User Tag List

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 148

Thread: The Perversion of Libertarianism

  1. #31
    TOL Legend Arthur Brain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Precariously balanced on top of a mineshaft
    Posts
    12,303
    Thanks
    5,715
    Thanked 5,018 Times in 3,334 Posts

    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147712
    Quote Originally Posted by cellist View Post
    I hope not! But I have never been involved in a discussion or debate on this topic that focused so much on sexual behavior! It's kind of weird.
    Well the guy does have a four year ongoing thread about homosexuality...
    Well this is fun isn't it?


  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Arthur Brain For Your Post:

    WizardofOz (March 8th, 2016)

  3. #32
    Over 500 post club Newman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    556
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 13 Times in 8 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    11564
    "The Perversion of Libertarianism" - aCultureWarrior, formerly ASeattleConservative

    "Libertarianism is the heart and soul of conservatism." - Ronald Reagan, conservative hero

    Therefore, aCultureWarrior is a pervert, quod erat demonstrandum.

  4. #33
    LIFETIME MEMBER aCultureWarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    15,114
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 1,219 Times in 1,050 Posts

    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    633946
    Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post
    "The Perversion of Libertarianism" - aCultureWarrior, formerly ASeattleConservative

    "Libertarianism is the heart and soul of conservatism." - Ronald Reagan, conservative hero

    Therefore, aCultureWarrior is a pervert, quod erat demonstrandum.
    Welcome to a thread that tells the truth about your cult Newman. I see that you're not attempting to defend the indefensible: godless Libertarianism.

    Regarding Ronald Reagan: I'm not popular in many conservative circles because I tell the truth about what Reagan did as Governor of California (promoted abortion, homosexuality, no-fault divorce). In fact I did a segment in Art Brain's favorite thread (Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized Part 1) entitled:

    Ronald Reagan: Puppet of the Perverts.
    Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?
    Galatians 4:16

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to aCultureWarrior For Your Post:

    theophilus (March 11th, 2016)

  6. #34
    TOL Legend Arthur Brain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Precariously balanced on top of a mineshaft
    Posts
    12,303
    Thanks
    5,715
    Thanked 5,018 Times in 3,334 Posts

    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147712
    Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior View Post
    Welcome to a thread that tells the truth about your cult Newman. I see that you're not attempting to defend the indefensible: godless Libertarianism.

    Regarding Ronald Reagan: I'm not popular in many conservative circles because I tell the truth about what Reagan did as Governor of California (promoted abortion, homosexuality, no-fault divorce). In fact I did a segment in Art Brain's favorite thread (Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized Part 1) entitled:

    Ronald Reagan: Puppet of the Perverts.
    There's only one person who would regard that thread as a favourite, its demented author...
    Well this is fun isn't it?


  7. The Following User Says Thank You to Arthur Brain For Your Post:

    Rusha (March 8th, 2016)

  8. #35
    LIFETIME MEMBER aCultureWarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    15,114
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 1,219 Times in 1,050 Posts

    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    633946
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur Brain View Post
    There's only one person who would regard that thread as a favourite, its demented author...
    What are you doing in this thread Art? You don't identify yourself as a Libertarian do you? (a stalker yes, a Libertarian no). Anyway, for those that do and yet still consider themselves 'Christian', let me ask them this question:

    Why did God set the standard for human sexuality so early on in The Bible? (Genesis 2:24)

    Tis a simple question, and I promise not to ask what the Libertarian position on bestiality is to the person that answers it.
    Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?
    Galatians 4:16

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to aCultureWarrior For Your Post:

    theophilus (March 11th, 2016)

  10. #36
    Over 500 post club Newman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    556
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 13 Times in 8 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    11564
    The Christian libertarian's position is a simple one: sinfulness (God's expectations for men) =/= illegality (what men enforce on other men). If the two were the same, then everybody would/should be jailed, fined, or executed, for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Moreover, no one is qualified to be the judge, jailer, or executioner in such a world. To claim otherwise is to violate the 1st and 2nd commandment, which means you are now subject to the same punishment you wish to mete out to other sinners.

    aCultureWarrior seems to operate under the impression that if an individual would like A to be legal, then they must be a proponent of A. There is no logic to this. aCultureWarrior certainly dislikes some things but would not argue for making them illegal. In fact, violently enforcing your own preferences is sinful (show me where Jesus advocated "hold swords at people's throats until they act like we want them to"), yet this what everybody does when they make the government do the violence for them.

    It is the same fallacy that many others make, when saying that if a libertarian doesn't want the government to do something, they must hate that thing. Education, healthcare, welfare, etc. come to mind as common examples of this. Obviously libertarians are in favor of education, healthcare, voluntary charity, roads, a clean environment, mail delivery, technology, trade, and even culture, art, marriage, worship, general trust in each other, kindness, and generosity. Christian libertarians will also be in favor of a Godly society, marriage within the bounds of Scripture, sobriety, modesty, humility, and self-control. Libertarians just do not want any of these managed or enforced by a violent, bureaucratic organization.

    The role of government for any libertarian is to prevent and deal with violence, not instigate it. Violence is the initiation of force against someone else's person or property. People can and should form organizations/firms/institutions that both discourage and removes such threats. Whether you call such entities "governments", "insurance companies", "private police", or whatever depends on the libertarian you are talking to.

    You may be surprised to hear that some Christian libertarians may be proponents of rules or laws against so-called "homosexual marriage", pornography, alcohol and other substances, and all sorts of things statists like aCultureWarrior want to be illegal. These positions can be consistent with libertarianism under one very simple condition: everyone subject to the rule agrees to be subject to the rule and the consequences for breaking the rule. We subject ourselves voluntarily to various rules all the time, like when we visit private businesses, or other people's homes. HOAs are another good example. In these cases, nobody is initiating violence to enforce some rule, but instead is making good on some voluntary contract.

    Along these lines, I imagine aCultureWarrior is in total agreement, albeit unsuspectingly. For aCW only seems to care about US law and government, and not international law. Why should aCW stop at making marijuana illegal in the US? If it's sinful here, then it's sinful everywhere, yet we never see aCW argue for some global government that enforces Godly living on everybody. The reason is clear: aCW has no more authority to dictate aCW's preferences on your average Ethiopian as aCW does on aCW's own neighbor. As such, any delegation of such incorrectly assumed authority is null and void, UNLESS aCW and the Ethiopian or aCW and the neighbor come into some voluntary agreement to act in a certain way, or else certain consequences are in order.

    This is all any libertarian wants: voluntary interaction between men, not violence. Libertarians simply apply this very agreeable dictum one step further than most others. The government does not get a pass on initiating violence. Beyond this, people can join and form whatever sort of society they prefer. Christian libertarians would choose one marked by the characteristics listed above, except of course to preach the Gospel to the lost in the areas whose people have not chosen such a society.

    Edit -- Prediction: aCW will not respond to the substance of any of this. Instead, aCW will pick up on some of these words and twist it into some sort of insult. aCW will also accuse me of being gay, or a stoner, or both. aCW will only tangentially refer to what I've said, and not actually counter any point I've made. This is the only thing aCW can do, because aCW is totally incapable of reading, thinking, and responding. aCW is only capable of visceral reactions, in my experience.

  11. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Newman For Your Post:

    cellist (March 9th, 2016),Rusha (March 8th, 2016),WizardofOz (March 8th, 2016)

  12. #37
    LIFETIME MEMBER aCultureWarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    15,114
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 1,219 Times in 1,050 Posts

    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    633946
    Boy Newman, that was quite a post. Instead of spending a lot a bit of time responding to the entire post, how about I pick out one point at a time? Let's start with the most important part, the role of civil government.

    Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post
    The role of government for any libertarian is to prevent and deal with violence, not instigate it. Violence is the initiation of force against someone else's person or property. People can and should form organizations/firms/institutions that both discourage and removes such threats. Whether you call such entities "governments", "insurance companies", "private police", or whatever depends on the libertarian you are talking to.
    Where did this basis ( "The role of government for any libertarian is to prevent and deal with violence, not instigate it.") come from? It most certainly didn't come from the Bible, as nowhere will you see that government was ordained by God solely do deal with violence.

    Romans 13:4 For he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.

    As you can see, civil government is given the authority to, as you say, "instigate violence" (use the force of the sword, i.e. arrest the perpetrator of a criminal act and have them go through the criminal justice system) towards the wrongdoer.

    1 Peter 2:13-14 Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.

    "...punishment of evildoers and praise of those who do right". Not complicated.

    Exodus 18:21 "Furthermore, you shall select out of all the people able men who fear God, men of truth, those who hate dishonest gain; and you shall place these over them as leaders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens.

    "Men who fear God, men of truth, those who hate dishonest gain..."; again, no mention of the role of government being solely to "prevent and deal with violence".

    Titus 3:1 Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed.

    "To be ready for every good deed".

    Address the above and then after we're finished discussing that we'll move onto the next point that you made.
    Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?
    Galatians 4:16

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to aCultureWarrior For Your Post:

    theophilus (March 8th, 2016)

  14. #38
    Over 500 post club Newman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    556
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 13 Times in 8 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    11564
    Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior View Post
    Boy Newman, that was quite a post. Instead of spending a lot a bit of time responding to the entire post, how about I pick out one point at a time? Let's start with the most important part, the role of civil government.
    I appreciate your engagement.

    Where did this basis ( "The role of government for any libertarian is to prevent and deal with violence, not instigate it.") come from? It most certainly didn't come from the Bible, as nowhere will you see that government was ordained by God solely do deal with violence.
    It's a proposition, just like any other. Some propose an active government tasked with eliminating all risk in life, others propose a government that prohibits some things and not others, still more propose a government that redistributes wealth, and so on. There are many proposals for the "best kind of government" in terms of its size, scope, and responsibilities. All of them just boil down to preferences. I prefer one kind of government, somebody else prefers another. The reasons people prefer some things to others are too numerous to count.

    My preference for a government is what it is because of my view of what violence is, what the Bible says, what is logical, etc. These all mutually lend themselves to a political ideology, but without any internal inconsistencies (what is non-violent is Christian, what is logical is non-violent, what is Christian is logical, etc.--there aren't any "conundrums" here, in my view).

    Romans 13:4 For he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.

    As you can see, civil government is given the authority to, as you say, "instigate violence" (use the force of the sword, i.e. arrest the perpetrator of a criminal act and have them go through the criminal justice system) towards the wrongdoer.
    I fully affirm this passage and the others. Christians should submit themselves to each other and authority figures (most of the time -- we can always come up with exceptions, like Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego rightly disobeying Nebuchadnezzar's order to worship the golden statue, or would you say they should have submitted to Neb?).

    I don't think it is eisegetical to interpret "God's servant for your good" as a legitimate authority figure, i.e., one that has legitimate authority, meaning all the authority that has been delegated to him came from the people that originally have that authority. Nor is it any stretch to interpret "wrong" or "wrongdoer" as a crime and the criminal--which may be defined by whatever political unit. Notice Paul is very vague when he says we should obey the law for our own good.

    I would posit that just because some organization calls themselves a legitimate government does not make them one. By that I mean, wearing a badge or sitting in a certain office in DC does not make you the Godly civil government Paul outlines here and elsewhere. This shouldn't be controversial--would you say that everyone who calls themselves "married" is actually in a God-ordained marriage? Man is very good at corrupting God's institutions. To suppose that somehow we have maintained Godly governance throughout the ages seems overly optimistic, even naive.

    Of course, as Christians we are charged to go one step further always (Luke 6:27-36). We are to love our friends and our enemies. We should submit to authorities we deem legitimate and illegitimate, as long as our submission does not cause us to worship a golden statue, so to speak.

    I'm not suggesting armed resistance (of course rare exceptions can be made). I'm suggesting a different way to do government, and while it's radically different than the current set up, it's not against Biblical teaching.

    1 Peter 2:13-14 Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.

    "...punishment of evildoers and praise of those who do right". Not complicated.

    Exodus 18:21 "Furthermore, you shall select out of all the people able men who fear God, men of truth, those who hate dishonest gain; and you shall place these over them as leaders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens.

    "Men who fear God, men of truth, those who hate dishonest gain..."; again, no mention of the role of government being solely to "prevent and deal with violence".

    Titus 3:1 Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed.

    "To be ready for every good deed".

    Address the above and then after we're finished discussing that we'll move onto the next point that you made.
    I think what I've said already covers everything here. I'm not advocating disobedience (except rare cases).

    For example: in my ideal society, marijuana would be treated similar to alcohol (maybe even to a lesser degree--I think alcohol may be more dangerous). If somebody wants to set up shop in my town, they would have to sign a contract saying they will not sell either substance to children. If somebody chooses to drive on the roads in my town, they have to sign a contract that includes prohibitions on driving under the influence of mind-altering substances, etc. If somebody doesn't like these rules, they can go to a different neighborhood to set up shop, or they can drive around this neighborhood. One major condition for the rule is that everybody in this town/neighborhood/area agrees to the rule.

    HOWEVER, given these preferences I have, I would not advocate disobedience of current laws. See the difference? I can tolerate something that is currently illegal, but not advocate for others to disobey the law. There is nothing wrong with this. The inverse is equally acceptable. I can dislike something that is currently legal, but still advocate for others to abstain from the action, even though it is legal.

  15. #39
    Over 1000 post club The Horn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New Rochelle,NY.
    Posts
    1,153
    Thanks
    130
    Thanked 236 Times in 169 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    125780
    I agree with libertarianism on some things but not on others . I believe people should be free to do whatever they choose as long as they do not harm or kill others or create a public nuisance (not the same thing as abortion which is a woman's choice ) .
    I believe the government MUST stay out of people's bedrooms and women's reproductive organs .
    But I vehemently disagree with libertarianism about allowing total laissez-faire economic policies and privatization of everything , eliminating government programs to help those in need and
    getting rid of all or most government regulations on business and environmental protection .
    All this lack of regulation and elimination of taxes etc sounds great in theory but is catastrophic in practice for public health and safety .

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to The Horn For Your Post:

    theophilus (March 11th, 2016)

  17. #40
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    18,303
    Thanks
    1,338
    Thanked 4,352 Times in 3,269 Posts

    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147694
    Quote Originally Posted by The Horn View Post
    I agree with libertarianism on some things but not on others . I believe people should be free to do whatever they choose as long as they do not harm or kill others...

    except for these guys, right?

    aborted-fetus.jpg

    if it's helpless little babies you don't give a crap

  18. #41
    Over 1000 post club The Horn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    New Rochelle,NY.
    Posts
    1,153
    Thanks
    130
    Thanked 236 Times in 169 Posts

    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    125780
    OK doser, the photo you posted is NOT what abortion looks like . It's highly misleading and emotion-laden propaganda . A tiny fetus is NOT a "baby ". It's a baby once born . But you anti-choicers couldn't care less if fetuses starve once out of the womb. Remember- a fetus is also helpless once born .

  19. #42
    Over 500 post club Newman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    556
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 13 Times in 8 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    11564
    Quote Originally Posted by The Horn View Post
    I agree with libertarianism on some things but not on others . I believe people should be free to do whatever they choose as long as they do not harm or kill others or create a public nuisance (not the same thing as abortion which is a woman's choice ) .
    I believe the government MUST stay out of people's bedrooms and women's reproductive organs .
    But I vehemently disagree with libertarianism about allowing total laissez-faire economic policies and privatization of everything , eliminating government programs to help those in need and
    getting rid of all or most government regulations on business and environmental protection .
    All this lack of regulation and elimination of taxes etc sounds great in theory but is catastrophic in practice for public health and safety .
    So do you realize how logically inconsistent all of this is, or what?

    If people should be free to make their own personal choices, why aren't they free to make their own choices with their own money? How is this not an arbitrary distinction?

    You mention harming or killing others as a moral constraint on action, yet you advocate the killing of humans that happen to be inside their mother? How is this not an arbitrary distinction?

    Side note--feel free to ignore: How can something be "great in theory" but "catastrophic in practice"? If truth is the set of things that exist (like your computer and this website and everything else) and the concepts which "make sense" (1+1=2 is also true), then how can something correctly deduced from sound premises (good theory) not comport with the set of things that exist ("in practice")? If you deduced 1+1=2 yet counted some things and found that 1+1=3, would you discard your theoretical conclusion or your empirical one, and on what grounds? It seems to me that any apparent incompatibility between theory and practice involves one of three problems: (1) the theory is wrong, (2) the theory is being inappropriately applied, or (3) the observation is wrong (faulty measurement, imprecision, etc.). Since you seem to agree with libertarianism somewhat and think it "sounds great in theory", then it must be either (2) or (3), and therefore libertarianism should be tried again for more and/or better data.

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to Newman For Your Post:

    Rusha (March 9th, 2016)

  21. #43
    LIFETIME MEMBER aCultureWarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    15,114
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 1,219 Times in 1,050 Posts

    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    633946
    Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

    Boy Newman, that was quite a post. Instead of spending a lot a bit of time responding to the entire post, how about I pick out one point at a time? Let's start with the most important part, the role of civil government.

    Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post
    I appreciate your engagement.
    Just because I'm being civil doesn't mean that I don't looooooooooathe the Libertarian movement and the people who are a part of it. Your leaders and their ideology of 'self ownership' (i.e. "It's my body and I can damn well do as I please with it!") are responsible for the death of 10's of millions of people. Your movement's ideology destroys lives, families, entire communities and nations. I hope and pray that justice will come to the leaders of your godless movement while they're here on earth and that they don't have to wait until they meet God to receive it.


    Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
    Where did this basis ( "The role of government for any libertarian is to prevent and deal with violence, not instigate it.") come from? It most certainly didn't come from the Bible, as nowhere will you see that government was ordained by God solely do deal with violence.

    It's a proposition, just like any other. Some propose an active government tasked with eliminating all risk in life, others propose a government that prohibits some things and not others, still more propose a government that redistributes wealth, and so on.
    Such eloquent words for such a evil movement. Address the opening post that deals with the ideology of the Libertarian movement and what role government should take on issues such as homosexuality, abortion, prostitution, pornography, recreational drug use and suicide. While we can talk about zoning laws and the privatization of roads at another time, I've specifically started this thread to talk about the doctrine of 'self ownership":

    "As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

    We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

    Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power...


    1.1 Self-Ownership

    Individuals own their bodies and have rights over them that other individuals, groups, and governments may not violate. Individuals have the freedom and responsibility to decide what they knowingly and voluntarily consume, and what risks they accept to their own health, finances, safety, or life.
    http://www.lp.org/platform


    You've been through this drill many times before with me Newman. Use the terms "consenting adults", "victimless crimes" and "property rights" in your next post (should you choose to return) and let's get this debate started.
    Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?
    Galatians 4:16

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to aCultureWarrior For Your Post:

    theophilus (March 11th, 2016)

  23. #44
    LIFETIME MEMBER aCultureWarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    15,114
    Thanks
    9
    Thanked 1,219 Times in 1,050 Posts

    Mentioned
    27 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    633946
    Quote Originally Posted by The Horn View Post
    OK doser, the photo you posted is NOT what abortion looks like . It's highly misleading and emotion-laden propaganda . A tiny fetus is NOT a "baby ". It's a baby once born . But you anti-choicers couldn't care less if fetuses starve once out of the womb. Remember- a fetus is also helpless once born .
    Don't let people like Bunny boy Newman and ok doser fool you De Horn. You're all of the same sexual anarchist mindset, but they're despicably worse because they hide behind God, claiming to be Christians. Yet they completely ignore Jesus' greatest commandments.
    Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?
    Galatians 4:16

  24. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to aCultureWarrior For Your Post:

    The Horn (March 9th, 2016),theophilus (March 11th, 2016)

  25. #45
    Nobody is free when others are oppressed Rusha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    12,501
    Thanks
    14,084
    Thanked 3,724 Times in 2,124 Posts

    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147731
    Quote Originally Posted by The Horn View Post
    I agree with libertarianism on some things but not on others . I believe people should be free to do whatever they choose as long as they do not harm or kill others or create a public nuisance (not the same thing as abortion which is a woman's choice ) .
    A woman's *choice* to kill her unborn baby. Your claim is contradictory. You claim people should not be free to kill others and then claim a woman should be allowed the choice of abortion. Are you under some impression that the innocent, unborn baby LIVES through an abortion? The sole intention of abortion is for killing an unborn child.

    I believe the government MUST stay out of people's bedrooms and women's reproductive organs .
    Abortions (aka the method used to intentionally kill an unborn baby) isn't normally done in *people's bedrooms*. Once again, you pretend that someone is making women BECOME pregnant. Outside of rape, women (and men) have the option of not creating children. The time to make THAT *choice* is prior to conception, not after.
    Before mass leaders seize the power to fit reality to their lies,
    their propaganda is marked by its extreme contempt for facts as such,
    for in their opinion fact depends entirely on the power of man who can fabricate it.
    Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism









Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us