Hickory-smoked: Dude, don't prejudge people's beliefs based on stereotypes.

Stereotypes? Which of the above choices was over the line?

And I do have to take this time to apologize for not including the Gay in my list of things those people want to outlaw.

2006-07-18 07:39:55 PM sleepbox
1) Should a rape victim be forced to bear her assailant's child agianst her will?

2) Do you agonize over the deaths of civilians in the current mideast warfare and work to end the conflict?

3) Do you support mandatory birth control for all post-pubescent men and women not desiring to have children?

4) Have you adopted a child? Do you encourage others to adopt? Do you volunteer in a foster care center?

If you don't answer yes to all these questions, you really need to tend to that beam in your own eye.

Daraymann

I'm not in favor of outlawing any of these
I am opposed to:
- Abortion
- Witches (or any religion which leads away from God)
- Pr0n

I'm a fan of:
- Harry Potter
- Video Games
- Evolution (to a degree)

I've learned what I believe to be the truth, and would like to warn people that there are consequences to the way we live our lives. I'm a Mormon, so I'm not saying that you'll burn in Hell for all eternity, but I think it's in your best interest to listen. Still, I can't and won't force you to do anything, the choice is yours.

AtomicDragon: I'm a Mormon

Being as how you are not a Christian you are not a part of the problem and have been granted immunity from my wrath.

Good day to you.

Wow, that is legal, level-headed...damn you rational wealthy non-farkers!!!

Could somebody give these people some good sex and distract their cool, calculated powers of logic?

/not rich enough to support the rights of those who can't figure out "condoms".
//You're not a person until you're in my phone book
----Bill Hicks

My basic philosophy on the subject is that generally speaking, abortion is a gift that is wasted on the unborn.

I personally love abortions. It keeps little future welfare receipients away from my pockets. Because honestly, if these little bags of flesh are going to be parented by the type of irresponsible people who would consider an abortion chances are that the little water-heads would be living on my dime anyway.
On that note, I have the perfect abortion solution;
Anyone who can't take care of themselves (teenagers and welfare collectors) can have their first abortion for free. However, as part of said medical procedure, you must get the birth control implant good for 10 years. If, during the 10 year free humping spree, you decide that you actually feel the need to birth an offspring, you must pay the sum of $10000 ($5000 of which would go in to jr.'s no-touch college fund)to have the implant removed. The other $5000 would "pay-it-forward" to the next idiot in line for her "free" abortion.

Daraymann
AtomicDragon: I'm a Mormon

Being as how you are not a Christian.
*bzzt* wrong! I'm as Christian as they get. Do a little research.

2006-07-18 05:35:13 PM echinuts
Really? Care to name a few?

You mean you haven't gotten the e-mail forward that pro-lifers always send around? All the famous people whose mother had some sort of bad circumstances? I don't feel like looking for it, but I doubt it'd be hard to find.

How many adopted kids in your family?

Is that really your argument? Seriously?

Would you hire her at the same salary with her background?

Why would she have to make the same salary? I don't really know, since you're just inventing this example as you go along to try and support your case. Do you think she's going to retire as a stripper? Is she going to strip long enough to put her kids through college? What you're saying is, when she's done stripping, she'll be on the streets because there is nothing else in this world she can do. No?

AtomicDragon: I'm as Christian as they get. Do a little research.

That would be your own fault, but I am willing to play, so answer me this:

Why Mormon?

2006-07-18 08:54:11 PM AtomicDragon
*bzzt* wrong! I'm as Christian as they get. Do a little research.

Huh? There are huge differences between what Mormons believe as compared to Biblical Christianity.

Maybe you should do a little research. I'm not going to go off on a tangent in this thread, but here are some suggested topics for you to review (all things where Christianity differs from Mormonism): the false belief that Mormons can eventually become gods, Mormons don't believe in the classic Christian doctrine of the Trinity, claims by the Book of Mormon that Israelites are the principal ancestors of Native Americans (proven incorrect through DNA), the incorrect belief that God is an immortal man with a body of flesh and bones, "Heavenly Mother," and many, many more.

/sorry, didn't mean to go off-topic that far!

I asked Bevets before, but I think it applies to most of the more fervent anti-abortion folks... (At least the wildly religious types.)

If life is life from conception, why is it God decides to murder a good 20-40% of all human beings through miscarriage? Is Original Sin THAT lethal?

Seems kinda screwed up, if you ask me... Makes abortion throughout history--and even every plague and disease to ever hit mankind--look downright pussified in comparison. Even global floods!

That's one of the weakest arguments I've ever heard.

It's not an arguement, it's a question. For those who seem to think everything is so blindingly--and divinely--black and white.

Later ON maybe we'll find a point or two to argue. ;-)

What a great idea!! Abortion is murder. Lefties will never win. Looking forward to another Republican government in 08. As long as there's a war on, the Democrats have NO CHANCE!

Right wing for life!

waltvm: Huh? There are huge differences between what Mormons believe as compared to Biblical Christianity.

Maybe you should do a little research. I'm not going to go off on a tangent in this thread, but here are some suggested topics for you to review (all things where Christianity differs from Mormonism): the false belief that Mormons can eventually become gods, Mormons don't believe in the classic Christian doctrine of the Trinity, claims by the Book of Mormon that Israelites are the principal ancestors of Native Americans (proven incorrect through DNA), the incorrect belief that God is an immortal man with a body of flesh and bones, "Heavenly Mother," and many, many more.

Even despite all of that, Mormons by definition are still Christian, because they believe in Jesus as the Christ. That is the only requirement to meet the general definition of the term. And no, you don't get to change the definitions to suit your argument. Using that technique, anyone could "prove" anything. I could prove you to be an al-Qaida terrorist. All I'd have to do is re-define "al-Qaida terrorist" as "anyone who posts on FARK.com under the user name 'waltv'." There. I proved it.

Oh, and for the record, the Trinity doctrine may be traditional Christianity, but it is not Biblical Christianity. The word "Trinity" in any form or variation occurs exactly zero + zip + nada + zilch + naught + diddly + squat times in the entire Bible. The concept of the Trinity is implied several times but only flatly stated once, in a passage of heavily disputed authenticity (I John 5:7, aka the Johannine Comma: you won't find it in an RSV, NIV, or any other version translated from older documents. The KJV does have it because it's translated from the far more recent [by over a millennium] Textus Receptus compiled in Antioch in the 15^th Century by one Erasmus).

Most of the Trinity-supporting passages are from John, either in his Gospel (the "Word" prologue, "I and my Father are one") or the Epistles. And yet, many Trinity-refuting passages also come from John: "My Father is greater than I" (in the very same chapter wherein He said, "I and my Father are one") is one example, but a particularly devastating one is the seventeenth chapter of the Gospel of John - the whole chapter, so you can't claim it as being taken out-of-context. Therein, Jesus prays to the Father, and asks Him for a blessing to His Apostles and to all who would come to believe through their word. Read exactly what the blessing is that He asks of His Father. Note that the Koine Greek word translated "one" therein (repeatedly!) is the same exact word as the one in the "I and my Father are one" passage and in the Johannine Comma! Note also that Jesus makes it very plain that what He's asking is to be taken in the very same sense. Again, repeatedly.

As for the DNA thing, no, DNA does not disprove the Book of Mormon claims. Two types of DNA are used in human migration tracking: mitochondrial DNA (mDNA) and Y-chromosomal DNA (Y-DNA). These are used because theoretically each comes only from one parent, and thus changes only from mutation and drift, not recombination. Y-DNA is reliable, because of course only males have it, which means that sons get it from their natural fathers and nowhere else. But mDNA as it turns out isn't so reliable. Everyone has mDNA, because everyone has mitochondria. It was believed that the mitochondria in sperm cells didn't survive conception, and so the mDNA from the sperm was always lost, and only that of the ovum (mother) was passed on. Usually, this is true, but there have been shown cases where paternal sperm mDNA did get passed on, and did combine with the maternal ovum mDNA. This renders mDNA unreliable for migration tracking.

Note that I didn't get any of this from FARMS or other sources (it was only after I posted this to FARK months ago in another thread that someone told me that FARMS [which I never visit] had such info available. No, I found it on my own by researching human DNA migration tracking. The mDNA researchers themselves concluded that mDNA is unreliable.

The mDNA data, if it were reliable, would indeed refute the Book of Mormon claims. The Y-DNA, however, does allow for Semitic origins of some (not all, but then again the Book of Mormon never claimed that) native American peoples. There is an X-lineage (the term the Y-DNA researchers use) found in North America that is similar to Semitic lineages.

On the other points you raise, it should be noted that if you really wanted to disprove the LDS faith, all you need to do is find every LDS teaching in the Bible. What!? Wouldn't that prove the LDS faith? No, it'd disprove it! If you could do that, I personally would tender my letter of apostacy to my Bishop. Why would this disprove the LDS faith? Because if all LDS teachings could be found in the Bible, what need would there be for the Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, or modern-day Apostles and Prophets, the foundation of the LDS faith?

So, finding teachings that we teach that aren't in the Bible actually strengthens our case!

That said, I will confess that I have my doubts about the LDS faith. But, they are doubts about Christianity overall. If I were to leave the LDS faith, it would be to become an atheist, not a Christian of any other kind. Been there, done that (I'm a Convert from Protestantism).

So, which do you think would be better for me? Stay LDS, or become an atheist, if those were the only two choices (and they are), with traditional Christianity having absolutely zero chance of getting me back (which is the case)?

well, I can't say I support what they're doing but at least I support their methods of bringing about change.

From the WSJ:

THE ROE EFFECT

The Empty Cradle Will Rock
How abortion is costing the Democrats voters--literally.

BY LARRY L. EASTLAND
Monday, June 28, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

More than 40 million legal abortions have been performed and documented in the 30 years since the U.S. Supreme Court declared abortion legal. The debate remains focused on the legality and morality of abortion. What's largely ignored is a factual analysis of the political consequences of 40 million abortions. Consider:

• There were 12,274,368 in the Voting Age Population of 205,815,000 missing from the 2000 presidential election, because of abortions from 1973-82.

• In this year's election, there will be 18,336,576 in the Voting Age Population missing because of abortions between 1972 and 1986.

• In the 2008 election, 24,408,960 in the Voting Age Population will be missing because of abortions between 1973-90.

These numbers will not change. They are based on individual choices made--aggregated nationally--as long as 30 years ago. Look inside these numbers at where the political impact is felt most. Do Democrats realize that millions of Missing Voters--due to the abortion policies they advocate--gave George W. Bush the margin of victory in 2000?

The number of abortions accumulate in size and political impact as the years roll along. Like an avalanche that picks up speed, mass, and power as it thunders down a mountain, the number of Missing Voters from abortion changes the landscape of politics. The absence of the missing voters may not be noticed, but that doesn't mean its political impact disappears. As seen during a famine, what no longer exists becomes as relevant as what does.

The question arises: Who would these Missing Voters have been if they had reached voting age? What would their values have been? How would they have voted? What impact would they have had on the great debates in America, including the abortion debate? Here's what we know from several generations of social science research about children:

• They tend to absorb the values of their parents.

• They tend to have the same political views as their family (parents, siblings, immediate relatives) and share common views on political causes.

• They tend to develop the same lifestyle as their family.

I remember the guy at my 30th high school class reunion who looked over the people there and remarked, "I can't believe I came in person, while everyone else sent their parents!"

With these factors in mind, the internationally respected survey research firm Wirthlin Worldwide was commissioned to ask 2,000 respondents in a stratified random sample of adults the following question: "As far as you know, has anyone close to you had an abortion?" The emphasis here was on "close to you" in order to bring to mind only those people inside the respondents' circle of socio-demographically homogeneous family and friends.

Of the 2,000 respondents, 636 responded "yes." The various socio-demographic characteristics of these respondents were then imposed on the abortion statistics (Table 1, above), with a special emphasis on the 2000 and 2004 general elections to see what impact they likely would have made had the Missing Voters been present to vote in those two elections.

There were 105,405,100 votes cast for president in the 2000 general election, representing 51.2% of the Voting Age Population. The Missing Voters would have been 6,033,097 based on that portion of the 51.2% represented by (at their lower voting level) 18-24 year olds. This means that Missing Voters would have been 4.48% of all actual voters in 2000.
Given the extremely close result in 2000, these voters could have been a crucial factor in the outcome. This is borne out when viewed by political party as defined in the Wirthlin survey.

There is a significant difference between Republicans with someone close to them who have had an abortion, and Democrats with someone close to them who have had an abortion
This tells us:

• Republicans have fewer abortions than their proportion of the population, Democrats have more than their proportion of the population. Democrats account for 30% more abortions than Republicans (49% vs. 35%).

• The more ideologically Democratic the voters are (self-identified liberals), the more abortions they have. The more ideologically Republican the voters are (self-identified conservatives), the fewer abortions they have.

This isn't particularly surprising given the core constituencies of both political parties. But translating percentages into numbers for the purpose of evaluating their impact on politics makes the importance of these numbers real. It's one thing to quote percentages and statistics, it's quite another to look at actual human beings. For example:

• There are 19,748,000 Democrats who are not with us today. (49.37 percent of 40 million).

• There are 13,900,000 Republican who are not with us today. (34.75 percent of 40 million).

• By comparison, then, the Democrats have lost 5,848,000 more voters than the Republicans have.

[...]

I wonder if they got the idea from the Nature Conservancy? They use donations to buy up natural land they want to protect. Then it's their land, and they can do what they want, which is to say "no" to developers, and otherwise manage the ecosystem of that land responsibly.

That's your proof folks. If we let the R's outlaw abortion, there would be more people to elect the D's and keep abortion legal.

(*That's too stupid even for Fark*)

Someone post a link to that article about anti-abortion activists sneaking in and secretly getting abortions themselves.

Daraymann: Why Mormon?

I see the world around me, feel my own consciousness, and can't believe that it's all due to random chance. I believe that there has to be a higher power. Based on the world I saw, I developed my own picture of what God would be like, his personality. When the Mormon missionaries came along, they presented a God who matched up pretty well with the person I already believed in, a God who did things for reasons that made sense. Unlike other denominations, we know why God created the world and humanity. Fianlly, after much studying of the church and searching my own soul, I asked God to let me know if I was doing the right thing, and he made his position very clear.

I grew up in an agnostic houshold and have an innate distrust of organized religion, but I can't deny the testimony I have that my beliefs are true. And I can't deny that the founders of the church, who were martyred for their beliefs, truly believed in what they were doing.

cthellis I asked Bevets before, but I think it applies to most of the more fervent anti-abortion folks... (At least the wildly religious types.)

If life is life from conception, why is it God decides to murder a good 20-40% of all human beings through miscarriage? Is Original Sin THAT lethal?

The easy way out would be to say that "the ways of God are too complicated for Mankind to comprehend," But I hate that answer.

If you believe in God, then you have to believe he's vastly more intelligent than any human who ever lived. Through his methods, he can know the future, and know how any individuals life will pan out. It may be that if he knows a birth would be disasterous, he terminates it. We don't know the future beyond some hazy guesses, if we perform abortions, we could be killing people who would have good lives and contribute to society.

Alternatively, Perhaps God has better things to do than to micro-manage every atom in the universe, and so he lets the Laws of Physics run things, and sometimes mutations happen creating unviable embryos.

If they really wanted to solve the problem, what about giving that money to help pregnant women cover the costs of their births, and then provide an adoption service? Oh thats right, they dont want to proactively help, they just want to eliminate options, leading to more single parents living below the poverty line, who already know they cant possibly raise/support a child.

Every time a boy jerks off, he's killing millions.

For God's sake, people: THEY"RE MOVING! Use a microscope! THEY'RE ALIVE!!!

Spank my ButtMonkey

Don't be an asshat. Did I ever, at any point in that post, say I was pro-life? No. If you can't reply in an intelligent manner without dragging in personal beliefs (especially since MY post had nothing about MY personal beliefs), then don't bother replying.

If I may quite myself, in that particular post: /not meant to be a pro- or anti-abortion post, just some reasoning.

granolasteak

So where's your research on these "many" people who use abortion as birth control?

I haven't done the research, but the numbers have been supplied many times in this thread, often coming from Planned Parenthood sources.

Do you have any idea how much an abortion COSTS?? It's certainly to take out stock in Trojans than it is to have one single abortion.

No, I don't know, but I also don't see how that relates to my post.

Do you have any idea how PAINFUL an abortion is? That it is a two-day procedure with constant pain for the full two days, plus the after-pains? (Yes, I know, there are single-day procedures, as well, but they cost just as much and are much much much more painful).

Yes, I can imagine how painful an abortion would be. Again, how does that relate to my post?

Do you have any idea how much soul-searching and anguish the average woman goes through in making this decision? It's not like having a tooth extracted, buddy.

YES, yes, I do. And I also know that many women DON'T do a lot of soul-searching; they see it as a simple procedure, a simple problem for a simple solution.

I didn't want to bring my own personal beliefs into this conversation, but here they are anyway: I am a female, and I am against the idea of abortion. I personally would never get one. HOWEVER, I realize there are situations in which an abortion needs to be performed- if the mother is going to die, if her health is at risk, if they baby is going to die, rape (in some cases), etc. I don't have a problem with women getting abortions for those reason. There are, though, women (and girls) who get abortions mainly as a means of birth control; instead of taking responsibility for their actions (and in this case I'm mainly talking about females sleeping around without protection), they just opt for the easy way out.

I have strong opinions on this because I know an 18 year old girl who got pregnant with twins, and honestly did not agonize over the decision. The solution was abortion, with no thought put into it. She didn't tell her parents, she didn't tell the guy she screwed on a pool table that he was the father. And her main reason? It couldn't mess up her life, her cheerleading, she couldn't be showing for spring break.

I have major, major issues with that sort of though process.

So honestly, I'm more on your side that I'm on the pro-life side. Next time, don't make half-assed assumptions that lead to random tangets containing information you wanted to spew out to the world. If you're going to reply to my post, reply to it.

techmom: And if someone chooses to murder you and take your retirement savings, it's okay because that's there chioce? If someone regrets having a child and leaves it in a dumpster to die that's okay because it's their choice?

techmom:
Sorry, that came across as too hostile, I'm running on way too little sleep. I respect you for taking the steps you have to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.
If you were to have a 4th child, would you love it less than any of your current children? Do you ever wish that either of the two "surprise" children had been aborted, since you didn't want them when they were conceived?
It's great that you have your career on track, but sacrificing a life in pursuit of more money just seems wrong.

AtomicDragon: When the Mormon missionaries came along, they presented a God who matched up pretty well with the person I already believed in, a God who did things for reasons that made sense. Unlike other denominations, we know why God created the world and humanity.

In particular, the LDS faith is the only Christian sect that I know of that has an explanation for the whole Garden of Eden / Tree of Knoweldge of Good and Evil thing that (A) doesn't relegate the whole thing to just a myth, or (B) doesn't make God out to be a being far, far more evil than Satan, like the traditional Christian interpretation.

Don't believe me? Okay, those of you who believe in the traditional interpretation, ask yourself this: Satan as the Serpent (an identification not made until Revelation and not one believed by most Jewish scholars, but we'll grant this one for the sake of discussion: the LDS believe that, too) tempted Eve to partake of the Fruit of the Tree, and thus initiated the Fall of Mankind, right? Incalculable evil resulted from this.

But, Who created that Tree in the first place!? Who placed it in the center ("midst") of the Garden, the one spot that Adam and Eve could not get as far away from as they could any other spot in the Garden without leaving the Garden entirely - a place they't pretty much have to walk right past when crossing from one side of the Garden to the other, however often they did that, for however long? Eve saw that the fruit was pleasant to the eye and good for food: Satan didn't even tell her that, and he certainly didn't make it that way. Who did?

Now, consider what most Christians believe about God: He's absolutely 100+% omniscient, right? Past, present, and future, right? He knew the end from the beginning, right? In other words, He knew precisely what would happen if He created the Tree, and He knew it ∞ eons in advance!! He knew for a fact (not just strongly suspected, not just made an educated guess) that it would definitely result in the Fall, and all the misery that would follow, and that it would result in His having to send His Own Son (or He Himself, for those of you who accept the traditional Trinity) to die a hideous death to patch things up! For that matter, ∞ eons before He created Samael or Lucifer or whatever you want to call the angel who rebelled and fell and became Satan, He knew that that would happen, too, unleashing an ultimate evil upon His Creation! And yet He created Samael / Lucifer anyway, and the Tree. So what does that tell you?

Worse off still is those who believe in predestination, that God doesn't just know what's going to happen, but causes everything to happen. He made Eve fall for Satan's temptation and take of the Fruit, and for that matter He made Samael / Lucifer rebel and become Satan in the first place, then punished them both (and all of Adam and Eve's offspring, and all animal and plant life, too, and the Earth itself) for doing what He made them do!

Sorry, but I cannot bring myself to worship a God like that, even if I were absolutely convinced of His existence and knew that the result of my non-worship would be eternal damnation.

The LDS faith is the only faith that I know of that has an explanation for God's actions in the Garden that make any sense without making God out to be monstrously evil. But for it to work, you pretty much have to buy in to all of the LDS "Plan of Salvation" stuff.

I love stemcells, abortions, and Smoking The end

techmom:
I agree, it's your choice. I just feel sad that so many people make the wrong choice.

If an orphan is lying in a hospital dying, and could be saved by some blood transfusions from you, you have a choice. Your blood, your body, your choice. The orphan can't survive without you. I think someone who says they're too busy with work to save that orphan needs a swift kick in the aft.

COMALite J
I was also impressed by the description of what happens to people who never had a chance to hear the gospel. Poor N'tk'tk who lived in Africa in 54 AD never learned about Jesus and never had a chance to believe in the atonement. Most sects would send N'tk'tk to Hell for all eternity, But we believe in an understanding Savior who will judge N'tk'tk based on what he did know while alive, and how he receives the gospel in the afterlife.

I could never follow a God who would create a burning pit of eternal torment for those who's crime was no greater than being unable to have faith without proof, or being born in a place and time without missionaries.

techmom
My wife is now 27 weeks pregnant with our first child, and this is after two years of trying and two miscarriages. We planned this and so are ready for the addition to our life.
She is still working, but will need to go on sick leave soon due to gestational diabetes. The financial impact on our household of the pregnancy has been inconvenient, but tolerable, and if we couldn't take care of the child ourselves, we would put him up for adoption, as anyone who can't support a child should.
The problem I see, is people look to abortions as convenient. They allow a life to be extenguished because they would be ashamed to be an unwed mother, or because they're worried that they'll be all fat and strech-marked after the pregnancy.

techmom
We did briefly consider adoption, but we really wanted a child of our own. We wanted the complete parenting experience, from pregnancy to birth and onwards. My wife and I often joke that "with genes as good as ours, it would be a crime not to pass them on."

I, too, will defend your rights to do what you wish, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of an innocent. Since I see a healthy embryo as a person as much as I see a newborn infant as a person (both incapable of independent survival or rational thought), abortion is taking away their right to life, and that upsets me. Some people don't see the embryo as a person yet, and I understand that in their view abortion isn't akin to murder, but to those who see otherwise, to do nothing is like condoning that murder.

Of course, I also don't approve with the sheer hatred expressed by most pro-lifers. A sign with a picture of a mutilated fetal corpse is less than inspiring.

With all due respect, AtomicDragon, your experience of working so hard to have a child may predispose you to a way of thinking that discounts the very different experiences of others. That doesn't necessarily make you wrong.

We hear plenty of people talk in abstract terms about the "convenience" of abortion. Usually, those people are pleading the "pro-life" position. But I've known a few women who chose abortion, and it was not a choice they made lightly, nor was it a choice they considered "convenient" in any way.

The possible scenarios are many, and anyone can argue the hypotheticals without ever coming close to resolving this. I think we'd be wiser to counsel people with love than to villify them for making a choice that we consider "wrong" without having walked in their shoes. I think that's what Jesus taught.

In my experience, those who preach the loudest against abortion or homosexuality (or Mormonism) spend a lot of time casting blame at others, and not enough time working on the betterment of their own souls.

techmom
At what point does it become too much of a nuisance to save the orphans life? We could strengthen the analogy by changing it from an orphan to your own child, or by saying that it's your fault the orphan is sick in the first place.

My wife went out and got a better job after getting pregnant in order to improve her maternity benefits, so don't tell me that someone is SOL for employment.

I'm willing to defend your rights to do all kinds of things I disagree with. Go ahead marry a woman, smoke pot, and become a scientologist, I'll defend your rights to do those things. I can't defend your right to kill (what are to me) innocent babies.

techmom
Blessings and happiness to you and your family.
:)