The Wonderful Christian Message of Wonderfully Christian South Dakota

[dawny0826]

It only "goes both ways" if we each have the right to decide for ourselves what we choose to define as "murder". If you're going to decide this for everyone, then it's not "going both ways", anymore. It's only one way.

Am I the only American who votes? Am I the only American who has a voice?

You KNOW it doesn't work that way.

I have posted nothing at all about what my concept of "murder" or abortion is. Nor have I posted anything that would suggest that you should agree with my concept of it.
It is obvious that I am aware of this possibility, as I am the one who brought it up, and who is using it to illuminate the right of free choice.

My apologies for making assumptions about you, personally.

Well, no one is forcing you to do anything that you don't believe is right, are they? No one is forcing you to have an abortion, or to have sex outside of marriage, or to follow their religion, or to deny your religion, or to engage in homosexuality, or in bigamy, or in any other activity that you believe to be wrong, are they? So how exactly are the opinions of others being "forced down your throat"?

Most of what I read, hear and see within the media is biased information and opinion from the liberal side of the political and social spectrums.

That's was the only point that I was making. Nothing more.

Also, the definition of conservatism implies the desire to maintain (to conserve) the status quo. Since the right to an abortion has been the status quo in America for some thirty years now, the desire to ban abortion would no longer be considered a "conservative" desire. In fact, it would be a desire to change status rather than a desire to maintain current status, so it would actually be a radical desire, not a conservative one. I mention this because we seem to be having a real problem in America these days with being honest and accurate regarding the meaning of the terms we're using. Politicians and media muck-rakers have been deliberately mislabeling people and ideas to deliberately misrepresent and slander them. I feel it's important to correct these misconceptions when I see them.

I'm not really interested in discussing the politically correct definition of conservatism.

I'm conservative on the abortion issue in that I'm traditional in my approach on this particular issue.

That's true, and appreciated. However, your desire to force other people act against their will, and according to your own opinions, is in reality a desire to violate their sovereignty as equal and individual member of the human race. And as such will naturally inspire a defensive reaction on the part of others. Your position ignores the rights of other people to live by their own ideas of what's right and wrong, and so is a threat to their fundamental liberty

My desire is to stand up for what I believe is right...regardless of how others perceive me.

I'm interested in being true to myself and I feel greatly that the unborn should have rights. If I offend those who feel otherwise...if I'm viewed as being intolerant on this issue...so be it.

But you don't have the right to make other people live according to your beliefs. And this is what most anti-abortion folks fail to understand or appreciate.

I do have the right to support the causes I feel are worth supporting. If that goes against your beliefs and the beliefs of others...so be it.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I am not a Christian, and yet I am vehemently pro-life.




However, I refuse to overlook the impact of sexual politics and how it affects women and our desire to truly have reproductive rights.




Abortion advocates are implying the much-needed message that women SHOULD be the ONE party to decide when to have a child, and precisely HOW MANY children to have. I am against abortion, myself, and so therefore I'd like to see more and more women becoming stronger in their decision-making of if and/or when to become pregnant before doing the "tango."




Yes, this seems short-sighted and dismissive of what a woman's partner or spouse may want, but nature still provides for the woman to become pregnant, to carry the baby to term, to labor and to give birth to the child, and (now, by choice) to feed the baby with her own mammalian glands until the child is able to digest solid foods found outside the mother's body. On those terms, then, it truly isn't dismissive. Women carry the burden of pregnancy, childbirth, and childrearing. Women therefore should carry the decision-making power of when to take on that burden.





The only way I can reconcile my beliefs of decision-making power with my pro-life stance is by believing that society should be encouraged to embrace women, and women alone, making the decision of when and how much to engage in sexual activities that lead to pregnancy.




That is why I wholeheartedly believe in educating oneself thoroughly on birth control methods and on sexual activities that do not lead to pregnancy. I fully believe that if women used the same strength in speaking up about our power to decide when to have unprotected-heterosexual-intercourse as we do about our power to choose to have an abortion................I truly believe that less abortions will occur for all the reprehensible reasons.






Does a couple want to have sex, but does not want to bear children together? Then engage in non-procreative sexual fun. Stay educated, and not frustrated.





Speak up, ladies, if you want to give and receive love and passion to your husband/partner but to not bear the burden of bearing children. That's reproductive rights.




Peace,
Mystic

 

[dawny0826]

I am not a Christian, and yet I am vehemently pro-life.




However, I refuse to overlook the impact of sexual politics and how it affects women and our desire to truly have reproductive rights.




Abortion advocates are implying the much-needed message that women SHOULD be the ONE party to decide when to have a child, and precisely HOW MANY children to have. I am against abortion, myself, and so therefore I'd like to see more and more women becoming stronger in their decision-making of if and/or when to become pregnant before doing the "tango."




Yes, this seems short-sighted and dismissive of what a woman's partner or spouse may want, but nature still provides for the woman to become pregnant, to carry the baby to term, to labor and to give birth to the child, and (now, by choice) to feed the baby with her own mammalian glands until the child is able to digest solid foods found outside the mother's body. On those terms, then, it truly isn't dismissive. Women carry the burden of pregnancy, childbirth, and childrearing. Women therefore should carry the decision-making power of when to take on that burden.





The only way I can reconcile my beliefs of decision-making power with my pro-life stance is by believing that society should be encouraged to embrace women, and women alone, making the decision of when and how much to engage in sexual activities that lead to pregnancy.




That is why I wholeheartedly believe in educating oneself thoroughly on birth control methods and on sexual activities that do not lead to pregnancy. I fully believe that if women used the same strength in speaking up about our power to decide when to have unprotected-heterosexual-intercourse as we do about our power to choose to have an abortion................I truly believe that less abortions will occur for all the reprehensible reasons.






Does a couple want to have sex, but does not want to bear children together? Then engage in non-procreative sexual fun. Stay educated, and not frustrated.





Speak up, ladies, if you want to give and receive love and passion to your husband/partner but to not bear the burden of bearing children. That's reproductive rights.




Peace,
Mystic

Excellent! :clap

Especially the very last point that you made.

 

[PureX]

Am I the only American who votes? Am I the only American who has a voice?

But in America, fundamental rights issues such as abortion are not decided by popular opinion (voting). They are decided by the courts interpreting the fundamental ideals of the nation as they have been expressed in the founding documents. The courts have done so, and have decided that abortion should be an available option to women.

So this isn't about voting, it's about voting for politicians who claim that they will ignore and even destroy the ideals and process of American government just so they can force everyone else to comply with their own idea of what's right and wrong regarding abortion. Such actions are a very real and direct threat to the nation, and to everyone in it. Because Christians and other anti-abortion supporters do not respect the equal right of their fellow citizens to make their own decisions regarding this issue, they have been willfully electing politicians who likewise have no respect for the rights and freedoms of the people they are supposed to be representing. This is why we have the worst administration in U.S. history running the country, right now, and this is why they're doing such a terrible job at it. The president himself has no real concept of, nor respect for the fundamental rights and freedom of every citizen and why these need to be protected above all else.

Most of what I read, hear and see within the media is biased information and opinion from the liberal side of the political and social spectrums.

There is plenty of bias in the media coming from both sides. The key is to eliminate the bias in yourself, so that you can begin to recognize it in the media. I'm always amazed that the people who watch Fox "News" - the most openly biased media outlet on TV - actually believe it's "fair and balanced". They believe this because their own bias are being echoed.

I'm not really interested in discussing the politically correct definition of conservatism.

Still, it's worth considering.

I'm conservative on the abortion issue in that I'm traditional in my approach on this particular issue.

I'm just pointing out that on this issue, the conservative position is pro-choice. The anti-abortion position is now activists position.

My desire is to stand up for what I believe is right...regardless of how others perceive me.

What do you mean by "standing up for" your position? Do you mean advocating it through free speech? Or do you mean by forcing other people to comply with it regardless of their desires, beliefs, or equal rights as human beings?

I'm interested in being true to myself and I feel greatly that the unborn should have rights. If I offend those who feel otherwise...if I'm viewed as being intolerant on this issue...so be it.

Your opinions are not offensive to anyone. They are sincere and reasonable. It's your actions that I am interested in. Are you willing to subvert the founding principals of our nation of equal freedom, equal rights, and equal justice for all your fellow citizens just so that you can force everyone else to comply with your opinion about abortion being murder?

See, I welcome your opinion, and I will fight to the death for your right to express your opinions openly. What worries me is that a lot of anti-abortionists are now happily and willingly helping to dismantle essential protections of and from our government just so they can force their beliefs into law and thereby force everyone else to comply with them. My argument is not with the anti-abortion position. It's with the desire to force this position on everyone else at any cost.

I do have the right to support the causes I feel are worth supporting. If that goes against your beliefs and the beliefs of others...so be it.

That depends on what you mean by "support".

 

[JillianMarie77]

Had you read any of my responses to this thread and others...you'd realize that I have stated the very same thing many times.

And still you speak/write about "just use birth control" Hmmmmm

In my opinion...if you're not in a stable relationship...you're not financially, emotionally or physically ready for a baby...you should abstain from sex. And if you HAVE to have it...see your OBGYN...find the most effective Birth control method for your personal circumstances AND have him utilize contraception as well. The statistics for pregnancy to occur are much lower if a person is responsible about it.

What if you are a married couple, well to do and just don't want children. You use birth control, maybe even sterilization and suddenly you are the 1%? It happens. Here's that question again: Are you saying people shouldn't have sex unless they intend to pro-create?

AND it also helps if a women is in tune to her own body. I think every women should be educated on charting and how to take and read basal temps. I also think a women should pay close attention to and listen to her body...making note of the monthly changes that take place around ovulation.

That is ONE thing women should know about their bodies. Among many others. Who should teach them? Their parents? No one taught that generation? Should all these women wake up tomorrow and instinctively know theyshould go educate themselves about their bodies and sex and birth control? YOu mentioned the gov't doesn't have a responsibility to educate women but you seem to think they have a right to make decisions about their bodies for them. Maybe thats it. The gov't doesn't need to educate anyone - they'll make all the decisions!

I know my body. And I thoroughly researched conception, pregnany and childbirth BEFORE attempting to conceive.

Lucky you. I wonder if most of rural america not to mention innercity young women have such an opportunity. Or even a level of education where they could even be aware that such things exist!

So, YOU'RE entitled to an opinion here.

We're all entitled to an opinion here, it's a debate board.

Give me a break.

You're welcome to take one at any time.

Okay, let me elaborate...I'm pro-life when it comes to ABORTION.

I see. Thats not pro-life. It's pro-some-life aka Anti-abortion. I'm not pro abortion. I'd like to see abortions be safe, legal and RARE. I wouldn't have an abortion. But I'm pro-choice because I don't walk in anyone elses shoes and I respect their rights to make their own choices.

Now, I will answer you from a religious perspective. I don't think that any woman reserves the right to play God. My views on whose life the unborn TRULY belongs to differs greatly from yours, I'm sure.

Do you think MEN have the right to play god then? You mentioned you don't oppose self defense or even death penalty. How is that not playing god?

I agree 100% that EDUCATION is imperative. Women and men need to educate themselves and make responsible decisions concerning their sexuality.

See above.

I can agree with you on education and still view that abortion is criminal.

You can think abortion is wrong, or that they've moved to make it criminal in SD but it isn't criminal here. It's perfectly legal.

I abhore Planned Parenthood.

Then I urge you to educate yourself about the statistics of legal vs. illegal abortion instance from a site that you approve of.

I believe adoption would be the better choice for the unwanted child.

If you ever find yourself unintentionally pregnant then I'm glad the choice you like is avialable to you.

If you want to run around in circles with me on this...I'm game for it.

Run in circles on what?

I agree with much of what you've said pertaining to responsibility and education...this has been my platform on the abortion issue since day 1.

Well it hasn't been since post 1 in this thread.

 

[Mister Emu]

But in America, fundamental rights issues such as abortion are not decided by popular opinion (voting).

They used to be... they were meant to be... they should be... until the overstepping of the SC, fundamental rights issues such as Slavery, voting, working, speech, religion, bearing arms, ect. ect. were determined via the amendment process which is how the founding fathers intended it.

They are decided by the courts interpreting the fundamental ideals of the nation as they have been expressed in the founding documents

I know... they overstepped their powers and are now deciding fundamental rights.

Such actions are a very real and direct threat to the nation, and to everyone in it.

Yeah, because we just can't go back to the way it was intended... You know... where what was actually written in the constitution decided what was a right and what wasn't... now we have the whims of the Supreme Court yay!

I'm just pointing out that on this issue, the conservative position is pro-choice. The anti-abortion position is now activists position.

Conservative means more than keeping the status quo... it means trying to keep the nation's power balance in the hands of the people... which was usurped.

Are you willing to subvert the founding principals of our nation of equal freedom, equal rights, and equal justice for all your fellow citizens just so that you can force everyone else to comply with your opinion about abortion being murder?

Oh please... liberal activists were completley willing to subvert the founding principals when they went to the supreme court to create a right of thin air...

 

[kevmicsmi]

These documents are not "laws". They are a set of ideals and principals upon which the nation was founded. The purpose of our laws is to institute, maintain, and protect these founding ideals and principals. Therefor, the purpose of the judicial branch is to interpret these documents to discern these ideals and principals, so as to implement, maintain, and protect them through social intercourse.

The basic ideals upon which this nation was founded are articulated by a number of our founders in a number of written documents, and they do include the Declaration of Independence, as it's in this declaration to the world that the founders explain WHY they are separating from England and forming a new and autonomous nation. None of these documents are laws in themselves. They are the documented intentions of the people who established this nation.

The supreme court does not decide cases on the Declaration of independence....where are you getting this from?

 

[Mister Emu]

Kev,

They are not supposed to decide cases on anything but the Constitution...

 

[kevmicsmi]

Examining the items listed, prostitution, illicit narcotic use, polygamy, vs. the issue of access to abortion, one must examine how society is affected and the issue of whether or not society has a right to enact laws regarding such things as prostitution, illicit narcotics use, polygamy.

When making law, yes. When interpreting the constitution, no. That is why there is no constitutional right to these things, as should be the case with abortion.

I, personally, find the sex trade distasteful. When laws are enacted, unfortunately, they focus on prostitutes, not those who use the services of prostitutes, the johns, not those who profit from the economic activities of prostitutes, the pimps. If true economic, social, and political equality were enjoyed by women, I believe that the incidence of prostitution would be enormously reduced. There is also the social problem of widespread violence against prostitutes, the other crimes associated with prostitution.

Violence and other problems would go away if states legalized prostitution, which I would not be against, however, just because I am not against legalizing prostitution, i don not see a reason for the Supreme court to find a right in the constitution for it when it clearly does not exist.

Polygamy is also distasteful. Furthermore, I believe it to be harmful to society. Where polygamy is practiced the pool of females available to males is reduced. Females are then available only to richer, older, successful males and young males are unable to marry and have families. This feature has created great numbers of frustrated men within certain patriarchal religious communities and these young, frustrated men are easily employed in suicide attacks upon opponents of these religions because these religions promise a paradise after death with 70 virgins available for sexual congress for every martyr.

Again if there was a vote in my state, I would not be opposed to legalizing polygamy, however, again I dont see it as a constitutional right.

Which brings me to the main point of why prostitution and polygamy is distasteful. It reduces the human state of women to that of a mere commodity.

I agree

Illicit drug use is also, I believe, harmful to society. Drugs decrease the ability of an individual to act in the best way possible. Unfortunately, alcohol is another drug that affects individuals in the same way and it has been shown that Prohibition of alcohol in the U.S. in the early part of the 20th century spawned a thriving industry of criminal entrepreneurs. The same thing is occurring by banning certain drugs. This remains to be sorted out legally

I agree, but this needs to be sorted out by legislators, NOT the high court.

But, as to abortion, I do not find that access to abortion harms society. I find it to be beneficial to society on the whole. When abortion was illegal there were many ugly deaths and tragedies--one occurred within my own extended family, and I have anecdotal information on other ugly deaths within the group of my friends and acquaintances. There is historical documentation of the economic waste incurred by the septic wards which became necessary for the medical treatment of botched illegal, unsafe abortions. These facilities and resources might have been better used for prenatal care, obstetric care, taking care of other sorts of medical problems. Abortion should be safe, legal and accessible. It is a boon to society.

I disagree with your premise, however even if I agreed with everything in this paragraph, I stil would not pretend the constitution guaranteed abortion as a right of the people, and would therefore prefer it left to State legislation.

On the other hand, abortion should be rare. There should be comprehensive sex education. There should be better access to contraception.

I applaud your idealism, but then again, I Should be taller

Also, many women choose abortion because of pressing economic considerations. .

Poverty should never be an excuse to harm someone else, which in my opi9nion abortion does.

If women enjoyed economic equality, if they were not penalized at work, in the pursuit of their chosen careers, for taking time off because of possible illness during pregnancy, for the birth and recovery from birth, for parenting and bonding with the new child, .

IMO if women are treated unfairly at certain workplaces, let them protest and picket and boycott these places. All I am saying.....is give free market a chance

if women were not so severely penalized by American policies for being primarily responsible for the care and welfare of their children, many women would choose not to have abortions.

I do not mean to sound insensitive, but imo maybe women should wait until they are in a stable relationship to have sex.

Thank you for the well thought out post even if we disagree

 

[kevmicsmi]

Kev,

They are not supposed to decide cases on anything but the Constitution...

I wish they knew the rules

 

[kevmicsmi]

.
There is plenty of bias in the media coming from both sides. The key is to eliminate the bias in yourself, so that you can begin to recognize it in the media. I'm always amazed that the people who watch Fox "News" - the most openly biased media outlet on TV - actually believe it's "fair and balanced". They believe this because their own bias are being echoed.
".

You are right, Fox Newsis openly Right -center Mainstream Conservative. The problem is CBS NBC ABC NPR CNN NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Time Newsweek, etc, etc, etc are all Left-center Mainstream Liberal, except THEY PRETEND THEY ARE NEUTRAL!

 

[kevmicsmi]

We're a demoncracy (well, sort of in America). .

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLets get ready to RUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMBLEEEEEEEEEEEEKnockout I feel one of those "legislate from the bench" arguments of semantics coming on!

 

[kevmicsmi]

. Your position ignores the rights of other people to live by their own ideas of what's right and wrong, and so is a threat to their fundamental liberty.
.

So do laws against rape, murder, theft, etc etc etc....What if I dont believe its wrong? Sorry we dont live in an anarchist state, which is what you would have if you absolutely apply your rule.

Now if you feel there are certain exceptions to this rule, then apparently Dawny, I, and many others feel this is a reasonable exception to your rule.

 

[PureX]

The supreme court does not decide cases on the Declaration of independence....where are you getting this from?

They interpret the Constitution in light of what was written in the Declaration of Independance. You know, through words like ... "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...."

Equal freedom and justice for all was the intent behind the founding of the nation. We have struggled with the prejudice and bigotry that existed then, and ever since, but with each generation we let go of a little bit more, and we come a little bit closer to that stated goal. "Men" now also includes men of color and women. And as time goes on, we'll eventually give up our prejudice against homosexuals, and whatever other social boogey-men we find ourselves loving to hate.

 

[kevmicsmi]

They interpret the Constitution in light of what was written in the Declaration of Independance. You know, through words like ... "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness...."

Equal freedom and justice for all was the intent behind the founding of the nation. We have struggled with the prejudice and bigotry that existed then, and ever since, but with each generation we let go of a little bit more, and we come a little bit closer to that stated goal. "Men" now also includes men of color and women. And as time goes on, we'll eventually give up our prejudice against homosexuals, and whatever other social boogey-men we find ourselves loving to hate.

You are just babbling now, the supreme court was set up to interpret the Constitutuion, nothing more nothing less. The problem with our courts is attitude like yours.

 

[PureX]

So do laws against rape, murder, theft, etc etc etc....What if I dont believe its wrong? Sorry we dont live in an anarchist state, which is what you would have if you absolutely apply your rule.

Now if you feel there are certain exceptions to this rule, then apparently Dawny, I, and many others feel this is a reasonable exception to your rule.

The laws against these crimes are not based on the moral ideal that they are "wrong", but on the practical intention of protecting us from each other. Your right to live as you see fit ends when it denies me the same right. That is each of our freedom is limited by the other's. Both our right to be free ends where they begin to deny the other person his right to be free. We are therefor each equally limited in our right to be free.

Rape is not illegal because it's "bad". It's illegal because it denies an individual their fundamental right to life, liberty and happiness (well-being). Rape is not illegal because popular opinions says it's bad, but because it negates the fundamental principals upon which this nation was founded.

 

[PureX]

You are just babbling now, the supreme court was set up to interpret the Constitutuion, nothing more nothing less. The problem with our courts is attitude like yours.

Well, that's certainly an impressive argument. You can't understand it because you don't already agree with it, so you dismiss it as "babble".

 

[kevmicsmi]

The laws against these crimes are not based on the moral ideal that they are "wrong", but on the practical intention of protecting us from each other. Your right to live as you see fit ends when it denies me the same right. That is each of our freedom is limited by the other's. Both our right to be free ends where they begin to deny the other person his right to be free. We are therefor each equally limited in our right to be free.

Rape is not illegal because it's "bad". It's illegal because it denies an individual their fundamental right to life, liberty and happiness (well-being). Rape is not illegal because popular opinions says it's bad, but because it negates the fundamental principals upon which this nation was founded.

You said

. Your position ignores the rights of other people to live by their own ideas of what's right and wrong, and so is a threat to their fundamental liberty

and I responded

So do laws against rape, murder, theft, etc etc etc....What if I dont believe its wrong? Sorry we dont live in an anarchist state, which is what you would have if you absolutely apply your rule.

Now if you feel there are certain exceptions to this rule, then apparently Dawny, I, and many others feel this is a reasonable exception to your rule.

I was responding to your post above where you said the problem with wanting to legally limit abortion is it ignores other peoples right to live by their own idea of what is right or wrong. ALL LAWS IGNORE SOMEONES IDEA OF WHAT IS RIGHT AND WRONG. So what?

 

[kevmicsmi]

Well, that's certainly an impressive argument. You can't understand it because you don't already agree with it, so you dismiss it as "babble".

I understood what you said, but you were babbling. You originally said

This is why the right to have an abortion is not to be decided by the state or federal mandate of elected representatives, but by the rule of law as interpreted from our founding documents. (That's not just the Constitution, by the way, but also the Bill of Rights and even the Declaration of Independance.) This is an issue of individual rights, and therefor cannot be settled by the expressed will of the majority. It's a matter of interpreting the founding intent of the nation as expressed in it's original documents.

I am contending you are wrong. Abortion is legal because it was DEEMED A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTBY THE SUPREME COURT. The supreme court does not interpret the Declaration of Independence to determine validity of laws, any more than it interprets Sports Illustrated to determine our laws.

I have been trying to point out you are wron, the Supreme Court is to interpret only the constitution. That is their mandate. Ever since I called you on this, you have been skirting the issue.

 

[PureX]

I was responding to your post above where you said the problem with wanting to legally limit abortion is it ignores other peoples right to live by their own idea of what is right or wrong. ALL LAWS IGNORE SOMEONES IDEA OF WHAT IS RIGHT AND WRONG. So what?[/I]

The "so what" is that in this country, the foundation of our law is based on the idea of individual equality; that is on the equal limitation and protection of freedom and rights of each citizen, NOT ON THE MORAL WILL OF THE MAJORITY.

Therefor, in matters involving individual rights and freedom (such as in the right to abortion debate), we do not resolve the issue by bowing to the will of the majority. Instead, we do so by following the founding principals of our nation's laws, as expressed in the founding documents: the principal of equal freedom, equal rights, and equal protection to all citizens.