(Advertisement)

House overrides Beebe veto on 12-week abortion ban

Posted: March 6, 2013 at 1:51 p.m.
Updated: March 6, 2013 at 5:16 p.m.

Sen. Jason Rapert, R-Conway, speaks in the senate chamber at the Arkansas state Capitol in Little Rock, Ark., Tuesday, March 5, 2013. The Arkansas Senate voted Tuesday to override Gov. Mike Beebe’s veto of Rapert's legislation that would ban most abortions from the 12th week of pregnancy onward and would give the state the most restrictive abortion laws in the country. (AP Photo/Danny Johnston)

The Arkansas House of Representatives has voted 56-33 to override Gov. Mike Beebe's veto of a bill that would ban most abortions after 12 weeks' gestation.

Only a simple majority was needed to override Beebe's veto after the Senate on Tuesday voted 20-14 to do so.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Jason Rapert, R-Bigelow, bans abortions after 12 weeks if a fetal heartbeat is detected. It will go into effect this summer.

"I can tell you today I'm grateful," Rapert said after the vote. "The eyes of this nation [have] been on the Arkansas House of Representatives today. And the eyes of this nation [have] seen that people are ready for change. I've heard from them .... Again, if there's a heartbeat, there's life and we're going to stand up for this law, regardless of who opposes it."

The law was originally vetoed by Beebe on Monday.

Rep. Ann V Clemmer, R-Benton, along with Rep. Bruce Westerman, R-Hot Springs, spoke in favor of the override in front of the committee on Monday, prior to the vote.

"I'm very happy, relieved," Clemmer said. "I mean, any other adjective. But I mean, it's a serious matter. I'm not having a victory dance here. I hope the court listens to us."

In an interview Tuesday with Arkansas Online, Rapert said he spoke with House members earlier that day who said they would support the bill in the override vote.

Outside the chamber, Rita Sklar, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union for Arkansas, said the ACLU will move for litigation of the law "as soon as possible."

"It shows a disregard for women as human beings," Sklar said. "In fact, Representative Klemmer said, to my amazement, that a 12-week-old fetus has the right as a fully human person to protect itself against its own mother. Let's remember that at 12 weeks, a fetus cannot live outside its mother and pregnancy affects the mother's health, the well-being ... there are lots of reasons to have abortions and they should remain with the woman, her family and her doctor, and not give the choice over to the government."

Senate Bill 134 was the second abortion ban to be vetoed by Beebe and then overridden by lawmakers in as many weeks.

House Bill 1037, which banned abortions after 20 weeks' gestation, with some exceptions, was vetoed on Feb. 26. Lawmakers last week overturned the veto and made that bill law.

Beebe has said he vetoed the bills because he believes they are unconstitutional and will spur costly lawsuits.

The Arkansas Constitution states the policy of the state is "to protect the life of every unborn child from conception until birth, to the extent permitted by the Federal Constitution."

The Arkansas Department of Health shows that 815 abortions, or roughly 20 percent of all abortions, took place in Arkansas in 2011 at or after 12 weeks of gestation. The department shows a total of 4,033 abortions took place in 2011.

Read more about this story in Thursday's Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.

Abortion ban override approved by House

The Arkansas House of Representatives approved a Senate motion to override Gov. Mike Beebe's veto of a 12-week abortion ban. The bill will go into law 90 days after legislature adjourns. (By David Harten)
[View Full-Size]

ROLL CALL

YEAS: 56
  • D. Altes
  • Baird
  • Ballinger
  • Baltz
  • Barnett
  • Bell
  • Biviano
  • Bragg
  • Branscum
  • J. Burris
  • Carnine
  • Catlett
  • Clemmer
  • Collins
  • Cozart
  • Dale
  • Davis
  • Deffenbaugh
  • J. Dickinson
  • Dotson
  • D. Douglas
  • C. Douglas
  • Eubanks
  • Farrer
  • Fite
  • Gillam
  • Gossage
  • Hammer
  • Harris
  • Hickerson
  • Hobbs
  • Holcomb
  • Hopper
  • House
  • Hutchison
  • Jean
  • Kerr
  • Lea
  • Linck
  • Lowery
  • S. Malone
  • Mayberry
  • D. Meeks
  • S. Meeks
  • Miller
  • Neal
  • Payton
  • Rice
  • Scott
  • Shepherd
  • Slinkard
  • Wardlaw
  • Westerman
  • H. Wilkins
  • Womack
  • Mr. Speaker
NAYS: 33
  • E. Armstrong
  • Broadaway
  • Copenhaver
  • J. Edwards
  • Ferguson
  • Fielding
  • Hillman
  • Hodges
  • Julian
  • Kizzia
  • Lampkin
  • Leding
  • Love
  • Magie
  • McCrary
  • McElroy
  • McGill
  • Murdock
  • Nickels
  • B. Overbey
  • Ratliff
  • Richey
  • Sabin
  • Steel
  • Talley
  • T. Thompson
  • Walker
  • D. Whitaker
  • B. Wilkins
  • Williams
  • Word
  • Wren
  • Wright
NON-VOTING: 10
  • Alexander
  • Baine
  • Hawthorne
  • Jett
  • Lenderman
  • McLean
  • Perry
  • F. Smith
  • Vines

(Advertisement)



« Previous Story

Senate panel OKs tax exemption for military p...

A Senate panel has approved exempting active armed services members' pay from Arkansas' income tax, the first major tax cut headed to a vote in this year's session. Read »

Next Story »

U.N.: 21 peacekeepers detained on Golan Heigh...

UNITED NATIONS — Armed fighters linked to the Syrian opposition detained 21 U.N. peacekeepers Wednesday in the increasingly volatile zone separating Israeli and Syrian troo... Read »

Or as one political commentator put it, Arkansas legislators have decided "to make a money bonfire."

And that's a good thing, it's just what we needed.

D.
-------------------
"Modern-Day Know-Nothings Take Control In The South" by Gene Lyons

Excerpt:

[quoting Jason Rapert]
“You’ve got to change the hearts and minds of the people that live around you. You’ve gotta pray. It says ‘Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord.’ And I wonder sometimes when they invited all the Muslims to come into the White House and have them a little Ramadan supper, when our president could not take the time to go attend a National Prayer Breakfast — I wonder what he stands for.

“You know what, what they told us is …what you do speaks so loudly that what you say I cannot hear. I hear you loud and clear, Barack Obama. You don’t represent the country that I grew up with. And your values is not goin’ to save us. We’re gonna try to take this country back for the Lord. We’re gonna try to take this country back for conservatism. And we’re not going to allow minorities to run roughshod over what you people believe in.”
--Arkansas Sen. Jason Rapert

Does it help to know that President George W. Bush never missed a Ramadan dinner? Nor has President Obama skipped a National Prayer Breakfast. New York magazine posted photos of him presiding at every single one.

What’s most alarming isn’t Rapert’s racial views, but his continuing indifference to the truth and his disdain for religious liberty. His views are scarcely distinguishable from those of the Know-Nothing party of the 1850s. Then it was German and Irish Catholics who were suspect; today, it’s Muslims.

Over time, it’s a losing strategy. Eventually, Americans come around to supporting the First Amendment and rejecting religious bigotry.

How things will play out in the shorter term is harder to say. It’s one thing to dislike Obama, quite another to embarrass an entire state, region and political party. Arkansans in particular have been touchy about their image dating back to The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and beyond.

If politicians like Rapert don’t learn to moderate their tone, even in the South their ascendancy could be a short one." --Gene Lyons

The rest:
http://www.nationalmemo.com/modern-da...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 6, 2013 at 3:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I wish they had to pay the lawyer bills to defend this bunch of malarkey

Posted by: troutjig

March 6, 2013 at 3:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

,
"Now, Arkansas will be sued"

Rita Sklar, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, said the ACLU and the Center for Reproductive Rights will be ready to file a federal lawsuit in the next couple of weeks to challenge Arkansas's new 12-week limit on abortions and "restore the rights of Arkansas women that were so unceremoniously taken away today" with the House override of Gov. Beebe's veto.
..
http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/...

Posted by: cdawg

March 6, 2013 at 4:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Embarassing and disgusting.
The lunatics are running the asylum.
Didn't these guys come to office promising to do something about jobs?

Posted by: Coralie

March 6, 2013 at 6:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I call them the He-Man Woman Haters Club. So far the only thing they've accomplished is inventing a time machine to send us back to the Old Testament times. I think it's all a dog and pony show to distract from the fact that they have no solutions to create jobs or stimulate our economy.

The last thing people in this state need are more kids that they can't afford to support. This will hit poor women the hardest as those with means will just seek health care in another state while the poor are left with bloody coat hangers, douching with chemicals, and throwing themselves down the stairs. Meanwhile they rejected a raise to the minimum wage and I have yet to see any bills to provide mandatory maternity leave, subsidized child care, improve childhood nutrition, or expand women's access to health care. It's another sad day in Arkansas.

Posted by: SarahMarsh

March 6, 2013 at 7:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

my mothers' generation used to say "mothers, don't raise your sons to be cowboys"!
looks like a redneck group of outlaws have taken over the Arkansas congress.
if arkansas wants to spend the millions of tax payers money for a law suit, it would make more sense to sue Whirlpool for contaminating the water in fort smith. they could win that as whirlpool made billions of $$ in arkansas, now the largest most profitable appliance company.
They can clean up the mess and save more lives than the abortion ban can.

Posted by: ladyLiberty

March 6, 2013 at 8:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

This just in from the Texas knuckle draggers:

***
"Remember that time that Texas lawmakers cut $73 million of family planning funding and thought that wouldn't have an effect on the overall birth rate in the Lone Star state? As it turns out, proving fewer alternatives to having babies means... more... babies."

And lot's more cost.

"The Health and Human Services commission is now projecting that over 20,000 unplanned births are on the horizon for women in poverty on Medicaid, at a $237 million cost to taxpayers."

So now: "Panicked Texas Republicans May Throw $100 Million Back At Women’s Health" http://jezebel.com/5988022/panicked-t...

In one nice chart: http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos...

Reference: NYT's

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/us/...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 6, 2013 at 9:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I'll take a moment to be the first to comment in support of this move and thank the legislature for standing their ground on this issue.

If you think that makes me a "redneck", so be it.

Using abortion as a whilly-nilly form of birth control is ridiculous. This move doesn't outlaw abortion or threaten to stop protecting women who have been raped, are victims of incest, or stand a high chance of death during birth. This legislation adds some sanity and will hopefully eliminate the stupid amount abortions being used as an arbitrary form of birth control.

Trying to turn this into a healthcare argument is such a spin it is sad. Birth control is cheap and readily available. More so than that, people know where babies come from.

Posted by: Tankersley101

March 7, 2013 at 12:07 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Using abortion as a whilly-nilly form of birth control is ridiculous."
It would be if that were common. It isn't. In the meantime, the legislature has taken the option away from women who have what you would consider a legitimate need for an abortion in order to punish an imaginary horde of unworthy women.

RE "This legislation adds some sanity and will hopefully eliminate the stupid amount abortions being used as an arbitrary form of birth control."
You will of course provide figures on the number of abortions "used as an arbitrary form of birth control". It will be helpful if you will also place this stupid number in the context of the total number of abortions performed, and provide figures at least for Arkansas and the entire United States. Of course we would all benefit from seeing the figures for all states as well. For one thing, you will find (even if you refuse to actually learn) that more abortions occur in conservative states.

I take it you are not a small-government conservative, as you are applauding a very inappropriate government intervention into thousands of legitimate doctor-patient relationships..

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 7, 2013 at 1:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Yes, but Tank, babies are easier to upload than to download. Not only are babies hard to download, you could catch a virus doing so and damage your unit's hardrive. Another thing about downloading a large aplication file like a baby, is the high cost of maintaining that file once it has been downloaded.

Another problem with downloading a baby file is that the file is often corrupted and doesn't turn out to be the same file you thought you were downloading. The easist way to handle this is to stop and kill the download before its fully downloaded. If you can't get the download stopped in time, then bundle it up and transfer the whole baby file into a government program that will somehow hide the problem.

The easist and less technical way to stop the baby file from downloading is to simply turn off the computer that the file is being loaded into, this will stop and kill whatever baby file had already been loaded by simply dumping it into the trash bin. Then you can empty the trash and baby file is forgotten.

You, see, Tank, when you make a simple computer cleanup into a life and death situation, you have a problem. To maintain the health of a hard working female hard drive, you must keep it clean and not let your mother board ruin your hard drive by allowing it to take over. A good low cost protection plan to eliminate any unwanted accidental program that you have downloaded is necessary and only the Government has the skills and knowledge to develop one.

We must always keep in mind that a computer has the right to do what ever it wants with its own hard drive and a partually downloaded program has no rights, none at all. It isn't a program until its fully downloaded. Change your mind in the middle of a download, kill it! no matter how far along it is.

Posted by: JailBird

March 7, 2013 at 1:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

AlphaCat,

RE-

"a very inappropriate government intervention into thousands of legitimate doctor-patient relationships"

That is subjective.

Do you think that the majority of the tens of millions of abortions that happen in this country are for "the health of the women"... regardless of what state they a happen in.

I'm not fan of Planned Parenthood. However, if abortions weren't being used as birth control, why do abortion rates drop so much in places where birth control is doled out?

"When women are given access to birth control at no cost, the rate of unintended pregnancies and abortions among them drops dramatically, according to a new study published on Thursday in Obstetrics & Gynecology."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10...

Posted by: Tankersley101

March 7, 2013 at 2:02 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "That is subjective."
So is "This legislation adds some sanity and will hopefully eliminate the stupid amount abortions being used as an arbitrary form of birth control."

RE "Do you think that the majority of the tens of millions of abortions that happen in this country are for "the health of the women"... regardless of what state they a happen in."
Of course. But it does vary from state to state, in revealing ways.

RE "However, if abortions weren't being used as birth control, why do abortion rates drop so much in places where birth control is doled out?"
Because the rate of unintended pregnancy drops. That's what birth control does. Did you not read the quote you posted? Since Mr. Rapert is so against abortion, why hasn't he sponsored bills to make birth control more available? It clearly works to prevent abortion.

Still waiting for those figures.

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 7, 2013 at 2:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Alpha,

RE-

"make birth control more available" ? Come on. You can't force a horse to water. By more available, you mean provided by the government to every women in the country.

Posted by: Tankersley101

March 7, 2013 at 2:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Still looking at numbers. There is alot of disagreeing numbers out there and I am trying to be as objective as possible.

Posted by: Tankersley101

March 7, 2013 at 2:24 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "By more available, you mean provided by the government"
No, I mean through comprehensive, responsible sex education. Of course there are so many people in Arkansas (and Afghanistan, apparently) who are not fans of Planned Parenthood-- probably because they mistakenly believe that Planned Parenthood is an abortion mill-- so it might be necessary for the government to take a hand, given the widespread ignorant bias against Planned Parenthood and other NGOs that provide services for women and families. And we're certain to see very few churches stepping up to take care of the matter. But consider this: birth control is cheaper than taking care of than unwanted babies. That's fiscally responsible.

RE " to every women in the country."
I see no reason to go out of the way to make it available to women who are not having or likely to have sex, or are barren, or post-menopausal, or have the wherewithal to obtain and pay for it.

RE "I am trying to be as objective as possible."
Good for you. I thought maybe you were trying to avoid the task by posting that HuffPo quote. Take your time.

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 7, 2013 at 2:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Thank you Arkansas legislature for wasting more taxpayer money. It would have made more sense to spend the money on preventing pregnancy than stuffing it into the pockets of lawyers.

Posted by: Dexter

March 7, 2013 at 7:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"you can't force a horse to water," and yet in Arkansas at least, there is an intention to force women to bear children that they (for whatever personal reason) do not want to bring to term.

Posted by: Dellmann

March 7, 2013 at 7:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I used to be against taxpayers providing birth control to women; however, seeing the mindset of the left to have such sexual freedom and every defense of life has been stated, I am changing my mind. Preventing would always be the better choice than aborting a baby, even though personal responsibility if my first choice. Even given 3 months, as this bill does, to make your choice, you still need to abort. Sad!

Posted by: mycentworth

March 7, 2013 at 8:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Abortion is a woman's issue, period. I hope that Arkansas is sued. I'd like to see these fundamentalist zealots and the fools who voted them into office foot the bill for it. It is way past time to stop focusing on social issues and get these misogynist narcissists focused on the business of government, which is not and should never be policing what goes on in women's wombs and what the women decide to do about it.

Posted by: SPA

March 7, 2013 at 8:15 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Yes, abortion is a woman's issue, I am one and I am talking to other women. Young women especially, influenced by this liberal society. It is between them and their God, but they don't hear much about God anymore and his commandments for a full, happy life.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 7, 2013 at 8:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

MyCent: "I used to be against taxpayers providing birth control to women;... I am changing my mind.">>

Good job. It's always good when someone on your side moves to a position that will actually have an effect of reducing abortions. Unfortunately, it's rather rare.

This legislation is a Hail Mary pass attempt that almost certainly will fail. But it will let tools like Rapert fawn and posture while seeming righteous and stirring up their favorite old wedge issue.

D.
--------------
"Pamela and the many others that call yourselves republicans but stand for normalcy like birth control and educating kids about birth control obviously haven't read the 62 page 2012 Republican Platform document. I just went through it so that I could comment accurately.

The platform clearly states that kids should be educated with abstinence only and should not have access to birth control. It also states schools should not have any family planning programs to assist kids that get pregnant to raise those kids or to help them graduate. The platform also calls for "individual responsibility" and "self reliance" rather than public assistance. So to summarize the 2012 Republican Platform in regards to the sexuality of a teenage girl:

They should be taught abstinence only, should not be allowed to use birth control. If she gets pregnant she cannot have an abortion, she must carry the baby to term. There will be no school programs to help her graduate. Once she has the baby there should be no assistance for child care so that she can finish high school as she should be self reliant. She will be forced to drop out because the only way to afford child care is to work. Because she will be a high school dropout her job potential includes fast food.

If you are a teenage girl don't make the mistake of having sex because the republicans will want to screw you again." --comment on a Facebook thread

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 7, 2013 at 10:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tank quotes ""When women are given access to birth control at no cost, the rate of unintended pregnancies and abortions among them drops dramatically, according to a new study published on Thursday in Obstetrics & Gynecology."
Thank you for the quote, Tank, and I think it points us in the right direction.
It also rather contradicts your claim that everybody can easily find and afford contraceptives.
In those countries such as Netherlands which have a much lower abortion rate than U.S., accessible contraceptives and teenage education about using them are part of the reason.

Posted by: Coralie

March 7, 2013 at 11:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "I used to be against taxpayers providing birth control to women"
This shows, at least in part, a major failure to understand the situation. The hoo-ha at Hobby Lobby and other similar distractions has nothing to do with taxpayers providing birth control-- it has to do with employee health plans providing birth control for women (in the same way that they provide birth-influencing treatment for men). And Sandra Fluke had nothing to do with promiscuity. This misdirection also misses the fact that the birth-control pill is prescribed for medical reasons other than preventing pregnancy;. it is widely used for conditions in which its hormone dosage is therapeutic.

Sex is not dangerous because it is dirty; it is dangerous because it is mysterious. As long as so many religious people are obsessed with sex in such an unhealthy way, it will be very difficult for most children to become educated about sex (including not having sex) in a way that leads to self-control, proficiency, and a healthy integration of the concept of sex into real life. And until that happens, the red states will continue to have the highest rates of teenage pregnancy and divorce-- and high abortion rates. If God had intended for us to fear and ignore sex, He wouldn't have put so many of the useful sex parts right there where we can see and touch them. (Oh-- it's a test of righteousness? God must really hate dogs.)

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 7, 2013 at 1:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

God made laws for peoples' benefit. We all know that many sexual partners leads to disease. God didn't put those diseases there. Sex is meant to be between a husband and wife. It is society that has promoted and exposed it to the limit. God's plan is the best, but in this world, not many believe that or follow it.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 7, 2013 at 2:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "God made laws for peoples' benefit."
I didn't realize that having an unhealthy obsession with sex is one of God's laws; I thought that churches came up with that one.

RE "We all know that many sexual partners leads to disease."
We all should know that this is not necessarily true, and we should also know that if more people were better educated about sex, there would be less disease associated with it. But, playing along, we all know that eating too much food leads to disease. We all know that too much sunshine, or too much rain, leads to disease. Wow-- God's bounty certainly is a two-edged sword. Yet you don't seem to be obsessed with food, sunshine or rain. Also, please note that having sex does not automatically mean having many sexual partners.

RE "Sex is meant to be between a husband and wife."
Or a husband and wives, or a husband and slave(s), or a husband and his female in-laws, or a soldier and a conquered woman,.... Talk about God's plan for promiscuity.

RE "It is society that has promoted and exposed it to the limit."
Yet you claim that this is a Christian nation. Hasn't it occurred to you that if Christians weren't so unhealthily obsessed with sex, there would be less promotion of and negative exposure to sex?

RE "God's plan is the best"
Which God? And which of His plans?

RE "but in this world, not many believe that or follow it."
By that, you apparently mean that not many agree with you. Plenty of people believe in and follow a plan of a God.

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 7, 2013 at 3:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Alpha - You know what God I am talking about.

And every single one of those questions you put forth can be answered by reading God's word - the Bible. Don't refer to the old testament, as after Christ we are under a new covenant. Two commandments fulfill the law -(1) Love the Lord thy God with all your mind, body, and soul. and (2) Love you neighbor as yourself. These are the two great commandments.

I might add, I don't believe we are a Christian nation any longer. But, we were formed as a Christian nation. That is mistake the founding fathers made - not declaring this as a Christian nation so we could not be stopped from openly declaring our faith, no matter what anyone else believes. That would not take away individual freedom. We, after all, are free to believe as we
wish.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 7, 2013 at 3:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

mycentworth: You have the right to have your religious beliefs, it is in the Constitution. Right next the the protection for your religious beliefs is a phrase that you cannot use your religious beliefs to create law that other people have to follow. That is there to require you to tolerate other people's religious beliefs.

You are free to follow your God's law. None of the rest of are required to follow it.

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 7, 2013 at 4:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Alpha - You know what God I am talking about."
How could I possibly know that? You, Moneymyst, woodw, kinggeorge/MrD, hbcark, ExNilo and the others can't agree on Christianity, so you apparently can't agree on a God. There seems to be one for each of you.

RE "Don't refer to the old testament, as after Christ we are under a new covenant."
Christ was a new covenant as far as salvation was concerned, but He was a Jew and He upheld Jewish law.

RE "(1) Love the Lord thy God with all your mind, body, and soul. and (2) Love you neighbor as yourself. These are the two great commandments"
Neither of which mentions sex in any definitive way, but the second seems to imply that sex is a good thing.

RE "I might add, I don't believe we are a Christian nation any longer."
We never were, so no great loss.

RE "But, we were formed as a Christian nation."
No, we weren't. Even if we had been, the official policy would never have nailed down, as there is no agreement as to what "Christian" would entail. You and others who commenter here stand as proof of this.

RE "That is mistake the founding fathers made - not declaring this as a Christian nation"
That wasn't a mistake; it was deliberate, as they were, for the most part, not Christians.

RE "so we could not be stopped from openly declaring our faith"
Who is stopping you?

RE "no matter what anyone else believes."
Or doesn't believe.

RE "That would not take away individual freedom."
Ha! You apparently consider atheists, liberals, and those whose Christianity doesn't match yours to be somehow inferior. And we know what happens to the freedom of "inferior" people....

RE "We, after all, are free to believe as we wish."
Or not believe. So Christians need to stop whining about what victims they are.

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 7, 2013 at 4:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

mycentworth: It was a mistake that the founding fathers wanted religious tolerance for our nation?

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 7, 2013 at 4:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

No, we do have religious tolerance, except we would be able to have nativity scenes, Christmas carols/programs, open prayers to express our belief as a Christian nation. I miss that. I worked in a school that even saying "Merry Christmas" was frowned on. Expressing our belief does not stop others from believing as they wish.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 7, 2013 at 5 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The God mycentworth is the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. He is your God also and everyone is required to obey His Laws as stated by mycentworth. You have no choice, pay Him now or pay Him later, none get a free pass. Lost is he who decieves himself.

For those who believe in God, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe in God, no explanation is possible.

Posted by: JailBird

March 7, 2013 at 5:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "except we would be able to have nativity scenes, Christmas carols/programs, open prayers to express our belief as a Christian nation."
That also is religious tolerance: tolerance for the religions that do not believe in Christmas. And you are welcome to pray openly-- as an individual (even though Jesus said you should pray in secret). And nobody is keeping you from expressing your misguided, uninformed belief that this is a Christian nation.

RE "The God mycentworth is the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob."
Then He is also the God of Jews. Yet mycentworth has contended repeatedly and in many ways that if you don't believe in this same God in her preferred fashion, you are doomed. That would include Jews. That would even include you, as you and mycentworth do not agree as to how to understand that God.

Don't you see the problem here? mycentworth apparently thinks the nation should officially worship the God of mycentworth, and no other. Even your God will not do.

RE "everyone is required to obey His Laws as stated by mycentworth."
Except that mycentworth has misstated or invented entirely the laws she says are His. Never mind her ongoing tolerance for disobeying those of His laws that are more inconvenient for us.

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 7, 2013 at 6:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

mm - You have a way of laying it on the line, as intoerant as you make me sound. I think Christians are the ones that are not tolerated.

You are not required to obey His laws, believe in Him - that is your choice. But, evidently, the founding fathers found nothing wrong with expressing our belief, which has been taken away. The only solution is to have made this a Christian nation. That would not require YOU to believe or accept anything.

Alpha - Jews are waiting for their Messiah, whom, I believe they will recogonize in Jesus Christ when He returns.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 7, 2013 at 6:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

That was not aimed at you, mycentworth, my new microsoft keyboard bit me again. Should have read: "The God of mycentworth is the same God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. He is your (unbelievers) God also, and everyone is required to obey His Laws as stated by
mycentworth."

Accept my apology, please.

Everyone will recognize Jesus on that day, but will He recognize them?

Posted by: JailBird

March 7, 2013 at 7:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

No apology needed. I read it as you agreed, but wasn't sure Actually, when that day comes, we will be a Christian nation under the true King. That probably sounds intolerant to many, but it is the Christians hope.

"For those who believe in God, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe in God, no explanation is possible."
Is that Edward Abbey or ME? I need to remember that.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 7, 2013 at 8:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Neither, that is a statment at the beginning of John Martin's 1940 motion picture "Song of Bernadette" staring Jennifer Jones as Saint Bernadette. The saying is not attributed to any author.

Posted by: JailBird

March 7, 2013 at 8:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

So the Arkansas Legislature is inserting themselves between the doctor-patient relationship by prohibiting abortion as a form of birth control? This, from the same people who supported the shoving of Obamacare, which more clearly and blatantly interfere with the doctor-patient relationship, down our throats. Maybe one day, these folks will have some measure of credibility, but I wouldn't advise holding one's breath for that to happen.

Posted by: IrishMensa

March 7, 2013 at 9:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "So the Arkansas Legislature is inserting themselves between the doctor-patient relationship by prohibiting abortion as a form of birth control?"
No, they are inserting themselves in the doctor-patient relationship by prohibiting abortion as a medical treatment.

RE "This, from the same people who supported the shoving..."
For a second there, I was certain that you were about to refer to all of those idiotic Republican state laws that require one or more transvaginal probes. Talk about shoving.

RE "...Obamacare, which more clearly and blatantly interfere with the doctor-patient relationship, down our throats."
In case this isn't another of your cowardly hit-and-run posts, do provide examples of this.

RE "Maybe one day, these folks will have some measure of credibility, but I wouldn't advise holding one's breath for that to happen."
Since you're clearly referring to the Arkansas legislature, I have to agree with you.

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 7, 2013 at 9:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

IR: "shoving of Obamacare,... down our throats.">>

I love when IR says this. You know the indoctrination has been consumed exactly as prescribed when it gets burped up verbatim so consistently. Here's what I told IR the last time he passed along his favorite Fox Box slogan:

"It's not by accident that IR repeats his meme in this way. It shows how effective and thorough IrishM's indoctrination has been. All explained here:

"Luntz's Fox News focus group participants echo Fox News talking points" http://mediamatters.org/research/2010...

AlphaC: "In case this isn't another of your cowardly hit-and-run posts,...">>

There's little chance of that. IR hasn't done anything but drivebys in what must be a year. He must be spooked about actually responding to criticism of his consistently inaccurate posts.

D.
-------------
"I hope all of you who support this law are planning to apply to become foster parents tomorrow. Already there are many kids who live in group homes because they can't find foster parents. And many children in this state turn 18 without having anyone to call Mom or Dad. Where's your compassion for those kids? The kids who are pulled apart from their siblings, who no one wants because they're minorities, or because they have special needs? If you truly stand for kids, visit the Arkansas Heart Gallery and sign up to foster or ADOPT! These kids need you!" https://dhs.arkansas.gov/dcfs/heartga...
--Facebook comment

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 7, 2013 at 10:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MyC: "God didn't put those diseases there.">>

Of course he did. That's the problem with God inflation. You make him bigger and stronger over the years in order to compete with the God down the street and the next thing you know, he's all-powerful and all-knowing! The thing that necessarily goes along with those two attributes, is All Responsibility. And he even admits to it:

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." --Is. 45:7

MyC: "God's plan is the best, but in this world, not many believe that or follow it.">>

Maybe it's because they can't figure it out. With some 33,000 denominations and sects all devoted to reading that book and figuring out what the divine plan is and what the instructions are, it's all been a bit of a muck up.

MyC: "Don't refer to the old testament, as after Christ we are under a new covenant.">>

Let's ask Jesus:
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matt. 5:18

Are all things fulfilled? Apparently not, MyCent still likes to fiddle with prophecies.

MyC: "I don't believe we are a Christian nation any longer.">>

Progress.

MyC: "But, we were formed as a Christian nation.">>

John Adams specifically said we weren't and then signed a treaty (drafted under Washington) which *specifically* said we weren't:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen [Muslims];.." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_o...

And even if we were (which is ridiculous), one would think one of the first six presidents of the US might have been an orthodox Christian. Yet none of them were.

D.
------------
"The obvious first step in seeking out our nation's origins is to read its founding documents. In doing so, one is struck immediately by the total absence of any mention of Jesus, Christ or Christianity. There is also no reference to any Christian church-Catholic, Baptist, Lutheran, Episcopal, Calvinist-nothing. Not a word, nor a hint. If our Founding Fathers had intended to make this a Christian nation, they could not have hidden that intention more completely, or done a worse job of it." --Judith Hayes

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 7, 2013 at 11:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Sen Rapert's 12 Week Heartbeat abortion law could be a blessing in disguise. This from a friend in L.R. who tracks the issue closely:

"And, it may surprise folks to find out that some anti-abortion proponents consider Rapert's law to be bad for the cause because it is so blatantly unconstitutional. (Did a little "extra credit" work on the topic and discovered that these folks are NOT happy with Jason!)

They're saying that in the long run, laws like Rapert's will further entrench abortion rights into the system after they lose in the courts -- thus adding more court cases on the records which uphold abortion rights.

Look up Pyrrhic victory. ...He threw a carefully planned campaign (to incrementally limit access to abortions) under the bus just so he could grab a spot of glory for himself and, due to the ever-present Law of Unintended Consequences.."

Posted by: cdawg

March 7, 2013 at 11:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

fft - If our Founding Fathers had intended to make this a Christian nation, they could not have hidden that intention more completely, or done a worse job of it." --Judith Hayes

Of course, they did not mention it in the founding documents. But if you look at many of the writings, the inscriptions on our buildings, you see the reference to our Lord many, many times. The did not declare this a Christian nation and made no law establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise. But liberals have tried to stop the "free exercise" of many.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 8, 2013 at 7:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are CREATED' equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberity, and pursuit of Happiness."--- Declaration of Independance

"Believe me, dear Sir: there is not in the British empire a man who more cordially loves a union with Great Britain than I do. But, by the GOD that MADE me, I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the British Parliament propose; and in this, I think I speak the sentiments of America."---Thomas Jefferson, November 29, 1775

Not a Christian nation? Not bloody likely

"Freedom and liberty were the ingredients, God was the catylyst, and revolution was the result."---ME

Posted by: JailBird

March 8, 2013 at 11:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

MyC: "Of course, they [founding fathers] did not mention it in the founding documents.">

Of course? We are to believe they founded the US as a Christian nation but completely forgot to mention it? Sorry, that's absurd.

Even better, we are asked to believe they then proceeded to make it rule number one, that the government cannot make any law regarding an establishment of religion?

And even better they then had a treaty drafted under Washington, signed by Adams and passed unanimously in the senate (treaties have the force of law), it was established that:

"...the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..."

Sorry, your claims are not believable.

MyC: "look at many of the writings, the inscriptions on our buildings, you see the reference to our Lord many, many times.">>

Excellent. Since there are "many, many" instances you won't have any trouble directing us to some examples of references to your Lord on public (not private) buildings. It is the case that from the beginning (and currently), some Christians are on a mission to use the force of government to endorse, support and favor their religion but this has been consistently and properly smacked down over the centuries.

MyC: "The did not declare this a Christian nation...">

Right. And there's a good reason for that: it isn't.

MyC: "liberals have tried to stop the "free exercise" of many.">>

Nope. Not at all. In fact, they consistently work to protect your right to hold whatever religious beliefs you like. The following compilation documents the extensive record of liberal defense of religious freedom and expression:

"ACLU Defense of Religious Practice and Expression" http://www.aclu.org/aclu-defense-reli...

That's putting their money where their mouth is. And note, that list with it's 126 examples, only includes the last decade. If you enjoy your freedom to practice your religion freely, thank those hard working liberals at the ACLU. However, if you wish to use the government to endorse, support and favor your religion over the religion of others (and obviously you do), then call the conservative wingnuts at the ACLJ. They aren't interested in religious liberty but rather government endorsement and promotion of one particular religion. The freethinker founders were against that.

D.
-----------
"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 Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom"

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 8, 2013 at 1:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Neither the Declaration of Independence (which is not a governing document) nor the letter you cite specify what god Jefferson referred to-- he could have had Pazuzu or Baal in mind-- and neither of them mentions Jesus at all.

On the other hand, we have cited above an official government treaty, produced under the direct aegis of two of the Founding Fathers, that states unequivocally that the United States is not a Christian nation.

I'll have to go with the official government document. But it doesn't matter what any of the Founding Fathers wrote anywhere else-- indeed, had they all been men of great Christian faith, the contrast would be even more stark-- the Constitution does not establish a government reflecting any religious preference; in fact, it goes out of its way to not establish a government infused with any religion, in part with the prohibition of religious test for holding federal office and the 1st Amendment. Nowhere is Jesus mentioned; in fact, the Constitution doesn't even contain the words "God" or "Creator". If you want to make this out to be a Christian nation based on the pro forma use of "the Year of our Lord" in the concluding paragraph, good luck with that: it's a legalistic cliche.

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 8, 2013 at 1:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT & Alpha - And liberalism and atheism is not our god either. Get out of the Christian life. I will believe what I want, I will rent to whom I want, I will hire whom I want and I will say what I want.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 8, 2013 at 3:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "I will believe what I want, I will rent to whom I want, I will hire whom I want and I will say what I want."
Go right ahead. As long as you do so within the bounds of the law, nobody's going to stop you. That's one of the benefits of living in a country whose government is not tainted by religion.

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 8, 2013 at 3:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I will and don't sue me if I don't pick who YOU think I should.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 8, 2013 at 4:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Since I've never been to Eagle Rock and have no particular plans to visit that scenic hamlet, the particulars of your job creation and tenant selection are of no concern to me. However, a discrimination suit under the Fair Housing Act would probably be the most exciting thing to happen in a while there on the quiet side of Table Rock Lake.

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 8, 2013 at 4:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Are you putting down where I live? Typical for a liberal.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 8, 2013 at 5:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MyC: "I will believe what I want,... and I will say what I want.">>

Absolutely you will. And if anybody tries to stop you, you just let me know and I'll sic those liberals over at the ACLU on them.

I don't want to live in a country where you can't believe and say what you want, no matter how nutty it may be. Just realize that goes both ways. Also, don't try and use the government to do it for you or have them show favoritism or preference for your particular religion. That's not allowed, see rule #1.

D.
-------------
Jefferson to John Adams, 1823 April 11:

"The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. 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 Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors."
--Adams, Dickinson W. and Ruth W. Lester, eds. Jefferson's Extracts from the Gospels: "The Philosophy of Jesus" and "The Life and Morals of Jesus". Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983., pg. 403.

Bonus:
"All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable."
--Thomas Jefferson's original wording in the Declaration of Independence

"They are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights."
--Wording as revised by Congress

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 8, 2013 at 5:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Doesn't out currency say, "In God we trust". What other proof is needed. If you liberials don't like that the send the dollars to me. My address is (oh bellysquat, Kitty already knows it) no use. Kitty is my hero, he knows everything, just ask him or her. The reason I wouldn't put Kitty's address down is because I don't give a rat's rear end where he shacks up at. And Eagle Rock is a nice place.

Posted by: JailBird

March 8, 2013 at 5:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Not at all. I like quiet, scenic locations. I live in one. Excitement is overrated.

Are you trying to make an innocuous comment out to be sinister? Typical for a conservative. And of course you've never had anything bad to say about anybody's place of residence.

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 8, 2013 at 5:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I never in my life thought we'd end up in MO. It took some getting use to, but I love it here now

I'm going to go watch "Song of Bernadette" now. Sounded good. Found it on Youtube.

Don't forget to say your prayers tonight. He does answer.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 8, 2013 at 7:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Doesn't out currency say, 'In God we trust'."
That motto was not added to coins until 1864 (in response to the trauma of the Civil War) and to paper currency in 1957 (as a tactic in the Cold War). It is clear that neither application of the motto has anything to do with the Founding Fathers or the founding of the country. It was adopted as the official U.S. motto in 1956-- again, as a tactic in the Cold War. The original motto was "e pluribus unum" ("out of many, one"), adopted in 1782. That is the motto the Founding Fathers were familiar with.

RE "What other proof is needed."
There is no proof that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. There is, however, plenty of proof that it was not.

RE "I never in my life thought we'd end up in MO."
I thought at one time that I might live in Kansas City, but I ended up elsewhere.

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 8, 2013 at 10:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Fifty-six men signed the Declaration of Independence, three were Deists, one was Roman Catholic, the rest were Evangelical Prodestant. Twenty-nine of them were seminary graduates and twenty-four were Evangelical Bible thumping pastors. Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and Ben Franklin were the three Deist. There was one Muslim among the Founding Fathers and his name was John Randolph from Virigina. He later became Christian through the testamony of Francis Scott Key.

The main thrust of the foundation of the new nation was to not be a Theocracy which was the Divine Right of Kings to choose the faith of their nations. There is no doubt that the founders wanted to be free from every that was an image of Great Britain. This included a state Religion like the Chruch of England. They decided there would be no Church of America, but each new citizen would be free to worship God in his own way.

The United States was founded by Christians to be a nation founded on Judeo-Christian laws and principles, but given to all men was that freedom to believe as they wanted.

And thats the truth honey-babe, thats the truth.

"Go to sleep, you little kitty
watching over you like men of old
is our men in arms, oh so bold
Go to sleep, you little kitty.

Go to sleep, you little baby
With our men and in unison
Is God the Father and God the Son
Go to sleep, you little baby
Our God will not not be undone."---ME

Posted by: JailBird

March 9, 2013 at 2:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Good post, moneymyst. They can try all they want, but will never be able to change the facts. Yes, they have gotten into the textbooks in the schools, which should never have been.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 9, 2013 at 7:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I wish I was a lawyer and could get paid every time our Legislature did something stupidly illegal... .

Posted by: CaptainQuint

March 9, 2013 at 7:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

On a large scale, mandatory sterilization is the only workable answer. Absent that, or some form of government-mandated birth control, what solution to the "too many people" problem is there?

Does the military still require its members to seek permission to marry (irrespective, now, of the gender of the person they seek to marry?) Should our State or Federal governments have any input into adult consensual sex, regardless of the result?

Speaking only as a good Christian Republican, governments should stick only to telling folk who work directly for them how they should act in their personal lives; and, of course, protecting me from the terrorist threat.

So, Tank, if the Government (as your employer) wants to restrict your off-duty activities in your hooch in Afganistan, it has a right to do so under our Constitution and laws. If you decide to marry someone of your same gender; abort a pregnancy; or smoke weed in Colorado or Washington, your employer can and should fire you. You'd be in violation of your contract of employment (assuming those things are prohibited by said contract.)

However, not being an employee of the Federal Government, I don't believe that the boss you've chosen to work for should be able to regulate my life quite so much. See - the rest of us didn't sign up to be Spartan warriors. (Oh, yeah - "thanks for your service.")

Unless, Tank, your argument - as an employee of the Federal government - is that we're all Government employees in the final analysis (which may, in fact, be a valid one . . . .)

So, which is it? Patriot freedom fighter, or mere "just following orders" government employee? Time to pick a side, son.

Posted by: CaptainQuint

March 9, 2013 at 10:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Sex is not dangerous because it is dirty; it is dangerous because it is mysterious."

Consensual sex between adults is, in and of itself, neither dangerous nor mysterious. The unknown quantities resulting are the danger.

If you want some kids, and can pay for them, either breed or buy. It's a buyer's market right now, according to the Arkansas Legislature and it's pending "human trafficking" legislation.

Posted by: CaptainQuint

March 9, 2013 at 10:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Fifty-six men signed the Declaration of Independence"
And if the government had been founded on the Declaration of Independence, that would be relevant to this discussion. The Declaration of Independence did not create a nation.

RE "The main thrust of the foundation of the new nation was to not be a Theocracy which was the Divine Right of Kings to choose the faith of their nations."
You are a little confused as to the difference between a theocracy and a monarchy, but you do make my point that there was never any intention for the government to establish, or become, a religion.

RE "Twenty-nine of them were seminary graduates"
Since accessible advanced education was largely up to seminaries, this is no surprise.

RE "The United States was founded by Christians"
There were a few Christians who signed the Constitution, but they did a good job of not letting the fact get in the way of giving the nation a religion-neutral foundation.

RE "to be a nation founded on Judeo-Christian laws and principles"
The Constitution also fails to mention Judaism. For that matter, it doesn't mention morality, either. But note that "Judeo-Christian laws and principles" encompass a basic morality that is a part of every religion, and keep in mind that morality, not sectarian religion, was the focus of the Enlightenment thinking that led to the American Revolution and the creation of the United States. Even the Declaration of Independence refers to a natural God--"Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"-- not the Judeo-Christian God; the words "God" and "Creator" each appear once, then the Declaration gets down to real business. For a bunch of fine, upstanding Christians, those Founding Fathers certainly appear to be obsessed with worldly things. For purposes of clarifying the differences between the two documents: the Declaration was written by a bunch of drama queens trying to stir up trouble. The Constitution was written by thoughtful men who were trying to forge a nation. Yet in neither case is there even an acknowledgement of any religion's god.

RE "but given to all men was that freedom to believe as they wanted."
In other words, this is not a Christian nation. It is a nation in which historically the largest segment of the population has been Christians, but which also historically has prohibited Christians from turning the federal government to their own purposes. A nation full of Christians is not the same thing as a Christian nation.

Get some sleep yourself.

RE "Good post, moneymyst."
Maybe, if you go out of your way to ignore its basic inaccuracy.

RE "They can try all they want, but will never be able to change the facts"
Translation: "I want to believe that things are this way because my faith requires ignorance." You are welcome to cite any facts that "they" have changed.

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 9, 2013 at 2:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

John Adams addressed this directly:

"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history.... It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses. . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."

--"A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788], John Adams

D.
-----------
“Christian absolute ethical standards have both
opposed and defended war, slavery, communism,
capitalism, socialism, racism, egalitarianism,
democracy, monarchy, aristocracy, irrationality,
rationality, witch burning, killing heretics,
child baptism, divorce, killing, anesthesia,
vaccination, scientific medicine, free scientific
enquiry, artistic freedom and many other issues.
In each case, at which moment in time, was
the One True Unchanging Version of Christianity
exactly right in opposing or defending each of
the above issues?
By examining the consequences of an act, we
can guess as to what will happen if we do it
again. By observing what mistakes our neighbours
make, we can avoid them. Having observed the
hell on earth that was created by the Christian
state churches of Europe during the time of the
religious wars, the Inquisition and the witch
mania, the founders of the US determined that the
absolute morality of the differing versions of
christianity leads only to strife, murder, and
hatred, so they did their best to make sure that
state churches could not be established here.”
-- Greg Erwin, former VP, Humanist Association of Canada

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 9, 2013 at 2:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

What in God's green earth was that post about, Freeby. Was that a reply to PVT Buck about your sexuality? Seems to me like yours has sexual overtones like the Buckeroos. Few more posts like that and "Eureka I belong and fit me in, I'm one of you."

Gee, where did you dig up some Humanist VP from Canada? Come up with something on your own. In other words, be as clever as I, the ever talented Money.

Posted by: JailBird

March 9, 2013 at 5:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Whoa there, Money. I hear some homophobia in your post. You know, it's a sign of latent something-or-other, fella ... .

Posted by: CaptainQuint

March 10, 2013 at 12:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

You started the sex thing, Buckster, and then Freeby got all excited. You need to show a little restraint.

Posted by: JailBird

March 10, 2013 at 3:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"No, we do have religious tolerance, except we would be able to have nativity scenes, Christmas carols/programs, open prayers to express our belief as a Christian nation. I miss that. I worked in a school that even saying "Merry Christmas" was frowned on. Expressing our belief does not stop others from believing as they wish." - mycentworth

Mycentworth, government is supposed to be neutral in the expression of religion. That it is frowned up saying "Merry Christmas" in a public school is not an attack on Christianity, but the the government remaining neutral. You are perfectly free to say what you want on your own time, are you not? Can you setup a nativity scene on your front lawn? Not being allowed to put a nativity scene on the lawn in front of a government building denies you having your belief?

Tolerance means you get to have your belief and you can demonstrate that personal belief publicly. But if you are performing a function as part of the government, like a teacher in a public school, you should remain neutral in displays of religion, to as not promote one over any others.

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 10, 2013 at 7:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

moneymyst, you may have he belief that the nation was founded upon Judeo-Christian laws, but they put in the 1st Amendment that the nation wound make no law establishing religion in our government. That has been interpreted as you need other reasoning, besides your religious belief, to create law.

As an example of doing this would be the attempts to make abortions prohibited earlier than has be ruled by the Supreme Court, based solely upon religious belief. I have heard no reasoning, outside of religious beliefs, to grant the legal rights of this world to a non-viable fetus. While a fetus is not viable, it is completely dependent on its mother. Certainly the mother's responsibility for her own child should trump the responsibility you and the Republican legislators in Arkansas are trying to assume. And you and the Republican legislators are not trying to assume all the responsibilities, you are wanting just one responsibility, not all of them.

As an aside, are all those fertilized eggs in in vitro clinics, that have been held frozen for more than 12 weeks, are they all going to now have to be implanted and brought to full term?

Passing laws that are not completely thought through can have some unusual consequences.

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 10, 2013 at 8:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT & Alpha - And liberalism and atheism is not our god either. Get out of the Christian life. I will believe what I want, I will rent to whom I want, I will hire whom I want and I will say what I want.

Posted by: mycentworth

Kind of intolerant words, mycentworth. I cannot find a local church that I belong to, the United Church of Christ, here in Arkansas. It is one of the largest Protestant denominations in the country. On July 4th, 2005 (google this if you like), my Church decided to start to sanctify same sex marriages. This has become part of our religious belief now. Since then, laws have been created making same sex marriage illegal in some states. Is that not an actual violation of the 1st Amendment, not like your simple perception that some law has been created preventing you from your belief?

When will you be working to allowing my religious beliefs to not be illegal here?

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 10, 2013 at 8:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I have already adressed this founding notion with my March 9, 2013 at 7:54 2:54 a.m. post. I explained why the national religion clause was placed in the Consitution. I am pro-separation of church and state. No government is going to tell me what I will believe. I am also pro-choice. An abortion decision should be between the woman and her doctor. The Government has no business getting involved in this decision or paying for it. I am not Republican nor Democrat, I am Libertarian.

Posted by: JailBird

March 10, 2013 at 8:24 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Interesting, Moneymyst, in my youth I was a card carrying member of the Libertarian Party. I now no longer believe parties are useful after elections, and are actually the worst offending lobbying organizations to our government.

You are perfectly free to have your beliefs, as far as I can tell. I am the only one here, as far as I can tell, that has had an actual religious belief made illegal in the law.

Nothing has prevented you from freely declaring that you believe in a deity and what that deity represents. Why the need to have that declaration done by OUR government, the one that represents people of all beliefs? Why?

What is having the government do what you can do for your self personally is required for you to have your belief?

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 10, 2013 at 8:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Alpha - That is what I think of liberalism. Marriage has always been recognized between a man and woman. Whatever your church does is fine with me. But, if marriage is made "legal" between same sexes, you watch, the libs will start forcing those that do not believe to recognize and perform those marriages. They just can't go their own way, they force everyone else to follow them.

Leave us alone and we will leave you alone. Like I said, What I said is not intolerant - it is called FREEDOM.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 10, 2013 at 8:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Sorry, that post should have been to ecsmith2, of course, Alpha can apply it also.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 10, 2013 at 8:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

What evidence do you have that law will be created to force any church to perform same sex marriages?

I am all for he let sleeping dogs lie, you seem to want the same, so why do you have to have the need to force government to implement your religious beliefs onto others?

No one stops anyone from going to a public school and praying. What is stopped is the school from doing any organized praying that all students are involved in.

Tolerance of others' beliefs, in our society, does not mean you can created laws that prevent those beliefs in the society you are a part of belonging.

What the government does is not a part of your religious belief. By trying to institute your beliefs into the law and the government, you are intolerant. That you want to rent living space to who you want is something you can do. If you don't advertise, and simply seek people to rent from you, you can discriminate on multiple levels. Advertise you have space to rent, and it is not legal to have prejudices to sexual preference, race, gender, or anything else government has decided.

I am happy to leave you alone to have your beliefs. I share most of them. What we don't share is that I don't need the government to institute my belief in law to force you to accept it into your personal life. You do.

A law that forces your church to perform gay marriages is unconstitutional, and would not leave you alone with your freedom to believe what you want. A law created to prevent you from having part of your religious belief not be legal would also be unconstitutional and would not leave you alone with your freedom.

You are crying about not being able to have nativity scenes in front of city hall, yet that has nothing to do with your personal belief, it is simply keeping government neutral about religion. I have actual law I can point to that prevents my religious belief from being legal, a law I do not have to think hard that you fully support, so if anyone is not leaving someone else alone, it would you not leaving me alone with my belief.

When the law is created that forces you to accept gay marriage into your church, you let me know, and I am already on your side about that, and will help you stop it.

When will you back up your words, that you insist that you leave me alone to my beliefs, with action to remove law that makes my belief illegal?

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 10, 2013 at 9:15 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

ecsmith2 - I have no evidence that churches will be forced to perform marriages. I just know, from their track record, that they won't be satisfied till they stifle the Church

"so why do you have to have the need to force government to implement your religious beliefs onto others?"
I don't believe I do. I was raised with our govt. recogonizing our belief in God, and see no one's freedom hurt by that. It wasn't until more recent years that professing our belief had been challenged. Kids in school have been reprimanded/stopped from starting (on their own) christian groups, mentioning their belief in God in their papers, etc. Boy Scouts are now forced to accept homosexuals as leaders, etc. Boy Scouts is a private Christian org. Like I said, let us alone, if you want to be left alone.

What is your belief?. I don't know of anyone that cannot believe as they want, except Christians.

One more thing. Why should I not be able to advertise if I have a room, etc. for rent?. Isn't that my right? Even if I list I want a Christian, gay, etc.
By the way, I would rent to a gay, etc. if I liked them. But, I can reject anyone I want without having to explain myself, especially when a private entity.
MM - I am tempted to change to libertarian, but need to study that more. I will always be a Christian. If government would stay out of our pockets to provide abortions, etc. that many do not believe in, as you have stated before, that would help. I still can never back abortion as it is being used today. I know some libs will say that our dollars do not go for abortion - that is a lie. Which they will do to promote anything they believe in.

Don't you just love tha Rand Paul. He's a libertarian, isn't he?

Posted by: mycentworth

March 10, 2013 at 10:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

What track record? What has any church been force to accept in their beliefs from liberal non-believers???

That is where I am having trouble with any kind of reasonable discussion of abortion, gay marriage, or contraception and health care coverage.

Nothing has ever been done in the law to force a church to accept anything against their beliefs.

You are supporting a law that makes an ethical medical procedure illegal, and the only thing supporting the position is the religious belief of some people. Unless you can show how abortion before the fetus is viable is unethical. You can't. If it could be done, that would be the route to take to make all abortions illegal.

The only need the government has in recognizing your religious belief is that you have it, and it will do nothing to stop you from practicing it. If you become a government employee, you need to act as an agent of the government and its duties, and that you can't practice your beliefs as a duty of your position is not denying you your religion. It is separating your beliefs from the beliefs of the government.

Some of the things you mention are overboard, but certain not being able to form a religious group in a public school is keeping the school from appearing to sponsor any religion. What is put in a paper for a school task does not deny the student from writing the same words and publishing is publicly himself. There is no law being created to force the Boy Scouts to accept homosexuality as part of their beliefs. They are being forced to not discriminate on sexual preference when that preference has no basis on what they ask scout leaders to do with scouts. At least I don't think they expect their leaders to be having sex with any minor individuals. I was a scout, and that wasn't a part of it when I was in scouting.

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 10, 2013 at 12:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

What, exactly, is preventing you from believing as you want to believe? I am a Christian, and I have nothing stopping me from believing. If you think your belief gets to be having a society/world where nothing exists that you think is sinful or wrong, you don't get to have that belief. You get to have your personal world follow your beliefs.

You don't need a law stopping abortions for you to follow your belief and not have an abortion. You need a law to stop someone else form having an abortion, if they don't have your belief.

You don't need a law to follow your belief and only marry a person of the opposite sex. You need a law to stop someone else form having a same sex marriage, if they don't have your belief.

You can advertise if you have a room for rent. The government has determined that it is not in the best interests of society to allow a minority of one person to publicly announce you have a good or service for sale, and then make the personal decision to not sell it to some groups based on some circumstance of the buyer. The obvious bias that has existed in our country is one of race. I can't think of any reason that society would be benefited if employers are allowed to hire people and base their decision based on the color of someone's skin, can you. Recently I have seen the incident of the white supremacist, with a new born in a hospital, asking that only white nurses care for his child. The hospital never should have honored his request. If he wants publicly available help from society, and he can show no harm coming from non-white nursing care to his child, than he can accept the situation or take his child home and just ask people that he wants to be allowed to care for his child if they will help him. You advertise a room for rent, if you can't show that a gay person
harms you in some way, you can't deny a person showing up to rent it simply because they are gay. If you don't care to advertise it for rent, but simply go around asking people you find acceptable for personal reasons if they want to rent the room, that is acceptable. I have owned a duplex in the past and have been in this situation. I advertised. The gender of a person, the race of a person, or the sexual preference of a person did no harm to me if they had rented my duplex.

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 10, 2013 at 12:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I used to be a member of the libertarian party. I don't particularly love any politician. I would prefer to see money leave our political system, so that more discussion like this can take place between all of us. What he did with his filibuster this week, I applaud. It brought to light his reasoning for stopping anything else from happening in the Senate. I don't particularly agree with his actual reasoning about his concerns.

I would like to pursue you small statement about the government staying out of your pocket paying for abortions. It has a lot of the same issues with contraception and health care reform.

When you purchase health care insurance, what do you think you are actually buying?

And what is the lie you've been told that you have to pay for abortions through your tax dollars?

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 10, 2013 at 12:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"The government has determined that it is not in the best interests of society"

Oh, what a dangerous statement that is. Exactly the problem. And if you don't see that, there is no explanation that I have.

The lie I was referring to is Planned Parenthood does pay for abortion even though the left keeps saying it doesn't.

All your other questions have been answered. You just don't want to recognize the attack on Christian expression in the schools and elsewhere.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 10, 2013 at 1:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "But, if marriage is made 'legal' between same sexes, you watch, the libs will start forcing those that do not believe to recognize and perform those marriages."
My father was a justice of the peace for many years. Even though he was part of the government, nobody ever forced him to perform a marriage ceremony; in fact, he refused to perform a ceremony if after talking to them for a while he thought the couple was too young or otherwise unsuited to an attempt at wedded bliss. What makes you think that a church could or would be forced to perform a marriage ceremony, when the duty isn't forced on a lowly county-level government functionary?

As same-sex couples are more and more recognized as a valid segment of society, more and more denominations will embrace them. The fear that churches will be forced to perform weddings for them grows ever more absurd. You should worry about something more likely-- like the loss of tax-exempt status as churches violate laws regarding political activity and incorporate amenities (gyms, coffee shops, bookstores) that compete directly with private business.

RE "They just can't go their own way, they force everyone else to follow them."
Says the woman who supports unconstitutional abortion laws because she believes that abortion is wrong, but can't be satisfied with not having an abortion herself. Says the woman who, out of fear or laziness, will never come to realize that it is conservatives who pass, by far, the most laws requiring conformity with a narrow norm.

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 10, 2013 at 1:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Gee, you've all been busy during the time I was at church, Dixie Cafe, and Sam's Club. I will catch up and answer all questions later.

I will answer one from earlier, No I am not Christian, I am Roman Catholic.

Posted by: JailBird

March 10, 2013 at 2:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"As same-sex couples are more and more recognized as a valid segment of society, more and more denominations will embrace them."

Probably out of fear a retribution, more than anything else I do nor begrudge any serious gay couple their happiness, but only stay out of defining marriage differently. There are civil unions with all the same legal benefits. Just like one is forced to rent to someone they do not wish to, why wouldn't govt. do the same to churches? I do not put anything past this apostalic society. I remember seeing an 8th grade social studies book in the late 80's with the word "tolerant" in bold. Who knew that only meant if you were a liberal.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 10, 2013 at 2:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I do not want the Government to declare anything about my belief or my church. I am for total separation of church and state. What is there about the word "total" you don't understand, ec? Elect a lawyer, you get laws. Elect a Christian lawyer, you get sensible Christian laws. Elect a Bible thumping literial Bible interpretation evangelical and you get madness. Elect a liberal and you get a different kind of madness.

As for same sexers, what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms is their business, but when the smooch in public and play grabie and try to force me to accept their behavior, then it becomes my business. One good thing about them though. If we had more of them, we wouldn't have to concern outselves with overpopulation of the planet or paying for their abortion problems.

Tax money doesn't pay for abortions, but our taxes sure as hell pays for complications from that abortion

Posted by: JailBird

March 10, 2013 at 3:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MyC: "There are civil unions with all the same legal benefits.'>>

Let's check and see if that is true:

"A General Accounting Office report in 1997 identified 1,049 laws where federal benefits, rights or privileges were contingent on marital status. They include tax breaks, pensions and Social Security benefits, inheritance rights and loans." http://tinyurl.com/ct5rok5

Sometimes Mycent makes a point and it gets shown to be incorrect. In this case, her comment is incorrect 1,049 times over. That's quite a bit incorrect.

And really guys, you lost this gay marriage issue years ago. The smart conservatives have already jumped ship. This is exactly as dumb as your bigoted position on interracial marriage. Here's a picture of what you all looked like back then:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Cx0fMEM3OR4...

Interracial marriage is the same as communism. I just love that picture.

Hey, you guys are so backward and out of the loop we can even look to that progressive leading light Dick Cheney to advise you here:

"I think that freedom means freedom for everyone. As many of you know, one of my daughters is gay and it is something we have lived with for a long time in our family. I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish. Any kind of arrangement they wish,..."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02...

Support for gay marriage proceeds at the rate of 1.5%, per state, per year. Tick, tock, tic, tock.

http://static.thesocietypages.org/soc...

Welcome to the future wingnuts, you've just lost another social issue where your goal was to keep your boot on another minority. Have conservatives ever been right about anything? I mean really, anything?

D.
-------------
"Support for gay marriage takes dramatic leap in California, new poll shows"

"Golden State registered voters now favor same-sex unions by 59 percent to 34 percent, a 25-point gap that is the largest margin of support for the issue in the three-plus decades the Field Poll has been asking the question." http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/29/4299...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 10, 2013 at 3:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MM - Taxpayer money that goes to Planned Parenthood, does go for abortion in a round about way.

Abby Johnson, former director of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Bryan, Texas, has said, “As clinic director, I saw how money received by Planned Parenthood affiliate clinics all went into one pot at the end of the day – it isn’t divvied up and directed to specific services.”[vii]

That is what I heard and believe. The money is not supposed to go for abortion, but no one lies? Sorry, don't trust the governement anymore.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 10, 2013 at 4:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Ecsmith: "...are all those fertilized eggs in in vitro clinics,... are they all going to now have to be implanted and brought to full term?">

That's an excellent point that has been put forward to them many times, even recently. They don't have a good answer for it, because there is no good answer for it. Deep down they know that the IVF methods allow infertile people to have children and everyone likes that technology. Deep down I think they know that the discarding of excess embryos isn't a big deal because at some level they know embryos aren't really persons but rather, have the potential someday to become a person. And there is a difference between the two just as there is a difference between a seed and a tree.

D.
------------
"I find the very fact that human zygotes *can* be frozen then brought back to life to be amazing proof that life is indeed nothing more than (incredibly) complicated chemical reactions. Now isn't *that* amazing, that a complex set of chemical reactions can sit around and contemplate itself. As they say 'better living through chemistry'." --John Hamilton

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 10, 2013 at 4:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT: If I am wrong about the same rights, I apologize. Then, change the law so they do have the same rights. As far as your comment:
"This is exactly as dumb as your bigoted position on interracial marriage. Here's a picture of what you all looked like back then:"

Never looked at the picture, because usually they are just too dumb. You liberals always try to correlate race with sexual preference. There is no relation to each other at all. Many black, hispanics and every other race is against that argument, also. Another case of common sense that evades liberal logic.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 10, 2013 at 4:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MyC: "Taxpayer money that goes to Planned Parenthood, does go for abortion in a round about way.">>

There is easily no organization more responsible for *reducing* the number of abortions in American than Planned Parenthood. If conservatives really gave a flip about this subject beyond its use as a political wedge issue (and it's getting harder and harder to believe that), then they would learn the truth about Planned Parenthood and stop telling lies about them.

Planned Parenthood is the greatest force against unwanted pregnancy, teen pregnancy and the greatest force for honest sex education which as our peer countries are pleased to know, is *the* method by which less abortions are obtained.

Everyone has tax dollars go to societal programs they disagree with. War is a good example. Democracy is necessarily a compromise (I know, a dirty word in conservative circles). Perhaps you don't know that the Hyde Amendment, which was passed in 1976, does not allow federal dollars to go toward abortions. You can learn about this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Ame...

Regardless, abortion services constitute only about 3% of what Planned Parenthood does, and that 3% doesn't come from the government:

"According to its 2008-2009 annual report..., contraception constituted 35% of total services, STI/STD testing and treatment constituted 34%, cancer testing and screening constituted 17%; abortion services constituted 3%; other women's health procedures, including pregnancy, prenatal, midlife, and infertility, were 11%. Those percentages include prenatal services to 7,021 clients and 977 adoption referrals to other agencies as well as 332,278 abortions." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_...

MyC: "That is what I heard and believe.">>

It wouldn't hurt if you were a little better at not believing everything you hear just because it happens to dovetail so neatly with your preconceived prejudices.

D.
-------------
"Science tells us that only 10% to 15% of fertilized eggs develop into human beings. A large percentage of fertilized eggs never attach to a woman's uterine wall, and many others detach in the first several weeks or simply stop developing. Thus, the vast majority of fertilized eggs simply wash away.
It seems a stretch to conclude that ending a pregnancy is somehow against the will of God when the body rejects more than half of what the Vatican considers a "pregnancy."
--J.M. LAWSON Jr., pastor emeritus of the Holman United Methodist Church

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 10, 2013 at 4:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MyC: "Then, change the law so they do have the same rights.">>

So then you would be reduced to having the exact same contract between individuals but a different word for it among groups. We are believe that religious people own the rights to the word "marriage?" And they should be able to use their fetish over the word in order to not allow people to be treated equally and have equal protection under the law? Nope, sorry can't have that. That's emotion based bigotry. And do notice how exactly this fits the 60's era conservative position on interracial marriage and segregation. "Equal but separate" was the slogan right?

MyC: "Never looked at the picture, because usually they...">>

It's a picture of some of your 50's era Tea Party types holding signs that say:

"Race Mixing is Communism" and...

"Stop the Race Mixing, March of the Anti-Christ"

It's exactly how the anti-gay marriage crowd will look in about 20 years (and already does look among a good percentage of people).

MyC: "You liberals always try to correlate race with sexual preference.">>

It's because the ridiculous old conservative arguments against civil rights for everyone are *identical* to their completely impotent arguments against equal rights for the gay community. Substitute "gay" for "minority" or typically "black" and there is no difference. None.

MyC: "There is no relation to each other at all.

They are identical in that you have no argument whatsoever other than an emotional attachment to a word. And I value equal rights for all humans over your fetish over a specialized and always changing, religion based definition of a word.

And it's not a close call.

D.
----------
Aug. 2010:

"CNN just came out with a poll showing a 52 percent majority of Americans agreed with the statement that "gays and lesbians should have a constitutional right to get married and have their marriage recognized by law as valid." Some 46 percent of respondents disagreed with the statement." -- http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/0...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 10, 2013 at 4:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"The government has determined that it is not in the best interests of society"

Oh, what a dangerous statement that is. Exactly the problem. And if you don't see that, there is no explanation that I have. - mycentworth

How is this dangerous?

I understand you have no explanation, if you did you could clear this up in your favor. Not having an explanation just is more circumstantial evidence that you are not correct in your opinion

If I recall, the founding fathers, our first government, found things to be self evident, and thus would be the government deciding what is best for society. As thing have changed, government is the tool society has to make changes to our law.

Again, how is that dangerous, save for making changes without having any reasoning to do so, like is being done with he abortion law?

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 10, 2013 at 5:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"The lie I was referring to is Planned Parenthood does pay for abortion even though the left keeps saying it doesn't.

All your other questions have been answered. You just don't want to recognize the attack on Christian expression in the schools and elsewhere." - mysentworth

Planned Parenthood does not pay for abortions, people using planned parenthood for care pay for them. You government money going to Planned Parenthood pays for no abortions.

I am happy to recognize an attack on Christianity in our schools or elsewhere. But you need to provide an example of personal Christian belief no being allowed. The schools should not be sponsoring any religious activity that gives any air of putting one religion ahead of any others. That means simply staying neutral. Making a pray before a school football game is putting one religion ahead of others and just should not do it. That is not an attack on any religion, to just remain neutral.

You are saying something is an attack on your religion when you religion is simply to be ignored by government, as it ignores all religions. Government is not supposed to be in he business of doing anything religious. If you are devoutly Christian person, you are free to practice your religion with no government interference from the government. If you happen to have a government job, you should not be practicing your religion as an agent of the government. That also is not an attack on your religion, it is simply a requirement that the government remain neutral when it comes to religion. You actions in a job in the government is not your personal time to exercise as you wish, you should be conforming to how the government needs act.

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 10, 2013 at 5:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Probably out of fear a retribution, more than anything else I do nor begrudge any serious gay couple their happiness, but only stay out of defining marriage differently. There are civil unions with all the same legal benefits. Just like one is forced to rent to someone they do not wish to, why wouldn't govt. do the same to churches? I do not put anything past this apostalic society. I remember seeing an 8th grade social studies book in the late 80's with the word "tolerant" in bold. Who knew that only meant if you were a liberal." - mycentworth

Seriously, what retribution has there ever been from the government forcing a religion to change its beliefs?

There has been a case recently where a woman teacher was discharged from a private religious school simply because they felt her beliefs were not compatible with the church's beliefs. She took it to court and did not win.

You run a church with rooms to rent, and can show that renting to a non-believer will subvert the religious beliefs of your church, you can then rent to only those with beliefs acceptable to you.

If you are just a citizen with a room to rent to the public in general, and simply have your own personal beliefs, how is renting a room to anyone not having your beliefs cause you to not have your beliefs?

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 10, 2013 at 5:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "The lie I was referring to is Planned Parenthood does pay for abortion even though the left keeps saying it doesn't."
Not only are you unable to get your truth straight, you can't even get your lies straight. "The left" has never said that Planned Parenthood pays for abortions. "The left", like anybody else who knows anything, says that federal funds do not pay for abortions.

RE "You just don't want to recognize the attack on Christian expression in the schools and elsewhere.
Perhaps it would help if you were able to cite examples of attacks on Christian expression on private property. Of course, there is no attack on Christian expression in the schools and on public property,; there is a prohibition against wholesale endorsement by government of any religion-- Christianity is not being singled out-- on public property. As individuals, students express their Christianity in schools all the time. As individuals, people express their Christianity in public all the time-- even though Jesus said not to. One wonders why you think that the government should go out of its way to assist you in violating an instruction of Jesus, but shouldn't allow others to do something that you have no intention of doing, even though Jesus never said anything about it.

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 10, 2013 at 5:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"I do not want the Government to declare anything about my belief or my church. I am for total separation of church and state. What is there about the word "total" you don't understand, ec? Elect a lawyer, you get laws. Elect a Christian lawyer, you get sensible Christian laws. Elect a Bible thumping literial Bible interpretation evangelical and you get madness. Elect a liberal and you get a different kind of madness." - Moneymist

I understand the word "total" just fine. I thought that is what I am asking for as well.

Legislatures pass things with voting on the legislation put in front of it. There is supposed to be some reasoned discussion that goes on before voting happens, I know Republicans think they understand that concept, because they declared no one read the health care reform legislation before it was passed.

But the reasoned discussion is supposed to include reasoning outside of religious reasoning and laws. There is a mainstream religion that finds it immoral to eat shellfish, a belief not shared by a majority of the country. It would be a sensible Jewish law, if the legislature passed such a law, but it should be considered unconstitutional because the only reasoning would make it putting a religious law into place over other religious beliefs. If there was a sensible Christian law created, and the only reasoning for having the law is Christian belief, it should be found to be unconstitutional as well.

Legislatures pass things all the time with what appears to be little or no reasoning. simply because it appears that is what the majority party simply wants with no explanation to the voters.

Not sure exactly what point you were trying to make, but it sounded like you think I am wrong about something. I want law and I want it created for valid, constitutional reasons, not because of some group's religious beliefs.

I am not seeing that happening with the passage of this abortion bill.

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 10, 2013 at 5:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"As for same sexers, what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms is their business, but when the smooch in public and play grabie and try to force me to accept their behavior, then it becomes my business. One good thing about them though. If we had more of them, we wouldn't have to concern outselves with overpopulation of the planet or paying for their abortion problems.

Tax money doesn't pay for abortions, but our taxes sure as hell pays for complications from that abortion" - Moneymist

You have no argument from me about gay marriage as well. We have laws against straight couples having sex in their front yards that would apply equally to gay couples.

And a lot more tax money pays for the complications from abortions not being performed.

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 10, 2013 at 6:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MM - Taxpayer money that goes to Planned Parenthood, does go for abortion in a round about way.

Abby Johnson, former director of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Bryan, Texas, has said, “As clinic director, I saw how money received by Planned Parenthood affiliate clinics all went into one pot at the end of the day – it isn’t divvied up and directed to specific services.”[vii]

That is what I heard and believe. The money is not supposed to go for abortion, but no one lies? Sorry, don't trust the governement anymore. - mycentworth

The United way does the same thing with allowing people to mark their donation to specific charities. The only thing that the United Way must do is assure that the total directed to a charity by donors is met. If everyone donating to a local United Way all marked only the Girl Scouts, the only charity they could support that year would be the Girl Scouts.

That you want to believe you are being lied to when the cost of abortions is from money received for those abortions from outside sources, but it gets put into one checking account to simplify accounting for Planned Parenthood, I don't believe we can stop you from being deluded.

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 10, 2013 at 6:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Never looked at the picture, because usually they are just too dumb. You liberals always try to correlate race with sexual preference. There is no relation to each other at all." - mycentworth

Too bad you don't consider other information. If it is wrong, you could point that out to all of us and show us the correct information.

The correlation is that in both cases a minority group is discriminated against by a majority in an unconstitutional manner.

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 10, 2013 at 6:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Some famous quotes:
"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." T. Jefferson

"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." Voltaire

The government is best which governs the least.
Henry Thoreau

There are a ton more, just look them up.

FFT:Substitute "gay" for "minority" or typically "black" and there is no difference. None.

Yes,there is a difference. Some believe homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle. Some believe
it is innate. You cannot say that about being black. I do not believe in discrimination, but I do believe in my right to handle my private affairs without the government mandating my choices.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 10, 2013 at 6:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT said: "Substitute "gay" for "minority" or typically "black" and there is no difference. None.">>

MyC: "Yes,there is a difference.">>

I was referring to your arguments against gay marriage. There is no difference. They are identical to the equally useless arguments against interracial marriage and civil rights. They are so equal you can easily make the substitution I mentioned and it's a perfect fit. Watch here is a preacher famously does exactly that before a Springfield city council:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8JsRx...

He takes the words "racial integration" and substitutes the words "gay rights." It works perfectly, because neither one of these positions have any argument of merit whatsoever.

Two and half minutes well spent.

And now you are out of arguments. You've already said it's fine for the gay community to have all of the rights, but they just can't use the "marriage" word. Why? Tradition? Slavery was a tradition, lynching was a tradition. Lot's of traditions suck. Conservatives ought to learn that. So your entire position on the matter of gay marriage is reduced to semantics and whether you can still use language to oppress and keep a group of citizens marked as separate. That position has an expiration date and it's getting rather ripe.

MyC: "Some believe homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle.">>

I don't give a flip what some people are capable of believing. People who believe that need to get some gay friends. Or perhaps they could ask these two gay ducks:

http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/vie...

or any of the other one thousand five hundred vertebrate species that homosexuality has been identified in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexu...

If some god is so against life forms being gay, why did he make so much of his creation so thoroughly gay? Oh right, I almost forgot. Eve ate an apple after a conversation with a snake.

D.
-----------
"We've reached the point where the president is going to wage a war on traditional marriage," said Rush Limbaugh.
His first, second, third and fourth wives couldn't be reached for comment."

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 10, 2013 at 8:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MyC: "famous quotes:
"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." --T. Jefferson

Bogus. How I checked it. I put:

most bad government results from too much government jefferson

In google (no quotes needed). First result is Montecello.org which notes:

"Earliest known appearance in print: 1913[1]
Earliest known appearance in print, attributed to Jefferson: 1950[2]"

http://www.monticello.org/site/jeffer...

So the quote is bogus, Jefferson never said it. Please note that the vast majority of examples of founding father quotes that people pass around, especially on your side it seems, are completely bogus. Frauds. Suspect them all. Check them all. I don't imagine those fellows would have appreciated people stuffing words in their mouth that they didn't say.

D.
------------
“I rarely waste time in reading on theological subjects… Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. If it could be understood it would not answer their purpose. Their security is in their faculty of shedding darkness, like the scuttle-fish, thro’ the element in which they move, and making it impenetrable to the eye of a pursuing enemy, and there they will skulk until some rational creed can occupy the void which the obliteration of their duperies would leave in the minds of our honest and unsuspecting brethren."
--Jefferson, letter to Francis van der Kemp, August 6, 1816

http://books.google.com/books?id=itmY...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 10, 2013 at 8:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

yada, yada, yada. Good night.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 10, 2013 at 9:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Some believe homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle. Some believe it is innate. You cannot say that about being black."
Conservatives can say things like that. Remember when Obama was accused by conservatives of choosing to emphasize his blackness instead of his whiteness for political gain?

You can see how his choice to be black worked with Republicans. They don't seem to dig the black lifestyle. Or maybe it's the people they don't like-- hard to tell.

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 10, 2013 at 10:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Alpha -" You can see how his choice to be black worked with Republicans. They don't seem to dig the black lifestyle. Or maybe it's the people they don't like-- hard to tell"

That is the libs goal to turn the blacks against the bad white Republicans. One day they will catch on to that game the Dems are playing. They just want their vote.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 11, 2013 at 11:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

mycentworth, I am asking questions of you to find out what the Republicans offer to gays, blacks, or any other fringe group they have been ignoring or discriminating against in the past.

What have you got for a legitimate reason to stop abortions after the 12th week? Besides your religious belief, that is?

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 11, 2013 at 11:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Same for you, Moneymyst. What effect does anyone having a private, personal medical procedure done, in consultation with their physician, have on you? And if it has no effect, there should be no need for a law then, right?

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 11, 2013 at 12:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

What they offer to gays and blacks are the same things they offer everyone else. Opportunity. Giving freebies just keeps the poor, poor. Discrimination hasn't been a problem for quite awhile, as we all suffer some discrimination at times. Too fat, too ugly, too dumb, too smart. One of my best girlfriends in the 50's and 60's was black and her dad had a good job with the rr and she went on to college. Better than I did. My own fault, I don't blame anyone else.

There are things about the Republicans I don't like, but discrimination is not one of them. Maybe a long time ago along with others. that is over.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 11, 2013 at 12:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

This "opportunity" ting is very nebulous. makes me think back to an earlier posting where you just want to be left alone. This sounds like you just don't want tax money to go to the poor and unemployed, you just want them to have free "opportunity". How do the poor take advantage of this "opportunity" the Republicans are offering? Last I can remember, when I did job interviews, it was not entirely my decision to give me the job.

That has been a talking point of the Republicans, against the Democrats, that just giving the poor and unemployed money just keeps them poor and unemployed. Just what do you suggest? Not giving them money keeps the money in your fat little wallet, but I am not sure how they take advantage of all that "opportunity" you are offering them.

Pardon me if that how line of thinking you are presenting is puzzling, but we all have this opportunity you speak of. Turning it into something from nothing happens how? I am just sure you are just chock full of explanations about how the poor and unemployed just throw off those shackles and move on up the economic ladder with just that opportunity filling their pockets.

Frankly, I'd like to see welfare/unemployment turned into a minimum wage jobs program to pay people to do something for the government, something not meant to be permanent employment, but something useful for the government, within their abilities, and get them at least to the poverty line of income. They can then pay taxes like the rest of us, and we would be getting some kind of useful labor from them for the money. The incentive then is to find different employment if they care to do better.

We are a country that is not just going to let people starve and be homeless. I am not sure what you are going to stop from happening by just giving them tons of free "opportunity".

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 11, 2013 at 2:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "That is the libs goal to turn the blacks against the bad white Republicans."
Republicans seem to have done a fine job of that themselves. When you consider the fact that most of the southern Democrats who supported Jim Crow became southern Republicans as a result of the GOP's Southern Strategy, it was probably inevitable.

RE "Giving freebies just keeps the poor, poor."
We were talking about black people; now you're equating black people with poor people. Have you forgotten that a lot of poor [white] people vote Republican? But go ahead: do describe these "freebies". What "freebies" are given to poor people that keep them poor? What about the working poor? What specific "freebies" are given only to black people, and how do these special "freebies" keep them out of the Republican Party?

I can't wait to read your answers to these questions.

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 11, 2013 at 2:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

To get back to the abortion question, how is taking away the individual's choice what to do with her health care giving them any "opportunity"?

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 11, 2013 at 2:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Very easy. Everyone has skill or worth., I have a cousin that could have gone on welfare. She preferred not to, even though she would have been better off. She worked as a home health care person. There is, at least in bigger towns, work if you want it. Now the economy is not good, and it will not get better if everyone doesn't do their part. There are a lot of babies born to single women - that needs to stop. There are a lot of drugs & booze that taxpayers are paying for - that needs to be dealt with. But, oh no, we can't drug test people.

There are many things that should be done. There would be more money for those that truly need help. The checks cannot keep coming, eventually, the money will run out. I am not singly out black people. That has to stop also. Everything should be based on economic need, not race.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 11, 2013 at 3:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

If drug testing welfare recipients would be useful, are you also trying to say if you have a high paying job, you should be able to use drugs?

Or are you saying welfare recipients need only be clean to start receiving welfare, like job applicants only need to pass the initial drug screening to start a job?

Abortions stop babies from being born. It is an ethical medical treatment when administered by doctors. We have laws already that punish doctors that act unethically, don't we?

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 11, 2013 at 3:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "I have a cousin that could have gone on welfare. She preferred not to"
Remember: we were discussing black people and the GOP. I take it your cousin is white, and that by offering this as a response to my questions, you are saying that black people will choose to take "freebies".

RE "There is, at least in bigger towns..."
Translation: "Where most of the black people live..."

RE "...work if you want it."
Translation: "...there is work that they won't take, because they don't want to work."

RE "There are a lot of drugs & booze that taxpayers are paying for..."
Translation: "I have no facts, but I'm sure black people use lots of drugs and booze..."

RE "...that needs to be dealt with."
Translation: "...and we need to punish all of them."

If this isn't what you had in mind, perhaps you should reread my questions and answer more carefully.

RE "I am not singly out black people."
Oh, no-- not at all.

RE "That has to stop also."
So stop it, already.

RE "Everything should be based on economic need, not race."
Insofar as those are separate problems.

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 11, 2013 at 3:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Question 1 - If they are legal and they can pay for them, yes.

Question 2 - Yes and actively looking employment.
Welfare was not meant to be a life style.

Question 3 - How did we get back on abortion? We have hammered that to death and my view has been stated. In case you forgot, personal prevention works most times, but if you can't take charge, I'm for contraceptions over abortions, even if they have to be provided for by the taxpayers.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 11, 2013 at 3:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

OK, the answers to the questions are to ecsmith2.

Alpha - No, I am not saying black people would take welfare. Any race should work, if able. That is all.

No, that is your translation. Bigger cities have better employment for ALL races. Quit trying to make me out to be prejudice - another liberal tactic instead of trying to solve a problem.

I'm not even going to answer the rest of you ridiculous assertions. I am talking about problems with all races. You are the one that keeps bringing up blacks, reading things in that aren't there,

.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 11, 2013 at 4:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "No, I am not saying black people would take welfare."
Let's see: you equated black and poor people, complained about poor people taking "freebies", then pointed out that you necessarily white cousin didn't go on welfare like those other poor [black] people did.

RE "Quit trying to make me out to be prejudice - another liberal tactic instead of trying to solve a problem."
Nobody forced the Republican Party to be off-putting to black people, and nobody forced you to express the train of thought you expressed. If pointing out facts is making you out to be prejudiced, don't blame me. You need to be aware that making conservatives/Republicans look prejudiced looks remarkably like a conservative/Republican tactic, and that they do a remarkable job of it.

RE "I'm not even going to answer the rest of you ridiculous assertions."
A question is not an assertion. But your refusal to answer a question is no surprise, given your inability to refute an assertion.

RE "You are the one that keeps bringing up blacks"
Because the topic of our conversation was blacks in the Republican Party. Remember when you said, "Some believe homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle. Some believe it is innate. You cannot say that about being black." (Then I showed that Republicans did say that about being black.) Anyway, you brought up black. I simply stayed on the topic that you introduced.

RE "reading things in that aren't there"
So you say. I'll grant that you might well be an exception to the Republican norm, even if it is hard to tell from your posts. But your comments seem to say otherwise.

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 11, 2013 at 6:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

In 1996 Clinton ended AFDC. It was replaced by TANF, a block grant program to help move recipients into work and turn welfare into a program of temporary assistance
And yet people are still railing about "welfare" as if AFDC still existed.
Although the majority of recipients were white, and the benefits basically subsistence, AFDC was commonly associated with black families and lurid stories about how people were getting rich off it.
I knew two young (white) women, both divorced from deadbeat husbands, who were on AFDC in the '80s but who got off it as soon as they could get training to get into a job.
AFDC was such a good scapegoat that it doesn't need to actually exist anymore. People will still rail about it in another 17 years,

Posted by: Coralie

March 12, 2013 at 12:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

mycentworth, I believe everyone understands your viewpoint about abortion. The question that remains unanswered is what reason do you, or anyone else supporting laws against abortion that have recently been passed, have the need to have such a law that affects no one else but the mother?

Yes, of course you will try to remind me there is another individual involved, but until that other individual is viable, the fetus and mother are joined as one living being.

A question comes to mind as I was just writing. Do you consider siamese twins one person or two separate people?

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 12, 2013 at 9 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

As a matter of personal disclosure, if I was in the position to have to decide, I would decide against the abortion,except in the event of it costing me my life. Which I believe would be very close to your position on that question.

On the other hand, we differ completely in that I see no reason to force my decision onto other people when their decision doens't affect me. You have no problem forcing your personal decisions onto other people when their decision doesn't affect you

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 12, 2013 at 9:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

First, there are some common misconceptions about those who support the effort to end abortion as a means of birth control. I am not a gray haired, old, Republican man. I am a woman who is not registered with any political party. (I do vote regularly and am as appalled as many others about the statements and positions published by some of the Republicans in the most recent elections.) My otherwise graying hair is nicely colored shades of blonde. I am older(60 to be exact) and have been opposed to abortion unless to save the life of the mother for as long as I can remember.
Second, yes, there are times when a pregnancy has to be ended to save the life of the mother such as a tubal pregnancy or an abruptio placenta(when the placenta separates from the lining of the uterus before the birth of the baby). If the mother's life is not saved both will die. These actions were never illegal. Before abortion on demand, when the mother's life was at risk every effort was made to save both lives. And the fact that there is a time at which life begins has tremendous medical support from those who teach medicine and those who advocate abortion on demand. I have copied and attributed statements made by both.
Third, for those who would argue that it is wrong to force a woman to raise a child she does not want, there is adoption. I am the mother of two adult children whose mother's chose life and my husband and I were privileged to adopt them. How much more humane an option could one choose than adoption over abortion? I was then happily surprised as a 33 year old (who was told she could not become pregnant ) to give birth to our third child. It was not a convenient time financially. My husband had just changed jobs and our salary was cut by 1/3. We no longer had the car provided by his employer and I had not yet returned to work as a nurse practitioner.
Fourth, for those who argue that revoking Roe v Wade will force women to have unsafe, back alley abortions, as far as i know, no woman was ever forced to have an abortion. They may have chosen to have back alley, unsafe abortions. There are places where women can safely live and be taken care of during an unexpected, unplanned pregnancy. I would gladly open my home for that option. Our church has a closet filled with high chairs, strollers, formula, and clothing for the families who foster and adopt. It is also open and help is provided for single parents raising children and in need of assistance.
Fifth, for those who argue that it is already legal and will require great financial cost to defend our new laws, slavery was legal in some states and not in others. (There are some fights that are worth the cost.) It was morally wrong in all. This is as important an issue as was slavery. All life has value or no life has value. The Supreme Court declined to acknowledge the medical facts when it made it's ruling in Roe v. Wade. That error should be enough to reverse Roe v Wade.

Posted by: justanArkansan

March 12, 2013 at 11:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "All life has value or no life has value."
Really? Explain how that works. How are you able to eat? What about the dead skin cells you slough off constantly? What about all the other death you participate in every minute of every day?

RE "The Supreme Court declined to acknowledge the medical facts when it made it's ruling in Roe v. Wade. That error should be enough to reverse Roe v Wade."
What medical facts did the Supreme Court fail to take into account?

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 13, 2013 at 12:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Well said, justanArkansan - You might as well forget trying to convince anyone on this post. If they don't see it, they probably never will.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 13, 2013 at 8:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

AFDC was replaced by the TEA program, designed to be the temporary, work incentive program Coralie describes.

Posted by: Dellmann

March 13, 2013 at 11:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I was mistaken, TANF is correct, but somehow TEA is part of it as well, or at least a related program. AFDC is gone in Arkansas, apologies for the error.

Posted by: Dellmann

March 13, 2013 at 11:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Like ecsmith, I am thankful that I was never in a position to consider having an abortion. However, in addition to saving my own life. I might have considered it if I had known early on that the fetus was so severely deformed that it could not survive long after birth.
I don't know what my decision would have been if I had been living under a bridge, or in a war-torn country, or in the middle of a famine. Of course under those conditions, there would not have been an option of a safe abortion any more than a safe delivery or a good life for the child once born.

Posted by: Coralie

March 13, 2013 at 2:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Alpha Cat: Bernard Nathanson co-founded one of the most influential abortion advocacy groups in the world (NARAL) and once served as medical director for the largest abortion clinic in America. In 1974, he wrote an article for the New England Journal of Medicine in which he states, "There is no longer serious doubt in my mind that human life exists within the womb from the very onset of pregnancy..." Some years later, he would reiterate: There is simply no doubt that even the early embryo is a human being. All its genetic coding and all its features are indisputably human. As to being, there is no doubt that it exists, is alive, is self-directed, and is not the the same being as the mother–and is therefore a unified whole. Don't miss the significance of these acknowledgements. Prominent defenders of abortion rights publicly admit that abortion kills human beings. They are not saying that abortion is morally defensible because it doesn't kill a distinct human entity. They are admitting that abortion does kill a distinct human entity, but argue it is morally defensible anyway. We'll get to their arguments later, but the point here is this: There is simply no debate among honest, informed people that abortion kills distinctly human beings. The problem is, Roe vs. Wade, the landmark 1973 verdict which legalized abortion in the U.S. is actually built on the claim that there's no way to say for certain whether or not abortion kills because no one can say for certain when life begins. Justice Harry Blackmun, who authored the majority opinion wrote:
The judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to... resolve the difficult question of when life begins... since those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus. Justice Blackmun's assertion is a ridiculous one, at least as it applies to the field of medicine. Dr. Nathanson had this to say about the ruling: Of course, I was pleased with Justice Harry Blackmun's abortion decisions, which were an unbelievably sweeping triumph for our cause, far broader than our 1970 victory in New York or the advances since then. I was pleased with Blackmun's conclusions, that is. I could not plumb the ethical or medical reasoning that had produced the conclusions. Our final victory had been propped up on a misreading of obstetrics, gynecology, and
embryology, and that's a dangerous way to win.9
Dr. Nathanson would eventually abandon his support for elective abortion and note that "the basics [of prenatal development] were well-known to human embryology at the time the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 1973 rulings, even though the rulings made no use of them." In biological terms, life's beginning is a settled fact. Individual human life begins at fertilization, and there are all sorts of authoritative, public resources to prove this.

Posted by: justanArkansan

March 13, 2013 at 3:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Pro life proponents are not the only ones who could be accused of using scare tactics about abortion. In reply to a comment in Charlotte Moore's letter that before Roe v Wade women were dying by the thousands in dirty back rooms, here are the most recent statistics. I can't make this add up to thousands, admitting I am without California's numbers. I am very concerned about the health of the woman, first of all as a health care provider and secondly as a woman. The good old days weren't always good and the current days are not always good.

Primary abortion statistics in the U.S. are available from two sources, privately from The Guttmacher Institute (AGI) and publicly from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). In 2009 (the most recent year for which CDC data is available), California, Delaware, Maryland, and New Hampshire did not provide abortion reports to the federal government. Since California has not complied with CDC requests for abortion data in many years, and since California accounts for more abortions than any other state in the U.S, CDC totals are routinely incomplete. AGI, on the other hand, is the research arm of Planned Parenthood, the world's largest abortion provider. While their data is helpful, they are a much less neutral source. The following information has been gleaned from both sources to provide an overview of the frequency and demography of abortion. Additional, secondary statistics have been taken from the National Abortion Federation's (NAF) 2009 teaching text on abortion, Management of Unintended and Abnormal Pregnancy: Comprehensive Abortion Care.
In 2008, 12 women died as a result of complications from known legal induced abortion (CDC).
The number of deaths attributable to legal induced abortion was highest before the 1980s (CDC).
In 1972 (the year before abortion was federally legalized), a total of 24 women died from causes known to be associated with legal abortions, and 39 died as a result of known illegal abortions (CDC).

My own comment, remember that there is always the death of at least one human in each abortion, whether done in the most sanitary, well staffed abortion facility or in a back alley, dirty room.

Posted by: justanArkansan

March 13, 2013 at 3:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

A back alley, dirty room using a coat hanger often leads to the death of two humans. Abortions are legal, lets make then as sanitary as possible. There is a difference between living and alive. A person is a living being and a bug is a organism that is alive. A baby from conception is a living being and to kill is murder, but murder is necessary in extraordinary circumstances.

Posted by: JailBird

March 13, 2013 at 4:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

So Bernard Nathanson went from thinking to believing. Still, one man's opinion, however dramatic his "road to Damascus" moment, is not medical evidence.

RE "There is simply no debate among honest, informed people that abortion kills distinctly human beings."
Most abortions kill embryos and fetuses-- not human beings.

RE "My own comment, remember that there is always the death of at least one human in each abortion..."
And your comment is incorrect, when the abortion kills an embryo or a fetus. THis is medical evidence that you-- not the Supreme Court-- ignore.

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 13, 2013 at 5:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Alpha Cat: Dr. Nathanson, before he changed his view and was still the president of the largest at that time abortion clinic in the United States and at that time stated that the Supreme Court ignored known medical facts at the time they made their decision. This is the quote by Dr Nathanson "Of course, I was pleased with Justice Harry Blackmun's abortion decisions, which were an unbelievably sweeping triumph for our cause, far broader than our 1970 victory in New York or the advances since then. I was pleased with Blackmun's conclusions, that is. I could not plumb the ethical or medical reasoning that had produced the conclusions. Our final victory had been propped up on a misreading of obstetrics, gynecology, and embryology, and that's a dangerous way to win."
Moneymyst: if you will read my posts carefully you will see that I agree there are times that abortions are medically necessary. I will never disagree with that and that has NEVER been illegal.

Posted by: justanArkansan

March 13, 2013 at 5:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I am completely for the baby to be born and look on it as a human being when conceived. But, I do think God does not make people follow His way unless they believe in Him. Other nations were not held to the standard that He held for Israel unless they joined the Israelites. Some nations had human sacrifice.

I know this sounds contradictory to my previous statements, and I do go back and forth on the issue. That is why I am now for contraceptives, if it will save one baby from being aborted. As long as tax dollars are not paying the abortions- which I still question. If we did not give money to Planned Parenthood, they would have to use their money for other things, and would not have as much left for abortion.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 13, 2013 at 6:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I wish people would use better language. Of course the fetus, embryo, and fertilized cell are alive. Who would possibly say otherwise?

And they are composed of human cells, with human DNA.

The questions of when--at what point--this entity becomes a human being, becomes a person, acquires a soul, etc. are theological or legal questions not medical ones.

Posted by: Coralie

March 13, 2013 at 7:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

justanArkansan, I haven't seen anyone here have any indication about who they are assuming anti-abortion people are. I don't think it makes a difference.

Your second point, I don't believe, very many people disagree with at all.

Your third point, the adoption route, seems like a reasonable solution. Just how would you guarantee that all the children born, that would have been aborted but are not by your standards, are adopted? You have a list of prospective parents, and they don't make their own arrangements, but get the next child born? They don't get to kill the deal, so to speak, if the baby is disfigured, or has a severe congenital condition? I am not seeing the general population going along with that kind of system.

You are right no one is forced to have an abortion, safe or not. No one is forced to have sex and take the chance of becoming pregnant. Also, no one is force to have your religious belief, at least according to the First Amendment. you need to show how an abortion should not be an ethical medical procedure while the fetus is not viable.

Fifth, yes, somethings in the past were legal, and there has been wrangling about some of them, and they were changed. But we wrangle over them with rational reasoning, not your religious belief trumping other thought.

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 13, 2013 at 7:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Much as mycentworth would like to think that the Supreme Court did not take biology into account for their decision, they did do exactly that. The ruling was that abortion could take place before the fetus is viable. That means not after it could survive as an independent individual. Before that, it is a very dependent individual, and dependent only on one other individual. It would put the law in a very precarious position to create law that would make this dependent individual an equal being in the eyes of the law. It throws the idea that a woman could have an abortion if her life was in danger out the window. If the fetus would survive the pregnancy, but going to full term kills the mother, why only decide in the mother's favor if they are both equal individuals under the law?

There is little thinking this stuff through enough.

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 13, 2013 at 7:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

A couple of possibly relevant factoids:
90% of the cells within our body are bacteria, not human cells.
Since the beginning of our species, an estimated 108 billion human individuals have been born.

Posted by: Coralie

March 13, 2013 at 7:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I would love to have the discussion about when everyone thinks we become a conscious person. When I consider what I would feel like if I lost an arm or a leg, while I would obviously would lose some things I have done in the past. I don't think I would feel like less of a "person". So what do you need to lose to be less of a person, or not be a person at all? If we could figure out that, then we could go one to figure out when we get that, and that would be a step in a direction I think the anti-abortion people want to go in.

But I don't think we have it when an egg is fertilized. That is just wishful thinking on their part.

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 13, 2013 at 7:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

ecsmith2 - What is the difference of the baby being dependent on the mother while in the womb and the baby being dependent on the mother outside of the womb - when it still needs to be nourished and cared for?

Posted by: mycentworth

March 13, 2013 at 8:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

ecsmith2: If the mother doesn't survive the pregnancy, neither will the baby/fetus. Which is why terminating the pregnancy to save the life of the mother was never illegal.
The Supreme Court's position as stated by Justice Blackmun was that since medical science couldn't define when life began they would legalize abortion. The medical community even as stated by Dr. Nathanson stated that there was medical evidence at that time that life began at conception and that the Supreme Court ignored that knowledge.
Faye Wattleton, the longest reigning president of the largest abortion provider in the United States – Planned Parenthood – argued as far back as 1997 that everyone already knows that abortion kills. She proclaims the following in an interview with Ms. Magazine:
I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus.
On the other side of the pond, Ann Furedi, the chief executive of the largest independent abortion provider in the UK, said this in a 2008 debate:
We can accept that the embryo is a living thing in the fact that it has a beating heart, that it has its own genetic system within it. It’s clearly human in the sense that it’s not a gerbil, and we can recognize that it is human life... the point is not when does human life begin, but when does it really begin to matter?2
Naomi Wolf, a prominent feminist author and abortion supporter, makes a similar concession when she writes: Clinging to a rhetoric about abortion in which there is no life and no death, we entangle our beliefs in a series of self-delusions, fibs and evasions. And we risk becoming precisely what our critics charge us with being: callous, selfish and casually destructive men and women who share a cheapened view of human life...we need to contextualize the fight to defend abortion rights within a moral framework that admits that the death of a fetus is a real death.
David Boonin, in his book, A Defense of Abortion, makes this startling admission: In the top drawer of my desk, I keep [a picture of my son]. This picture was taken on September 7, 1993, 24 weeks before he was born. The sonogram image is murky, but it reveals clear enough a small head tilted back slightly, and an arm raised up and bent, with the hand pointing back toward the face and the thumb extended out toward the mouth. There is no doubt in my mind that this picture, too, shows [my son] at a very early stage in his physical development. And there is no question that the position I defend in this book entails that it would have been morally permissible to end his life at this point.

Posted by: justanArkansan

March 13, 2013 at 8:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Thank you ecsmith2. A new born is as dependent on a mother or other adult to care for it as us the embryo or fetus. Neither can survive independtly.

Posted by: justanArkansan

March 13, 2013 at 8:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

To Coralie and others who ask when does an embryo/fetus become a human life/being, the doctors and all of medical science will tell you at the point of conception. Dr. Bernard Nathanson co-founded one of the most influential abortion advocacy groups in the world (NARAL) and once served as medical director for the largest abortion clinic in America. In 1974, he wrote an article for the New England Journal of Medicine in which he states, "There is no longer serious doubt in my mind that human life exists within the womb from the very onset of pregnancy..." Some years later, he would reiterate:
There is simply no doubt that even the early embryo is a human being. All its genetic coding and all its features are indisputably human. As to being, there is no doubt that it exists, is alive, is self-directed, and is not the the same being as the mother–and is therefore a unified whole."
So many ask when it becomes a life, at conception. Read a medical book, read the information I have quoted.

Posted by: justanArkansan

March 13, 2013 at 10:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

>>AGI, on the other hand, is the research arm of Planned Parenthood, the world's largest abortion provider.<

Could you tell us justan WHICH Planned Parenthood offices or facilities "provide" abortions?
What I've been told by PP employees and officers is that they don't provide abortions. They will refer a woman to an abortion clinic.

Othewise the great majority of PP's services are women's health, disease detection and prevention.

Posted by: cdawg

March 14, 2013 at 1:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Cdawg; Getting ready for work, first location I found was in Albany, NY at a planned Parenthood clinic that offers in house abortions. I'll find more later.

Posted by: justanArkansan

March 14, 2013 at 7:24 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

JanArk - I'd help you out on looking up those sources, but I'm watching Psych that I taped last night. Much more entertaining, besides it won't do any good. I also have a lot of yard work to get done. I would also look up how many mammos PP gave. They may be better now that it made the news awhile ago that they did not give many mmmos at all, if any at all.

Thanks for your efforts, mine is waning.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 14, 2013 at 9:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

What a muddled mess.

JustAn, I like you. You're sincere, polite and well meaning, but your arguments are a muddled mess of medical/legal language confusion and assuming what you are trying to show (question begging).

You say:

Just: "There is simply no doubt that even the early embryo is a human being.">>

Well, if there is no doubt, why is anyone participating in this discussion? Clearly, there is some doubt.

Just: "All its genetic coding and all its features are indisputably human.">>

Right, and a genetic test of my toe nail clippings will show they are indisputably human. "Human" refers to a scientific category and no one disputes that products of human eggs and human sperm are in necessarily in the scientific classification of "human." But that doesn't get you what you really want but for some reason avoid addressing. What you really want is the legal distinction/category of "person." Talking about "human" or "human being" just muddies things.

Just: "no doubt that [embryo] it exists, is alive, is self-directed, and is not the the same being as the mother–and is therefore a unified whole.">>

And that can be said of the billions of organisms in the gut. It could also be said of a fetus without a brain or brain stem or in a persistent vegetative state, and those aren't persons and never will. Our only interest in a healthy fetus is that it has the potential to become something it currently is not. A seed is not a tree.

Just: "So many ask when it becomes a life, at conception.">>

The term "a life" is again yet another confusing and vague term.

Just: "Read a medical book,">>

Medical books will not help you with matters of personhood, which is a made up legal distinction.

Just: "read the information I have quoted.">>

Your Naomi quote is cherry picked out of context, obviously. Your Nathanson quote has him giving an opinion and begging the question. I see no reason to like his personal opinion on this any better than my own.

Regarding adoption, I am glad it has worked out well for you. I am for encouraging it, supporting it, promoting it. I am not for forcing it upon women who don't want that option.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 14, 2013 at 11 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

mycentworth, I am not sure if you are honestly asking the question or not. I am trying to be reasonable here. It seems obvious that before a fetus is viable, its life is completely dependent on the actual life of the mother, not simply the actions of the mother taking care of a baby after birth. If the mother dies, the fetus does not survive. Whereas after being born, the mother's life can end, and another individual can take over care of the baby.

Try to picture the adoption solution put forward here. It is fairly easy to have an adoption take place after birth as the mother no longer has responsibility for care of the baby, the adoptive mother takes over care. Adoption before the fetus is viable is not possible, as we cannot take away the responsibility of care of the fetus from the mother, and let the adoptive mother take over care in her womb.

I was thinking this was more obvious than I had to make it.

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 14, 2013 at 12:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

justanArkansan, you are welcome. Now if you will acknowledge that the dependency of the fetus that is not viable is only on he mother, and not on any other individuals, I believe we could take a step in the direction about who should be making personal medical decisions about the mother that possibly affect the fetus.

The question is not that you should change your belief about abortion. The question has always been why any other individual, through the creation of laws, needs to make the decision for a mother about what to do with her life and any other life only dependent on her life?

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 14, 2013 at 1:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"The Supreme Court's position as stated by Justice Blackmun was that since medical science couldn't define when life began they would legalize abortion. The medical community even as stated by Dr. Nathanson stated that there was medical evidence at that time that life began at conception and that the Supreme Court ignored that knowledge. " - justanArkansan

This is the second time that you have posted this. The Supreme Court has not ignored biology. In Roe v. Wade they clearly said abortion should be legal before the fetus is viable. And viability would be a concession by the Court that the fetus is alive.

Do you have a link from where you are getting the Justice's statement? I am thinking you are getting it out of context, and applying a meaning you want, but not that was meant.

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 14, 2013 at 1:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

justanArkansan, I don't think anyone here has denied that a fertilized egg has the potential to become an independent human being. The egg and sperm are alive before joining, and alive afterward.

Legally, that collection of cells becomes a person in the law generally when it is born. I know Wisconsin statutes are very clear about that.

The law is not ignoring biology, it is making legal determinations for the law. For the purposes of the law, you are a person when born, not when you are conceived.

The idea to change that to having the law says a person comes into existence at conception is just an indirect way to make abortion and contraception completely illegal, because abortion opponents can't just make abortion illegal.

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 14, 2013 at 1:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

fayfreethinker, there is little doubt that from conception until death, what starts as a fertilized egg goes through the life cycle of a human being. That is biology.

Where the confusion comes in, is that the law is not biology. The law looks at circumstances, in this case, from biology, and tries to make rational decisions about what should be in the law and how it affects all the individuals involved in any particular circumstance.

The anti-abortion people cannot just make abortion illegal. They are trying to circumvent that problem by making a fertilized egg have all the same rights and privilages that a person that has been born has in our world. It is mind boggling what other issues this will raise. Does siamese twins both get to vote in elections, or only one vote, as they may have two brains, but everything is inside one skin, and they have he same DNA. Do twins with the same DNA each get to vote separately, even though they came from only one fertilized egg?

That is not all of the fun things to think about, if personhood is going to start at conception.

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 14, 2013 at 2:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

ec -" I was thinking this was more obvious than I had to make it."

Evidently, I am not the only that cannot see much difference. Have you heard of the babies that survive an abortion and live outside the womb? What has been done to them? Killed. Now, I thought they had rights after they are surviving out of the womb.

Beside that, you can't tell me that the number of abortions could be easily reduced with a little effort. But no, they just want to holler ' it is my body'.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 14, 2013 at 2:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

mycentworth, can you now see the difference?

and we are talking about abortion in general. If you want to narrow things down to particular circumstances, that is fine, but you shouldn't do it in the middle of the discussion without warning.

A fetus going through what you are describing is not going through the process of being born. Taking a non-viable fetus from the mother does not make its life cease instantly at the moment of disconnection. That would be the biology of the situation you are ignoring.

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 14, 2013 at 2:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

ecsmith says "It is mind boggling what other issues this [personhood from conception] will raise."
One of them I brought up on a previous thread. There are several kinds of non-human creatures such as porpoises, elephants, chimpanzees, gorillas, and African gray parrots that have demonstrated consciousness and sentience in some cases comparable to that of a 2-year-old human child.
Is it logical to withhold personhood from these animals while bestowing it on a human embryo?

Posted by: Coralie

March 14, 2013 at 2:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

There are viable "fetuses" born during an abortion. They are no more non-viable than any other normally born baby. Left alone, any baby would die without care. And that is what they do to those unfortunate human beings - thrown aside to die. Tell it like it is.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 14, 2013 at 2:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"There is no specific scientific or ethical consensus regarding the exact age of viability for a fetus. Depending on how one defines "viable," a fetus may pass this milestone any time between 21 weeks and 28 weeks of gestation."
The most premature infant ever to survive was 21 weeks old.
Also, from Wikipedia:
"Premature infants are at greater risk for short and long term complications, including disabilities and impediments in growth and mental development. ...Preterm birth is among the top causes of death in infants worldwide."

Posted by: Coralie

March 14, 2013 at 2:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

mycentworth, abortion could easily be reduced by allowing better education about reproduction and better access to contraception.

There are religious beliefs against those things as well, but that should only affect those with the belief to not have those things.

That is another issue, the overstep by the religious keeping contraception from those not having the same religious belief.

You haven't answered my question about your statement concerning your tax money or insurance premiums funding abortions or contraception. What are you purchasing when you pay your insurance premium or pay your taxes?

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 14, 2013 at 2:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I think you posed that question to JustAk, but I have stated that I am against taxpayers money going for abortion, but am turning towards tax money going for contraception, as that would surely cut down a fetus going through an abortion.

I do not believe that a private company should be forced to provide insurance that covers things that goes against their belief.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 14, 2013 at 3:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

mycentworth, a fetus removed from the mother that is not viable may still have a beating heart, may even try to breath. but if the lungs are not developed completely, the fetus will die without extraordinary care. My youngest child was born 6 weeks early. Her mother had extremely high blood pressure issues during the pregnancy. She was confined for the last two weeks with low light, no visitors except me, and no phone calls. One of the last things to develop is he lungs. There is a protein they can test for, and when it is present, that indicates the lungs are developed and the fetus is viable. She was 2 lbs. 12 ozs. and never used a respirator. She was viable. Born before the lungs were developed and she would not have survived.

At what point did her birth affect you in any way, so that you would have had an interest in being part of the decision making process of her mother's care? Why does there need to be a law restricting what the personal decisions of her mother about her own care?

And I am not trying to make you change your mind about your own beliefs. I want to know why your beliefs should should be part of anyone else's decision making process in these cases.

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 14, 2013 at 3:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Do not worry, ecsmith, it appears my beliefs are not part of anyone elses decision, even though in some cases it should be.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 14, 2013 at 3:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "I do not believe that a private company should be forced to provide insurance that covers things that goes against their belief."
It is not the employer that provides coverage for contraception-- it is the insurance company. Premiums can be apportioned between the employer and employee so that the coverage is strictly between the employee and the insurance company. I've never heard on an insurance company that held a belief against selling insurance.

RE "it appears my beliefs are not part of anyone elses decision, even though in some cases it should be."
Of course that would be cases in which anyone else agrees with you, and no others.

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 14, 2013 at 4:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

mycentworth, the insurance one is easier. Companies provide insurance to their employees as compensation for their work, just as they give them cash as part of their compensation. There is no problem for any employer, or so they say, about an employee using the cash they have earned to use things the employer would not use because of religious belief. It is the same for insurance. Giving someone insurance is not giving them contraceptives. Contraceptives only get used by he decision and action of the employee, not the employer. The employer is not sinful because of the actions of the employee.

Taxes are given to support the group decision about what government does. It is one of the responsibilities you get when you participate in our country, as a citizen, that you support the decisions of the government. The law is that no government money is used to fund abortions, and if you have evidence otherwise, please take that to the authorities, and it will stop. What you believe is funding, though, is not funding of abortions.

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 15, 2013 at 7:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Do not worry, ecsmith, it appears my beliefs are not part of anyone elses decision, even though in some cases it should be." - mycentworth

To the contrary, your religious belief is put into law, and you seem to be supporting that law, and that law forces other people to follow your belief.

Beliefs are fine to have, as I have said I am not trying to change your belief about abortion, but the belief you have that it is okay, in general, to put religious belief into law is the one I am worried about, because it has happened with the passage of this law.

There are some that have the belief that blood transfusions are immoral. There is no actual evidence to make a rational decision about immorality of a religious belief, so putting that into law would be forcing everyone to not have blood transfusions because of a religious belief, not because of any rational reasoning for law.

Those with deeply held religious beliefs are usually perturbed when that gets said, because they don't hear "for law" part. Religious beliefs can be discussed rationally, but that is a philosophy discussion, not a legal discussion. Same with creationism or intelligent design. Those are philosophy discussions, not science discussions, and belong in philosophy classes, not biology classes.

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 15, 2013 at 7:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Well, for some reason Hobby Lobby doesn't feel that way. The govt. is fining Hobby Lobby for something, and just like they were forcing Catholic orgs to provide birth control. I haven't kept up with the latest, which I will do. It isn't as simple as you state and any moron can understand your first paragraph w/o your condescending explanation..

"What you believe is funding, though, is not funding of abortions." And that is all that is needed. OK I'm convinced. After all, you said so.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 15, 2013 at 8:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Well, for some reason Hobby Lobby doesn't feel that way."
"Feelings... Nothing more than feelings..." The fact that Hobby Lobby is run by a bunch of whiners with martyr complexes does not mean that the company or its owners were being forced to do something against their beliefs.

RE " The govt. is fining Hobby Lobby for something"
For interfering with the insurance coverage of their employees-- which Hobby Lobby chose to do.

RE "just like they were forcing Catholic orgs to provide birth control."
No Catholic organization was ever forced to provide birth control. The insurance company would have provided coverage for birth control-- a perfectly normal part of doing business.

RE " I haven't kept up with the latest"
You seem to say that a lot.

RE "which I will do."
You don't often say that.

RE "It isn't as simple as you state"
Actually it is.

RE "any moron can understand your first paragraph w/o your condescending explanation."
Apparently not.

"Feeeeliiings... Whoa, whoa, whoa, feeeeeliings...."

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 15, 2013 at 12:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

aplha - Yes, you should try feeeeelings sometime. And I never said "I haven't kept up with the latest" a lot. But some liberals lie a lot., so it didn't surprise me.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 15, 2013 at 1:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Yes, you should try feeeeelings sometime.
I prefer to base my opinions-- particularly in politics and the law-- on facts rather than feelings.

RE "And I never said 'I haven't kept up with the latest' a lot."
I didn't say that you do; I said it seems like you do. You aren't really a wealth of current information.

RE " But some liberals lie a lot"
Some do, though I am not one of them. So do some conservatives.

Posted by: AlphaCat

March 15, 2013 at 2:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"You aren't really a wealth of current information"

I will admit that I am pretty simple and write that way. But, I don't think we need anymore internet surfers pasting a bunch of boring sources, Anyone can do that.. And you can find just about anything you want, but doesn't mean it is true.

I like individual's feelings stated, rather than just law and sources. After all, without feeling we are like robots, which is sad, and, also, most laws start out as someone's feelings.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 15, 2013 at 2:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I seem to remember from my freshman English days that that unsupported assertions are hardly an argument.
Your feelings may lead you to a thesis (opinion t you are defending), but then you need examples and evidence,,including e a bunch of boring sources whether off the Internet or...

Posted by: Coralie

March 15, 2013 at 4:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Well, for some reason Hobby Lobby doesn't feel that way. The govt. is fining Hobby Lobby for something, and just like they were forcing Catholic orgs to provide birth control."

Well, it was call a penalty, not a fine, and it might as well just been called a tax or fee.

I understand this stuff is more complicated than we sometimes write here, but if you are just going to imply I am wrong about something because not all the complication is written out, then you need to write out what complication is missing.

One of the compromises Democrats made to Republicans on health care reform (you know, those compromises Democrats never made) was to keep the employer based system of distribution of health care policies to workers. Since everyone will have to have a policy, the law added a penalty to anyone that did not have health care coverage, and it amounted to less than what the average employee puts towards a policy received through work. If the employer did not offer insurance to employees, the employer would also pay a penalty, an amount less than what the employer would pay if he actually had insurance for his employees, so I am not sure it is truly a penalty. That money went toward the employee actually getting insurance on his own, if he could not get it through the employer.

No employer is force to provide insurance, but the law is making all the employers participate in providing money towards employee insurance as they are making all individuals participate in having insurance. If Hobby Lobby does not want to provide insurance as he law dictates, then it only has to pay the lesser amount of the penalty to comply with the law.

This is no different that you parking on a downtown street, and you have the choice to put money in the meter, or take you chance and pay the parking ticket. Either way you pay for the parking, and in the case of health insurance the "ticket" is less than putting the money in the meter.

As for any condescending attitude, I have been very careful not to do that. Could you point out what it was that I said that was offensive?

And if you are going to accuse me of having that attitude, and it is an inappropriate accusation, it is likely I will take it up since you are accusing me of having it anyway.

I am pretty sure you will see the difference if I am condescending towards you or anyone else.

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 15, 2013 at 5:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

" It isn't as simple as you state and any moron can understand your first paragraph w/o your condescending explanation." - mycentworth

No, it is pretty simple. I have spent several weeks discussing that very point, and it doesn't get any more complicated than the Catholic concept of material cooperation. The example I was give was a Catholic selling a gun to another person. If the Catholic knows or suspects the other person would use the gun immorally, the Catholic is instructed to simply not sell the gun. If the Catholic has no intention the gun be used immorally, or has no indication the buyer will use it immorally, then no sin is committed by the Catholic.

Apparently this works the same way for a Catholic employer with insurance for employees. if the insurance has contraceptive coverage, and the employee say he will use it, or the employer suspects it will be used (I don't know how he would suspect anything medical since that information is protected for privacy reasons), the employer simply doesn't offer it, and pays a smaller amount as the penalty. If the employer has no reason to know whether or not contraceptive coverage will be used, and he has no reason to know, he simply has to not have the intention that it be used, and he is protected from being sinful.

As a matter of fact, contraceptives can be used by Catholics, as long as there is no intention of using them to stop a pregnancy, and that includes their use if it actually does stop a pregnancy. Abortion is included in that as well, so long as the abortion is done for only the sake of the mother's health, even if it does terminate a pregnancy, there is no sin.

Intention seems to be the key for Catholics to avoid sin is any activity with contraceptives and abortion and sterilization is not sinful so long as there is no intention to stop a pregnancy.

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 15, 2013 at 7:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"I like individual's feelings stated, rather than just law and sources. After all, without feeling we are like robots, which is sad, and, also, most laws start out as someone's feelings." - mycentworth

Nothing wrong with simple. Nothing has to be more complicated than necessary. And feelings are fine also. But aren't your feelings based something? Having feelings based on nothing puts you back into the robot classification.

The feeling that seems to permeate the anti-abortion people is that they seem to think that people that want to give the choice for abortion to the mother and her doctor because it is a choice that is a happy choice. It is not.

My feelings are that abortions should not be done. But the feeling I am really talking about here is the feeling that if someone's actions/choices affect no one else, then we don't need a law to make that choice for everyone, individuals can make their own choice, since it will only affect themselves.

You don't seem to have that feeling. You will not have an abortion, and you don't want anyone else to have the choice. My question, again, is since someone else deciding to have an abortion has no effect on you, why does there need to be a law that takes away anyone else's choice about what to do with their own personal medical care?

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 15, 2013 at 7:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I think that it helps to have some basic information, and on a world scale.
This info is from a 2007 NYT article, concerning a study by credible organizations. (In other words, it is not just "Internet surfing" in the words of MyCent:
..
"A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it.
Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely. Globally, abortion accounts for 13 percent of women’s deaths during pregnancy and childbirth, and there are 31 abortions for every 100 live births, the study said."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/wor...

Posted by: Coralie

March 16, 2013 at 12:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

BTW, I don't know of anyone on here who just cites sources, without making it clear what opinions they are supporting.

Posted by: Coralie

March 16, 2013 at 12:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

ECS: "contraceptives can be used by Catholics,...">>

This is all just posturing and posing for the cameras. Not only do Catholics have abortions (and use contraceptives to prevent pregnancy), they have them at a higher rate than protestants:

"Catholics are slightly more likely to get an abortion than Protestants, according to a 2000-2001 survey."

http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/abor...

ECS: "...so long as the abortion is done for only the sake of the mother's health, even if it does terminate a pregnancy, there is no sin.">>

Usually. Sometimes they go overboard though:

"Nun Excommunicated After Saving a Mother's Life With Abortion

June 1, 2010
Sister Margaret McBride was forced to make a decision between her faith and a woman's life last year, when a 27-year-old mother of four rushed into St. Joseph's Hospital in Phoenix only 11 weeks pregnant."

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Media/church...

Excerpt:

"As a key member of the hospital's ethics board, McBride gathered with doctors in November of 2009 to discuss the young woman's fate.

The mother was suffering from pulmonary hypertension, an illness the doctors believed would likely kill her and, as a result, her unborn child, if she did not abort the pregnancy.

In the end, McBride chose to save the young woman's life by agreeing to authorize an emergency abortion, a decision that has now forced her out of a job and the Catholic Church.

Despite being described as "saintly," "courageous," and the "moral conscience" of the Catholic hospital, McBride was excommunicated from the Catholic Church by Phoenix Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted for supporting the abortion."

I see now that they did let her back in two years later. But what if The End had come while she was out? Shudder.

D.
-----------------
"Maybe in 200 years the pope will apologize for standing in the way of effective and safe birth control and abortion, in countries where many people have a hard time feeding themselves. Maybe he'll ask forgiveness for the church burdening all of us with unwanted children, sometimes destroying the lives of their parents, and causing numerous social problems. Maybe he'll apologize for keeping women out of the priesthood and forcing celibacy on priests. And maybe bears will learn to use the toilet." --Stan Kohls

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 16, 2013 at 7:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT God gives us children as a blessing between man and wife. Maybe when the people ask forgiveness for such blatant disregard for His word regarding sexual behavior and total disregard for life, maybe then you can rail on the Catholics.

By the way, I am not Catholic.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 17, 2013 at 8:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mycentworth, it is comments like this, where you are putting God's word as the law of the land, is what is troubling.

What happens between God and an individual and their behavior in this world is only between God and the individual. It has no place in our laws in this world.

That you believe something is moral or not, because of your religion, is no reason everyone has to follow your behavior.

I never get the questions answered by people again abortion, use of contraceptives, and gay marriage. How does an individual deciding to have an abortion, use contraceptives, or have a same sex marriage partner affect you, or anyone else, to have the need to have laws against those things?

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 17, 2013 at 12:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Does God give parents, that cannot have children naturally, children to adopt?

Does God only give some children to parents to adopt, like the straight ones, or does He give all the children to adoptive parents, even the gay ones?

If He does not hand in some adoptions, how does He decide which adoptions to not be involved in happening?

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 17, 2013 at 12:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I am a little disappointed I have not gotten any response for anyone posting here about eliminating abortions legally and also amending the law to also make sure all the children that would have been aborted, that are given up by their birth mother, are adopted, and not left in an orphanage or in a foster home.

Would even be nice if legislators that actually support banning abortions would respond themselves, to give us a better understand that they actually think their decisions through completely.

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 17, 2013 at 1:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

ec - You must read, but not hear. I said I am for tax paid contraception, if it stops one abortion, since abortions are so high. I am not against abortion in some cases, but not the way it is being used these days. It should be illegal after 12 weeks especially, except in certain cases, like life of mother in jeopardy, rape, incest. Any responsible society should care about how many fetuses are being aborted. That is not a question of religion, but a moral obligation in a civilized nation. However, we are becoming more and more uncivilized evidenced by every time I turn on the news.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 17, 2013 at 2:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

If abortion were totally banned, there would be nowhere near enough adoptive parents for all the births that would result--especially on a worldwide basis.
Abortion is illegal in about half the world, and yet there are about as many (illegal) abortions in those countries where it is illegal as in those countries where it is legal..

Posted by: Coralie

March 17, 2013 at 4:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

You and EC completely miss the point. Who said anything about totally banning abortion!!! It is so disgusting that you evade the position of at least partial responsibility - like have your abortion before 12 weeks, take contraceptives, at least TRY to avoid pregnancy. Can't we at least try????

Posted by: mycentworth

March 17, 2013 at 4:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I have not missed one of your points, mycentworth.

I will sond a bit condescending now, because you seem to be missing mine while saying i miss yours.

I understand what you don't like. I understand you don't like abortion "the way it is being used today", whatever that means. I can guess.

The unanswered question still remains, why do you support a law that prevents other people from making their own personal decision that has no effect on your life?

Is there some reason you cannot answer this question?

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 17, 2013 at 10:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Who is not trying to prevent pregnancies?

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 17, 2013 at 10:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

ec - Who is not trying to prevent pregnancies?

Well, according to the number of abortions, there must be plenty. I never had any problem, neither did the women I knew. Yes, some unplanned pregnancies will happen, hence the 12 week cut off, which I am not for, but is better than what we have.

After a baby is completely formed, and feels pain, that is so irresponsible and cruel. By the way, if you had an abortion, or several, God is forgiving. I have heard of women that were very sorry they had one. They didn't realize how it would affect them.

I see no difference in abortion than child abuse, in answer to: "why do you support a law that prevents other people from making their own personal decision that has no effect on your life?" Human life is human life. I am speaking on behalf of the voiceless. A lot of money is being made by aborting those little bodies, and that is what it comes down to again, money.

I don't see what you have against a law saying you must have the abortion before 12 weeks, except in the saving of the mother, rape or incest. Can't at least that much be expected.

If abortion was not so prevalent, I would be OK with it being between the mother and her doctor, but abortion mills have opened. Again, aren't we supposed to be a civilized, caring country?

Posted by: mycentworth

March 18, 2013 at 8:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I am against the current law, because at the moment it is unconstitutional, according to the Supreme Court. The push for these laws are because they can't just outlaw abortions completely, so they are chipping away at them little by little. The feeling pain things sounds very caring, but I don't know that there is a consciousness there yet to actually feel the pain. The organism can react to a stimulus without being conscious. The heart beating is another one that can happen without there being consciousness.

As a practical matter, I don't find it a good idea to put the law at odds over decisions between two different individuals. Until the fetus is viable, decisions should only be made by the mother and her doctor for her care, as that is also the fetus' care. When the fetus becomes viable, then care of the fetus can be decided upon independent of the mother. Before the fetus is viable, you "speaking on behalf of the voiceless" forces decisions and responsibilities onto someone else besides the one speaking.

This pain thing is something that is being used as a rational reasoning, because those pushing these laws understand they can't just say it is because of their religious belief. And who wants to stand up in front of society and be for pain? Like phrasing the gay marriage voting that goes on and forces straight people to sound like they would be for committing homosexual acts. When all it should be is deciding to tolerate someone else's personal decisions about their own life.

If there is an issue with doctors just performing abortions without regard to the overall circumstances of each individual, I don't believe that is an ethical thing that they should be doing, and I believe we have ways to deal with that issue already.

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 18, 2013 at 11:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I want to see equal sympathy and concern for those already born.
++
I haven't read any answers to what I have said throughout these threads, for instance that there seem to be about as many abortions in the half of the world in which abortion is illegal as in the other half of the world in which it is legal.
Or that there are other countries such as Netherlands in which the abortion rate is much lower than in the U.S. although just as legal. Why can't we look at how they handle it--can't we possibly learn from anybody else?

Posted by: Coralie

March 18, 2013 at 2:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Mycent, you have the sensible idea that people should use contraceptives instead of waiting until there is an "accident."
But others who are against legal abortion are also against contraception, and many of our schools are teaching abstinence only. This is taught to people in their mid and late teens who up to a few centuries ago and still in many countries would be considered of marriageable age.
"Abstinence only" is not a realistic teaching in a society that is saturated with sex messages and gives adolescents a great deal of freedom.

Posted by: Coralie

March 18, 2013 at 2:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

And nobody seems to want to deal with the economic aspects of the abortion issue.
A single woman, or a married woman who is part of the working poor (she and her husband both working can barely reach a middle-class income), or a woman dealing with unemployment either of herself or husband--for them a child or another child may not seem like the blessing that it should.
Women still earn about 3/4 of what men do.
We in this country don't have the paid maternal (sometimes parental) leave that many other countries do.
Day care is very expensive.
And while the Affordable Health Care Act may be some improvement over the previous chaotic system, it is nothing like as good as the one-payer health care systems that most other countries have.
Don't pretend that some women looking forward to 20 years of working as a waitress or file clerk to support her child is solely conerned with her "convenience."

Posted by: Coralie

March 18, 2013 at 2:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Every situation is not perfect, Coralie. I don't think it hurts to teach abstinence, that is the perfect solution. Kids shouldn't feel that they are weird to wait, and it will be hard, but is the best.

I'm sure, as I use to feel the same way, that condoning contraception was the same as endorsing sex before marriage. I don't think that any more.

I have two 13 year old granddaughters. Home guidance helps, but too many do not have that.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 18, 2013 at 3:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

MyC: "I don't think it hurts to teach abstinence, that is the perfect solution.">>

It may be the perfect solution for you, but it's not for everyone else.

All comprehensive sex education includes teaching abstinence, but it's not Abstinence Only, which is what some very religious want. Unfortunately, it has a very bad track record of not working.

D.
-------------
"Abstinence-only sexuality education doesn't work.
There is little evidence that teens who participate in abstinence-only programs abstain from intercourse longer than others. It is known, however that when they do become sexually active, teens who received abstinence-only education often fail to use condoms or other contraceptives. In fact, 88 percent of students who pledged virginity in middle school and high school still engage in premarital sex. The students who break this pledge are less likely to use contraception at first intercourse, and they have similar rates of sexually transmitted infections as non-pledgers (Walters, 2005; Bearman and Brueckner, 2001).

Meanwhile, students in comprehensive sexuality education classes do not engage in sexual activity more often or earlier, but do use contraception and practice safer sex more consistently when they become sexually active (AGI, 2003a; Jemmott, et al., 1998; Kirby, 1999; Kirby, 2000; NARAL, 1998).

The U.S. has the highest rate of teen pregnancy in the developed world, and American adolescents are contracting HIV faster than almost any other demographic group. The teen pregnancy rate in the U.S. is at least twice that in Canada, England, France, and Sweden, and 10 times that in the Netherlands. Experts cite restrictions on teens' access to comprehensive sexuality education, contraception, and condoms in the U.S., along with the widespread American attitude that a healthy adolescence should exclude sex."
--Planned Parenthood, article longer online

Posted by: fayfreethinker

March 18, 2013 at 7:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"I don't think it hurts to teach abstinence, that is the perfect solution." - mycentworth

Yes, abstinence is 100% effective.

When teenagers actually abstain. The effectiveness of abstinence is much less that of contraception when you figure in how good teenagers are at abstaining.

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 18, 2013 at 10:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

ec - You can't be talking to me, as I said I am for contraception, but kids should be taught that abstinence is the best way. Are you arguing with teaching it as a good, NORMAL way to avoid pregnancy? They should know that contraception is available, for those that know they will engage. You don't give kids the credit they deserve. They are not all a bunch of hormones, and many do believe in God.

Posted by: mycentworth

March 19, 2013 at 8:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Well, I am talking to you, mycentworth, we are just not disagreeing about abstinence. Yes, it should be taught as part of educating children about sex. The problem is the very religious want it to be the only part of their education, and it is at that point abstinence becomes the poorer solution, if we have to depended on teenagers only trying to use just abstinence. I don't know where you are getting to know how much credit I give kids for being responsible. Not really part of he discussion.

Posted by: ecsmith2

March 19, 2013 at 9:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal )