Science > Abortion > Why Modern Atheist State Must Destroy Christian Culture
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
04 May 2006 11:08:56 AM |
| Object: |
Why Modern Atheist State Must Destroy Christian Culture |
http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/991021.shtml
The State v. Christian Culture
In most times and places of which history has some record, it has been
taken for granted that the duty of a good ruler is to govern in
accordance with the customs and morals - what we now call the
"culture" - of his people. Even the cruelest tyrants have usually
been preoccupied with nothing more than advancing their own personal
interests and appetites. They may violate the commonly accepted
morality of their societies; they may murder, torture, rape, and rob;
but they seldom try to change that morality. Breaking the rules is one
thing; overthrowing the rules is another matter altogether.
But in the twentieth century we have seen the eruption of a new kind of
politics, whose goal is to "build a new society." This ambition
goes far beyond changing regimes (from monarchy to republic or
democracy, for example); it aspires to use the power of the state to
change the very fabric of social life.
Soviet Communism is one of the most spectacularly grim examples. The
atheistic Soviet state, from Lenin on, tried to extirpate religion,
abolish private property, and even revolutionize family relations. The
first two of these aims have gotten more attention than the third. But
it's well worth recalling that the Soviet state, which of course
controlled all formal education, taught children that their first
loyalty was not to their parents but to the state itself. A major
street in Moscow was actually renamed in honor of a boy named Pavel
Morozov who had informed on his father; when the father was condemned
as a traitor, Pavel was killed by furious relatives. The regime treated
him as a martyr and model for all Soviet children.
Part of the Soviet agenda was sexual freedom, including abortion on
demand. Lenin held that sexual intercourse should be as casual as
drinking a glass of water, not because he valued freedom as such, but
because he wanted to separate sex from procreation and family ties. By
establishing this principle, family loyalties would be cheapened and
weakened, reducing every individual to nothing more than a unit of the
state.
American collectivism, traveling under the banners of liberalism and
feminism, has been less audacious (and, fortunately, less powerful)
than the Soviet brand, but it has shared the ambition of
"transforming" society rather than supporting traditional
institutions. It has progressively legitimated divorce, adultery,
fornication, contraception, homosexuality, and abortion; moreover, it
has exalted them as "rights," condemning ancient objections to them
as benighted and, in fact, immoral. The "New Morality" isn't an
option; it increasingly has the compulsory force of law behind it. At
bottom, it's a campaign to destroy Christian culture.
I have written before about the inconsistency of those who claim to be
"pro-choice, not pro-abortion." I cited their indifference to
forced abortion in Communist China. This was demonstrated again during
President Clinton's visit to China, when his list of human rights
failed to include "reproductive freedom." The point was underlined
when Mrs. Clinton, in her own syndicated column, wrote about the chief
concerns of Chinese women; she mentioned jobs, education, and
discrimination in the workplace, but not a word about the right to have
children.
Meanwhile, feminists have mounted a campaign to abolish the cruel
practice of female circumcision in parts of Africa and the Middle East.
Horrifying as this custom is to Westerners, it is deeply rooted in
local cultures, unlike the relatively recent forced-abortion policy of
the Chinese regime. Parents often perform it on their own daughters.
And it can hardly be more painful than being forced to undergo the
murder of a well-developed child in the womb.
So why the disparity of outrage among Western feminists? I think the
answer is that they regard the deprivation of sexual pleasure with
infinitely more shock and horror than the deprivation of parenthood.
The sexual revolution exalts the orgasm but despises the family and the
child. So the Chinese policy is in keeping with the feminist agenda;
the custom of female mutilation is not.
Chinese Communism has come to terms with capitalism, but it continues
to make war on cultural tradition. Its imposition of forced abortion
from above is not so different from the U.S. Supreme Court's imposition
of abortion on demand on all 50 states.
Joseph Sobran
.
|
|
| User: "Santolina chamaecyparissus" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Modern Atheist State Must Destroy Christian Culture |
05 May 2006 09:38:44 PM |
|
|
Must de-stroy Christian culture.....Must de-stroy Christian
culture.....Must de-stroy Christian culture.....Must de-stroy Christian
culture.....Must de-stroy Christian culture.....Must de-stroy Christian
culture.....Must de-stroy Christian culture.....Must de-stroy Christian
culture.....Must de-stroy Christian culture.....Must de-stroy Christian
culture.....Must de-stroy Christian culture.....Must de-stroy Christian
culture.....Must de-stroy Christian culture.....Must de-stroy Christian
culture.....
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Modern Atheist State Must Destroy Christian Culture |
04 May 2006 04:02:46 PM |
|
|
On 4 May 2006 09:08:56 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1146758936.001003.105770@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
More off topic religious propagandizing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Why Modern Atheist State Must Destroy Christian Culture |
04 May 2006 07:16:41 PM |
|
|
In article <bvqk52p1fcv6ktskm9868g7g8045v68q0o@4ax.com>,
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On 4 May 2006 09:08:56 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1146758936.001003.105770@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
More off topic religious propagandizing.
you continue to demonstrate your ignorance of usenet newsgroups,
scumball, and your disrespect for readers' ability to decide for
themselves what is and is not appropriate.
do you feel like a hypocrite criticizing others for doing what you
do? even osprey has legitimately commented on your hypocrisy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Modern Atheist State Must Destroy Christian Culture |
04 May 2006 03:47:09 PM |
|
|
On 4 May 2006 09:08:56 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote:
Chinese Communism has come to terms with capitalism, but it continues
to make war on cultural tradition. Its imposition of forced abortion
from above is not so different from the U.S. Supreme Court's imposition
of abortion on demand on all 50 states.
At no time has the Supreme Court ever done such a thing. Why does the
right inevitably resort to outright lying?
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Modern Atheist State Must Destroy Christian Culture |
04 May 2006 03:54:49 PM |
|
|
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:01qk52turdihdfqsvma070sfttfptp0sc8@4ax.com...
On 4 May 2006 09:08:56 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote:
Chinese Communism has come to terms with capitalism, but
it continues
to make war on cultural tradition. Its imposition of
forced abortion
from above is not so different from the U.S. Supreme
Court's imposition
of abortion on demand on all 50 states.
At no time has the Supreme Court ever done such a thing.
Why does the
right inevitably resort to outright lying?
You could quibble with the statement that the
U.S. Supreme court has "impos[ed] abortion on
demand on all 50 states," but it's not outright
lying. It's pretty much true.
The Supreme Court has made it "unconstitutional"
for the states to outlaw abortion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Modern Atheist State Must Destroy Christian Culture |
04 May 2006 05:36:12 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 May 2006 20:54:49 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:01qk52turdihdfqsvma070sfttfptp0sc8@4ax.com...
On 4 May 2006 09:08:56 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote:
Chinese Communism has come to terms with capitalism, but
it continues
to make war on cultural tradition. Its imposition of
forced abortion
from above is not so different from the U.S. Supreme
Court's imposition
of abortion on demand on all 50 states.
At no time has the Supreme Court ever done such a thing.
Why does the
right inevitably resort to outright lying?
You could quibble with the statement that the
U.S. Supreme court has "impos[ed] abortion on
demand on all 50 states," but it's not outright
lying. It's pretty much true.
No, it's not. Roe v. Wade allows the states to ban third trimester
abortions outright, and impose significant restrictions on earlier
procedures. In no way does it impose "abortion on demand".
The Supreme Court has made it "unconstitutional"
for the states to outlaw abortion.
This does not equate to permitting, or imposing, abortion on demand.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Modern Atheist State Must Destroy Christian Culture |
05 May 2006 02:58:15 PM |
|
|
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:ra0l52hehhu2ot8i3j4ufk357tq3i5a3g8@4ax.com...
On Thu, 04 May 2006 20:54:49 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:01qk52turdihdfqsvma070sfttfptp0sc8@4ax.com...
On 4 May 2006 09:08:56 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote:
Chinese Communism has come to terms with capitalism, but
it continues
to make war on cultural tradition. Its imposition of
forced abortion
from above is not so different from the U.S. Supreme
Court's imposition
of abortion on demand on all 50 states.
At no time has the Supreme Court ever done such a thing.
Why does the
right inevitably resort to outright lying?
You could quibble with the statement that the
U.S. Supreme court has "impos[ed] abortion on
demand on all 50 states," but it's not outright
lying. It's pretty much true.
No, it's not. Roe v. Wade allows the states to ban third
trimester
abortions outright, and impose significant restrictions on
earlier
procedures. In no way does it impose "abortion on demand".
As I said, it's pretty much true, with 40 million
abortions since Roe good testimony to that
fact.
The Supreme Court has made it "unconstitutional"
for the states to outlaw abortion.
This does not equate to permitting, or imposing, abortion
on demand.
If you've made it impossible for a state to outlaw
abortion under its own laws, you've pretty much
imposed legal abortion on the states.
But my only objection to your intial post was
the accusation of "outright lying." As I
said, the claim is pretty much true and
pretty far from "outright lying."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Modern Atheist State Must Destroy Christian Culture |
05 May 2006 04:13:30 PM |
|
|
In article <r7O6g.35915$cY3.8488@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com>,
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:ra0l52hehhu2ot8i3j4ufk357tq3i5a3g8@4ax.com...
On Thu, 04 May 2006 20:54:49 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:01qk52turdihdfqsvma070sfttfptp0sc8@4ax.com...
On 4 May 2006 09:08:56 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote:
Chinese Communism has come to terms with capitalism, but
it continues
to make war on cultural tradition. Its imposition of
forced abortion
from above is not so different from the U.S. Supreme
Court's imposition
of abortion on demand on all 50 states.
At no time has the Supreme Court ever done such a thing.
Why does the
right inevitably resort to outright lying?
You could quibble with the statement that the
U.S. Supreme court has "impos[ed] abortion on
demand on all 50 states," but it's not outright
lying. It's pretty much true.
No, it's not. Roe v. Wade allows the states to ban third
trimester
abortions outright, and impose significant restrictions on
earlier
procedures. In no way does it impose "abortion on demand".
As I said, it's pretty much true, with 40 million
abortions since Roe good testimony to that
fact.
The Supreme Court has made it "unconstitutional"
for the states to outlaw abortion.
This does not equate to permitting, or imposing, abortion
on demand.
If you've made it impossible for a state to outlaw
abortion under its own laws, you've pretty much
imposed legal abortion on the states.
But my only objection to your intial post was
the accusation of "outright lying." As I
said, the claim is pretty much true and
pretty far from "outright lying."
It is not at all "Pretty much true" that any government in the USA
imposes abortion on anyone. They merely do not prohibit it.
Your argument is no more valid that the prohibitionist argument that
failure to prohibit alcohol entirely forces it on people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Modern Atheist State Must Destroy Christian Culture |
06 May 2006 02:10:50 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-1E1CF6.15133005052006@news.usenetmonster.com...
In article
<r7O6g.35915$cY3.8488@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com>,
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:ra0l52hehhu2ot8i3j4ufk357tq3i5a3g8@4ax.com...
On Thu, 04 May 2006 20:54:49 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:01qk52turdihdfqsvma070sfttfptp0sc8@4ax.com...
On 4 May 2006 09:08:56 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote:
Chinese Communism has come to terms with capitalism,
but
it continues
to make war on cultural tradition. Its imposition of
forced abortion
from above is not so different from the U.S. Supreme
Court's imposition
of abortion on demand on all 50 states.
At no time has the Supreme Court ever done such a
thing.
Why does the
right inevitably resort to outright lying?
You could quibble with the statement that the
U.S. Supreme court has "impos[ed] abortion on
demand on all 50 states," but it's not outright
lying. It's pretty much true.
No, it's not. Roe v. Wade allows the states to ban
third
trimester
abortions outright, and impose significant restrictions
on
earlier
procedures. In no way does it impose "abortion on
demand".
As I said, it's pretty much true, with 40 million
abortions since Roe good testimony to that
fact.
The Supreme Court has made it "unconstitutional"
for the states to outlaw abortion.
This does not equate to permitting, or imposing,
abortion
on demand.
If you've made it impossible for a state to outlaw
abortion under its own laws, you've pretty much
imposed legal abortion on the states.
But my only objection to your intial post was
the accusation of "outright lying." As I
said, the claim is pretty much true and
pretty far from "outright lying."
It is not at all "Pretty much true" that any government in
the USA
imposes abortion on anyone. They merely do not prohibit
it.
The question wasn't about "anyone." The question
was about whether or not the Supreme Court had
indeed imposed abortion on demand on the *states.* And
by striking down all state laws that prohibit
abortion, the USSC in Roe imposed abortion
(as a "right" -- in the name of an act entitled
under a right to privacy) on the states. The
"controversy" is over whether this means
abortion on demand. And it pretty does much
mean abortion on demand, as opposed to
such a claim being "outright lying."
No big whoop.
Your argument is no more valid that the prohibitionist
argument that
failure to prohibit alcohol entirely forces it on people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Modern Atheist State Must Destroy Christian Culture |
07 May 2006 05:18:22 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-1E1CF6.15133005052006@news.usenetmonster.com...
In article
<r7O6g.35915$cY3.8488@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com>,
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:ra0l52hehhu2ot8i3j4ufk357tq3i5a3g8@4ax.com...
On Thu, 04 May 2006 20:54:49 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:01qk52turdihdfqsvma070sfttfptp0sc8@4ax.com...
On 4 May 2006 09:08:56 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote:
Chinese Communism has come to terms with capitalism,
but
it continues
to make war on cultural tradition. Its imposition of
forced abortion
from above is not so different from the U.S. Supreme
Court's imposition
of abortion on demand on all 50 states.
At no time has the Supreme Court ever done such a
thing.
Why does the
right inevitably resort to outright lying?
You could quibble with the statement that the
U.S. Supreme court has "impos[ed] abortion on
demand on all 50 states," but it's not outright
lying. It's pretty much true.
No, it's not. Roe v. Wade allows the states to ban
third
trimester
abortions outright, and impose significant restrictions
on
earlier
procedures. In no way does it impose "abortion on
demand".
As I said, it's pretty much true, with 40 million
abortions since Roe good testimony to that
fact.
The Supreme Court has made it "unconstitutional"
for the states to outlaw abortion.
This does not equate to permitting, or imposing,
abortion
on demand.
If you've made it impossible for a state to outlaw
abortion under its own laws, you've pretty much
imposed legal abortion on the states.
But my only objection to your intial post was
the accusation of "outright lying." As I
said, the claim is pretty much true and
pretty far from "outright lying."
It is not at all "Pretty much true" that any government in
the USA
imposes abortion on anyone. They merely do not prohibit
it.
The question wasn't about "anyone." The question
was about whether or not the Supreme Court had
indeed imposed abortion on demand on the *states.*
They did not. The US Constitution does.
* And
by striking down all state laws that prohibit
abortion,
Laws that are unconstitutional.
the USSC in Roe imposed abortion
(as a "right" -- in the name of an act entitled
under a right to privacy) on the states.
Like the USSC imposed freedom upon the states?
The
"controversy" is over whether this means
abortion on demand. And it pretty does much
mean abortion on demand,
Liar.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Modern Atheist State Must Destroy Christian Culture |
05 May 2006 09:35:04 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 May 2006 19:58:15 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:ra0l52hehhu2ot8i3j4ufk357tq3i5a3g8@4ax.com...
On Thu, 04 May 2006 20:54:49 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:01qk52turdihdfqsvma070sfttfptp0sc8@4ax.com...
On 4 May 2006 09:08:56 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote:
Chinese Communism has come to terms with capitalism, but
it continues
to make war on cultural tradition. Its imposition of
forced abortion
from above is not so different from the U.S. Supreme
Court's imposition
of abortion on demand on all 50 states.
At no time has the Supreme Court ever done such a thing.
Why does the
right inevitably resort to outright lying?
You could quibble with the statement that the
U.S. Supreme court has "impos[ed] abortion on
demand on all 50 states," but it's not outright
lying. It's pretty much true.
No, it's not. Roe v. Wade allows the states to ban third
trimester
abortions outright, and impose significant restrictions on
earlier
procedures. In no way does it impose "abortion on demand".
As I said, it's pretty much true,
As I said, it is demonstrably false, unless you have a different
definition of "on demand" than the rest of the world.
with 40 million
abortions since Roe good testimony to that
fact.
The Supreme Court has made it "unconstitutional"
for the states to outlaw abortion.
This does not equate to permitting, or imposing, abortion
on demand.
If you've made it impossible for a state to outlaw
abortion under its own laws,
Which is not the case. Roe v. Wade offers the states broad discretion
in prohibiting many abortions.
you've pretty much
imposed legal abortion on the states.
But my only objection to your intial post was
the accusation of "outright lying." As I
said, the claim is pretty much true and
pretty far from "outright lying."
For your own personal definition of "pretty much true" perhaps, but
not for anyone who subscribes to the idea that English words actually
mean something.
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Modern Atheist State Must Destroy Christian Culture |
06 May 2006 11:45:05 AM |
|
|
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:4i2o52d31to9pu92ughcag9g8sstll0o19@4ax.com...
On Fri, 05 May 2006 19:58:15 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:ra0l52hehhu2ot8i3j4ufk357tq3i5a3g8@4ax.com...
On Thu, 04 May 2006 20:54:49 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:01qk52turdihdfqsvma070sfttfptp0sc8@4ax.com...
On 4 May 2006 09:08:56 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote:
Chinese Communism has come to terms with capitalism,
but
it continues
to make war on cultural tradition. Its imposition of
forced abortion
from above is not so different from the U.S. Supreme
Court's imposition
of abortion on demand on all 50 states.
At no time has the Supreme Court ever done such a
thing.
Why does the
right inevitably resort to outright lying?
You could quibble with the statement that the
U.S. Supreme court has "impos[ed] abortion on
demand on all 50 states," but it's not outright
lying. It's pretty much true.
No, it's not. Roe v. Wade allows the states to ban third
trimester
abortions outright, and impose significant restrictions
on
earlier
procedures. In no way does it impose "abortion on
demand".
As I said, it's pretty much true,
As I said, it is demonstrably false, unless you have a
different
definition of "on demand" than the rest of the world.
Abortion is pretty much available on demand
in the United States. Thinking that because
there are restrictions on late-term abortions
is to suggest that one doesn't have sufficient
time to realize one is pregnant, and it ain't
so. Beer is available on demand in most
bars until closing time; one just needs
to get there before closing time to demand
it. In other words, unborn children are
pretty much aborted on demand in the United
States.
with 40 million
abortions since Roe good testimony to that
fact.
The Supreme Court has made it "unconstitutional"
for the states to outlaw abortion.
This does not equate to permitting, or imposing,
abortion
on demand.
If you've made it impossible for a state to outlaw
abortion under its own laws,
Which is not the case. Roe v. Wade offers the states broad
discretion
in prohibiting many abortions.
Really? Like, for instance, can a state
make a law that says "no abortions"?
If not, then states cannot outlaw abortions.
If they are not outlawed, then they are
available on demand until such point where
the restrictions kick in.
you've pretty much
imposed legal abortion on the states.
But my only objection to your intial post was
the accusation of "outright lying." As I
said, the claim is pretty much true and
pretty far from "outright lying."
For your own personal definition of "pretty much true"
perhaps, but
not for anyone who subscribes to the idea that English
words actually
mean something.
"Pretty much true" are English words and
they mean "pretty much true," as in it
is pretty much true that Roe imposes abortion
on demand on states as opposed to such
a claim being "outright lying."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Modern Atheist State Must Destroy Christian Culture |
07 May 2006 05:00:37 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
As I said, it is demonstrably false, unless you have a
different
definition of "on demand" than the rest of the world.
Abortion is pretty much available on demand
in the United States.
Pro-liar *****. Abortion isn't available "on demand" anywhere in
the United States. 1) You need to be able to pay for it, 2) you need
to find somebody to provide it, and 3) states have restricted 2nd and
3rd trimester abortions making late-term abortion impossible to get
except for dire medical need.
Thinking that because
there are restrictions on late-term abortions
Then she can't very well demand an abortion, can she?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Modern Atheist State Must Destroy Christian Culture |
07 May 2006 05:07:35 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:445e6e05$0$65452$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Martin McPhillips <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
As I said, it is demonstrably false, unless you have a
different
definition of "on demand" than the rest of the world.
Abortion is pretty much available on demand
in the United States.
Pro-liar *****.
I see that the inflamed brain stem is on the
scene.
Abortion isn't available "on demand" anywhere in
the United States. 1) You need to be able to pay for it,
"On demand" for payment then. The point is that it's
legal.
2) you need
to find somebody to provide it, and 3) states have
restricted 2nd and
3rd trimester abortions making late-term abortion
impossible to get
except for dire medical need.
Restrictions on abortion for the second and third
terms don't change the fact that women who find
out they are pregnant can go pay their money and
get an abortion, all other things being equal.
Thinking that because
there are restrictions on late-term abortions
Then she can't very well demand an abortion, can she?
Yes, she pretty much can.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Modern Atheist State Must Destroy Christian Culture |
07 May 2006 05:20:45 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:445e6e05$0$65452$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Martin McPhillips <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
As I said, it is demonstrably false, unless you have a
different
definition of "on demand" than the rest of the world.
Abortion is pretty much available on demand
in the United States.
Pro-liar *****.
I see that the inflamed brain stem is on the
scene.
Maybe you should learn to think instead of spewing obvious
pro-liar *****.
Abortion isn't available "on demand" anywhere in
the United States. 1) You need to be able to pay for it,
"On demand" for payment then.
Thus refuting your ***** claim.
The point is that it's
legal.
Also crap because ...
2) you need
to find somebody to provide it, and 3) states have
restricted 2nd and
3rd trimester abortions making late-term abortion
impossible to get
except for dire medical need.
Restrictions on abortion for the second and third
terms don't change the fact that women who find
out they are pregnant can go pay their money and
get an abortion,
Ignoring all the points which prove you wrong merely to
repeat your claim makes you a stupid liar.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Modern Atheist State Must Destroy Christian Culture |
07 May 2006 05:23:18 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:445e72bd$0$65512$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Martin McPhillips <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:445e6e05$0$65452$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Martin McPhillips <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
As I said, it is demonstrably false, unless you have a
different
definition of "on demand" than the rest of the world.
Abortion is pretty much available on demand
in the United States.
Pro-liar *****.
I see that the inflamed brain stem is on the
scene.
Maybe you should learn to think instead of spewing obvious
pro-liar *****.
Listen to yourself.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Modern Atheist State Must Destroy Christian Culture |
06 May 2006 03:18:51 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 May 2006 16:45:05 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:4i2o52d31to9pu92ughcag9g8sstll0o19@4ax.com...
On Fri, 05 May 2006 19:58:15 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:ra0l52hehhu2ot8i3j4ufk357tq3i5a3g8@4ax.com...
On Thu, 04 May 2006 20:54:49 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:01qk52turdihdfqsvma070sfttfptp0sc8@4ax.com...
On 4 May 2006 09:08:56 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote:
Chinese Communism has come to terms with capitalism,
but
it continues
to make war on cultural tradition. Its imposition of
forced abortion
from above is not so different from the U.S. Supreme
Court's imposition
of abortion on demand on all 50 states.
At no time has the Supreme Court ever done such a
thing.
Why does the
right inevitably resort to outright lying?
You could quibble with the statement that the
U.S. Supreme court has "impos[ed] abortion on
demand on all 50 states," but it's not outright
lying. It's pretty much true.
No, it's not. Roe v. Wade allows the states to ban third
trimester
abortions outright, and impose significant restrictions
on
earlier
procedures. In no way does it impose "abortion on
demand".
As I said, it's pretty much true,
As I said, it is demonstrably false, unless you have a
different
definition of "on demand" than the rest of the world.
Abortion is pretty much available on demand
in the United States.
No, it isn't. In many states, the restrictions are so many and/or the
providers so few that they are effectively unavailable in those
states.
<snip remaining nonsense>
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Modern Atheist State Must Destroy Christian Culture |
06 May 2006 03:22:46 PM |
|
|
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:nu0q52ddqfa5c9d4mo37tb5kroo0t9p8mh@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 May 2006 16:45:05 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:4i2o52d31to9pu92ughcag9g8sstll0o19@4ax.com...
On Fri, 05 May 2006 19:58:15 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:ra0l52hehhu2ot8i3j4ufk357tq3i5a3g8@4ax.com...
On Thu, 04 May 2006 20:54:49 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in
message
news:01qk52turdihdfqsvma070sfttfptp0sc8@4ax.com...
On 4 May 2006 09:08:56 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote:
Chinese Communism has come to terms with capitalism,
but
it continues
to make war on cultural tradition. Its imposition of
forced abortion
from above is not so different from the U.S. Supreme
Court's imposition
of abortion on demand on all 50 states.
At no time has the Supreme Court ever done such a
thing.
Why does the
right inevitably resort to outright lying?
You could quibble with the statement that the
U.S. Supreme court has "impos[ed] abortion on
demand on all 50 states," but it's not outright
lying. It's pretty much true.
No, it's not. Roe v. Wade allows the states to ban
third
trimester
abortions outright, and impose significant
restrictions
on
earlier
procedures. In no way does it impose "abortion on
demand".
As I said, it's pretty much true,
As I said, it is demonstrably false, unless you have a
different
definition of "on demand" than the rest of the world.
Abortion is pretty much available on demand
in the United States.
No, it isn't.
Sure it is.
In many states, the restrictions are so many
Like what and where? States cannot outlaw
abortion per se, nor can they restrict it
legally so as to make it effectively
unavailable.
and/or the
providers so few that they are effectively unavailable in
those
states.
O.K., there are states where the *providers*
are thinly available, so I'll rephrase what I wrote to
"pretty much *legally* available on demand."
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Modern Atheist State Must Destroy Christian Culture |
07 May 2006 05:22:08 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 May 2006 20:22:46 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:nu0q52ddqfa5c9d4mo37tb5kroo0t9p8mh@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 May 2006 16:45:05 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:4i2o52d31to9pu92ughcag9g8sstll0o19@4ax.com...
On Fri, 05 May 2006 19:58:15 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:ra0l52hehhu2ot8i3j4ufk357tq3i5a3g8@4ax.com...
On Thu, 04 May 2006 20:54:49 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in
message
news:01qk52turdihdfqsvma070sfttfptp0sc8@4ax.com...
On 4 May 2006 09:08:56 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote:
Chinese Communism has come to terms with capitalism,
but
it continues
to make war on cultural tradition. Its imposition of
forced abortion
from above is not so different from the U.S. Supreme
Court's imposition
of abortion on demand on all 50 states.
At no time has the Supreme Court ever done such a
thing.
Why does the
right inevitably resort to outright lying?
You could quibble with the statement that the
U.S. Supreme court has "impos[ed] abortion on
demand on all 50 states," but it's not outright
lying. It's pretty much true.
No, it's not. Roe v. Wade allows the states to ban
third
trimester
abortions outright, and impose significant
restrictions
on
earlier
procedures. In no way does it impose "abortion on
demand".
As I said, it's pretty much true,
As I said, it is demonstrably false, unless you have a
different
definition of "on demand" than the rest of the world.
Abortion is pretty much available on demand
in the United States.
No, it isn't.
Sure it is.
Again, not unless you're using a different definition of words than
the English language normally calls for. "On demand" means just that.
Placing restrictions on it makes it NOT "on demand" by definition.
In many states, the restrictions are so many
Like what and where? States cannot outlaw
abortion per se, nor can they restrict it
legally so as to make it effectively
unavailable.
Try checking the Bible Belt for a start. In fact, you might want to
check most of the so-called "Red States".
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Modern Atheist State Must Destroy Christian Culture |
07 May 2006 05:27:49 PM |
|
|
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:cjss52leu8vgs2cl0d48coraiv8vaksltg@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 May 2006 20:22:46 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:nu0q52ddqfa5c9d4mo37tb5kroo0t9p8mh@4ax.com...
On Sat, 06 May 2006 16:45:05 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:4i2o52d31to9pu92ughcag9g8sstll0o19@4ax.com...
On Fri, 05 May 2006 19:58:15 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in
message
news:ra0l52hehhu2ot8i3j4ufk357tq3i5a3g8@4ax.com...
On Thu, 04 May 2006 20:54:49 GMT, "Martin
McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in
message
news:01qk52turdihdfqsvma070sfttfptp0sc8@4ax.com...
On 4 May 2006 09:08:56 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote:
Chinese Communism has come to terms with
capitalism,
but
it continues
to make war on cultural tradition. Its imposition
of
forced abortion
from above is not so different from the U.S.
Supreme
Court's imposition
of abortion on demand on all 50 states.
At no time has the Supreme Court ever done such a
thing.
Why does the
right inevitably resort to outright lying?
You could quibble with the statement that the
U.S. Supreme court has "impos[ed] abortion on
demand on all 50 states," but it's not outright
lying. It's pretty much true.
No, it's not. Roe v. Wade allows the states to ban
third
trimester
abortions outright, and impose significant
restrictions
on
earlier
procedures. In no way does it impose "abortion on
demand".
As I said, it's pretty much true,
As I said, it is demonstrably false, unless you have a
different
definition of "on demand" than the rest of the world.
Abortion is pretty much available on demand
in the United States.
No, it isn't.
Sure it is.
Again, not unless you're using a different definition of
words than
the English language normally calls for. "On demand" means
just that.
Placing restrictions on it makes it NOT "on demand" by
definition.
And "pretty much on demand" means "pretty much on demand".
And abortion in the U.S. is available pretty much on
demand.
In many states, the restrictions are so many
Like what and where? States cannot outlaw
abortion per se, nor can they restrict it
legally so as to make it effectively
unavailable.
Try checking the Bible Belt for a start. In fact, you
might want to
check most of the so-called "Red States".
Well, you're suggesting that I "check" the
Bible Belt, so you've obviously checked it.
So why don't you report how some certain
Red States have restricted abortion so as to
make it effectively unavailable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Modern Atheist State Must Destroy Christian Culture |
07 May 2006 07:06:47 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
Again, not unless you're using a different definition of
words than
the English language normally calls for. "On demand" means
just that.
Placing restrictions on it makes it NOT "on demand" by
definition.
And "pretty much on demand" means "pretty much on demand".
And abortion in the U.S. is available pretty much on
demand.
You admitted that it is not. Now you're lying.
Typical pro-liar.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Modern Atheist State Must Destroy Christian Culture |
05 May 2006 10:35:24 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 May 2006 20:54:49 GMT, "Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:01qk52turdihdfqsvma070sfttfptp0sc8@4ax.com...
On 4 May 2006 09:08:56 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote:
Chinese Communism has come to terms with capitalism, but
it continues
to make war on cultural tradition. Its imposition of
forced abortion
from above is not so different from the U.S. Supreme
Court's imposition
of abortion on demand on all 50 states.
At no time has the Supreme Court ever done such a thing.
Why does the
right inevitably resort to outright lying?
You could quibble with the statement that the
U.S. Supreme court has "impos[ed] abortion on
demand on all 50 states," but it's not outright
lying. It's pretty much true.
Only if you accept that they have also "forced" freedom of speech, freedom of
religion, etc, onto you.
The Supreme Court has made it "unconstitutional"
for the states to outlaw abortion.
Yep, but it is also "unconstitutional" to outlaw freedom of speech, freedom of
religion, etc, so it is as broad as it is , long.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Modern Atheist State Must Destroy Christian Culture |
05 May 2006 03:01:42 PM |
|
|
"Dubh Ghall" <puck@pooks.hill.fey> wrote in message
news:phrm52p3v2lb9tj8oipe893766mo3g0i0k@4ax.com...
On Thu, 04 May 2006 20:54:49 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:01qk52turdihdfqsvma070sfttfptp0sc8@4ax.com...
On 4 May 2006 09:08:56 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote:
Chinese Communism has come to terms with capitalism, but
it continues
to make war on cultural tradition. Its imposition of
forced abortion
from above is not so different from the U.S. Supreme
Court's imposition
of abortion on demand on all 50 states.
At no time has the Supreme Court ever done such a thing.
Why does the
right inevitably resort to outright lying?
You could quibble with the statement that the
U.S. Supreme court has "impos[ed] abortion on
demand on all 50 states," but it's not outright
lying. It's pretty much true.
Only if you accept that they have also "forced" freedom of
speech, freedom of
religion, etc, onto you.
Well, if you equate killing unborn children
with freedom of speech, then you might be
right.
The Supreme Court has made it "unconstitutional"
for the states to outlaw abortion.
Yep, but it is also "unconstitutional" to outlaw freedom
of speech, freedom of
religion, etc, so it is as broad as it is , long.
Yep, indeed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Modern Atheist State Must Destroy Christian Culture |
05 May 2006 04:16:34 PM |
|
|
In article <GaO6g.35916$cY3.35171@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com>,
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
Well, if you equate killing unborn children
with freedom of speech, then you might be
right.
There are no such things as "unborn children" in law. There are fetuses
before birth which become children upon birth.
Eggs are not chickens.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Modern Atheist State Must Destroy Christian Culture |
06 May 2006 02:15:39 PM |
|
|
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vmhjr2-094F49.15163305052006@news.usenetmonster.com...
In article
<GaO6g.35916$cY3.35171@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com>,
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
Well, if you equate killing unborn children
with freedom of speech, then you might be
right.
There are no such things as "unborn children" in law.
There are fetuses
before birth which become children upon birth.
Eggs are not chickens.
Every human life is a continuum from conception
to death. So, every human life is a person.
There is no human life/human being duality, no
human person/human non-person duality.
An unborn human can be authentically called
an unborn child or an unborn baby. Just as
a pregnant woman can say "I'm with child"
or "I'm having a baby", etc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Modern Atheist State Must Destroy Christian Culture |
07 May 2006 05:01:19 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
Well, if you equate killing unborn children
with freedom of speech, then you might be
right.
There are no such things as "unborn children" in law.
There are fetuses
before birth which become children upon birth.
Eggs are not chickens.
Every human life is a continuum from conception
to death.
Pro-liar *****. Human life doesn't start at conception since
sperm and egg are alive BEFORE conception.
So, every human life is a person.
So you're a idiot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Modern Atheist State Must Destroy Christian Culture |
07 May 2006 05:07:35 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:445e6e2f$0$65452$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Martin McPhillips <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Virgil" <vmhjr2@comcast.net> wrote in message
Well, if you equate killing unborn children
with freedom of speech, then you might be
right.
There are no such things as "unborn children" in law.
There are fetuses
before birth which become children upon birth.
Eggs are not chickens.
Every human life is a continuum from conception
to death.
Pro-liar *****.
Your inflamed brain stem is noted, again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Modern Atheist State Must Destroy Christian Culture |
07 May 2006 05:21:39 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Pro-liar *****.
Your inflamed brain stem is noted, again.
Your dishonesty and cowardice is demonstrated yet again.
You'd rather spew pro-liar propaganda than deal with the truth.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Why Modern Atheist State Must Destroy Christian Culture |
07 May 2006 05:24:50 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:445e72f3$0$65512$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Martin McPhillips <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Pro-liar *****.
Your inflamed brain stem is noted, again.
Your dishonesty and cowardice is demonstrated yet again.
You'd rather spew pro-liar propaganda than deal with the
truth.
Your distance from the truth is nearly
absolute, Ray. I don't know what's wrong
with you, and I don't care, other than
to note that I don't call you an inflamed
brain stem merely because I disagree
with you.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Christian Culture as War and Repression |
05 May 2006 10:56:23 AM |
|
|
Dubh Ghall wrote:
On Thu, 04 May 2006 20:54:49 GMT, "Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:01qk52turdihdfqsvma070sfttfptp0sc8@4ax.com...
On 4 May 2006 09:08:56 -0700, "Sound of Trumpet"
<soundoftrumpet@hoshmail.com> wrote:
Chinese Communism has come to terms with capitalism, but
it continues
to make war on cultural tradition. Its imposition of
forced abortion
from above is not so different from the U.S. Supreme
Court's imposition
of abortion on demand on all 50 states.
At no time has the Supreme Court ever done such a thing.
Why does the
right inevitably resort to outright lying?
You could quibble with the statement that the
U.S. Supreme court has "impos[ed] abortion on
demand on all 50 states," but it's not outright
lying. It's pretty much true.
Only if you accept that they have also "forced" freedom of speech, freedom of
religion, etc, onto you.
The Supreme Court has made it "unconstitutional"
for the states to outlaw abortion.
Yep, but it is also "unconstitutional" to outlaw freedom of speech, freedom of
religion, etc, so it is as broad as it is , long.
Sobran and those who agree with him believe that either
the state must impose "Christian culture" on everyone, or else
the state is at war with "Christian culture" and "Christian culture"
must struggle to take over the state so that it can be used as
its instrument.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
