Why don't we drop this divisive crap and all join the United States?


Here, its a link to an article by someone who is NOT a Bushy and he agrees with me on this.

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vppag144041667nov14,0,4240247.story?coll=ny-viewpoints-headlines

Purple America. (http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/)

NOT SAFE FOR WORK - Chen

And for another perspective... (http://****thesouth.com/)

Disclaimer: I don't necessarily agree with the views there, but it is an admirable rant. Contains strong language.

I'm pretty purple, though maybe leaning to the dem side. Everyone loves their country, we just can't seem to agree on how to take care of it. A similar dynamic often occurs in dual parent families with children: they both want what's best for the child, but don't agree on how to make that happen.

That's ok, I've recently been labeled, how was it, "Ignorant, pompous" and I forget the other word.

The reason is simply because that is the only reason anyone would vote republican. Which sounds to me very much like, " I lost because of lag. I so pwned j00".

Besides, you get Hillary in 2008. No way she will lose, she's a Clinton. I don't think she wants to be president because she wants what is best for the country, though.

Anyway, I'm not Scottish-American, I'm American. I'm not red or blue or whatever color is chosen to represent a political party this time around (they do change up the colors). I'm just American. I understand that sometimes you don't get it "your way", I live with it.

Mostly, I'm sick of the derisiveness that is going on.

As a woman, I'm not so sure Hillary would be a good candidate. Don't get me wrong, I think she's a hella lawmaker. The problem is that there are still WAY too many people who think women aren't capable of handling positions of power, and unfortunately many of them are literate and vote.

I think we will see a black male president before we see a white female president.

As for derisiveness, it seems silly to continue it. The administration is now lame duck. They don't give a rip about whether the country supports them or not. They can't be re-elected and therefore can do whatever they want. So screaming at each other about things isn't going to do anything at all except cause stress. Personally, I'll worry about it in another 4 years when we see what our current situation progresses into.

Even though Hillary is a rather conservative Democrat, like Bill was, I think the perception of her, thanks to Rush and his ilk, is that she's uber left-wing. The republicans absolutely hated her with some sort of visceral hatred that I never really understood. Of course, she doesn't really need to woo the republicans 'cause chances are they wouldn't vote for her anyway.

I think in 4 years, when women can no longer get legal abortions, when the national deficiet ceiling has been increased a few more times (just got raised to 8.3 trillion fyi), when the environment is considerably fouled and immigration becomes an overwhelming burden on states, people might just be ready for a change.

I'm kind of surprised Hillary got voted in here in NY, so far everyone I've spoken to (Dem and Rep) hate her guts and believe that she's done nothing for NY, only taking interest in things that will further her political career (ie: good for me, not ness. good for you). I think it was an overnight "impulse buy". I really wonder if she'd survive another election process.

Hmmm... I heard that New Yorkers loved her.

Last numbers I saw are very outdated, I think she was around 50% at the time (which was her highest, I believe). I have no idea what she is at the moment, just kinda getting the "she's a carpet-bagger" vibe from most of the people that talk about her.

I don't see Hillary as electable, I don't dislike her but the democrats need an electable figure in 2008. A black male will be elected before a white female will be and both of them will most likely be republicans. A democrate black male or white female will be percieved as too liberal, even more liberal than most see democrats to begin with, and it will have nothing to do with the issues. The most electable canidates for both parties are fairly moderate, it's the only way to pull cross over and waivering voters which frankly is what an election depends on.

Perhaps the democrats should take a lead from of George Bush's campaign and campaign on their terms, fighting on their strengths. While they let the repulicans dictate the political agenda they will continue to be unelectable. They could put out their best candidate, whether it's a lesbian black woman or white male lawyer, and stop being apologetic for their own principles and liberal policies.

I hope they take your advice, Anka - It would assure another 7-10 elections would be won by conservative candidates.

Shortly after this election, a radical liberal friend of mine started repeating the Clinton/Edwards lines about how democrats need to start taking back the voters who vote based on moral values, by talking about democrats and their morals. My response? "Sounds good, but first the Democratic party is going to have to get some morals to talk about".

Democracts didnt win because of Kerrys utter lack of charisma, or because of the swift boat vets, or because of national security concerns - they lost because they are hopelessly out of touch with the morality of mainstream America.

So I hope they do follow your advice and stick to their 'prinicples' - It will save me a lot of stress around election time if they do. :)

they lost because they are hopelessly out of touch with the morality of mainstream America.
Bull. Even if Bushco had won with 70% of the popular vote, it still wouldnt be indicative of that. As it is, with a nearly even split of the vote, any definition of "mainstream" along political lines is pure fantasy.

The country is *very* divided along moral lines, Tiane. I agree.

However, there are some overwhelming common threads of morality that the vast majority of Americans agree with, issues that the radical left refuses to compromise on. If the Democrats will start compromising on these moral issues, theyll win. If they continue with this progressive/leftist/secular fundamentalist path they are currently on (the 'principle' Anka spoke of), they will continue to lose.

thus my reason for wishing that they take Ankas advice. :)

there are some overwhelming common threads of morality that the vast majority of Americans agree with, issues that the radical left refuses to compromise on.
Could you give some examples?

The country is *very* divided along moral lines, Tiane. I agree.

However, there are some overwhelming common threads of morality that the vast majority of Americans agree with, issues that the radical left refuses to compromise on. If the Democrats will start compromising on these moral issues, theyll win. If they continue with this progressive/leftist/secular fundamentalist path they are currently on (the 'principle' Anka spoke of), they will continue to lose.

thus my reason for wishing that they take Ankas advice. :)

Your problem is with painting the Democratic party as the radical left. Just as the Radical Left's problem is with painting the Republican party as the Conservative Right. Electable figures are neither radically left nor conservatively right the are very centraly moderate. A true radical would not make it to the polls nor would a true conservative for either party. If you want Far Right or Far Left to be elected you have to get out of the two party system, and we all know how well third party canidates do on a national scale.

The republican's as a whole just tend to believe what Rush and his gang says and paint all Democrats with the same Liberal brush. I'm sure some Democrats do the same to Republican's but in discussions about politics in real life it's always the Republican that throws out the Liberal tag first.

I wish that when Barbara Walter's interviewed George Jr. she had been allowed to toss the same questions at him as she did at his father, it would have been interesting to see the stanch conservative humanised.

there are some overwhelming common threads of morality that the vast majority of Americans agree with, issues that the radical left refuses to compromise on.

Abortion is a thread of morality that the radical right will never compromise on, no matter what the majority of Americans agree with. Banning abortion would be unthinkable in the UK yet in the US it is a mainstream policy, so that is one example where democrats might have opportunities to shift the political middle ground and push right wing politics to the extremes. I can't see abortion becoming a non-political issue as it is in the UK.

But abortion is probably an issue that the moderate to more liberal republicans agree with democrats on. Last time I check, about 70% of the country thought a woman should have the right to choose. Unless that's changed a lot in the last 8 years, I don't think that is an issue driving people to vote for conservative republicans, in most areas.

I think the issue that is driving conservative republicans to vote is the gay marriage thing.

I think the "abortion issue" is very dependant on what you were taught while growing up, especially during the younger years. I know that by the time the abortion issue started to really heat up, I was already in high school, so many of my perceived notions of right and wrong had good foundations (and then, being a teen meant that many of them were inflexible). Prior to that, all the abortion conversations centered around what exactly it was - not which trimester was legal/illegal, etc.

When I moved up here to NY (from TX), my roommate is Catholic (not going-every-Sunday devoted, but "sure in her faith" kind of Catholic) so her kids go to a religion class every week. Now I've actually gone to four or five "Masses" at the church, and they are much less "Bible-Belt" than the churches I visited in Texas, so in my mind these are very "moderate" people.

However, one night, me my roommate and her two kids (10 and 13) were at a pizza place eating dinner when some-how-or-another the subject came up about abortion. The 13 year old said, very adamantly, that abortion was wrong because it's murder. He said it with the confidence of a kid saying what he knew was the right answer - the type of answer that you love because you're so sure it's the right one and the one your parents/adults want to hear (you know the type - kind of like "what's 2+2?").

Me, being the Devil's Advocate, anti-religion bastard that I am, decide to question his morality on the issue. I start pegging him with questions like, "Is abortion always wrong?" (Yes) / What if the mother's under age - is it still wrong? (Yes) / What if the mother was raped - is it still wrong? (...maybe...) / What if the mother's life is in danger if she continues to carry the baby - is it still wrong? (Ummm...)

Yes, I agree it was a little vindictive, but I figure with the kind of crap that he pulls to drive me up the wall, I deserved a little payback :P But anyhow, vindictiveness aside, it was very interesting to see the reaction in this kid as a formerly black and white issue was thrown into the turmoil of grays. I felt very smug thinking that maybe I had stuck a thorn in this kid's mind not to automatically accept what teachers and adults tell you is right.

Along those lines, Stormy, its interesting to talk to people about things like stem cell research, abortion too. You ask them to think about abortion personally and how it affects them and their family... what if your 14 year old daughter is raped? What if your daughter messes around and oops... doesn't abstain? There have been so many cases I've heard of where these so-called moral family values leaders and politicians have secretly gotten abortions for their kids because they didn't want to bear the shame of their family member having a child out of wedlock.

I see all kinds of people who were formerly anti-abortion/anti-stem cell who, all of a sudden, when their loved ones or they themselves have a disease that might be cured by the research, switch sides on the issue. What's easy to sit on the side and pass abstract judgements about other people doesn't sit quite so easily when it is suddenly applied to you.

i love to hear from the 'idiot' republicans about how wonderful it is, that bush and his ilk won. as if they won too!
well, you didnt win! this country lost! we wont be served well and we will have four more years of people in power doing **** to us that you wont hear about much, because there arent enough counter controls.
so if you believe in the convservative control well good luck. the neos are your buddies.

go to fight more wars about oil and religion.
stop women from having rights over their own bodies.
keep the rich getting richer and the middle class getting smaller.
forget about the children all together.except the ones in petri dishes.
dont worry about the water or air quality.

you believe bush and his cronies are all about making your lives better? god what dumbasses you are. the republicans have ralph reed in their fold and you cant get any nuttier then him.

the republicans tried to get a provision in a bill...well, hiddened... but found and removed... to let congress have access to your irs information! for what reasons, im not sure of! but that to me is evil! but gosh, if it stops terrorism you neo fools will give up all your rights. damn idiots! and the hits will keep on coming... specially after the change over in january.

to those who arent neos.. please wake up and get aware of your rights that are under attack. forget trying to be nice to the 'christian wrong'. they dont give a **** about you. they disguise their hatred of you and your lifestyles to get elected. then they work to undermine the liberal government that are forefathers brought out of tranny.

and they are doing a great job of it. they made a man of deep character and a true patriot out to be 'the devil' incarnate. john kerry may not be the greatest person to ever run for office, but he wasnt 'evil' and for that i will hate the republicans forever.

i wish liberals were as crazy assholes as neos are. then youd see some true dirty politics. but alas. the liberals arent and they, the neos have carl rove. the most sinister asshole ive seen in my lifetime.

i have come to realize that the fight for america is now really begun. i hope others who dont like what these neos are doing in our country will start to mobilize. its not about morals, that a frigging lie fostered by the 'christian wrong'! its about 'values'. what do you value more? freedom or not. im as moral as any christian jihadist i know! i am fed up with them telling me im not. they want to protect the petri dish baby, but exucute the living , breathing soul. wrong.

they want to defend our country, by killing and invading other peoples and countries. wrong.

they want to make us safe from terrorism, by taking your liberties away. wrong.

and they won an election by making a saint out of a sinner, and by putting the 'evil' tag on a patriot. wrong.

so wake up... take a drink of coffee... and start getting involved out there... dont lose your rights because you allowed an idiot and his henchmen to win an election.

an dont try to think you can change the mind of the 'neo' . you cant... they are as indroctrinated as the whackos in the aryan nation. hjust remember they arent as strong if you hold a lite to their stupidity.

good luck in the battle for america.

wow. someone found a bug in his cheerios this morning.

No, the majority of the country believes abortion should be alllowed in the (rare to the point of being nearly nonexistent) extreme cases of rape and incest, but should not be available as a form of 'birth control' for people who just dont want to have a child.

But the Radical Left will never, ever compromise on this.

As soon as the Democratic party took the above stance, they would never lose another election. They never will, despite the fact that the majority of Americans feel this way.

No, the majority of the country believes abortion should be alllowed in the (rare to the point of being nearly nonexistent) extreme cases of rape and incest, but should not be available as a form of 'birth control' for people who just dont want to have a child.

But the Radical Left will never, ever compromise on this.

As soon as the Democratic party took the above stance, they would never lose another election. They never will, despite the fact that the majority of Americans feel this way.


The Democrats won't take the above stance because the abortion issue has very little to do with abortions and everything to do with a woman's right to make decisions about her body. It's not the governments business. If the American lawmakers were to decree a governmental health care system then they might have the right to put restrictions on what type of health care could be given.

However last I checked the same people that generally claim to be Pro-Life are also anti public health care.

Every once and a while, I'll see a fellow Texan on TV, talking about one subject or another, and sounding, quite honestly, damn foolish. Unfortunately, I've come to the conclusion that the majority of Texans should not be on TV - for they may be very bright people, but damned if that ol' IQ doesn't drop a few tens of points when that camera starts rolling. The Texan on TV may have just flown back from a mission in space, or performed neurosurgery on conjoined twins, but when they open their mouth on TV, well, they sound like they're Good Ol' Boys who just got done wrasslin' the cows back into their stocks. Years and years of progress in attempting to shed that "redneck" image are destroyed in mere minutes by two or three sentences on TV.




Anyhow, I'm sure that's how a lot of Democrats feel after the above skyer post.

No, the majority of the country believes abortion should be alllowed in the (rare to the point of being nearly nonexistent) extreme cases of rape and incest, but should not be available as a form of 'birth control' for people who just dont want to have a child.


There is absolutely no form of birth control that is 100% effective.

So what if it is used as an, extremely expensive, form of birth control? There is now the morning after pill which prevents a fertilized egg from implanting. Same kind of deal, just less hassle.

What I object to is someone's religious convictions (especially those of a particular religion) that are being made into law. And that is what this is about, making religious beliefs into law. Last I looked I lived in a country where government and religion don't interfere with one another. If I wanted otherwise, I could move to Iran.

I actually think you're quite wrong, Aldarion. I think a lot of social moderate republicans vote democrat simply because they're scared the religious right is getting too powerful and we'll start having laws made based on their religious beliefs. However, I think this election things were a little different for two reasons: 9/11 and gay rights.

No, opposing abortion does not necessarily have anything to do with religion. For some it does, for others it doesnt. The argument itself has zero to do with religion though.

If you could prove to me that there is no such thing as any God or Goddess or other supreme being, it would not change my position on abortion one bit. It is a Human Rights Issue.

Incendentally, the reason slavery was outlawed was also motivated by religious beliefs. Are you so sure its not OK to base your morality on religion? How about the religion of Secular Humanism - can we base our morality on that?

No, opposing abortion does not necessarily have anything to do with religion. For some it does, for others it doesnt. The argument itself has zero to do with religion though.


Well.... there you go. You first have to believe that an egg is human once the sperm drills through the side. I believe its a potential human, just like I believe a chicken egg, fertilized or not, is a potential chicken. And to support that belief you've got to believe that there is something mystical or spiritual that happens at that particular moment (the religious element). Which is not to say there aren't probably exceptions, I've run into a few. But by far and large, this is a religious issue, driven by religious extremists.

And to support that belief you've got to believe that there is something mystical or spiritual that happens at that particular moment
No you dont - the biological significance of fertilization is quite enough. Biologically speaking, there is zero quesion about it: fertilization is When Life Begins.
But by far and large, this is a religious issue, driven by religious extremists
...and opposed by religious extremists who adhere to a different religion, but claim that its 'not a religion so it doesnt count!"

...and opposed by religious extremists who adhere to a different religion, but claim that its 'not a religion so it doesnt count!"

Huh? Sorry, I can't decipher that one.

So, cells dividing is a good definition of life. But I have absolutely no problem taking lives (by your definition). I do it all the time. Everytime I eat in fact, I'm often participating in the taking of a "life". Everytime I swat a fly or squish a spider, or accidtenly vacuum up a dust-mite or eat a salad from my garden, I'm terminating a "life" by your definition.

Your so-called non-religious definition implies there's something sacred about this particular form of life over other forms of life. Now how do you explain that one? I presume you eat food, you probably don't subsist off of air. So how do you justify that one set of cells dividing is superior to another set of cells dividing and deserves different consideration, if it isn't a religious matter?

No, the majority of the country believes abortion should be alllowed in the (rare to the point of being nearly nonexistent) extreme cases of rape and incest, but should not be available as a form of 'birth control' for people who just dont want to have a child.

Have you statistics to back that up? There are many political issues where all sides of an argument claim they have public support. I expect most Americans are pragmatic than that and can see how unwanted pregancies ruin lives.

If you'd ever had an abortion I don't think you'd see it as just another form of birth control.

So how do you justify that one set of cells dividing is superior to another set of cells dividing and deserves different consideration, if it isn't a religious matter?
#1 no abortion ever performed in the history of abortion involved a 'clump of cells'. By the time abortions are performed, the child has a brain, genitals, hands, and a heart.

#2 youre right, I eat organisms. But those are non-human organisms. Human children in utero are indisputably human, by virtue of genetics among other things. Distinguishing between a human fetus and a mouse fetus is a trivial matter.

My position is that all living human organisms are equally deserving of protection.
If you'd ever had an abortion I don't think you'd see it as just another form of birth control.
Well, a hell of a lot of abortions are first abortions. These women dont really know what theyre doing, and do see it as simply birth control. And the rabid pro-abortion agencies like Planned Parenthood wont tell them the truth, they feed them misinformation like 'clump of cells' and 'its your body' (both objectively false).

If every woman who had an abortion was required by law to view the dead fetus that resulted, preferably while itw as still wriggling and gasping for air, we would see an overnight reduction in second abortions by something close to 100%.

Theres a reason why abortion lobbyists get so pissy when pro-lifers show pictures of human children in utero -- their positon relies on biological ignorance, and showing pictures, showing evidence, shows their position for the farce it is.

No you dont - the biological significance of fertilization is quite enough. Biologically speaking, there is zero quesion about it: fertilization is When Life Begins.

But the vast majority of humans have no issue with taking life. We do so every day. Its the taking of sentient life which we find abhorrent. A fertilzed egg isn't sentient. Indeed a viable claim could be made that an infant isn't truly sentient until some time after birth. I suggest we stick to the easily identifiable claim that life begins upon birth. Not some undetermined period prior, nor some undetermined period after.

And Aldarion, this "Secular Humanism" you spout off about isn't a religion.

Stop trying to bandy about propoganda.

No, the majority of the country believes abortion should be alllowed in the (rare to the point of being nearly nonexistent) extreme cases of rape and incest, but should not be available as a form of 'birth control' for people who just dont want to have a child.
Your phrasing is loaded with bias. Here is a summary of some polls I found on the Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/) web site. I'm guessing that they are a bit more objective.

Poll: What Do You Consider Yourself? (Oct. 24-26, 2003)
48% consider themselves "pro-choice"
45% consider themselves "pro-life."

Poll: Circumstances in Which Abortion Should Be Legal (Oct. 24-26, 2003)
26% - legal under any circumstances
14% - legal under most circumstances
40% - legal only in a few circumstances
17% - illegal in all circumstances

Poll: Preference for Abortion Laws (Jan. 12-15, 2004)
20% - less strict
40% - remain the same
37% - more strict
3% - no opinion

Quite frankly, as Aldarion admits, the goal of restricting abortion rights is to punish people for having consensual sex. It's the only way to reconcile the stance that abortion is permissible in cases of rape and incest, etc., but not otherwise.

People are still so screwed up about sex, period.....

People are still so screwed up about sex, period.....

only in the united states and, if you can believe it, the middle east.

If every woman who had an abortion was required by law to view the dead fetus that resulted, preferably while itw as still wriggling and gasping for air, we would see an overnight reduction in second abortions by something close to 100%.

If everyone who was against abortion was forcibly made to adopt a new born child and made to care for it, whether they were college students, newly weds wanting their own families, couples about to divorce, unemployed, homeless, terminally ill, or career minded, I think some might change their minds too.

Aidon - of course it is, dont be absurd. Any child can tell you this much - a philosophy which makes a claim about God, whether that claim is "There is only one god" or "God has no place in politics" is a religion.

Sirocco - Get thee behind me, Troll. When you have a statement with some minimum level of logical merit, we can talk again.

Anka - half my family is adopted - born to mothers who according to your side 'should have aborted' them because of trivial financial issues. I will be adopting, myself, once I am in a positon to do so.

Klath - I've viewed that poll, and the way they phrased the questions was extremely biased in favor of abortion. HOWEVER, even with such ludicrously biased phrasings, STILL your own data shows that 71% of respondents believe abortion should be restricted. That is a Screaming signal, a Massive majority.

Klath - I've viewed that poll, and the way they phrased the questions was extremely biased in favor of abortion. How so?

HOWEVER, even with such ludicrously biased phrasings, STILL your own data shows that 71% of respondents believe abortion should be restricted. That is a Screaming signal, a Massive majority.
So what? I consider myself to be pro-choice and even I believe there should be some restrictions.

"the abortion issue" is the main reason that the 'christian wrong' likes to feel they are superior. they have killed doctors, they have accosted women, they are willing to do anything to promote their agenda.
they have gained control of our government and they will now create a totally devasting enviornment for women, the medical profession, the courts and all of us in so many ways.

plz, dont be ridiculous... abortion is all about religion! and stop making up lies about how it is used as a birth control. how many women do you know , who have or would want to have mutiple abortions? stop making up lies to further your religous bent.

answer these questions if you can...

first...if abortion is illegal.. who will be in jail and for how long! the doctor? the mother? the person who drove the women to the doctor? the parents who knew and hid it from the police? ( damn you fools, you want to criminalize this without any thought!)

second... who will be the health provider(s) of the unwanted children? you? your tax dollars? the 'christian wrong'?

and last... will you be at the courthouse of the people arrested ,throwing the 'first' proverbial stone at these criminals?

you so called pro lifers make me sick... you are the least moral people i have met in my life, because you lie to make people think you have 'higher' morals than most! and people who want to try to see both sides are just playing into your stupidity.

i have not, nor never would promote abortion. but ill never want to control another persons bodily functions. but then you dont have the mental capacity to understand that! you only want to believe your lies. this country doesnt want abortion to be popular, but it doesnt want it to be illegal, but now it soon could become illegal, and you all who are not pro-lifers should stand up and fight against those who would make women slaves to the small minority of religous zealots.

if this is too strong for you to swallow... oh well... life isnt easy. get use to it.

Aidon - of course it is, dont be absurd. Any child can tell you this much - a philosophy which makes a claim about God, whether that claim is "There is only one god" or "God has no place in politics" is a religion.


By definition, religion is the service and worship of God or the supernatural.

Any child can tell you that much. At least any child who isn't secretly a xenophobe trying to impose his religious beliefs on others, through rather poor attempts at sophistry.

Sirocco - Get thee behind me, Troll. When you have a statement with some minimum level of logical merit, we can talk again.

His statement had as much logical merit as any of the thinly disguised christian fundamentalistic arguments you've been spouting.

Anka - half my family is adopted - born to mothers who according to your side 'should have aborted' them because of trivial financial issues. I will be adopting, myself, once I am in a positon to do so.

As one so familiar with adoption, then, you should fully realize that there are a great number of children who don't get adopted...and financial issues are not trivial. People should not be punished by a lifetime of hardship because a person got pregnant when it was not financially feasible. People meaning the parents and the child.

Klath - I've viewed that poll, and the way they phrased the questions was extremely biased in favor of abortion. HOWEVER, even with such ludicrously biased phrasings, STILL your own data shows that 71% of respondents believe abortion should be restricted. That is a Screaming signal, a Massive majority.

The majority isn't always right. We have a system which strongly stands for the protection of the minority from the abusive hand of the majority.

We are not a society where the majority rules unfettered. We never have been.

Sirocco - Get thee behind me, Troll. When you have a statement with some minimum level of logical merit, we can talk again.

Sorry, Aldarion, you have no room for insults. And I'll lay out the logic for you, since your blinders are on so tight you can't see beyond your retina. The logic is clear: if you believe that life begins at conception, then life begins at conception. And if you believe that protecting that life is of paramount importance, then it makes no difference how it was conceived. The fetus itself is an innocent a lifeform in any case, regardless of whether it was conceived in or out of wedlock, by incest, consensually or by rape. (And I do respect the viewpoint of those who are consistent in their approach on this topic. I may not agree with them, but I respect them.)

I have no respect for your viewpoint. Your posts are replete with your true intent: the punishment of consensual sex. Be honest and admit it, at least.


I consider myself to be pro-choice and even I believe there should be some restrictions.

I also consider myself to be pro-choice, and I also believe that there should be some restrictions. It is silly, IMO, to consider a fetus one minute before breach to be somehow legally distinct or different from one one minute after birth (this is why the partial birth abortion ban is a losing topic for pro choice folks, just on a gut level...I can accept a late-term partial birth abortion to protect the life of the mother, but that's about it). But I don't attach the same emotional, ethical, or legal significance to a 2 month old fetus as I do to one at 8 or 9 months.

The problem is that there is no bright line in between. Which is why I think Roe v. Wade was probably as close to a reasonable compromise as humans can reach on the issue.

[Im editing out some borderline insults.]
I have no respect for your viewpoint. Your posts are replete with your true intent: the punishment of consensual sex. Be honest and admit it, at least.

I have no issues with consensual sex, youre being absurd, Its a lovely strawman, but has no relation to the argument I make. I stated my position quite clearly above, and youre sitting there ripping holes in an argument someone else made on some other board sometime. Human beings, regardless of their stage of development, are worthy of protection. Period. Where you are getting these so-called inconsistencies from, I would love to know. QUOTE ME. Show me where I was inconsistent. Put up, or shut up.
The logic is clear: if you believe that life begins at conception, then life begins at conception. And if you believe that protecting that life is of paramount importance, then it makes no difference how it was conceived.
Correct. Now you show me where I said differently.

In all seriousness, Scirocco, I know youre more intelligent than that. Discuss what I have actually said, not something you heard someone say once on some other board. because your replies to me this far have been utterly 100% misdirected.

Aidon,
By definition, religion is the service and worship of God or the supernatural.
I'll just assume you can use a dictionary as well as I can, and leave it at that. You're wrong - Secular Humanism is a religion, and there are Secular Fundamentalists just as there are Christian Fundamentalists. neither is in any special position where they can lord it over the other - this is the very essence of the First Amendment: that all religious and /or philosophical worldviews are equal in the eyes of the law, and no one such philosophy or religion can be enshrined as the official state view OR prohibited from taking part in the government.

--Question -- Is Skyer really banned? I dont know whether to respond to his hatemongering or not. (And yes, Im aware that by engaging a moderator in this manner I'll likely join Skyer in the Land of the Banned. but it was such blatant trollery, what else could I do?)

Anka - half my family is adopted - born to mothers who according to your side 'should have aborted' them because of trivial financial issues. I will be adopting, myself, once I am in a positon to do so.

Adoption is a wonderful act and I'm glad your family were so generous to those children. However they will have chosen times in their lives to adopt, just as you said you will choose the correct time as well. You probably will not be adopting while you are in education or college, when you are out of work, or when you or your partner are seriously ill, or if you weren't in a stable relationship. That's all quite correct in fairness to yourself and the child, but pregnancy does not make that distinction.

I'll just assume you can use a dictionary as well as I can, and leave it at that. You're wrong - Secular Humanism is a religion

Calling a rose a daffodil doesn't make it a daffodil. Secular Humanism is not a religion.

this is the very essence of the First Amendment: that all religious and /or philosophical worldviews are equal in the eyes of the law, and no one such philosophy or religion can be enshrined as the official state view OR prohibited from taking part in the government.

This is the most offensive attempt to usurp the 1st Amendment I've ever seen. The suggestion that a seperation of church and state and the legality of practices your religious beliefs disallow is contrary to the Amendment which is meant to protect the minority from the religious beliefs of the majority leaves a very bitter taste in my mouth.

i think that maybe a pro-choice vs pro-mywayorthehighway discussion is a little heavy for these boards...

SOOOOBBBBEEEEE!!!!!

Well, a hell of a lot of abortions are first abortions. These women dont really know what theyre doing, and do see it as simply birth control.

I can't believe you typed that up and hit SUBMIT..

These women dont really know what theyre doing, and do see it as simply birth control.

Somewhere in that whole equation is a man who got her pregnant. Interesting how abortion is always the woman's fault. More interesting now that you have insulted all women who have abortions.

Obviously you've never had an abortion. I can safely assure you that if you've ever had to make that decision, and ever had the procedure performed, you would not think to yourself "gee, this is a nice easy form of birth control" nor would you treat it as such.

And because you seem so slow on the uptake, let me remind you of how things used to be before abortion was legal. Women would self abort. Many would die of internal hemorrhaging because they could not seek medical help. Back alley abortions lead to infections and hemorrhaging which also killed women. If we make it illegal again, that does not mean it will stop. I believe every woman I know knows how to chemically abort a pregnancy. It makes the woman horrendously ill, and she will not be able to seek medical attention, and could die from doing it.

So let's put this in your "all life is sacred" light. We can leave abortion legal. Or we can make it illegal and having abortions will kill not only the fetus but the mother as well. So instead of losing one life, two are lost. Doesn't seem very "pro-life" to me, as a matter of fact, it seems pretty inhumane. Good on ya for wanting to see the mother die too.

Abortions will NOT go away. Making them illegal, as was in the past, will only make the procedures significantly more dangerous than before, as it was in the past.

Correct. It's all about punishment.

I'll just assume you can use a dictionary as well as I can, and leave it at that. You're wrong - Secular Humanism is a religion, and there are Secular Fundamentalists just as there are Christian Fundamentalists. neither is in any special position where they can lord it over the other - this is the very essence of the First Amendment: that all religious and /or philosophical worldviews are equal in the eyes of the law, and no one such philosophy or religion can be enshrined as the official state view OR prohibited from taking part in the government.

Just curious, which dictionary are you using that doesn't include beliefs in the supernatural as part of definition of religion?

And your use of fundamentalism is so far removed from reality it elicts guffaws. Fundamentalism is a religious movement, how can you even apply it to secularism?

Dear, you need to learn the difference between philosophy and religion. They are not the same thing.

funˇdaˇmenˇtalˇism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fnd-mntl-zm)
n.
A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
Adherence to the theology of this movement.

Speaking of inerrancy of scripture, biblical literalism is such an easy target.

Taken literally, the Bible says the earth is flat, cannot be moved and sits on pillars.

Take literally, the Bible says the sun moves around the earth, not the other way around.


In fact, those who insist on inerrancy are probably committing the heretical sin of biblioatry: http://www.newreformation.org/heresy3.htm

Isn't religion fun? :)

BTW, I am aware of the literalists who try to argue that the language in the Bible is equivocal, and does not unequivocally state that the "earth is flat." And that the reference to "pillars" is metaphor. Of course, by admitting that the language is equivocal and metaphorical, they've already lost the main argument.

#1 no abortion ever performed in the history of abortion involved a 'clump of cells'. By the time abortions are performed, the child has a brain, genitals, hands, and a heart.

#2 youre right, I eat organisms. But those are non-human organisms. Human children in utero are indisputably human, by virtue of genetics among other things. Distinguishing between a human fetus and a mouse fetus is a trivial matter.


#1: You're just wrong. The "abortion pill" does exactly that. Are you ok with the abortion pill? Most women know within 5 weeks whether or not they're pregnant. Not all, because many of us don't have regular menses.

You're also contending that a fetus, because it has developed some characteristics that look human, is fully human, which I think is nonsense. It isn't that black and white. A 12 week old fetus can't possibly survive. It can't vote, it can't even breath. It simply won't survive until it is developed enough in brain, lungs and those inside things you can't see on a picture. IMO is doesn't need to be accorded rights as a human being until it can survive outside the womb.

#2 If you kill other living things, never mind that they're fully grown and not embryonic, what is the thing that, to you, distinguishes between the okayness of killing a fully grown steer for dinner, and the not-okayness of killing a 12 week embryo that doesn't even have the brain development, intelligence, awareness, pain sensitivity of a bovine?

I'm betting that what you won't admit to is the belief that the embryo has a soul and that is why.

BTW: I am pro-choice but also think there need to be limitations on abortion, just like everyone else. It shouldn't be allowed late term unless a mother's life is at risk.

We are not a society where the majority rules unfettered.

Thank (insert deity/leader of your choice) for that!

/echo Mannwin

This is the most offensive attempt to usurp the 1st Amendment I've ever seen.
No, its the correct interpretation. Im sorry if it leaves a bitter taste in your mouth.
Just curious, which dictionary are you using that doesn't include beliefs in the supernatural as part of definition of religion?
Are Buddhism and Daoism religions? Yes or no.

many religions include belief in a higher power - not all. The defining characteristic about a religion is that it makes a statement about a higher power. Athiesm (there is no god), Secularism (God has no place in society or politics), and Christianity (Jesus is God) are all religions.
#1: You're just wrong.
I was referring to surgical abortions. You're correct about the abortion pill. I was unclear.
If you kill other living things, never mind that they're fully grown and not embryonic, what is the thing that, to you, distinguishes between the okayness of killing a fully grown steer for dinner, and the not-okayness of killing a 12 week embryo that doesn't even have the brain development, intelligence, awareness, pain sensitivity of a bovine?

Because its human, and the cow is a cow. Prove to me there is no such thinga ss a soul, and it wont change my answer -- I value human beings more than any other lifeform.
Abortions will NOT go away. Making them illegal, as was in the past, will only make the procedures significantly more dangerous than before, as it was in the past.
Currently, 1 million American children are killed by abortion every year. Assuming even a ridiculously large percentage of these women had illegal abortions (lets say 10%), and assuming furtehr that all these women died (again, a ridiculously conservative assumption), we've still reduced the deaths by 90%.

In reality, the number would be far lower.

And of course, this sidesteps the whole question of making laws in the first place given a lack of perfect enforcement. I mean, rape is illegal too, and yet it happens. Does this mean we should un-ban rape? it just doesnt make sense to remove a law based on an imperfect ability to enforce it.

Scirocco -- Why do you eat babies?

(Hey, if youre going to spew nonsense, I will too).

Are Buddhism and Daoism religions? Yes or no.

many religions include belief in a higher power - not all. The defining characteristic about a religion is that it makes a statement about a higher power. Athiesm (there is no god), Secularism (God has no place in society or politics), and Christianity (Jesus is God) are all religions.


I still want you to show me where you found a definition of religion that doesn't include belief in the supernatural or spiritual.

Yes, Buddhism is a religion. Buddhists don't necessarily believe in a god, from my limited understanding, but they believe in the supernatural and spiritual things. Both fall under the definition of a religion.

I haven't heard of Daoism but if it includes a belief in supernatural or spiritual things then it is a religion as well.

Secularism rejects the belief in the supernatural or spiritual. Therefore it isn't a religion.

Ok, looked up Daoism. Yes it is also a religion:

Lao-zi revered the spirit of the valley as the mystic female that never dies and is the root of heaven and earth. The wise are humble like water, which flows to the lowest level; yet they come near the way.

In their dwellings, they love the earth.
In their hearts, they love what is profound.
In their friendship, they love humanity.
In their words, they love sincerity.
In government, they love peace.
In business, they love ability.
In their actions, they love timeliness.
It is because they do not compete
that there is no resentment.1

Moderation is taught, as extremes of wealth and honor cannot be kept safe or lead to a downfall. Heaven's way is to withdraw as soon as one's work is done. Lao-zi asked if one can concentrate one's vital force to be gentle like a baby, attain mystic clarity, love people and govern the state without interfering, play the female in opening the doors of heaven, and understand all without using the mind. Mystical virtue gives birth and nourishes without taking possession, acts without obligation, and leads without dominating. The usefulness of things is found in the freedom of their empty spaces. The way is invisible, inaudible, and intangible. The wise go beyond the senses and satisfy the inner self. Troubles come from being selfish. Those who value the world as themselves may be


Obviously issues like life-after-death fits the definition of spiritual or supernatural, since you have to believe there is a "spirit" that lives after the body dies.

I don't think there's much room for debate. By definition, religion involves worship of the godly, unworldly, spiritual, or supernatural. Secularism involves no worship of any form and is a social doctrine in the same manner as communism or capitalism, none of which are religions.

it just doesnt make sense to remove a law based on an imperfect ability to enforce it.

Not at all, a pragmatic approach is needed. If laws are unenforcable and popularly flouted they are become open to abuse. This is one lesson to be learnt from the US prohibition era. In these cases a more suitable law that has the support of a larger community should be introduced that is enforcable.

I would personally even support the licensing of brothels on that basis, even though I in no way support prostitution. It would remove criminality, provide taxes, and provide security and health care for the people involved. It would make it easier for the police to target slave traders, illegal immigrants, and child prostitutes too. Given that prostition is the oldest profession and no laws in human history have ever prevented it, the problem isn't going to go away. I acknowledge that most people wouldn't agree but there you go. There's no point in denying it exists and that laws are unable to prevent it.

I acknowledge that most people wouldn't agree but there you go.

I'm not exactly "most people", but I do agree with you on this. In addition to the reasons you mentioned, in places where brothels ARE legal, most of the brothels have a kind of basic acceptance level. The women are usually tested for STDs, the clients required to wear condoms (for PUBLIC health reasons). Many of the brothels have very strict employment agreements in regards to drug usage. And in those areas where licensed brothels exist, prostitution outside of those licensed brothels is heavily cracked down on (for all the reasons you and I listed above, public health being a biggie and drug trade being another biggie).

It can be extremely damaging to have laws that can't be enforced well. For instance, the drug law in the US foster the illegal drug trade and all the crime that goes along with it not to mention the users of drugs who spend years of their life in prisons when they might have been able to participate in society, pay taxes, lead reasonable lives, if they weren't in prison, yes even if they are drug users.

Imagine if, as in the prohibition, booze was illegal. The crime and the people going to jail from drinking would be crazy. Smoking cigarretes is the same.

You can only make laws that people will mostly agree to follow and support.

For instance, there was a county in Georgia where the sheriff was cracking down on farmers raising pot in their fields when other sheriff's had looked the other way. They're poor farmers and this is how they make a little cash. Well, guess what? The sheriff didn't get reelected and the new sheriff looked the other way. :D

No, its the correct interpretation. Im sorry if it leaves a bitter taste in your mouth.

When you suggest its the correct interpretation, it makes me very glad there is a seperation of church and state...for people of your ilk would be forcing people of my ilk to pray to the "good lord Jesus" in school, before court proceedings, and before I voted.

Are Buddhism and Daoism religions? Yes or no.

No, they are not. They are philosophies.

Most Buddhists are Buddhists in conjunction with another religious belief, as I understand it (i.e. both Buddhists and followers of Shinto or Hindu).

many religions include belief in a higher power - not all. The defining characteristic about a religion is that it makes a statement about a higher power.

No, you are wrong. The defining characteristic about a religion is that it believes in a higher power or powers. Ultimately, the defining characteristic is that there is faith in something that cannot be proven to exist.

Athiesm (there is no god), Secularism (God has no place in society or politics), and Christianity (Jesus is God) are all religions.

Hmm, I'm so glad you attempt to tell me what my religion is. I'm very much a Secularist when it comes to our society. I am, however, Jewish. I believe in my God. I have faith that he exists and effects our lives. What I do not believe, however, is that our Government has any right to involve my God, or any God, in its workings. There are plenty of countries where a person can go if they wish to live in a nation which permits specific religious beliefs in their governing policies. And I have no problem with them doing so, as a general rule. I'll be damned, however, if I'll let you Goyim turn this great nation, which permits the freedom of religion and guarantees a seperation of Church and State, into a potentially hostile Christian nation.


Currently, 1 million American children are killed by abortion every year.

You expect me to believe any statement which suggests children are killed by abortion? By definition, children can't be killed by abortion.

The topic of this has changed, but I wanted to comment about the religious and state aspect.

I beleive that government should not dicate religion one way or another. However, I see things going toward state sanctioned secularism. Which, to me, is just as wrong as state sanctioned catholisism, or islam, or whatever other religion might be around.

Exactly what do you mean by state-sanctioned secularism?

When a nation is home to widespread religious beliefs...what other course is feasible other than secularism?

We have monotheistic religions. We have polytheistic religions. We have animistic religions.

However, I see things going toward state sanctioned secularism. Which, to me, is just as wrong as state sanctioned catholisism, or islam, or whatever other religion might be around.

I think it is now a defined human right for people to follow their religion and I can't see that being removed. Assuming that a secular state allows people of all religions to practise their faith, but has no ties between religion and government, what do you fear from state secularism?

Quite frankly, I never believed that anyone should be forced to have an abortion or force to have a baby (by default, making me pro-choice). What it comes down to is that I have my doubts about the whole "humanity" thing, so seeing both the good side and the seemingly more predominant down side, I've found that most people will not rise out of their surroundings. For each person who's a success story "out of the ghetto," there's ten or more who stayed (or got into worse situations). Most abortion statistics I've seen showed that the majority of women who got abortions were from poor families - and several were "repeat customers."

When a woman wants an abortion, she is owning up to the fact that she cannot support a child after or during birth or does not want to. Despite the fact that pro-lifer's will say over and over that adoption centers will take children from mothers who don't wish to keep their children, they never release information about percentages of children who end up in broken homes or stuck in foster care. In other words, just because the parent gives the child up for adoption, there is no "happily ever after" clause. In addition, due to the living conditions of the mother, and extraneous influences like drugs or alcohol, many of the children end up with mental or physical deformities - again limiting their appeal to adoptive families (and yes, while there are many people with big hearts who will adopt a child with medical problems, the majority will not). Nor is state care for these types of children is not exactly stellar (you can easily Google many reports about this statistic) and many kids end up neglected and perpetually stuck in government hospitals - the lucky ones will be bounced from foster home to foster home - they might even get really lucky and get a family that cares about them, instead of just the government stipend. If you want to talk healthcare issues, think about if those supposed 1 million abortions per year were born. That's 1 million children with no medical coverage and years of government supported programs in their future. Plus, even if the child is "scheduled" to be adopted, no one pays the mother during her pregnancy - many women in good paying jobs have the option to take a few weeks to a few months off before and after giving birth. Assuming the soon-to-be mother even has a steady job, it's probably not one that gives maternal leave.


Forced vasectomy's for fathers and something along the lines of tubal ligation for women make more sense than trying to stop abortions. Two strikes policy - one abortion is ok, repeat customers are "clipped" (not including scenarios like rape, physical danger to the mother, and other extreme situations).

I beleive that government should not dicate religion one way or another. However, I see things going toward state sanctioned secularism.
Could you give some examples? I can think of numerous cases in schools where science butts heads with religion -- is this the sort of thing you mean?

The government is supposed to be secular, Bap. The framer's of the constitution made sure that:

1) Government doesn't dick around with your religions
2) Religions don't dick around with the government

It's a good arrangement. We don't need to change that.

No, Panamah, youre misinterpreting the Constitution. We have a seperation of Church (an organization) and State (an organization), NOT an seperation of religious individuals and their ideals, and the government. The goal was NEVER to remove religious thought from politics, but to prevent what happened in England with the Anglican Church - that is, a Church was made the official church of the country, and was an official state-mandated religion.

Despite Aidons protests to the contrary, Secularism is very much a religion, and should be treated equally with all other religions, NOT instituted as the official state sanctioned religion.

what other course is feasible other than secularism?
Pluralism, Multiculturalism. Treat ALL religions equally.

Stormhaven, I'd support mandatory tubal ligations for women who have abortions as a good way to reduce the number of abortions.

I take issue with your 'happily ever after' bit, though. No one is guaranteed a happy life -- we are guaranteed the right to pursue happiness, a right that every orphan and foster child has. Do they have disadvantages? Absolutely, I know this first hand. But they can still pursue happiness, and in many, many cases, find it.

The Constitution guarantees "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". The abortion tradeoff is this: we must weigh two opposing sets of rights -- the mothers right to liberty, and the childs right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I am not pretending that it is an easy and carefree choice -- I am claiming that the rights being removed from the child are more important, not because it is a child, but because the rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness trump the right to liberty.

/clap
You approve of forced tubal litigation but not forced vascetomies :whistle: yep liberated male there!

Enough with the contention that secular humanism is a religion! Repeating something over and over doesn't make it true.

If you want to know what our fore founders thought of separation of church and state, perhaps you should read some of their writings.

Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and many other framers of the constitution have written extensively about what the separation of church and state meant to them.

Here's just one quote from Jefferson, who was a fairly devote guy. He put some religious stuff in the Declaration that Ben Franklin edited out.

Reading, reflection and time have convinced me that the interests of society require the observation of those moral precepts only in which all religions agree (for all forbid us to steal, murder, plunder, or bear false witness), and that we should not intermeddle with the particular dogmas in which all religions differ, and which are totally unconnected with morality (Letter to J. Fishback, 1809).


I'd disagree that moral precepts come from religion, I think they're part of being human, but his notion was that you make laws about common ethics and don't make laws regarding something one religion holds as moral but others don't. That pretty much fits the modern day abortion debate.

But the signers of the constitution were all over the place on religion, as they were even over whether or not democracy was a good thing.

However, its up to our courts to decipher the constitution and generally they view "intermeddling with particular dogmas" as something the government should not do.

Ndainye, the reason I didnt mention vasectomies is that you usually cannot know who the father was under current social/legal circumstances. You cant make the mom tell you even if she knows, and you cant make the father claim any responsibility unless the child is born.

In an ideal world, the man and the woman both have equal responsibilities and rights when it comes to their opffspring.

I think every guy who gets a girl pregnant and then encourages her to get an abortion should be given a vasectomy too. I didnt mention it because its impossible to enforce - not just hard to enforce, not just impractical, but impossible under current conditions.

Give it up, this isnt an anti-women thing, its a pro-life thing.

Enough with the contention that secular humanism is a religion! Repeating something over and over doesn't make it true.
Right back at ya :) You and Aidon can keep claiming its not - that doesnt change the reality that it is.

As far as Im concerned, that part of the debate ended when Aidon claimed Buddhism and Daoism arent religions. Since they obviously ARE religions, it is clear that his and your definition needs some refining.

And for the record, Panamah, I agree with you that the law should reflect the union of differing religious moralities, and remain silent on the parts where they disagree. Therefore theft should remain illegal, and homosexual sex should remain legal.

But the vast majority of religions agree that killing babies is a bad thing. the only reason that there remains disagreement about the abortion issue among religions is that biological ignorance is hard to overcome - just as for a long time people didnt believe the germ theory of disease because they didnt see germs with their naked eyes, so many people cling to the biologically ignorant viewpoint that a fetus is not a baby because they cannot see it.

Given a sufficient degree of biological knowledge, the wrongness of abortion will be apparent to all religions. In a hundred years or so, abortion wont happen anymore, and our grnadchildren will look back on these days like we look back on the days of slavery.

I see what we have here are:

1) We can't agree to disagree on anything and those who don't believe the speaker are in the wrong and/or just plain ignorant.

2) red/blue states are just the beginning. This country is tearing itself apart with intolerance.

just as for a long time people didnt believe the germ theory of disease because they didnt see germs with their naked eyes, so many people cling to the biologically ignorant viewpoint that a fetus is not a baby because they cannot see it.

I'd love to hear your opinion on birth control pills.

I'd support mandatory tubal ligations for women who have abortions as a good way to reduce the number of abortions.


So if I'm raped more than once (which is not inconceivable btw, and I am living proof of that) and have more than one (or two) abortions, the government should rape me again with a mandatory tubal ligation. Would there be any allowances for incest pregnancies? Or should girls who are raped by their male relatives repeatedly over the course of several years just be forced to have a mandatory tubal ligation as well. Hey, the incest won't stop, but at least she's not getting pregnant (quite possibly encouraging the incest to continue).

I'm glad you're not in charge.

Give it up, this isnt an anti-women thing, its a pro-life thing.

Sure is. You're pro-woman, pro-life as long as YOU control what the woman does with her life and her body. We could always just socially regress a hundred years or so while we're at it and women could be the property of their husbands or fathers, then there wouldn't be any debate. The husband or father could force the woman to get an abortion (which has been going on since at least the time of Shakespeare, and is mentioned in at least one of his plays "What woman? Don't tell me you don't know of an old woman with a stick!") That would be much better.

but to prevent what happened in England with the Anglican Church - that is, a Church was made the official church of the country, and was an official state-mandated religion.

No I think you've got the wrong interpretation there too. The creation of the Anglican church facilitated the removal of Catholic influence on the English monarchy, specifically the Pope's refusal to grant a divorce to Henry VIII. The dissolution of the monasteries aimed to redistribute wealth and power rather than enforce a new religious ideology. There was no concept of a secular state at the time. Twenty years after Henry VIII broke away from the vatican, catholic Queen Mary became queen, suceeded by the anglican/protestant Elizabeth I, suceeded by James I the son of the catholic Mary Queen of Scots. James united anglican England and catholic Scotland. I don't think any religion was ever fully proscribed in that period, despite Queen Mary doing a lot of nasty things to protestants.

The goal was NEVER to remove religious thought from politics,

Any democratic nation provides a way for religious people to influence politics, using their religious values or any other values they like. It's called a vote. It has nothing to do with the any link between state and religion.

No, Panamah, youre misinterpreting the Constitution. We have a seperation of Church (an organization) and State (an organization), NOT an seperation of religious individuals and their ideals, and the government. The goal was NEVER to remove religious thought from politics, but to prevent what happened in England with the Anglican Church - that is, a Church was made the official church of the country, and was an official state-mandated religion.

Despite Aidons protests to the contrary, Secularism is very much a religion, and should be treated equally with all other religions, NOT instituted as the official state sanctioned religion.


Pluralism, Multiculturalism. Treat ALL religions equally.

All religions are treated equally. No religion should be permitted to have direct influence on our governmental system.

However, your definition of equality seems to be "let my religion make the rules because there are more of us and we are morally better than you".



Stormhaven, I'd support mandatory tubal ligations for women who have abortions as a good way to reduce the number of abortions.

...wow. Just wow. Thank god for the Bill of Rights, people like you are scary. Does the phrase Cruel and Unusual Punishment mean anything to you?



The Constitution guarantees "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". The abortion tradeoff is this: we must weigh two opposing sets of rights -- the mothers right to liberty, and the childs right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I am not pretending that it is an easy and carefree choice -- I am claiming that the rights being removed from the child are more important, not because it is a child, but because the rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness trump the right to liberty.

For the love of god, quit spouting this propaganda about the rights of children. Children are not allowed to be killed by their mothers. Unborn beings are not children. They aren't born yet.

As for rights trumping rights, who are you to say one person's right to liberty and the persuit of happiness is greater than anothers?

...Not some undetermined period prior, nor some undetermined period after.


That is as arbitrary as any other given.

A few millimeters of mother's flesh(and a few millimeters of baby's placenta) makes one human or alive? That is absurd, just by itself.

"The Constitution guarantees "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"."


It is the Declaration of Independence. Not the Constitution.

And it guarantees NOTHING, most certainly "...that all men are created equal" most of all.

That is as arbitrary as any other given.

A few millimeters of mother's flesh(and a few millimeters of baby's placenta) makes one human or alive? That is absurd, just by itself.

There has to be a point where something is considered alive.

Birth is convient. Its been a point in use for oh, as long as humanity has existed. It makes sense.

And yes, those few millimeters do make a difference.

No I think you've got the wrong interpretation there too. The creation of the Anglican church facilitated the removal of Catholic influence on the English monarchy, specifically the Pope's refusal to grant a divorce to Henry VIII. The dissolution of the monasteries aimed to redistribute wealth and power rather than enforce a new religious ideology. There was no concept of a secular state at the time. Twenty years after Henry VIII broke away from the vatican, catholic Queen Mary became queen, suceeded by the anglican/protestant Elizabeth I, suceeded by James I the son of the catholic Mary Queen of Scots. James united anglican England and catholic Scotland. I don't think any religion was ever fully proscribed in that period, despite Queen Mary doing a lot of nasty things to protestants.



Not English but grew up in a household with my father as a Stewart-Tudor historian and no that's not what happened. When Henry created the Anglican Church he declared that following Catholicism was treason he had all nobility (and perhaps non nobility) sign documents stating that Mary was a bastard. Mary took the throne after Protestant Edward died without heirs but not before Edward tried to pass the throne off to his Protestant cousin Jane. Mary's Catholic rule queenship was bloody and horrid for the English people as she tried to force the country back to Catholisim and brought the Inquisition to England. After her death (she tried to pass the throne to her Catholic husband) Protestant Elizabeth took the throne and while she brought England officially back to the Church of England she kept the peace between the two religions stating that "there is but one Jesus Christ and all else is triffles".

When James inherited the throne the battles were more Scottish/British than Anglican/Catholic however it should be noted that most Scottish Nobility at that time still followed the "Old Kirk" and most British Nobility followed the "New Kirk" so religious strife was at the heart of it. And continued to be at the heart of many civil warish battles in the English states for generations to come. The later Stewarts were Catholic and the English Protestant/Puritians took overthrew the monarcy in the time of Charles the First. Even into this century Catholic/Anglican battles were being faught in Ireland (an British State).