1 in 5 Abortion Clinics Breaking the Law.

Original post by thunder_chunky

They guy is an idiot, or just a complete dick. He believes abortions are wrong no matter what even if a woman gets raped because a child is "a gift from God" and he uses his religion to deny a sect of society the right to marry, which itself pretty pathetic.

Boo hoo. I'm in agreement with him on abortion and let's face it, I doubt he cares whether you call him an idiot or not and I bet a fair few people feel the same about you. The gift from God stuff is about how something posititve can be bought out of something evil, why not try reading the testimonies from women who did keep their children or from the children themselves, perhaps they will shatter your shallow preconceived notions. Since when has there been a right to marry? And actually, if you bother to look, he uses numerous secular arguments on the marriage front.

Reply 65

thunder_chunky

19

Original post by adamrules247

Boo hoo. I'm in agreement with him on abortion and let's face it, I doubt he cares whether you call him an idiot or not and I bet a fair few people feel the same about you. The gift from God stuff is about how something posititve can be bought out of something evil, why not try reading the testimonies from women who did keep their children or from the children themselves, perhaps they will shatter your shallow preconceived notions. Since when has there been a right to marry? And actually, if you bother to look, he uses numerous secular arguments on the marriage front.

Firstly, he may use secular arguments but it's probably fair to say that his beliefs on that issue mainly stem from his beliefs. I don't have anything wrong with religion, in fact I am religious myself. But I'm a logical, liberal Christian and I won't settle for seeing any religion being used in such a way. It is, without a doubt, narrow minded.
Some women might be glad they kept the baby after falling pregnant from rape or incest but I'm sure there are many who are not. So should we only appease those who feel good about it in the long run?

There may or may not be a right to marry but marriage seems to be "managed" as it were by law and (partially) religion, historically speaking. There should be now and always a seperation between church and state, meaning the church or any religion should have no dominating say in politics when a diverse country will be affected.
In short, if someone uses their religion and faith whilst arguing something that is and should be nothing to do with faith and more to do with common sense and facts, then they are distorting the argument.

So frankly, Mr Santorum certainly doesn't belong in the top office if he ignores the complexities and many arguments of pro or cons of abortion if his main reasoning is religion.

Reply 66

adamrules247

OP

Original post by thunder_chunky

Firstly, he may use secular arguments but it's probably fair to say that his beliefs on that issue mainly stem from his beliefs.

And.... Does that make them invalid.

I don't have anything wrong with religion, in fact I am religious myself. But I'm a logical, liberal Christian

You use the word "logical" without actually meaning logical. What you actually mean of course it that you're someone who goes along with the zeitgeist. Thus we can conclude that were you a Christian at the time of the Roman Empire you'd be fine with the mass prostitution, gladiator fights, etc.

and I won't settle for seeing any religion being used in such a way. It is, without a doubt, narrow minded.

Why not? Because you believe it's wrong? Because other people believe you're wrong. And have good arguments against you. And it's nothing to do with equality which you trumpted earlier and everything to do with wants.

Some women might be glad they kept the baby after falling pregnant from rape or incest but I'm sure there are many who are not. So should we only appease those who feel good about it in the long run?

And you are really think that something as violent as an abortion is going to make the woman feel better. Violence never fixes violence.

There may or may not be a right to marry but marriage seems to be "managed" as it were by law and (partially) religion, historically speaking. There should be now and always a seperation between church and state, meaning the church or any religion should have no dominating say in politics when a diverse country will be affected.

So your definition of secularism isn't actually secularism at all, but merely the modern definition which means that the religious shouldn't be aloud to comment on political issues. And it's never been managed by the law, merely recognised. Marriage is, of course, based within out biology and consciounce itself and perhaps, as a religious person, you'd care to look at the sexual ethics behind Mr. Santorum's stance, it would actually make a lot of sense. Catholic theology of the body is a rich and complex subject with its foundations in pheonomonology and is quite beautiful if studied properly rather than the straw man most people think it to be.

So frankly, Mr Santorum certainly doesn't belong in the top office if he ignores the complexities and many arguments of pro or cons of abortion if his main reasoning is religion.

Translation: I don't like Rick Santorum and I don't think he should be president.

Reply 67

thunder_chunky

19

Original post by adamrules247

And.... Does that make them invalid.

It taints the debate somewhat. I'm not against faith (since I have faith myself) but I believe in it's use in a "live and let live" fashion. As in, not shoving it down other people's throats and not using it to dictate your beliefs to people of a wider region even if many of those people don't believe.

You use the word "logical" without actually meaning logical. What you actually mean of course it that you're someone who goes along with the zeitgeist. Thus we can conclude that were you a Christian at the time of the Roman Empire you'd be fine with the mass prostitution, gladiator fights, etc.

Perhaps, but in a way that fits together with my political beliefs. As in, what I just said in the paragraph above.

Why not? Because you believe it's wrong? Because other people believe you're wrong. And have good arguments against you. And it's nothing to do with equality which you trumpted earlier and everything to do with wants.

No it is about equality. Marriage equality. And why not? Because I don't see why religion should have a monopoly on decision making and on morality when it comes to decision making.

And you are really think that something as violent as an abortion is going to make the woman feel better. Violence never fixes violence.

I never said it makes a woman feel better did I? Nor did I say it fixes violence. However that doesn't change the fact that a woman still might not want to keep the child which would act as a constant reminder of what how it was concieved.

Translation: I don't like Rick Santorum and I don't think he should be president.

Well I don't, and I don't, however that is a rather simplistic interpretation of my beliefs, which is that he seems to be basing it a lot on his beliefs. Which is wrong.

Reply 68

Original post by thunder_chunky

It taints the debate somewhat. I'm not against faith (since I have faith myself) but I believe in it's use in a "live and let live" fashion. As in, not shoving it down other people's throats and not using it to dictate your beliefs to people of a wider region even if many of those people don't believe.

Perhaps, but in a way that fits together with my political beliefs. As in, what I just said in the paragraph above.

No it is about equality. Marriage equality. And why not? Because I don't see why religion should have a monopoly on decision making and on morality when it comes to decision making.

I never said it makes a woman feel better did I? Nor did I say it fixes violence. However that doesn't change the fact that a woman still might not want to keep the child which would act as a constant reminder of what how it was concieved.

Well I don't, and I don't, however that is a rather simplistic interpretation of my beliefs, which is that he seems to be basing it a lot on his beliefs. Which is wrong.

So you believe that Christians should not be able to enforce their values on others if they reach positions of power due to the separation of church and state and the fact we live in a secular society? There is a difference between theocracy and using basic principles (which can be seen as the traditionalist conservative understanding of man, the family and society and are shared by believers in many different faiths and some agnostic/atheists too) to require that marriage should be based on man and woman rather than just equality or unqualified "love". I do not see that as intolerant; intolerance would be banning homosexuality or condoning bullying/hatred against gays. For abortion, I sympathise with a raped woman but if you believe in even a liberal Christianity you should accept that killing is wrong? Pluralism does not mean that everything has to be accepted if it is entirely immoral, which killing an innocent unborn child is.

Surely the Christian response would be to provide support for women who are victims of rape and build crisis pregnancy centres, encourage charities and the Church to give financial aid to new mothers in dire straits, etc. instead of allowing the unborn children to be legally killed?

Reply 69

Original post by cl_steele

you wont agree? well thats your prerogative. youre views will tansend? oh good god sir please get off this high horse you find yourself on, just because you dont like the the way the majority of the world live their lives does not make you a better person, if anything it simply makes you a washed up old dinasaur with abnoxiously conservative views that are completely unrepresentative of the 21st century.

I know quite well my views are not representative of the 21st century. That's EXACTLY WHAT I SAID, duh! That I will hold to a traditionalist view of the world not the post-modernist one and I don't care what century I live in because morality DOES NOT CHANGE OVER TIME.

The majority view changes over time and in different societies but there is 1 absolute truth which never changes. That is why I WILL NEVER accept the mainstream 21st century view on matters such as sex, family and abortion. Do you understand?

Reply 70

cl_steele

2

Original post by ScheduleII

I know quite well my views are not representative of the 21st century. That's EXACTLY WHAT I SAID, duh! That I will hold to a traditionalist view of the world not the post-modernist one and I don't care what century I live in because morality DOES NOT CHANGE OVER TIME.

The majority view changes over time and in different societies but there is 1 absolute truth which never changes. That is why I WILL NEVER accept the mainstream 21st century view on matters such as sex, family and abortion. Do you understand?

no because youre talking out your arse ... its people like you that give a bad name to christians the world over.

i think youll find morality does change over time, its subjective. the morals of the world are not dictated by a small numer of Neanderthals.

one absolute truth ... ra ra ra all you do is yap you couldnt formulate an argument if god himself asked you.

Reply 71

Original post by cl_steele

no because youre talking out your arse ... its people like you that give a bad name to christians the world over.

i think youll find morality does change over time, its subjective. the morals of the world are not dictated by a small numer of Neanderthals.

one absolute truth ... ra ra ra all you do is yap you couldnt formulate an argument if god himself asked you.

No. My definition of MORALITY is "the actually correct way for human beings to behave" or "behaviour corresponding to that." I believe with perfect faith that this is not time-based, culture-bound or subjective and there is one right thing to do in every situation, laid down by the Creator, even if we cannot always work out what it is.

Morality can also be used to describe the generally-held or generally-accepted view of a particular group of people or time period eg "Hindu ethics", "Catholic morals", "Victorian values", "medievalist morality". This does without question change over time and differ with religion, class, culture, upbringing and many other variables. However this is not what I use the word for. I use something like "social norm" or "religious doctrine" as appropriate, and "morality" only for when I am referring to the actual standard for living a good life.

I do NOT give a bad name to Christians in the eye of other morally minded Christians or in the eyes of God. I do, on the other hand, make people who agree with the mainstream views of 21st century British culture dislike my uncompromising form of Christianity. Scripture warns me that I may be hated by unbelievers but this part of MY CROSS TO BEAR. That is a sacrifice that I *will* make for standing up for what is right. As I have explained, majority views on right and wrong change over time. Many more people now believe in "situation ethics" with no absolutes. But the actual correct answer on questions such as pre-marital sex, homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, capital punishment, the role of parents in a child's life and drunkenness is immutable and unchanging. This is why I will not "move with the times"- the times don't pick what is OK and what isn't. Eternal moral realities do.

I believe that not only the Bible but the other holy books and the conscience of sensitive, conscientious people across the eras emphasise the importance of sexual purity and respect for human life. (yet it is especially hard for non-believers now as they are swimming against a hefty sociocultural current, in the same way feminists who dissent from the pro-abortion position are to be lauded for doing so due to vast, vituperative, vehement, vitriolic opposition from >90% of feminists.)

If you want to believe that it's better to kill a 23-week unborn child for career prospects than to execute a multiple murderer, that schools should be "extended" and act as a near-total institution in a child's life which teaches all the most delicate things that I think parents should be in charge of, that schools should have "approachable" senior staff who 13 year old girl pupils can confide their intimate sexual secrets to wihout parents or medics knowing, that healthcare should be proffered as a handout on the taxpayer's tab no matter how many millions you're worth, that all sexual preferences are "equally valid" and people should be allowed to MARRY without being man and wife, go ahead.
As for me, I will use my freedom of conscience and I will totally reject that view of the world. I have already said I am not one of the "sheeple". I was obviously taught the mainstream view just by the very act of living in the society that I do and more formally through my secondary schooling. I have since done my own research which favours traditionalist conservatism with a side order of theological conservatism. Going along with the paradigm consensus of the society you live in isn't smart.

To start with if everyone did that, there wouldn't be the progress you progressives love to exult in. People in the past would have said "Well, I'm a woman so I cannot vote, I cannot divorce my husband, and he beats me whenever he fancies it. But that' the culture I live in, it's 1875, so I've got to accept the norms of the 19th century. So what he does is alright. Ah well, such is life..." Some women refused to do that. They eventually got what they wanted and deserved. But before they did, they didn't just accept that their maltreatment was morally right because those were "the times." Neither will I or the people standing outside the Manchester, Brighton and London clinics as part of the highly laudable 40 Days For Life campaign.

In the interests of full disclosure, I went to a school where the three highest-ranking teachers (all female, two mothers, one with two teenage sons of her own) prided themselves on such approachability. When I had concerns about my sexual development along with family issues at the age of 11-14, one would invite me into her office and allow me to tell her absolutely everything about my then-worrying mental and physical overhaul and new fantasies. I quite enjoyed being able to explore the confidences in such minute detail with a sensitive, emotionally mature person who knew just a tiny little bit more about discretion than my classmates in the changing room. Since then I have come to believe that they should stick to teaching, the job they are paid for, and leave all that- including referral to BPAS of course- to the appropriate professionals.

Reply 72

RetiredAccount89

18

Original post by adamrules247

sad and pathetic. Boo hoo. infantile and stupid.

Wow, is this the level of debating prowess produced by Sleaford joint sixth form these days?

Why the need for constant insults to try and get your point across?

Reply 73

adamrules247

OP

Original post by Jamie

Wow, is this the level of debating prowess produced by Sleaford joint sixth form these days?

Stalker.....
Plus I haven't been there for a year.

Why the need for constant insults to try and get your point across?

They were merely humorous reflections upon my opponent's argument which is essentially what he was saying. I was merely re-stating his own argument. I'm sorry that you didn't notice that. And I'm Sorry if it bothers you that much but I note you haven't actually looked at my argument as a whole.

Reply 74

Oh, and CL STEELE- The part about "sleeping around and being impure on your wedding night"- has nothing to do with sleeping with your husband after the wedding OR being a whore. What I mean is that many people think that it's OK for people to sleep around with more than one partner BEFORE they get married, so on their wedding night they are impure as they are not virgins and have not kept their chastity intact.

Reply 75

Kibalchich

Original post by ScheduleII

Oh, and CL STEELE- The part about "sleeping around and being impure on your wedding night"- has nothing to do with sleeping with your husband after the wedding OR being a whore. What I mean is that many people think that it's OK for people to sleep around with more than one partner BEFORE they get married, so on their wedding night they are impure as they are not virgins and have not kept their chastity intact.

What is "impure" about having had sex?

Reply 76

Original post by Kibalchich

What is "impure" about having had sex?

In the sense that sexual purity refers to abiding by God's standard for sex ie not having intercourse if you are not married, or only having intercourse with your wedded husband/wife if you are.

Reply 77

Kibalchich

Original post by ScheduleII

In the sense that sexual purity refers to abiding by God's standard for sex ie not having intercourse if you are not married, or only having intercourse with your wedded husband/wife if you are.

How do you know what "God's standard" is?

Reply 78

Maker

Original post by ScheduleII

I know quite well my views are not representative of the 21st century. That's EXACTLY WHAT I SAID, duh! That I will hold to a traditionalist view of the world not the post-modernist one and I don't care what century I live in because morality DOES NOT CHANGE OVER TIME.

The majority view changes over time and in different societies but there is 1 absolute truth which never changes. That is why I WILL NEVER accept the mainstream 21st century view on matters such as sex, family and abortion. Do you understand?

When you start off having an invisible friend and then use that as the basis for the rest of your thinking, it does put it in context, you are deluded.

Reply 79