Abortion: Official discussion v.4

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by KnightWriter, Nov 5, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Espaldapalabras Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 25, 2005
    star 5

    Thank you for proving progressive liberals are just as intolerant as the crazy Evangelicals they hate so much. My religious beliefs do not preclude me or anyone else from entering the public square, and I will not check them at the door. They are an integral part of who I am, and it was exactly this kind of intolerance of the faithful that lead them to seek political power.

    If I said:
    "Sorry to say but if you want the legal argument to be taken seriously you're gonna have to find a religious Christian, because no one will believe that an atheist person really cares for the law because they believe that there are no eternal consequences to their actions/ they don't believe in the Bible."

    You would see that as bigoted against atheists, and if your minority group wants to be treated fairly, I suggest you not tell the religious majority you plan on abolishing their belief systems from public discourse until you actually have the power to do so. You can't demand equal treatment under the law while simultaneously demanding that the only valid viewpoint is the one you follow. I should start demanding you provide a Mormon scholar to verify that you are indeed not the spawn of Satan.
  2. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Thank you for proving progressive liberals are just as intolerant as the crazy Evangelicals they hate so much. My religious beliefs do not preclude me or anyone else from entering the public square, and I will not check them at the door. They are an integral part of who I am, and it was exactly this kind of intolerance of the faithful that lead them to seek political power.

    No, it really has nothing to do with ideology. Extremely religious types just aren?t entrusted with power as easily as someone with moderate views or even not religious at all. Especially among the 56% of society that still wants abortion to be legal.

    You would see that as bigoted against atheists, and if your minority group wants to be treated fairly, I suggest you not tell the religious majority you plan on abolishing their belief systems from public discourse until you actually have the power to do so.

    Actually that is what religious types have been saying to Atheists for a while now. Have you seen an Atheist elected to public office? No. Do I see churches being burned by Atheists? No. Have I personally persecuted a Christian? No, but it sounds like fun. Especially since I believe in vengeance in certain situations. Secondly, don?t tell me what I would and would not see as a bigoted statement. I see what you said as a silly statement and it made me chuckle.

    You can't demand equal treatment under the law while simultaneously demanding that the only valid viewpoint is the one you follow. I should start demanding you provide a Mormon scholar to verify that you are indeed not the spawn of Satan.

    Mmm?flame. But it?s okay, I know you hate Atheists. You?ve said as much before. So, it?s understandable. I?m not demanding any equal treatment under the law for an ideology that restricts someone else?s freedom. As such I don?t think being anti-abortion or ?pro-life? is the way to go as it limits someone else?s freedom. And personally, I don?t agree with abortions. I would never ask a person I love to have one. This is not because of some dogmatic fairy tale belief. It?s because that by asking the person I love to have an abortion I would be limiting her choice to choose whether she wants it or not.
  3. Kimball_Kinnison Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    That's funny. I seem to recall a series of highly abusive and harassing unban requests several years ago, which would fit at least some definitions of "persecution".

    You have in the past gone out of your way to be insulting, harassing, and verbally abusive towards people whose beliefs or positions differ from yours, especially in matters of religion. Last I checked, harassment was considered a form of persecution.

    Kimball Kinnison
  4. GenAntilles Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2007
    star 4
    No, it really has nothing to do with ideology. Extremely religious types just aren?t entrusted with power as easily as someone with moderate views or even not religious at all. Especially among the 56% of society that still wants abortion to be legal.

    That's why I don't trust extremely religious Atheists or Secularists. They can't be entrusted with power becuase they are to crazy. And if I recall a large percent of the United States supported slavery in the early 1800s. They even had a Supreme Court ruling that affirmed it. Apparently those Abolitionists were out of tocuh religious wack-jobs, because a majority view makes everything a-okay.

    Actually that is what religious types have been saying to Atheists for a while now. Have you seen an Atheist elected to public office? No. Do I see churches being burned by Atheists? No. Have I personally persecuted a Christian? No, but it sounds like fun. Especially since I believe in vengeance in certain situations. Secondly, don?t tell me what I would and would not see as a bigoted statement. I see what you said as a silly statement and it made me chuckle.

    You really think that is helping your side? Perhaps the reason Atheists haven't been elected is becuase people don't trust them when they hear people like you say this? In fact hearing how much you despise religious people should make anyone with common sense want you as far away from power as possible.


    Mmm?flame. But it?s okay, I know you hate Atheists. You?ve said as much before. So, it?s understandable. I?m not demanding any equal treatment under the law for an ideology that restricts someone else?s freedom. As such I don?t think being anti-abortion or ?pro-life? is the way to go as it limits someone else?s freedom. And personally, I don?t agree with abortions. I would never ask a person I love to have one. This is not because of some dogmatic fairy tale belief. It?s because that by asking the person I love to have an abortion I would be limiting her choice to choose whether she wants it or not.

    You know you don't have the freedom to do everything. You are not allowed to murder someone, you are not allowed to rape someone, you are not allowed to commit perjury. Their are a lot of things we don't have the freedom to do. We have tons of laws that limit freedom. I want an X-Box 360 but I don't have the freedom to go and take on.
  5. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    To KK: That's funny. I seem to recall a series of highly abusive and harassing unban requests several years ago, which would fit at least some definitions of "persecution".

    You have in the past gone out of your way to be insulting, harassing, and verbally abusive towards people whose beliefs or positions differ from yours, especially in matters of religion. Last I checked, harassment was considered a form of persecution.


    I know, it?s a labor of love. Really, if you want to dredge up the past which resulted from quasi-fascist policies in the Senate Floor from before, feel free to PM me and I shall most certainly clear this matter up. Otherwise leave the past in the past.

    To the Gen: That's why I don't trust extremely religious Atheists or Secularists. They can't be entrusted with power becuase they are to crazy. And if I recall a large percent of the United States supported slavery in the early 1800s. They even had a Supreme Court ruling that affirmed it. Apparently those Abolitionists were out of tocuh religious wack-jobs, because a majority view makes everything a-okay.

    Again with the slavery. Get with the program. The analogy made about as much sense as?PeTA?s ?Holocaust on your plate? campaign.

    You really think that is helping your side? Perhaps the reason Atheists haven't been elected is becuase people don't trust them when they hear people like you say this? In fact hearing how much you despise religious people should make anyone with common sense want you as far away from power as possible.

    If you can?t tell the difference between a tongue-in-cheek reply and an actually serious remark there is no hope. FAIL.

    You know you don't have the freedom to do everything. You are not allowed to murder someone, you are not allowed to rape someone, you are not allowed to commit perjury. Their are a lot of things we don't have the freedom to do. We have tons of laws that limit freedom. I want an X-Box 360 but I don't have the freedom to go and take on.

    Really? I thought that murder was legal in 75 states including Maine, Washington, and Alaska. Damn, there goes my list. Also, no stealing? How unfair! I never would have known that had you not pointed that out to me. That?s because you?re so smart.

    At any rate, limiting someone?s freedom of choice (in this case what they do to their bodies) is wrong to me. And I oppose it at every turn. I don?t like that I can?t be politically incorrect without offending someone. I hate that the average citizen cannot get drugs on demand; ditto to prostitution. I especially don?t like that I have to restrain my language in this forum, but I abide by those rules. Not easily given these sorts of replies.

    And, KK, if you want to bring up that I am somehow not living up to what I say because I support legislation that forces pharmacies to carry certain drugs and dispense with them. That?s not the same as in this case. One deals with someone not doing their job and the other deals with someone?s personal choice on how to run their life. To me, and only to me, these are different and you?ll never convince me otherwise. So, save yourself some typing.
  6. Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 17, 2000
    star 6
    HEY now,

    Can't we use the word some when dispensing generalizations like that?

    This is the problem with politics. One person goes too far, so the other side feels they have to go at least as far if not further to stand up, until finally we've got one side that thinks their opponents are giddy godless flag-burning baby-killers, while the other side thinks everyone who disagrees with them on a single issue is an inbred redneck SUV-driving religious fanatic.

    It's why almost nothing worthwhile is ever said on a talking-heads cable news show.
  7. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    It's not going too far to state an opinion. If someone wishes to be asinine and label it as part of a whole ideology then that's their problem.
  8. Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 17, 2000
    star 6
    You're right.

    Taking a massively bigoted opinion and expressing it as a definitive statement, however...


    It's absurd to suggest that a religious person can't/won't/shouldn't be taken seriously in any legal debate that involves religious issues. Would you say that a Buddhist can't argue the legal merits of the death penalty because he believes in reincarnation? Or that an orthodox Jew can't work for the FDA because he'd be biased towards what's Kosher?

    As long as the individual involved is making rational, legal arguments, that person's individual religious background should have no bearing on the debate. Unless of course you think those Founding Father guys were nuts when they installed things like Separation of Church and State and Freedom of (or from, if you prefer) Religion...
  9. Espaldapalabras Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 25, 2005
    star 5
    Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon, you are right on both counts. It is just laziness not to put all the qualifiers on the groups of people you are talking about. I actually have faith that the large majority of progressive liberals and atheists are not as extreme as FIDo. But that could just be another dogmatic fairy tale belief of mine. ;)

    If you can?t tell the difference between a tongue-in-cheek reply and an actually serious remark there is no hope. FAIL.

    Intersting for you to say this considering you actually seemed to believe I think you are the spawn of Satan.

    I know you hate Atheists. You?ve said as much before. So, it?s understandable. I?m not demanding any equal treatment under the law for an ideology that restricts someone else?s freedom.

    First of all, I don't hate atheists, I understand the viewpoint and think it makes more sense than many religions. What I do hate is militant atheists that DO in fact wish to restrict someone else's freedom, mine, by limiting my participation in lawmaking because they do not view my religious beliefs as valid. I don't care what you think of my religion, but if you had your way you would like to remove it from all public discourse and prevent me from having an equal public platform so that I would be limited in spreading my religion.
  10. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7

    Somehow you misinterpreted my opinion with actually believing the perception. You see, I said that the 56% of this country would not believe that a religious person arguing the legal case would believe that they're actually interested in the law since their beliefs are that abortion is murder. So, that puts someone's opinions under a cloud of suspicion. If you want the best, best, best proof of this look at Diz's posts. In a perfect world you'd be right. However, look at the world in which we live.
  11. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Espy, all Atheists are spawns of Satan, duh! That's why I took your comment seriously. You know, we're all here just to make Christians feel bad about their faith. I mean, what greater joy is there? Despite the fact that we have no power, no elected officials that believe as we do, and no Atheists controlling the military we shall make Christians question their faith through science by keeping it unfair to talk about ID in our schools. And the biggest blow against faith, taking prayer out of schools, yeah! See, we're evil scum like that. Forget Hitler, forget Stalin, we'll rule the day even without being elected. Huzzah! And not only that, most Atheists are liberal! Yeah! Double-whammy! And we'll ruin families magically by making gay marriage legal! And abortions on demand. All hail secularism with no power.


    /Heil science!
    //FIDo, living up to preconceived stereotypes since 2001.
    ///See sig.

  12. Quixotic-Sith Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 22, 2001
    star 6
    I've got nothing constructive to add except to say that FIDo's avatar looks like an angry Joe Camel that was sucking on a lemon.
  13. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    It's the best EU character ever (even though he was written by another egomaniac) Borsk Fey'lya. :D
  14. yuna_kenobi Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 1, 2006
    star 3
    i'm not even going to try to read the previous posts on this thread...[face_hypnotized]

    but here's the problem with abortion:

    its nothing more than a gruesome birth control, its nothing more than an alternate to taking a pill or using a condom *an exremly disturbed and nasty alternate*

    people are always whining about their rights and i just want to take them by the shoulders and scream in their face. hypocrites, everyone who claims and clamors for their right to an abortion is a filthly and vile hypocrite

    what are your rights? by claiming that you need an abortion to be happy, whole and continue on with life, you yourself claim that you have none, any of those posting on this board would not be here if our mothers had gotten an abortion, correct

    so by stating your right to an abortion, you claim that you have the right to deny an entity its life, and thereby you state that you have no right to live or exist, because an abortion kills someone. it murders the child before its born denying it any chance of living ever

    how would you have liked it if that had been done to you?
  15. Quixotic-Sith Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 22, 2001
    star 6
    The bolded section is the first problem with your post. Especially when you make bad and sweeping statements thereafter.
  16. Jediflyer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 5, 2001
    star 5
    It's always a good idea to read the previous posts in a thread. When it is as long as this one, the first page and the last 5 pages or so should generally suffice.

  17. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    If you have nothing meaningful to add, don't post.

    You know who you are, and it isn't the two people above me.

    Peace,

    V-03
  18. Obi-Wan McCartney Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    Hey Kimball aren't you banned from this thread? [face_whistling] :p
  19. Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 17, 2000
    star 6

    Is it me?
  20. yuna_kenobi Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Aug 1, 2006
    star 3
    Vaderize03 it's me

    ...bad sweeping statements...

    at least i got everyone's attention:D
  21. malkieD2 Ex-Manager and RSA

    Member Since:
    Jun 7, 2002
    star 7
    Setting fire to yourself in your town square would also get peoples attention; it wouldn't however, make them take you seriously in the slightest. Had you set out a stall in your town square and put together a few well reasoned arguements then people, while not necessarily agreeing with you, would at least take you seriously.
  22. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    No it's not you JKH :).

    The individual in question has identified themselves.

    Peace,

    V-03
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.