• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Christian Abortion Hypocrisy [W: 439]

[part 2 of 2, in reply to Msg #498]

Men need not starve themselves to death, they can simply will themselves to death.
EITHER WAY COUNTS AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO WORK. You blathered the Stupid Lie that men didn't have any alternatives to work, remember?

... the law gives women a real choice
AFTER PREGNANCY BEGINS, YES.

and men a choice
BEFORE PREGNANCY BEGINS, YES. There is no major problem there, simply because both have choices available. Consider an analogy: It is probable that certain choices could lead to testicular cancer. If both a man and a woman make those particular choices, only the man can get testicular cancer. The man now has an additional choice that the woman doesn't --he can choose to have the cancer terminated. This is precisely equivalent to why only the woman has the choice with respect to terminating a pregnancy. I'm quite aware that that analogy does not automatically include an equivalent of the stupid actions of a man helping to initiate a pregnancy, but such is not out of the question. If the woman encouraged the man to do the actions that led to the cancer, the man might be able to sue the woman for promoting endangerment, or some such legalese.

between prison and slavery.
CONSEQUENCES OF STUPID ACTIONS. As explained above.

So can a pregnant woman who can't afford to feed her child when it is born. That doesn't make it the right thing to do.
ALL THROUGH NATURE, OFFSPRING OF SUCH PARENTS TEND TO DIE. Human culture has put rules in place, associated with the granting of right-to-life of newborn humans, to reduce the chance of such death happening. And everyone knows the baby would not exist if some man had acted differently, before the pregnancy began. I reiterate that all your blathering has the goal of making others pay for the stupidity of that man. Not Going To Happen!

Your argument is pointless,
NO, YOUR INTERPRETATION IS POINTLESS. My argument merely consisted of proving something you wrote was Stupidly False, that a man has no alternatives to work.

That statement is objectively false, rhetorically pointless and sociopolitically stunted.
IT WAS A LOGICAL CONCLUSION, from observing the nonsense you continue to blather, despite my efforts at educating you. Therefore I repeat: "Apparently you haven't studied it enough".

FINAL NOTE: Native Americans were more willing to die than to do forced labor as slaves. The effort put in to capturing them, by slavers, was not profitable. So the slavers stopped.
 
YOUR MERE UNSUPPORTED SAY-SO IS STILL WORTHLESS. Tsk, tsk. I supported what I wrote with evidence, and here you are trying to separate the initial point from the supporting evidence. Which is just another way to Stupidly Lie.

As is the case with the men who are incarcerated because a child was born through no fault of their own.
FALSE, AND AS STUPID AS THE FAILURE TO PRACTICE SAFE SEX. Like, perhaps, getting involved with a woman who is past menopause. The more a man doesn't want offspring, the more he needs to be certain that his sexual activities cannot result in offspring! Anything else is Sheer Stupidity.

Men do not have vaginas and are therefore not capable of making a decision, stupid or otherwise, which causes the birth of a child.
YET THEY ARE FULLY CAPABLE OF BEING PART OF THE INITIATION OF A PREGNANCY. And since the birth cannot happen without the initiation, It Logically Follows that it is impossible for the man to fully wiggle out of responsibility for the birth.

This is irrelevant.
YOUR MERE UNSUPPORTED SAY-SO IS STILL WORTHLESS. I repeat, the more a man does not want offspring, the more he needs to be certain that his sexual activities cannot result in offspring. Period.

Men who use condoms cannot ensure that women won't engage in stealthing aka self insemination for financial gain.
MEN CAN DO MORE THAN MERELY USE CONDOMS. They can get vasectomies, for example. And I've already mentioned a couple other ways a man can be sure a woman cannot get pregnant.

A STUPID LIE. Because if the man doesn't pay for his offspring, someone else will, since young humans have right-to-life and therefore must be provided-for.

I am trying to ensure that children are provided with the best society can offer,
THAT LOGICALLY MEANS MORE SOURCES OF SUPPORT FOR CHILDREN, NOT FEWER (as in excluding their fathers from support).

(snipping the last of what you wrote, since you tell yet another Stupid Lie, refusing to accept the stupidity of the man's actions, that were associated with the initiation of a pregnancy)
 
Re: Christian Abortion Hypocrisy

Pro-life isn't the only reason why many Christians support Trump.

Obama/Clinton are promoting and paving the way for a Godless society (secularism).
That in itself, is reason enough to support Trump.

Oh no you don't. You don't get to blame Obama and Clinton for the slow awakening that this country has experienced, since its inception. You want to blame a politician, how about Jefferson or Madison?

You also don't get to re-define "secular" as godless. That is typical hyperbole from a group of people who want to subjugate society to their fantasies. Everywhere they can get away with it, they do so. It is only the first amendment that keeps them at bay.

Obama and Clinton didn't invent the internet, giving the religious enough rope to rhetorically hang themselves. The religious are the ones saying dumb **** while being tossed in a whirlwind of subjective superstition, often defending itself as the last bastions of hate. It's always been that.

The credibility of the Abrahamic death cult is finally exposed to the light of critical thinking. Insular, religious communities, where the truth is by decree rather than discovery are harder and harder to maintain. Thankfully, the pillars of their false authority are crumbling under the weight of their own history. Leave Obama and Clinton out of this. They're not popes or Mullahs.
 
Re: Christian Abortion Hypocrisy

Oh no you don't. You don't get to blame Obama and Clinton for the slow awakening that this country has experienced, since its inception. You want to blame a politician, how about Jefferson or Madison?

You also don't get to re-define "secular" as godless. That is typical hyperbole from a group of people who want to subjugate society to their fantasies. Everywhere they can get away with it, they do so. It is only the first amendment that keeps them at bay.

Obama and Clinton didn't invent the internet, giving the religious enough rope to rhetorically hang themselves. The religious are the ones saying dumb **** while being tossed in a whirlwind of subjective superstition, often defending itself as the last bastions of hate. It's always been that.

The credibility of the Abrahamic death cult is finally exposed to the light of critical thinking. Insular, religious communities, where the truth is by decree rather than discovery are harder and harder to maintain. Thankfully, the pillars of their false authority are crumbling under the weight of their own history. Leave Obama and Clinton out of this. They're not popes or Mullahs.
The Obama family was very clearly a religious family that honored their Christianity.

The president just upheld the Constitution by not forcing that religion on others. But he never denied nor denigrated his faith.
 
Re: Christian Abortion Hypocrisy

The Obama family was very clearly a religious family that honored their Christianity.
Absolutely true.

The president just upheld the Constitution by not forcing that religion on others. But he never denied nor denigrated his faith.
He was being a real Christian while also doing his job. Imagine that. Right Wingers fail to separate the two. And, that's a real shame. Funny thing is not all the people on the Right are Christians--take Trump as an obvious example. But, they do play the Religious Right as useful idiots.
 
Re: Christian Abortion Hypocrisy

The Obama family was very clearly a religious family that honored their Christianity.

The president just upheld the Constitution by not forcing that religion on others. But he never denied nor denigrated his faith.
Oh really? Then why the huge influx and forced practice of Islam in public schools? The Obamas are nothing but card carrying Communists who sat under Jeremiah "G** D*** America" Wright. A Black Liberation preacher. Sorry, but their brand of "Christianity" is a farce.
 
Re: Christian Abortion Hypocrisy

The Obama family was very clearly a religious family that honored their Christianity.

The president just upheld the Constitution by not forcing that religion on others. But he never denied nor denigrated his faith.

Clearly the level of paranoia among some religious people is a "truth" of its own.
 
Re: Christian Abortion Hypocrisy

Oh really? Then why the huge influx and forced practice of Islam in public schools? The Obamas are nothing but card carrying Communists who sat under Jeremiah "G** D*** America" Wright. A Black Liberation preacher. Sorry, but their brand of "Christianity" is a farce.

Source the bold! Please...otherwise you are completely full of it.


OMG that post is one huge fantasy FAIL!!!!
 
Re: Christian Abortion Hypocrisy

Oh really? Then why the huge influx and forced practice of Islam in public schools? The Obamas are nothing but card carrying Communists who sat under Jeremiah "G** D*** America" Wright. A Black Liberation preacher. Sorry, but their brand of "Christianity" is a farce.

Don't worry Bassman, long before they get to kindergarten they are already subject to Christian indoctrination, in the American tradition. Even communist muslims (so ****ing stupid) like Obama can't undo the brainwashing they got as toddlers.
 
Re: Christian Abortion Hypocrisy

Oh no you don't. You don't get to blame Obama and Clinton for the slow awakening that this country has experienced, since its inception. You want to blame a politician, how about Jefferson or Madison?

You also don't get to re-define "secular" as godless. That is typical hyperbole from a group of people who want to subjugate society to their fantasies. Everywhere they can get away with it, they do so. It is only the first amendment that keeps them at bay.

Obama and Clinton didn't invent the internet, giving the religious enough rope to rhetorically hang themselves. The religious are the ones saying dumb **** while being tossed in a whirlwind of subjective superstition, often defending itself as the last bastions of hate. It's always been that.

The credibility of the Abrahamic death cult is finally exposed to the light of critical thinking. Insular, religious communities, where the truth is by decree rather than discovery are harder and harder to maintain. Thankfully, the pillars of their false authority are crumbling under the weight of their own history. Leave Obama and Clinton out of this. They're not popes or Mullahs.

Obama and Clinton did not invent secularism - but that doesn't mean they've not actively introduced or inspired measures that saw the systematic elimination of God, a move that's been copied all over the world. Political correctness, is their vehicle for it.
 
Re: Christian Abortion Hypocrisy

duplicate post
 
Re: Christian Abortion Hypocrisy

The problem for the Democrats is they have harder time brain washing people with strong religious values. The strongly religious person is more aware of the concept of lies versus truth, and cannot be impacted as easily by faux news propaganda. The bible might say do not judge unless you be judged. This makes it harder to blindly accept faux news. The bible says the truth will set you free. They need to wait for hard data.

The affect, relative to the Democrats, is similar to a player trying getting a man or women to cheat, but with that man in women in love with their spouse. The man or woman may go along to a point, but after, they are harder to influence, than someone who is single; atheists. The question became, how do you undermine their love, so you can use them? The Democrats decided they will add pressure to their relationship with God, to increase friction. This is why the religious people voted for Trump. The religious know when they are being scammed, since their mind is trained to see long term right and wrong, and not relative truth and fad.

Trump was not a religious pin up boy on the surface. However, his actions spoke louder than his words. Trump has signed bills that protect religious liberties, as he had promised. This has made the left upset, since they were that that close, in terms of corrupting religion.

The main religions of the world have been around for centuries. They have seen the ups and downs of humanity. What remains are systems that are as close as possible to natural human living. Natural laws are considered to be part of God's law, if you assume God created the universe. Religion is about a connection to natural behavior.

If you go into the woods, to a natural place, natural does not have all the manmade logistics and chemicals we currently enjoy in culture. These manmade things are not natural to the earth. There are no hospitals or restaurants in nature. The question that religions have posed over the centuries, is how do you optimize humans, naturally, without using artificial and man made prosthesis? Nature does not have a natural welfare state, so you can't use this, since this is not natural. Their solution was charity, since animals help each other.

In terms of sexuality, only monogamy and celibacy will not create diseases that require man made cures, not found in nature. Marriage was not an arbitrary choice created on a whim. It was the only way not to create diseases, via natural living, that could harm the group. We could prove this by getting rid of all modern STD related medications and procedures for one year. We let nature run its course and then we add up all the sickness and death and see which behavior are still standing, the strongest and healthiest. It will be marriage and/or monogamy.

This is not arbitrary, but is base on hard science data that was learned the hard way over many centuries of trial and error. Promiscuity is man made since it requires man made intervention to be sustainable. Natural does not need manmade, anything, to work. That is the definition of natural. Natural foods use no man made additives anywhere along the entire process from growth to distribution.

If you took male homosexuality, and removed all man made prosthesis; protection from disease, as well as proactive and reactive cures for induced diseases, this behavior work not be naturally, stable and sustainable. It only works if we add unnatural and manmade factors to the equation. Religion is about natural and organic; simulating the simplicity of nature. Religion is not so much against gay people. The bible warns gays of the fruit of unnatural behavior under natural conditions; wage of sin is death due to disease. It is more of a heath warning for natural living.

In this respect, religion is not a friend to big money, since lots of money is made in support of unnatural behavior. Many of these businesses that support unnatural behavior also donate to the left. The left supports unnatural behavior since this creates social problems and requires big government to act as a mop. The entire welfare state is due to unnatural behavior.

Religion would choice marriage, monogamy and family. Family would include all living generations including the elderly. This was very efficient. Once this was disrupted, manmade prosthesis became more and more necessary, to compensate for unnatural. Smaller government and religion goes hand in hand since the smaller the government, the less manmade prosthesis, the more culture needs to default back to natural living.

The main point is there is a difference between natural and unnatural, Natural needs way less manmade. Unnatural needs way more manmade to compensate for lack of natural selection. Nature will not create disease and expense because this is selected. The disease and extra expense is there so it is not naturally selected.
 
Last edited:
Re: Christian Abortion Hypocrisy

Obama and Clinton did not invent secularism - but that doesn't mean they've not actively introduced or inspired measures that saw the systematic elimination of God, a move that's been copied all over the world. Political correctness, is their vehicle for it.
How do you eliminate God??????
 
Re: Christian Abortion Hypocrisy

That's too broad. Review their politically correct policies.

If you are Christian and believe in God.....how does organized prayer not being present in public schools affect your faith?
 
Re: Christian Abortion Hypocrisy

Obama and Clinton did not invent secularism -
TRUE. Perhaps you should tell us what's wrong with secularism.

but that doesn't mean they've not actively introduced or inspired measures
ASSOCIATED WITH SECULARISM. So what? If you cannot show that there is something wrong with secularism, then how can you possibly hint that promoting secularism is problematic?

that saw the systematic elimination of God,
A STUPID LIE. If God exists in accordance with various claims made by Christians, such a thing is totally impossible. Therefore you don't know what you are talking about. Just like most other Christians and abortion opponents.

I NOTE A POSSIBLE VARIANT MEANING: You are complaining that information about God is not getting passed through as many different information-channels as, say, 200 years ago. But this is the Information Age! Anyone interested in learning about God probably can access the internet and Read All About It. Why are other channels necessary, huh? Which brings us back to my other question: If you cannot show that there is something wrong with secularism (which created the internet remember, making it easy for anyone to learn about God), then how can you possibly hint that promoting secularism is problematic?

a move that's been copied all over the world.
AGAIN, WHAT'S WRONG WITH THAT? I repeat: If you cannot show that there is something wrong with secularism, then how can you possibly hint that promoting secularism is problematic?

Political correctness, is their vehicle for it.
A NAME DOES NOT CHANGE WHAT THE NAMED THING IS. So, you've written a message in which you spout lots of blatherings, nebulously hinting that there is something wrong with secularism, but if you don't provide any specific details, why should anyone agree with your assessment?
 
Re: Christian Abortion Hypocrisy

If you are Christian and believe in God.....how does organized prayer not being present in public schools affect your faith?

Because it starts tearing away at the moral fiber in society. Remember the counterculture, sexual, and other "revolutions" that did nothing but tear away at this country back in the 60s?
 
Re: Christian Abortion Hypocrisy

Obama and Clinton did not invent secularism - but that doesn't mean they've not actively introduced or inspired measures that saw the systematic elimination of God, a move that's been copied all over the world. Political correctness, is their vehicle for it.

While it's not a president's job to support or diminish religion in govt in any way, if it's possible for a president to "eliminate God", you dont have very strong faith. The Lord exists outside of any govt and has no place in govt in this country.
 
Re: Christian Abortion Hypocrisy

The problem for the Democrats is they have harder time brain washing people with strong religious values. The strongly religious person is more aware of the concept of lies versus truth, and cannot be impacted as easily by faux news propaganda. The bible might say do not judge unless you be judged. This makes it harder to blindly accept faux news. The bible says the truth will set you free. They need to wait for hard data.

The affect, relative to the Democrats, is similar to a player trying getting a man or women to cheat, but with that man in women in love with their spouse. The man or woman may go along to a point, but after, they are harder to influence, than someone who is single; atheists. The question became, how do you undermine their love, so you can use them? The Democrats decided they will add pressure to their relationship with God, to increase friction. This is why the religious people voted for Trump. The religious know when they are being scammed, since their mind is trained to see long term right and wrong, and not relative truth and fad.

Trump was not a religious pin up boy on the surface. However, his actions spoke louder than his words. Trump has signed bills that protect religious liberties, as he had promised. This has made the left upset, since they were that that close, in terms of corrupting religion.

The main religions of the world have been around for centuries. They have seen the ups and downs of humanity. What remains are systems that are as close as possible to natural human living. Natural laws are considered to be part of God's law, if you assume God created the universe. Religion is about a connection to natural behavior.

If you go into the woods, to a natural place, natural does not have all the manmade logistics and chemicals we currently enjoy in culture. These manmade things are not natural to the earth. There are no hospitals or restaurants in nature. The question that religions have posed over the centuries, is how do you optimize humans, naturally, without using artificial and man made prosthesis? Nature does not have a natural welfare state, so you can't use this, since this is not natural. Their solution was charity, since animals help each other.

In terms of sexuality, only monogamy and celibacy will not create diseases that require man made cures, not found in nature. Marriage was not an arbitrary choice created on a whim. It was the only way not to create diseases, via natural living, that could harm the group. We could prove this by getting rid of all modern STD related medications and procedures for one year. We let nature run its course and then we add up all the sickness and death and see which behavior are still standing, the strongest and healthiest. It will be marriage and/or monogamy.

This is not arbitrary, but is base on hard science data that was learned the hard way over many centuries of trial and error. Promiscuity is man made since it requires man made intervention to be sustainable. Natural does not need manmade, anything, to work. That is the definition of natural. Natural foods use no man made additives anywhere along the entire process from growth to distribution.

If you took male homosexuality, and removed all man made prosthesis; protection from disease, as well as proactive and reactive cures for induced diseases, this behavior work not be naturally, stable and sustainable. It only works if we add unnatural and manmade factors to the equation. Religion is about natural and organic; simulating the simplicity of nature. Religion is not so much against gay people. The bible warns gays of the fruit of unnatural behavior under natural conditions; wage of sin is death due to disease. It is more of a heath warning for natural living.

In this respect, religion is not a friend to big money, since lots of money is made in support of unnatural behavior. Many of these businesses that support unnatural behavior also donate to the left. The left supports unnatural behavior since this creates social problems and requires big government to act as a mop. The entire welfare state is due to unnatural behavior.

Religion would choice marriage, monogamy and family. Family would include all living generations including the elderly. This was very efficient. Once this was disrupted, manmade prosthesis became more and more necessary, to compensate for unnatural. Smaller government and religion goes hand in hand since the smaller the government, the less manmade prosthesis, the more culture needs to default back to natural living.

The main point is there is a difference between natural and unnatural, Natural needs way less manmade. Unnatural needs way more manmade to compensate for lack of natural selection. Nature will not create disease and expense because this is selected. The disease and extra expense is there so it is not naturally selected.

tl:dr
 
Re: Christian Abortion Hypocrisy

Because it starts tearing away at the moral fiber in society. Remember the counterculture, sexual, and other "revolutions" that did nothing but tear away at this country back in the 60s?

Morality exists outside religion.
 
Re: Christian Abortion Hypocrisy

Because it starts tearing away at the moral fiber in society.
MERE CLAIMS THAT HAVE ZERO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. As explained in more detail below.

Remember the counterculture, sexual, and other "revolutions" that did nothing but tear away at this country back in the 60s?
IRRELEVANT. Remember that folks in ancient Greece also complained about rebellious youths. If that kind of claimed/unproved societal degradation had actually been happening for more than 2000 years, why are most of us not living in caves? Which means your claim is provably wrong; the fraction of society that rebels does not actually tear apart the whole of society.
 
Re: Christian Abortion Hypocrisy

Obama and Clinton did not invent secularism - but that doesn't mean they've not actively introduced or inspired measures that saw the systematic elimination of God, a move that's been copied all over the world. Political correctness, is their vehicle for it.

Well, it's nice to hear you admit that god is only as powerful as his believers are unscrupulous. American theists have ignored the constitution over and over and are still enjoying the fruits of their treachery. For instance, here in Colorado, there is a stupid law that just made it through the state legislature that would require the unconstitutional, divisive and dumb national motto to be painted on the wall of every public school.

Therefore, the shameful historical incident of the motto being altered to appease anti-communist theocrats in the fifties is still creating victims. In this case, it's every parent or tax paying home owner who doesn't believe in a sky daddy. Instead of a secular school system, we'll teach our agnostic and atheist children that their religious belief doesn't count. No, we all must pander to and patronize the superstitious or face their violence and whining.

God hasn't been eliminated, He's been turned into a political football and used to cheapen everything touched by his name.
 
I am the first to say that historically men have gotten crappy treatment in the support/custody venue. I took great strides to make sure I did not do this to my ex. I saw no reason for a protracted expensive legal battle that would inevitably affect our son negatively.

I have witnessed (and put my two cents worth in) when I saw my friends do this.

Frankly, now that many of my friends are the breadwinners in their families...they are now getting similar "man treatment" It is just as wrong as when it happens to men.

That being said....as a man your biological choices have to do with conception. Once impregnated, the ultimate biological choice is the womans. If she chooses to remain pregnant, after that it is about the kid....and frankly...the taxpayers. As a taxpayer, hell if I am going to pay anything to support your child unless you help pay first.

I do not care what the woman is using for contraception...if YOU do not want to be a father...suit up.

y2l, you will find that all too often, some males who like to play the "responsibility" card will outright refuse to advocate for personal responsibility for males. Apparently we are some sort of animals that have to have vaginal intercourse--as if that were the only form of sexuality--yet we are entitled to escape the consequences of our actions.
 
Re: Christian Abortion Hypocrisy

Morality exists outside religion.
IT DOES, INDEED. But that doesn't mean it should. The word is like "treason", which traditionally meant whatever whoever-in-power wanted it to mean. It is that worthlessly arbitrary! Today the USA, at least, has a fixed/Constitutional definition of "treason", thereby preventing mis-use of the word. Too bad the same thing hasn't been done for "morals". On the other hand, at least we have "ethics", which is an entirely satisfactory alternative (except to those, of course, who want power over others kept in their hands by arbitrarily invoking "morals").
 
Back
Top Bottom