Comments on: A Pro-Choice God?

By: Sandy p

Sandy p — Mon, 09 Aug 2004 17:23:26 +0000

Traditional religion is not the enemy.

Depends on how traditional the religion is, IMHO.

By: memer

memer — Sat, 07 Aug 2004 13:51:10 +0000

If “others” is me, I was only admitting that he’d made a good point. I understood the implications (thanks for spelling it out for me. sheesh.).

By: aj

aj — Sat, 07 Aug 2004 06:21:26 +0000

have you ever seen this website. Wow:

http://www.klannedparenthood.com/History_of_Abortion_Statistics/

Also, Jesse Jackson flip-flopped his take on abortion. The front page of this website, which I see is referenced above, has a quote of his. (no source however)

http://blackgenocide.org/

By: Justin

Justin — Sat, 07 Aug 2004 04:45:36 +0000

The part that I zeroed in on was the the very first line:
>…I don’t believe that traditional religion is >the enemy.

Well I want to know how the emailer actually feels about traditional religion, because I’m not convinced by what followed that the fan really believes their first line.

>I just don’t want you shoving your religion down >my throat. In other words — you don’t believe in >abortion because of your religion — fine. My >religion tells me it’s up to each person to >decide.

Christianity says that too, and it also says that murder is wrong. Society may accept a justification for it, and God may too, if only in our own minds.

To suggest that abortion should be one of those murders that is not easily justifiable by society doesn’t change how anyone really has to feel about it.

To believe that it is someone’s religion that is the only source for their views on abortion is actually quite insulting. How is it that our abilities to look into the womb and see the clump that is a baby actually living have steadily increased, and yet to believe that the organism is worthy of the chance to live outside the womb must be based on faith flowing from religious dogma?

It is as if you must declare agnosticism on the reproductive process prior to birth, because that way you can make your own, blissfully ignorant choice. Having a religion that recognizes the science of the process instead of stating that “we can’t see it, so you can kill it,” used to be a good thing, but apparently it is only the liberal theologies that can be so enlightened, while the traditionalist religions should be relegated to mysticism and flat-earth theories.

By: Andy

Andy — Sat, 07 Aug 2004 03:53:07 +0000

Doug, no problem. If that last sentence threw me off, it probably made others think otherwise. At least we’re clear on poistions now. Thanks

By: Doug

Doug — Sat, 07 Aug 2004 02:35:32 +0000

Andy, I agree with what you’ve written. Sorry if it sounded like I was disagreeing.

By: Andy

Andy — Sat, 07 Aug 2004 00:23:13 +0000

RepJ: Wow, I had no idea! more surprising that the paragon of progressive thinking would even post such truths for all to see.

The difference between the classical version and the modern is like the difference between Jesse’s new bible and his old outdated King James Bible.

As usual, modern thinkers pick and discard fragments of the original/founding docs to bolster their progressive thinking.

Like Herb Meyer’s “Seige of Western Civilization” video explains; they have effectively gutted the spirit while maintaining the shell of our society

By: RepJ

RepJ — Sat, 07 Aug 2004 00:06:27 +0000

You know, abortion was illegal before it was legal. So, could we not argue that atheists shoved their ‘religion’ down our throats by “legislating” their morals into existence via Roe vs Wade? I put the word legislating in parenthesis because there is currently no real legislation on abortion.

I think the words ’cause no harm’ from the hippocratic oath are pretty universal, and if you ask me, abortion is causing harm to a fetus.

Five minutes later…

Actually, that is not from the hippocratic oath, but the thought made me look it up. Interesting to note that the classical hippocratic oath said this…

“I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.”

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_classical.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html

The modern oath was written in 1964. Convenient, eh?

Now, you tell me, who’s shoving what in who’s face?

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 22:51:25 +0000

memer/Doug;
So to take that to its logical conclusion:
Allah says kill all infidels, so we’ll just let them, even if it means we’re the target.

Typical liberal meme: “Self-defense on our part? No way, god says thou shall not kill”?

Is that why there’s no outrage over Sudan? They’re just practising their religion of post-birth abortion and pre-emptive abortion (a la minority report pre-crime meme)? Let them do their thing, Allah will reward them 72 virgins for our heads.

—————–
I suppose thinkers also support Margaret Sanger, founding “mother” of planned parenthood to kill millions of Ni****s, see http://blackgenocide.org/negro.html. She succeeded with the assistance of those within the black elite (the real Unka Toms) who saw birth control as a means to attain economic empowerment, elevate the race and garner the “respect” of whites.

Ironic that she’s hailed as a hero for exterminating more humans than you-know-who killed Jews.

The problem with trying to remove morality from legislation only means you have nothing to stand on, since the foundation is always shifting with the tides of fadish memes

By: memer

memer — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 21:16:25 +0000

“But, yes, it misses the fact that we always legislate somebody’s morality. e.g. What if my “religion” thinks that killing adults is ok too?”

Doug, excellent observation.

By: Doug

Doug — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 20:58:26 +0000

>God will sit in judgement of real sinners, not us.

I think this was meant to be understood as, “God, not we, will sit in judgement of real sinners.”

I also think that the “shoving your religion down my throat” comment was probably referring to our attempt to legislate the (im)morality of abortion.

But, yes, it misses the fact that we always legislate somebody’s morality. e.g. What if my “religion” thinks that killing adults is ok too?

By: memer

memer — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 20:33:14 +0000

jeff: correction — i’m not interpreting anything, actually. it’s only an opinion.

By: memer

memer — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 20:30:27 +0000

william: yup, my very bad. it’s the curse of ham/canaan thing i’m referring to, actually (you can google search that yourself). it’s all well and good that we know better now, but my point is that interpretation is not always an absolute thing. best to live and let live and let god sit in judgement. i have no idea why the idea of letting god sit in judgement is “such utter nonsense.” your quote from james only proves my point, friend (the modern-day “interpretation” begins: if you live in a glass house…)

jeff: yes, that’s my interpretation. so? where’s the incoherence?
(the other quote wasn’t mine)

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 19:52:37 +0000

Incoherence alert!

Re: “honestly, much of it is all a matter of interpretation”

Is that just your interpretation?

Re: “My religion says I don’t have the right to judge them or deny them their rights.”

Is it wrong to judge? If so, then why are you judging me?

By: William Meisheid

William Meisheid — Fri, 06 Aug 2004 19:23:55 +0000

>there were even versions of the bible back inna day that held that black folk were only part-men

What version? Are you sure you don’t mean commentaries, which of course are mere opinions?

>God will sit in judgement of real sinners, not us.

This is such utter nonsense that I do not know where to begin. One passage to start with is James 2:10

For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.