation of the intent of separation of Church and State, which should not have been allowed to threaten religious liberties in the first place. Liberty is always primary and censorship is always in conflict with liberty. The right to censor for any reason is not in the Constitution. Jefferson understood that liberty was primary and that censorship is diametrically opposed to the duty of the Constitution to preserve freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
Your refuting success is in your imagination. And the desire to impose your atheist beliefs on children by censoring religion in America’s schools is deplorable. Talking about human life like it’s expendable is not winning an argument. It’s called missing the big picture. To survive as a race, we need a very high level of respect and preservation of human biological life. We cannot afford to believe that killing human beings is acceptable, like the war against conceived children through abortion and against the elderly like euthanasia (encouraging them to kill themselves when they are at their most vulnerable. Some recover from serious illness, but if they euthanize themselves, they will be robbed of those extra years of life with their families). We will also need to find a way to stop wars. Your refuting expresses intolerance of human biological life in the womb and of spiritual life and of freedom in America. If humanity cannot break it’s addiction to causing human biological death, we will not survive as a race. We need to stop creating excuses for people to fail and die and start creating the conditions for people to live. We need to commit to life.



report abuse
 

Daniel

posted September 10, 2009 at 5:30 pm


Boris,
The fact that abortion existed in the past has already been refuted by the fact that medical technology can now determine that the child is 100% genetically human. Case closed. They had no technology in the 1700′s to make that determination. That’s why abortion existed at that time. They could not determine medical human activity from the child in the womb before 16 weeks. Now we can. That’s the second time that point has had to be made. In my opinion, because they are individual and separate from both parents genetically, they have an inviolable biological privacy of it’s own. And the discussion of that option is certainly the right of all Americans to protect human life. Conceived children do not deserve forced biological death. That the Constitution says to “secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity” (children) makes our obligation to protect the biological privacy of the conceived child clear. And I believe they are also 100% spiritually human. And that they will testify to what happened to them in the womb. No one will stop them. A human being is a human being. And trying to kill a human being at any stage of development is morally reprehensible. Your argument is overstated.
We would not survive without the Earth. Would you like to ask God to take the Earth away, since we would not survive without it? On Earth, we are spiritually premature compared to our destiny in the Afterlife. Would that make killing us here any more moral to you? Would that make our screams of pain and death any less real? Campaigning to invalidate human rights to life like abortion is harmful to the human race. We are not expendable as a race, so by extension, we are not expendable as individuals at any point in our development. To sustain each other is the basis of preserving human survival. Don’t tell me you wouldn’t stand in line in the Afterlife to testify about what happened to you if you had been aborted. I wouldn’t believe you or any other “pro choice” (the child has no choice, hence no liberty) person who claimed that they wouldn’t. Your view of life would have been totally different. Aborted conceived children will stand up for themselves. Viability outside the womb is a ridiculous argument. We know the conceived child is a genetically separate biological human life from the mother and needs to be protected from violent biological attack in order to be properly born physically.
As for the elderly, we will see how far the laws go to restrict their rights to refuse euthanasia will go. And at which point they no longer have any say. A slippery slope for the elderly. The laws can change and become more dangerous to them. The amount of pressure brought to bear on the elderly to accept premature death is bound to increase.
Your anti-religious hysteria (your quote was,”People like you disgust me and make me determined to wipe what’s left of your evil, false and mind numbing religion off the face of the earth.”) is rampant intolerance. The exact opposite of freedom. Calling people evil because they disagree with you is irresponsible. Calling people evil because they want to stop the killing of children in the womb is outright laughable. Why do you hate human life and human free expression so much?
You lied about aborted conceived children not feeling pain. That’s disgusting. You even want to tell conceived children what pain they’re feeling. No wonder you don’t understand freedom and the violation against freedom that censorship represents.
Thomas Jefferson was very aware of one thing called balance. That’s why he used the words Church AND State, since he expected both to survive permanently. He did not want the State to reach into the Church side of the equation to censor religion in any way. That’s why he never tried to stop the teaching of Christianity in America’s schools. He considered Church and State to be in balance because Christianity was taught in America’s schools. That way, religion wasn’t censored. And Americans would be educated enough about religion and state to be in balance in the information they received about each. That way, they could make an informed decision about each. Now, they are out of balance due to religious censorship due to misinterpretation of the intent of separation of Church and State, which should not have been allowed to threaten religious liberties in the first place. Liberty is always primary and censorship is always in conflict with liberty. The right to censor for any reason is not in the Constitution. Jefferson understood that liberty was primary and that censorship is diametrically opposed to the duty of the Constitution to preserve freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
Your refuting success is in your imagination. And the desire to impose your atheist beliefs on children by censoring religion in America’s schools is deplorable. Talking about human life like it’s expendable is not winning an argument. It’s called missing the big picture. To survive as a race, we need a very high level of respect and preservation of human biological life. We cannot afford to believe that killing human beings is acceptable, like the war against conceived children through abortion and against the elderly like euthanasia (encouraging them to kill themselves when they are at their most vulnerable. Some recover from serious illness, but if they euthanize themselves, they will be robbed of those extra years of life with their families). We will also need to find a way to stop wars. Your refuting expresses intolerance of human biological life in the womb and of spiritual life and of freedom in America. If humanity cannot break it’s addiction to causing human biological death, we will not survive as a race. We need to stop creating excuses for people to fail and die and start creating the conditions for people to live. We need to commit to life.



report abuse
 

Boris

posted September 10, 2009 at 7:33 pm


The fact that abortion existed in the past has already been refuted by the fact that medical technology can now determine that the child is 100% genetically human. Case closed. They had no technology in the 1700′s to make that determination. That’s why abortion existed at that time. They could not determine medical human activity from the child in the womb before 16 weeks. Now we can. That’s the second time that point has had to be made.
Boris says: You haven’t made the point because it has already been refuted. Twice. You’re like a small spoiled child who when he hears something he doesn’t like covers his ears runs away and screams I can’t hear you. You have to rebut my refutation scientifically or it stands. That’s how it works in a debate. You can’t just repeat what I already refuted as if I hadn’t. Show how I’m wrong or else you stand refuted. Again.
In my opinion, because they are individual and separate from both parents genetically, they have an inviolable biological privacy of it’s own.
Boris says: In your opinion angels, demons and Satan exist and there’s a cosmic invisible war between good and evil going on involving these boogymen. Who in their right mind values your opinion may I ask? Is there anyone in mainstream America espousing these views? Of course not because we all know those who do are nuts.
And the discussion of that option is certainly the right of all Americans to protect human life. Conceived children do not deserve forced biological death.
Boris says: Tax paying citizens do not deserve forced parenthood thrust upon them when they do not want it or are not ready for it. A fetus cannot have rights that conflict with a taxpayer’s rights. Case closed so says the Supreme Court of the United States.
That the Constitution says to “secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity” (children) makes our obligation to protect the biological privacy of the conceived child clear.
Boris says: Not according to the Supreme Court of the United States.
And I believe they are also 100% spiritually human. And that they will testify to what happened to them in the womb. No one will stop them. A human being is a human being.
Boris says: Right and a fetus is NOT a human being, it’s a potential human being. This is just more distortion of the language on your part to defend your indefensible position.
And trying to kill a human being at any stage of development is morally reprehensible. Your argument is overstated.
Boris says: Your belief in an afterlife may be an almost universal neurosis but that doesn’t make it any less idiotic. You have absolutely no evidence that an afterlife is even possible. Your beliefs are asinine, dangerous and insane and you base your entire warped worldview on these childish superstitions.
We would not survive without the Earth. Would you like to ask God to take the Earth away, since we would not survive without it? On Earth, we are spiritually premature compared to our destiny in the Afterlife.
Boris says: More religious nonsense.
Would that make killing us here any more moral to you? Would that make our screams of pain and death any less real?
Boris says: You tell me. Drowning is just about the worst way to die there is, slow and very painful. Yet your God supposedly drowned the entire human race, even unborn children, except for a drunken child molester and his dysfunctional family. How is that moral may I ask? Because God did it and whatever God does is moral? No dice. That kind of perverted thinking is the cause of all the problems in the world today.
Campaigning to invalidate human rights to life like abortion is harmful to the human race.
Boris says: About 30,000 innocent children starve to death or die of easily curable diseases every day on this planet. Over half of these children live in the few Christian fascist and communist dictatorships where abortion is still illegal. Obviously making abortion illegal is very harmful to the human race and leads to a lot of unnecessary suffering.
We are not expendable as a race, so by extension, we are not expendable as individuals at any point in our development. To sustain each other is the basis of preserving human survival. Don’t tell me you wouldn’t stand in line in the Afterlife to testify about what happened to you if you had been aborted.
Boris says: So fetuses don’t have to go through the decade or so long process of learning the language of their country? They can just magically speak in your magical happy land with no education or training from their parents! And you base that on what verifiable science exactly? You can’t even back that up with verses from the paper idol you worship. ROFL!
I wouldn’t believe you or any other “pro choice” (the child has no choice, hence no liberty) person who claimed that they wouldn’t.
Boris says: I suppose an intelligent fetus would ask God why he lets abortion even go on and then blame God for it since “God is in control.” God supposedly interfered with human affairs for centuries so why does your God allow abortion now?
Your view of life would have been totally different. Aborted conceived children will stand up for themselves.
Boris says: Oh, not only can fetuses that never learned a language speak but they can also stand! Why should I not think you are completely insane?
Viability outside the womb is a ridiculous argument. We know the conceived child is a genetically separate biological human life from the mother and needs to be protected from violent biological attack in order to be properly born physically.
Boris says: Again that has already been refuted by the fact that a taxpayer must be protected from an attack by an unwanted fetus. Now you’re just repeating arguments that have already been refuted twice and no impartial observer would say they haven’t. You’ve not only lost this debate you’ve looked extremely foolish doing it. Keep it up because I want everyone to see just how lame your cult leader’s arguments really are.
As for the elderly, we will see how far the laws go to restrict their rights to refuse euthanasia will go. And at which point they no longer have any say. A slippery slope for the elderly. The laws can change and become more dangerous to them.
Boris says: Laws are not passed in this country that make things more dangerous but only safer. I guess when your world is turned upside down by Christian fear-induced superstitions you might believe anything is possible or at least say it is to support your stupid arguments which is all you’re doing. The things you say are bizarre.
The amount of pressure brought to bear on the elderly to accept premature death is bound to increase.
Boris says: You base that on what exactly? You didn’t listen to the president guarantee that would not happen in this county last night did you, or that the people who make those claims are liars? Liars just like YOU. Christian liars.
Your anti-religious hysteria (your quote was,”People like you disgust me and make me determined to wipe what’s left of your evil, false and mind numbing religion off the face of the earth.”) is rampant intolerance. The exact opposite of freedom. Calling people evil because they disagree with you is irresponsible.
Boris says: Are you kidding me? You claim the entire human race is inherently evil and criminalize even newborn children because you claim they are born in sin. Could you be anymore hypocritical? You call everybody a sinner and that is what is irresponsible.
Calling people evil because they want to stop the killing of children in the womb is outright laughable. Why do you hate human life and human free expression so much?
Boris says: Again you make more false claims to support your untenable position. Of course I don’t hate human life or human free expression. Your religion has done everything it could to stop human free expression, human free scientific inquiry, critical thinking and above all critical examination of it’s holy texts. “There is obviously an important difference between an establishment [i.e., science] that is open… and one that regards the questioning of its credential as due to wickedness of heart, such as [Cardinal] Newman attributed to those who questioned the infallibility of the Bible. Rational science treats its credit notes as always redeemable on demand, while non-rational authoritarianism regards the demand for the redemption of its paper as a disloyal act of faith.” – Morris Cohen (1880-1947) Christianity is the enemy of truth and the faculty by which humans arrive at truth: reason.
You lied about aborted conceived children not feeling pain. That’s disgusting. You even want to tell conceived children what pain they’re feeling. No wonder you don’t understand freedom and the violation against freedom that censorship represents.
Boris says: I did NOT lie. I presented evidence discovered by two anti-choice scientists that proved a fetus’s brain is not developed enough to sense pain until the eighth month. Since you cannot accept the results of scientific inquiry that disproves what other people have preconditioned you to believe you just pretend it isn’t true. But it is and I’ve proved it. Even if that evidence were not correct I would be badly misinformed but certainly not a liar. A liar is a person who willfully tells falsehoods the way YOU do. So not only are you badly misinformed by your cult leaders but you also knowingly spread falsehoods.
Thomas Jefferson was very aware of one thing called balance.
Boris says: Yes the balance between foolishness and hypocrisy. “The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious… One only needs to look at the caliber of people who say hey serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites.” – Thomas Jefferson
That’s why he used the words Church AND State, since he expected both to survive permanently.
Boris says: No, Jefferson predicted what we are now witnessing which is the end of Christianity. “And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter.” -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
He did not want the State to reach into the Church side of the equation to censor religion in any way.
Boris says: “Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting “Jesus Christ,” so that it would read “A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.” – Thomas Jeffereson -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom
That’s why he never tried to stop the teaching of Christianity in America’s schools. He considered Church and State to be in balance because Christianity was taught in America’s schools.
Boris says: Jefferson was the first American leader to suggest creating a public school system specifically so that religion would NOT be taught in them. His ideas formed the basis of education systems developed in the 19th century.
That way, religion wasn’t censored. And Americans would be educated enough about religion and state to be in balance in the information they received about each.
“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.” -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
That way, they could make an informed decision about each. Now, they are out of balance due to religious censorship due to misinterpretation of the intent of separation of Church and State, which should not have been allowed to threaten religious liberties in the first place.
Boris says: Your evil religion is what is threatening religious liberties and has been since its inception.
Liberty is always primary and censorship is always in conflict with liberty. The right to censor for any reason is not in the Constitution. Jefferson understood that liberty was primary and that censorship is diametrically opposed to the duty of the Constitution to preserve freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
Boris says: “Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.” -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
Your refuting success is in your imagination. And the desire to impose your atheist beliefs on children by censoring religion in America’s schools is deplorable. Talking about human life like it’s expendable is not winning an argument.
Boris says: Showing how you distort the language to try to make your points is most certainly winning this argument for me. A fetus is a potential human life, NOT a human life. If A has the potential to become B, A cannot already be B. I never said human life was expendable. You have to make straw man arguments, distort the language and tell outrageous lies to even try to make your case. And you’ve failed miserably as everyone can plainly see.
It’s called missing the big picture. To survive as a race, we need a very high level of respect and preservation of human biological life. We cannot afford to believe that killing human beings is acceptable, like the war against conceived children through abortion and against the elderly like euthanasia (encouraging them to kill themselves when they are at their most vulnerable.
Boris says: More Christian lies and distortions. No one believes killing human beings is acceptable other than religious fanatics. You can call terminating a pregnancy killing until you turn blue, but the law of the land disagrees with you and it always will. Get used to it.
Some recover from serious illness, but if they euthanize themselves, they will be robbed of those extra years of life with their families). We will also need to find a way to stop wars.
Boris says: Since all wars are fought over religion or natural resources we can eliminate most wars by getting rid of religion through education and more globalization of economy.
Your refuting expresses intolerance of human biological life in the womb and of spiritual life and of freedom in America. If humanity cannot break it’s addiction to causing human biological death, we will not survive as a race.
Boris says: Sure. We’re just going to abort all fetuses some day because people will lose their desire to have their own children and start a family. The things you say are just ridiculous.
We need to stop creating excuses for people to fail and die and start creating the conditions for people to live. We need to commit to life.
Boris says: Says the man with the escapist and life-avoidance issues.



report abuse
 



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting LynnvSekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow: Faith and Justice  Happy Reading!

posted 11:26:38am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Another blog to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Lynn V. Sekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow's Faith and Justice Happy Reading!!!

posted 10:36:04am Jul. 06, 2012 | read full post »

More to Come
Barry,   It's hard to believe that we've been debating these constitutional issues for more than two years now in this space.  I have tremendous respect for you and wish you all the best in your new endeavors.   My friend, I'm sure we will continue to square off in other forums - on n

posted 4:52:22pm Dec. 02, 2010 | read full post »

Thanks for the Memories
Well Jay, the time has come for me to say goodbye. Note to people who are really happy about this: I'm not leaving the planet, just this blog.As I noted in a personal email, after much thought, I have decided to end my participation and contribution to Lynn v. Sekulow and will be doing some blogging

posted 12:24:43pm Nov. 21, 2010 | read full post »

President Obama: Does He Get It?
Barry,   I would not use that label to identify the President.  I will say, however, that President Obama continues to embrace and promote pro-abortion policies that many Americans strongly disagree with.   Take the outcome of the election - an unmistakable repudiation of the Preside

posted 11:46:49am Nov. 05, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.