Don't feed the trolls!

You know you're just trying to piss everyone off, ROC -- you have no intent of having any sort of adult conversation. That's what a troll is.

Nick, your definition of "troll" is apparently: those who disagree with you.

Right of Center's comment was not trolling, but rather a direct response to Mary's poll, the very purpose of this thread.

Also, in your comments you refer to "everyone" and "no one" and "anyone" which assumes, incorrectly, that all people share your beliefs.

You've also stated "Note to Republicans" which can be considered, you know, trolling.

Carry on.

Thanks for the advice, Joanne

R of Center - Why is PP toxic???? That's a bizarre comment.

So it's toxic for preventing the birth of babies who will have a future of poverty and in some cases jail?

ROC - totally agree. Waste of taxpayer dollars and it funds murder.

John - if you look up the history of Planned Parenthood, they will acknowledge their roots in supporting and working with the eugenics movement of the 1920's - don't let the 'wrong' (i.e. minorities) people have babies is the gist of eugenics. Think of the name - Planned Parenthood - we the elite tell you the downtrodden who should be parents. PP admirably acknowledges their roots, although they now downplay them. I find your comment re: ethnic cleansing ironic in two ways. One - ethnic cleansing was at the origin, the root of Planned Parenthood and Two - if you think about abortions and the fact that a disproportionate amount of lives taken in the abortion process are from minorities, you could say that ethnic cleansing is still at the heart of Planned Parenthood. Having the SBK organization stop working with PP should slow the tide of ethnic cleansing. The PP slogan can be - "Terminating the lives of the unborn babies of minorities and poor people for over 80 years." and it would be truthful. Whereas slavery is despised now but was acceptable 200 years ago, it's very possible that aborting a live unborn baby will be as despised in 100 years as slavery is now. Just a prediction...

" you could say that ethnic cleansing is still at the heart of Planned Parenthood"

You could say that, but a) it would be as over-the-top as the accusing anti-abortion types of wanting ethnic cleansing, and b) it's completely ridiculous assertion that rests entirely on the premise that PP is a abortion factory and nothing else. It's a perfect example of sophistry.

Note to Republicans: This "liberals are the true racists" nonsense isn't working. It's not fooling anyone who wasn't already fooled. No one's buying.

Nick - I hear ya re: it sounding over the top, but I would say that your view of what PP does is based on whether you (or anybody else) think an abortion is closer to cosmetic surgery or a drive by shooting. If the former, then PP is a government sponsored social agency doing good work, if the latter, it is performing a less honorable service. Abortion is one area where two powerful concepts - 1. people form governments to protect one citizen from harming another via force (enlightenment era notion of government and that 2. God creates humans with certain inalienable rights and whatever happens inside their body is beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal government. If you empathize with the unborn baby, you are a 1 thinker or the inalienable rights of the baby (2) or if you want the government out of your body, you are a 2. I'm not sure where the compromise is - since they are both pretty absolute concepts. One point of compromise would be for the government to get out of the abortion subsidy role. It ain't their place considering how some feel about abortion. Another would be to educate younger women about what the unborn baby feels. I don't think there is enough of that. I wasn't trying to be a sophist below - if you believe as I do, that abortion will not be socially acceptable if 100 years the same way slavery is not acceptable now, then the organizations which subsidized and encouraged abortions amongst the poor and minorities will not be looked upon kindly.

Thanks Marty, I know that anti-abortion types sincerely believe this is a fight on a par with the abolitionist movement.

However, as much as you may have satisfied yourself that PP and abortion are synonymous, they are not. Over and over and over again conservatives apparently need to be reminded what PP ACTUALLY does, on a day to day basis, and what needs in a community they ACTUALLY meet. But social conservatives in general, and you specifically, aren't interested in anything that injects itself uncomfortably into your prettily planned and sterile arguments about God and morality.

That's fine, go nuts, live your life how you want it. All I am telling you is that, as much as the anti-abortion forces think they have the wind at their backs, the support for and the need for PP is deep and broad, and the right would be better off picking better battles than one against a foe that provides healthcare services to uninsured women.

Occi - I don't have to do research. You've done it for me. Yes, 52.4% of abortions are for white people, but read the footnotes/small print. That is a 10% abortion rate for all white people. For African-Americans, it is 40.2% of all abortions, but that is a 34% abortion rate. You failed to take into account the much larger white population vis-a-vis African Americans in your analysis.

As for the Guttmacher Inst - per their webpage, they try to present abortion facts/info re: abortion in a ... fun format. Enough said, if they think one can think about abortions as fun (and granted - maybe they are a good organization re: other issues ) then they are probably not a neutral, independent source of info re: abortion 'fun-facts'.

I will ignore the name calling Occi, it's the last refuge of one with a losing argument, but I digress. All people want to eliminate unwanted pregnancies - do you agree? One side thinks the solution is to abort, the other side says either a. don't encourage unwanted pregnancies through welfare subsidies b. don't downplay the fact that a life is being taken when you abort an unwanted baby or c. increase the societal stigma of mothers or fathers who are absentee parents. I tend to think contraception is a better alternative than having the unwanted baby - if that makes me a right wing mouthbreather Occi, I'm guilty. Your left-leaning pal Nick also called me a sophist - I had to look that one up. Thanks for keeping your insults simpler.

Saying an argument is sophistry is not an insult, Marty, and I didn't call you a sophist. But you learned something new today! Isn't Patch awesome!?!

Nick,
re: your latest comment, when companies have one or several perfectly good business units and one bad (can be defined in many ways), they spin it off and separate it out. Planned Parenthood should be two parts - women's health (and heck, why not men's health and kid's health which are also important) should be one part and abortions should be the other. I never said that they have done bad or unnecessary work on the non-abortion front. Isn't that a solution?

However, I do think their materials are misleading and they minimize their abortion focus to the outside world - you or I don't really know what goes on except what they tell us. Also, I am pretty sure nobody would have a problem with a women's health center (ex abortions), except if they got into their original business/mandate - eugenics...now I feel like we've come full circle.

As you probably do also, I believe we should all live our lives as we want and as long as we aren't hurting other people - everything is fair game. Sounds like we agree on that.

Marty - are you John? If so, why the multiple names? And which one is real?

John's statement was: "Most of the women who use the services of Planned Parenthood are younger women, women who are not of means, and women of colour."

This was a patently false statement.

Yes we can agree that all people want to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Which is why I don't understand the lack of support for Planned Parenthood. After all, abortions account for only 3% of their used services. Contracecption accounts for 35%.

What religion are you Marty John Lee Wilson?

Thing is, M Moore, is that abortion is legal, while murder and "drive by shootings" are not. I know it's a small distinction for you, but a rather large part of your fellow Americans it matters quite a bit.
The right should stop using Alinsky tactics by demonizing and attacking PP as a surrogate -- look it up, that's pure Alinksy -- and admit that a legal organization can legally provide legal medical services and get the same sort of federal funding as any other legal health provider.

You want to make abortion illegal? Knock yourselves out. Maybe you will win someday. But it's legal now, and as such can be provided to women who voluntarily choose to do so.

Marty, as snarky as I can be, I do appreciate that, amidst a lot of bile (some of which came from me), we can have a somewhat reasonable discussion.

The solution you propose, to split PP into a healthcare and abortion units, would be a political move, not one that would have anything to do with science or healthcare. And while I could easily argue that it would obviously be far more costly to staff and equip separate-but-practically-identical facilities, I don't believe that a financial argument is even necessary.

The government decides what is and isn't legal, and PP, within those bounds, can do whatever they want. They are already forbidden from using federal funds for abortions, and even though I know social conservatives think this is a huge crock, it is the law. What federal (and state in many cases) funding they do get is, like Komen's contributions, were tied to specific programs within PP.

So, why shouldn't PP break out into 2 units? The correct question is, why would they when they aren't breaking the law and it would only be for political reasons?

Occi, I am not John. I thought you called me John by accident. I believe John Lee is a supporter of PP and was saying that since it supports many minorities and poor people (his view), that withdrawing support from them (like SBK did) would be akin to ethnic cleansing. A bit over the top for sure, but he is a pro-PP, anti-SBK point of view....I think.

Nick, I hear ya re: the law, except there are many examples throughout history where something which is legal at one point becomes illegal or vice-versa. In some people's minds, even though abortion is legal, it can still be morally wrong. Look at euthenasia - some people who are pro-life are anti-euthenasia. I happen to support it because it is an adult making a choice. In the case of abortion, I think the government should support the innocent life since the innocent life can't protect themselves. so, I guess I am saying that in this case, the fact that abortion is legal doesn't move the needle for me. Also, you said 'the government' decides what is legal or illegal. I also take issue with the sound of that. The people have to decide something is legal or illegal within some moral framework and decide whether to obey or disobey the law.

Susan - is it embryonic or adult or both? I would be surprised if it was adult stem cell research that they pulled support for. Please correct/update your critique.

Marty, you are correct that it was embryonic stem cell research. I should have clarified that. I'm still pissed off. But that's just me. Tkanks -

True, ROC, it is always left out. And, almost every breakthrough made with stem cells is always with adult stem cells, not embryonic stem cells. That gets left out too.

Have a link to a scientific study Lisa? Would love to see it.

Lisa, I tend to believe credible sources such as the American Cancer Society which state that there is NO link between Abortion and Breast Cancer. This is the conclusion they came to based on studies done by numerous RELIABLE studies, done by such institutions as Harvard University. The link can be found here:
http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/BreastCancer/MoreInformation/is-abortion-linked-to-breast-cancer

That there is a link between the two is crap spewed by Pro-Life websites.. Stick to actual medically based organizations, unless of course, you believe that the American Cancer Society is in on this big conspiracy as well.

Lisa - Please provide the citations to the authoritative texts which support your statement that there is a "direct link", "proven by research" "covered up by PP and the media", "between abortion and breast cancer." This is the first time I've heard this assertion and I would be interested in reading the evidence.

Lisa, from the SGK website:
"...Scientific evidence from the most comprehensive and well-designed studies in the
U.S. and around the world does not support the conclusion that induced abortion
or miscarriage raises the risk of breast cancer. ..."

http://ww5.komen.org/uploadedFiles/Content_Binaries/AbortionandBreastCancer_October2011.pdf

if SBK does such great work, why not split your donations? they are not saying 'nobody should give to PP', they are just saying they won't. they still do plenty of good. why punish all the women who are being helped by their organization?

Interesting point Marty. So answer this - if the money that SGK gives to PP goes to provide breast cancer screenings, not abortions, why did they pull their funding? To quote your post "they still do plenty of good. why punish all the women who are being helped by their organization?"

susan - money is fungible. if they split the organization - abortions and women's (and men's and kids health, after all - don't men and kids deserve good health too) health - then I think your goal would be accomplished. some people think abortion is murder - it is a hot button issue. it is a personal issue. some think it is a moral issue. why confuse abortion (i.e. controversial) with women's health/breast cancer screening (i..e non controversial). there's been a knee jerk (to say mildly) spaz attack by the pro-choice media and supporters to bash the heck out of sbk when it is clear to all that they fund many good causes effectively. I say - if you want to support abortion for all, on demand, then continue to give to PP. If you support effective breast cancer screening (and other needed women health concerns), continue to give $$ to sbk. SBK isn't trashing PP or even opining on abortion in fact (although that appears to be the motive). maybe they are making a decision for the benefit of their core constituency - women with breast cancer or survivors or women who don't want to get breast cancer - that they would be more effective without muddying their focus by affiliating with an abortion provider. it is not crazy for them, yet the pro-choice people are willing to bludgeon them to oblivion. I don't get it.

Dolores, I think that John Lee is a pro-PP, anti-SBK person. He was trying to help your cause, albeit using clumsy language. He was saying that SBK's decision to withdraw support from PP was akin to ethnic cleansing. Granted, it was over the top language for sure, but it was a pro-PP sentiment...I think.

Not true.

Facts are stubborn things.

Komen puts 80.5% of the money it raises into programs.
Planned Parenthood puts 74.0% of the money it raises into programs.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4338
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4509

Planned Parenthood's overal score: 54.11 (3 out of 4 stars)
Komen's score: 66.20 (4 out of 4 stars)

Susie Q, I think you owe ROC and all of us an apology...or do you have facts which contradict the ROC facts. If so, I apologize to you in advance.....clock starts now.

The grant from SGK to PP was used to help women get funds for breast and cervical cancer screening. Why exactly isn't that considered preservation of life?

Planned Parenthood does a lot of good for people who need help and guidance. Why do you think they are so bad? Because they give women needed information to do what is best for them? Why are you so closed minded about PP mission?

They do good, no question. But some of the babies that PP aborts will never grow up to become women. That is tragic and cannot be overlooked.

There's a lot that can't be overlooked Concerned.

Are you anti-gay or pro equal rights? If anti-gay, how do feel personally about wanting to save a fetus but then deny it basic civil rights when it's grown?

Are you pro-death penalty? If so, should you specify that your pro-life stance is only valid up to, say, 2 years old?

Yes and those are good works. But there are babies who are killed by PP who may grow up to be doctors or nurses that they too would do good works for women and they never have the chance. Seriously science will stop abortions I am certain, as today hospitals are able to maintain babies lives outside the womb that are under a pound! Oh but we call them fetuses so we dehumanize them. Tragic.

Yeah Concerned, and they may grow up to be John Wayne Gacy or Jeffrey Dahmer or Aileen Wuornos or Andrea Yates or Marybeth Tinning or Adolf Hitler. Or Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney or David Duke. And if they are aborted, they might never have the chance to do those things!!

Women get abortions for all sorts of reasons. Who is anyone to judge whether those reasons are valid or not? One thing is for sure, those reasons are personal and private and no one else's business. What if a Catholic woman got pregnant because of the church's doctrine that states using contraception is a sin? Do you blame her for the pregnancy or the Church?

Hell, even Catholic poster boy St. Thomas Aquinas stated that "life" began after the third month of pregnancy.

I honestly don't understand why people just can't leave women's bodies alone. When there are zero orphans in the USA due to all of these anti-abortion people adopting them, then I'll take them seriously. Until then it's all a bunch of hot air from idealists who haven't she slightest clue what a woman who is contemplating abortion is going through.

Concerned, PP doesn't kill anyone. They inform women of all rights and options. And the same children that grow up to be doctors and nurses in your scenario can just as well grow up to be murderers and rapists.

While abortion is only a small percentage of PP's works, pro-life advocates are often against contraception as well so the two issues add up.
I too, am concerned but for the reason that so many of the people who don't want abortions do not support these same babies when they grow up and need welfare and other social services and, god forbid, they are gay.

Occidental I believe in the dignity or all people and so I could never be against gay rights or for the death penalty, any kind of discrimination or abuse of any kind. I celebrate life and the rights of all to enjoy this wondrous world. And yes I am against abortion as it ends a life and never can the right of one person trump the right of another to life. I have raised 4 adopted children that love life and love the fact that there birth parents gave them life and some of them have contacted them and said thank you to them for life. What wonderful moments I have witnessed. Life wow, the gift of life.

Occidental, today hospitals are saving babies that are less than a pound outside the mother's womb. It is amazing. When Roe v Wade was decided science had not advanced to where it is today and certainly at the time of St Aquinas. Abortions will end soon not due to religion or politics but because of science which will with certainty determine that it's not a fetus it's a baby or better yet a person. The baby has rights and never can the rights of one person trump that of another. A woman's body is her body. The baby within is not her body. Her arm is her body because if it was removed from her it would not live anymore. A baby will live and as such it is not part of her body. Science has proven this in hospitals across this country as babies are surviving extremely premature births due to science's advancements.

Whew Concerned! That's a whopper!

With any luck, pretty soon we won't even need mommies! Actually, we don't right now as long as the anti-abortion folks are okay with growing babies in test tubes. Then maybe we can feed them from a mechanical nipple with a neverending supply of imitation breast milk!

This is very what if.

I had a friend, for medical reasons she could never give birth. She is no longer with us. She died while in college and was buried in her wedding dress because of complications with her condition.

What if someone like her was raped? Someone who could not survive a pregnancy? One persons rights can't trump another persons rights, in your point of view. Who gets to live?

What about rape, would you make a person live with the psychological torture for 9 months?

Concerned, first of all, it's MICHELLE. Secondly, I am NOT misinformed on PP. I posted numerous links and direct quotes from both SGK and PP regarding this issue. They do help with birth control, education on sexually transmitted disease, and different types of help for under privileged men and women. Why do you think I'm misinformed? What is your statement based on? And I applaud you on adopting wonderful children. But some decisions on abortion, whether or not to have one, are important, too. Why shouldn't I have the right to choose what's best for me? Are you opposed to birth control in general? How about the morning after pill?

Michelle, apologies for the name mis spelling. My comment on being mis informed was your comment that PP does not do abortions. They in fact do. They also do a bunch of great stuff for women which I applaud. But I cannot get past that they end female babies lives which should have the right to enjoy a full life, what ever that maybe. I appreciate and treasure the rights of women but that includes those in the womb. I am not opposed to birth control.

Concerned, here is my post earlier "1:25 pm on Friday, February 3, 2012

For those who are apposed to PP. Here is the link to their website. It should be in front of every teen age child. They discuss STD's, they answer questions children may not feel comfortable asking their parents, they help with birth control pills and yes, they help with a very difficult decision such as abortion. Educate yourselves before bashing a very helpful organization!
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/";
Where I clearly state that they do help with the abortion process. I am not misinformed. And just curious why do you always state ending of the female life. Couldn't these babies be men as well?

Concerned, if it's logical to respect life at all stages, why not respect life as it pertains to it's reproductive rights? I understand your respect of the life of the unborn child but by demanding it's right to life above all, you're disrespecting the life of the mother.

You can't have it both ways. You can't dismiss a mother's reproductive rights and then claim to respect all life in all it's stages.

Occy, I had to reply here for some reason. The right to live ones life is highest right of a person. The ability to breath, and thought and to observe the wonders of the world is all part of living. Ones reproductive rights, not to be diminished in any way, cannot trump a life that is developing with all it's DNA that us as unique as ones finger print or numbers of hairs on our heads. A womens reproductive rights need to be protected as it is the most amazing gift to us all. It's to be respected and severe punishment to any one who abuses a woman. But the decision to end a life in the womb is not a right of anyone. Now rape is the example used and rightly so. I have struggled with this question and I believe since the act of rape is an assault on a womens reproductive rights that is so hedious, that in that case a woman has the right to her decision with healthcare professionals on what to do. But if the baby
is from a willing act of love should be protected.

Occy, I have to reply here to your last post. Ibfeel that science will define when a baby reaches viability to live outside the womb and that will limit abortions in a big way. I hope we can agree that late term abortions are horrific and must be stopped. Now my view is that once all the components for life come together, at that point I would protect ithe life due to it's amazing ability to become a baby. Now that may never be the law oif the land but it's a personal view. But today abortions happen way too late in term and it I wrong.

Occidentalist
your religion is "secular humanism" because it is what you believe. Your right to express your religious beliefs hold no higher value in america then me to express mine. My God is Jesus Christ and this is The Year of the Lord 2012, the world and the universe declares His majesty. The Constituion does not address seperation of church and state. Sorry but you have to go in and change your sacred writings, look at the first amendment it is just not there. Basic difference you believe that man invented God, I proclaim that God created man and the evidence of it is in logic. How did the universe begin professor?

I'm not a secular humanist. I'm an atheist. And saying atheism is a religion is like saying baldness is a hairstyle. Your failure to grasp this is evident in your statement, "Your right to express your religious beliefs...".

I implore you to read the Constitution because it's obvious you weren't paying much attention the last time you read or perhaps you've never read it at all. To wit:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Nothing to get lost in translation there. Seems pretty succinct to me. Honestly, how can you even attempt to correct someone on the Constitution when you've already blundered, misread, and slept through the very First Amendment?

The evidence that god created man is logic? What logic? The very definition of faith is the belief in something WITHOUT EVIDENCE. Logic and a lack of evidence are not compatible. You have to SUSPEND logic to believe in something without any empirical evidence to believe it.

I have a belief in a theory of how the universe started but I don't know for sure. However not knowing doesn't give one free reign to insert some supernatural being without any evidence to support it. See, I am suspending my certainty until there is unequivocable evidence. That is the very definition of logic. Theists on the other hand, instead of admitting there is no way of knowing, insert a god into the equation without any evidence to support it. That, by definition, is the opposite of logic.

Michelle, their website is statement is true and they are vague by saying abortion process. That included performing abortions. They are vague as PP knows that this is a lightening rod issues as our taxes help fund PP. I speak about the killing of female babies only because the subject has to do with women's health and Komen etc. If it was on men's health I would have focused on male babies.

Hypocracy is wrong and you are correct to point it out. I do not labels or generalizations. I believe that a person should follow a logical flow of thought. The rights of gays, the rights of minorities are all undeniable because they are based on the dignity of the human person. The right to healthcare and food and shelter are also rights that are part of the dignity of the person. In fact, if a person or society is against these rights the society will decay as it's own dignity is impaired by these injustices. These rights also extend to the babies in the womb. And if we all step back and think not of political views but instead at the value and wonder of life at all its stages, we will begin to change our societies views that demean the human person.

Ricky Life is a right, Governed by God's word. If God does not give permission for homosexual sex, the view on the right at least "Christian" right is that it should not be law. All men are created equal is biblical. sexual immorality including homosexual acts are also biblical. That doesn't mean that people with gay or lesbian inclinations aren't valuable. God loves them and so should we.

Pastor, what god? Zeus? Odin? Ra? Shiva? Poseidon?

Oh, you mean your god for which there exists the same amount of evidence for it's existence as for Zeus, Odin, Ra, Shiva, and Poseidon.

No one casres about your own personal cult beliefs because it has no place in regards to law. The very First Amendment of our Constitution makes a distinct acknowledgement of the separation of church and state. This conversation has no place for the injection of religion into it because we're talking about the laws of the land and not some supernatural never-never land.

Pastor, that's where we agree to disagree. The bible was not able to foresee the future where there is no doubt that humans are born with their orientation just as they're born with blue eyes and blonde hair instead of black hair and green eyes. I and others do know gay individuals and my bible (my beliefs) tells me without any doubt whatsoever that it is not a choice made. It is in the DNA. And because my bible (my beliefs) tell me that, then I will tell others that it is not immoral behavior, it is their natural behavior. And my bible (my beliefs) tell me that those who fight for the rights of the unborn should not reverse themselves and take away their rights to lives that everyone else has. Thanks for the debates.

I am so sorry to hear about your loss. Thank you for being brave in sharing your story so others can understand the reality of how PP can serve women.

JAD, Sorry for your loss and thank you for sharing your story. You make a good point about the term abortion and its many applications. To lump all "abortions" under one heading as the killing of innocents, as many social conservatives do, is misleading and wrong. This "little factoid" should be placed at the center of all abortion debates. Those of us who are pro-choice are not anti-life. Circumstances vary and the decision should rest in the hands of the person most affected. It bothers me that men in power feel they have a right to determine what women should do about a very private, personal issue.

Greengirl I had to respond here for some reason. If I were king and my morale view that all stages of life should be protected, I would not allow abortion. My comments to Occy and my comment to you which implies that the court will limit abortions is my
Understanding that we live in a country which has abandoned it's Jewish and Christian values and morality for pluralism and humanism. As such on matters like abortion one can only hope the courts limit the hedious act of abortion. I argue that science and what is known today about a baby in the womb vs what science knew at the decision point of roe v Wade, they evidence from a scientific perspective will move the court to protecting the innocent life and providing the baby with the same rights as the mother and father.

So people have to have babies that they don't want? It isn't any of your business what people do with the fetus unless it has already been born.

I strongly disagree with you that abortion is the taking of a life. We can agree to disagree at what point life begins.
Science will not intervene to parent to all unwanted cells into fetuses.
I have a problem with the hypocrisy of your rape exception to abortion. While I support abortion in the case of rape I can not understand how you can. If you truly see abortion as inhumane and the taking of life than how can you condone the killing of an innocent child because of the circumstances of its birth?
In short, it is not your decision it is the mother's CHOICE and PP can help her understand her situation and make the right decision without judgement or guilt.

Greegirl, I have posted exchanges with Occidental presenting my thoughts. I do not want to repeatbthem here. I discussed the heart wrenching issue of rape and discussed my view. When abortion is revisited by the supreme court, the science of today will provide the facts of when life begins and when it is viable the rights of the baby will be equal to that of the Mother. Abortion will be restricted and late term abortions and abortions will be stopped. People will stop calling a baby with eyes and fingers and toes and a complete DNA map a fetus or clump of cells.

Concerned: I read your recent exchange with Occidental and notice your changed your strong no abortion stance to that a Supreme Court will revisit the issue and create policies that in your words "will limit abortions in a big way." Limit implies it is acceptable in some forms. I too do not believe in late-term abortions once differentiation has occurred. I do believe in the morning after pill, contraception, and early term abortion.
Getting back to the SGK issue and away from our personal beliefs which are not going to change- PP serves both our goals by providing education and contraception which prevents unwanted pregnancies in the first place. I don't see pro-life groups providing family planning and sexual education to confront the issue. Some religious institutes frown on contraception which can lead to more unwanted pregnancies! Instead they rail against an organization which provides wonderful, much-needed services to a variety of communities including but not limited to teens, minorities, uninsured and those who do not have another source to provide them with safe, nonjudgemental counseling on private, sensitive issues. Abortion is only a small part of what they do.

No I am not against birth control, and Billy Mays comment is sad because by calling the baby in the womb a fetus does not make it any less human, the term fetus has become degrading as it dehumanizes what it truly is , a person

At what point do you feel it's human? Is a blastocyst or a sperm human? A single cell zygote human? Or is it human when the zygote divides into a morula?

This is not a difficult concept. The term fetus is not degrading (seriously?) but rather an accurate scientific description. Have you ever made scrambled eggs? Cracked open an egg and poured it's contents into a skillet? Is that a chicken? Is an acorn a tree? For you to claim a fetus is a human is akin to calling the liquid inside an egg a chicken and an acorn a tree.

Your example of doctors keeping alive babies outside the womb is also a false premise. Fetuses are different from born human beings, which casts doubt on the claim that they can be classified as human beings. The most basic difference is that a fetus is entirely dependent on a woman's body to survive. Pro-lifers might argue that born humans can be entirely dependent on other people too but the crucial difference is that they are not dependent on one specific person to the exclusion of all others. Anybody can take care of a newborn but only a pregnant woman can nurture her fetus. She can’t hire someone else to do it.

A key difference is that a fetus doesn't just depend on a woman's body for survival, it actually resides inside her body. Human beings must, by definition, be separate individuals. They do not gain the status of human being by virtue of living inside the body of another human being. The very thought is inherently ridiculous.

So its fair to cut their funding because some dumb Republican skank got hired by Komen?

Yes Billy, I'm sure the entire reason the funding was cut was because of 'some dumb Republican skank' and not for some legitimate reasons that some people agree with, others don't. Abortion brings out the worst in the endless knaves gallery of blowhards on both sides.

Really, Pastor Greg, yelling? Not cool.

I hear you and others and respect your views but don't be hypocrites by fighting vigorously for the 'rights' of the unborn only until some of the unborn are not born the way you'd like them to be. Then you do a 180 degree about-face and fight against their rights.

Here is an example. This is a quote from a story in today's news.

"""A Christian pastor is asking customers to boycott Starbucks due to the company's support of a bill to legalize gay marriage in Washington state, King 5 News reports."""""

David
You must believe that man invented God, I know that God created man. He says all life is sacred. what I believe is that if we live according to His statutes he will work out the details. he knows the math that created you, me and the entire universe, trust me he has the solution to any problem including the earth and it's inhabitants, he created it, he is responsible not us. Take up your silly questions with him. For me I want people to know that abortion hurts God and I am sorry for babies that are lost whether the parents are responsible or not.

Know that your god created man based on what? What empirical evidence do you have? None. Nada. Zip.

Abortion hurts your god? But apparently the 15 million children who die each year from starvation alone doesn't bother him one bit, eh? Give me a break.

Please stop with the religous mumbo jumbo. It's creepy and absurd and has no place in this conversation.

Pastor, You must have a real strong rapport with god to know that he's male, is hurt by abortion, and will solve all of our problems. Oh, you also know what I 'must' believe. I've asked my 'silly' questions to god and guess what? No response! You are entitled to your opinions and so am I: I think you are highly delusional, and so do a number of the posters here.

Not everyone is Catholic, so don't impose your beliefs on other people. If you don't want to get an abortion don't get one, otherwise mind your own damn business.

Billy, this discussion is always the toughest because it is about the protection and dignity of life, which is a morale norm even in an atheist view. The definition of life and when it begins is becoming clearer by science not religious beliefs. I wish everyone held the judeo and Christian views that life in the womb is a human and must be protected. Roe v Wade will overturned or abortion severly limited as science continues to prove that is is in fact a human and deserves the same rights afforded the mother and father.

Well, Billy, if elective abortion isn't a horrible way to cover for one's irresponsible behavior, what is it? (You realize I was careful to use the term "elective" abortion, don't you?) Catholicism isn't the only religion or philosophy that bases its morality to a large extent on natural law. My post simply laid out some premises and asked a question ... which should hardly be considered an imposition, unless asking someone to think is now an imposition.

The arguments about what sort of contributions PP and SBK make to society are not at the core of the debate. It's really about what sort of people we are and what sort of culture or society we espouse. I say elective abortion has no place in a society that holds personal responsibility and respect for others in esteem.

And that slogan, "If you don't approve of abortion, don't have one." isn't very intelligent. If I were to say, by the same logic, "If you don't approve of stealing, don't steal." wouldn't that be pretty silly?

So being raped is "one's irresponsible behavior"? Blame the victim much?

Actually, stealing is illegal, abortion is a woman's right and it isn't your place to tell her what to do.

Billy premature babies weighing less than a pound are surviving outside the womb, and science and medicine continue to do amazing things to define when life begins, and that evidence will change the roe v Wade decision. The babies rights will trump privacy of the mother. Your stereotyping of my views is insulting. I am for gay rights and the rights and dignity of all people without exception. I have raised 4 adopted children and I am so thankful for their birth mothers for giving them life, as my children are also thankful for their courage, and some have thanked their birth mothers face to face and to see that joy has been one of the greatest experiences in my life.

Abortion will not be the issue this election, it's the economy and the need for real leadership in the White House and the Congress

Susan it is not an American construct. The European countries, like the US, have fallen into the religion of Humanism. Humanism is summed up as the religion of Me, and whatever I choice I make if it's okay with me it's all good. That is not even close to the teachings of Christ. The bible makes many references to the child in the womb being the creation of God and a gift. The flawed laws of any country does not make Abortion moral nor does it make ok for Christians to embrace abortion. The saying just because its legal does not make it moral.

Concerned: Random House Webster"s definition of humanism: "any system of thought or action in which human interests, values and dignity predominate, esp. an ethical theory that often rejects the importance of a belief in God."
Stop making up things to support your religious beliefs. Your definition is wrong and insulting. Humanism is not a religion nor is it about being self-centered. It is about looking inside ourselves not a higher being for the answers. It is an ethical system which acknowledges that there is good in all of us and focuses on the best qualities of what it means to be human. I think it is realistic. Unlike some religions, humanists do not force their views on others. Who then is more SELF centered?

If I'm hearing you correctly (and please tell me if I'm wrong) you sound as if your view is that abortions are used as a cure for "hedonistic, undisciplined behavior. " How about ignorant and uneducated people who don't know enough about birth control, people who have no access to birth control, people who use birth control and have it fail (it DOES happen), victims of rape or incest? Some people drink too much or use drugs or just fall victim to social pressures to have sex (teens). There are many reasons an unwanted pregnancy can occur and it doesn't mean the person intended to end up with an unwanted pregnancy. Those of us who support choice don't recommend abortion as a means of birth control. I wish there was a 100% effective means of preventing pregnancy so there would never need to be abortion. But that's not realistic. People make mistakes, that's the essence of being human. It doesn't mean they lack an ethical framework.

My point in the post above is that most Western European countries, where lifestyles are comparable to the US, have little moral quandary about abortion. They set reasonable limits (eg no late term abortions except where the mother's health is threatened) and they go about their lives. The issue isn't controversial for most people there, even those who practice religion. I'm sure some object, to be sure. But it's not like the debate we have here. Do you believe European people as a group have no ethical frameworks?

S1, that list of "many reasons an unwanted pregnancy can occur" doesn't amount to a justification for abortion. A little education, self-discipline and ethics could prevent most unplanned pregnancies.

Yes, to "err is human", but no society can last long if the consequences of mistakes are nonchalantly erased. And treating an unwanted pregnancy as if it were a disease is pretty ridiculous. So, one woman's disease is another woman's soon-to-be bundle of joy?

There is nothing reasonable about arbitrarily deciding at what stage a pregnancy may be terminated. If you have children or young nieces or nephews, can you tell them, "It would have been fine with me if you were aborted"? Can you tell your boyfriend or husband, "It would have been fine with me if you were aborted"?

Apart from me, is there anyone you would tell that it would have been fine with you if they were aborted? Honestly?

Tom, I would never tell any living soul that I wished they had never been born, including you. I do, however, believe that you cannot miss something that never existed. For example, I could have had more children than I do. I can't miss those who weren't born, can I? As for "arbitrarily" deciding at what stage to end a pregnancy, it doesn't have to be arbitrary at all. Clearly, a cluster of cells at 8 weeks is different from a viable fetus at 25 weeks. Somewhere in between there is an appropriate threshold. As for "a little self education, self-discipline and ethics" preventing unplanned pregnancy, good luck with that. It clearly doesn't work, and it certainly wouldn't help the victims of rape, incest, or failed birth control. Finally, I want to see all the anti-abortion folks offer to raise the products of these unplanned pregnancies in their own homes and at their own expense for 18+ years. Then I'll respect you.

Susan1, I would like to hear some justification for abortion from you or anyone, but it's not being convincingly offered. Saying "somewhere in between [a cluster of eight cells and 25 weeks]" is still pretty arbitrary. I agree that you cannot miss something that never existed, but you cannot seriously say that nothing exists after conception has taken place. Perhaps you "can't miss those who weren't born", but there are plenty of women who grieve over miscarriages. So, what's the criteria? A wanted fetus exists, but an unwanted fetus doesn't? That isn't much of an argument for abortion.

"As for "a little self education, self-discipline and ethics" preventing unplanned pregnancy, good luck with that. It clearly doesn't work...." Just because posting speed limits doesn't keep people from speeding, should we making speeding legal?

As for respecting anti-abortion folks only after they adopt and raise unwanted children, actually some do. But why can't you respect someone's point of view and discuss it instead of demanding they pay in some form or other for disagreeing with you?

I admire you for engaging me in these posts. You have more integrity than some of the others.

This is a hard situation and probably the most devisive issue of our lifetime. It requires thought and dialogue but frequently that discussion turns to extreme hyperbole and then no one gets anywhere. I think that the biggest problem we face is when science and technology race ahead of our ability to address the ethics (nuclear weapons, Internet privacy, stem cell research, et al). I am always happy to discuss these issues and appreciate your thoughts as well. It helps me understand how others feel. Thanks!

Susan1, that was a first-class response. Thanks for it, and have a good day!

Karen, "[h]ave you ever been raped by your uncle or tormented and abused by the crazy on your block and gotten pregnant because of it?" If the answer is no, then you have no more personal experience to bring to bear on this than I do. If you have been both "raped by your uncle or tormented and abused by the crazy on your block and gotten pregnant because of it", I am sincerely sorry for your suffering. Still, what does personal experience have to do with anything? Albert Einstein never traveled into space, but that does not disqualify his understanding of physics.

Of course, you "deserve freedom to marry whom ever, [and] procreate at the time [you] choose ...." And you deserve a cure for cancer as much as I do.

I guess we agree on a lot of things after all!

The issue is taxpayer funding of PP the largest abortion mill in the world. I do not are if you support PP, I do not want my tax dollars going to fund abortions. I am a cancer survivor and understand the pain of cancer, the surgeries, the chemotherapy for two years, the fear of it coming back. Komen has lost it's way but thankfully there are other great cancer research and detection not for profits that I can and do support. Never tell me to give up as it's not part of a cancer survivors DNA.

The issue at hand is NOT taxpayer funding, the issue is Susan G Komen funding. Planned Parenthood provides counseling, prescreening and encourages/provides information on accessible mammography to women. These measures of early detection save many lives from breast cancer which is SGK's mission. This decision is not about health or cancer. It is political. Ms. Hansen has used SGK as a vehicle for her anti-abortion, anti-PP platform. Tragically, in the end, SGK will suffer and the loser will be those fighting for the cure for breast cancer.

Only a small part of PP's operations are providing abortions, I don't know where you get your information.

"Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality."

The post below is the definition of humanism per the International Council of Humanism. It supports my short and to the point that humanism is the religion of me and it has become the faith and value system of Europe and the USA. Humanism is the basis of me, and it's my body and it's a clump of cells and not a baby and I can do whatever I can justify and it okay. It denies the values of Christianity .

Concerned: I cannot see how you extrapolate your theory of what is Humanism from the ICoH's definition. Secondly, some of us do not live by 'the values of Christianity' and while I respect the rights of those who do to believe as they wish, we are fortunate to live in a society that tolerates differences of beliefs and the right to express the same. You can keep up with your rhetoric but as I said in an earlier post, no one is going to change their moral beliefs based on something they read here.

PP is not trying to destroy Komen. The news came out and people got angry.

Curious Martin, what exactly do you mean by 'I hope I don't have to get involved with this locally.' What might you do for local involvement besides post here?

PP didn't do anything. It was the American public that had the outcry.

To David...

Don't worry David. Nothing sinister. I was just pointing out that I was tired from battling the loons on a national level at another news source. That's where I do the most good, or damage depending on your point of view.

I just visit Patch to see the same people say the same thing over and over again, call others names while using pusillanimous arguments, and then when something rotten comes their way, they get all defensive and hurt. What one troll referred to as trolls.

These people are the same types that can view a security videotape of O.J. Simpson committing a double homicide and while walking past the camera, take off his ski mask, and wave to the camera, and then say that it wasn't him.

Actually Martin, I was not worried at all. I knew you were bluffing and now everyone does. I also find it funny that you refer to your opponents on national sites as 'loons' then go on to generalize and berate the posters on this site. If you really think you and the other sites you engage in are above the rest of us here, don't post here.

James, fear not we have the new healthcare law which will provide healthcare to all.

Christianity does not hold a monopoly on values. You don't have to subscribe to any religion to know that certain behaviors go against humanity. The argument that pro-choice people don't hold the same values as Christians is false. We believe that murder is wrong, too. We happen to disagree that terminating a pregnancy in its earliest stages is murder. This is where the problem lies and it's one that is hard to reconcile. But taking the view that only Christian values are good is a limited view of a diverse world.

As far as the science piece, I agree that there is a disconnect between allowing an abortion at one stage of pregnancy and struggling to save a baby just a few weeks older. It does trouble me. I think we need to limit abortions to much earlier stages of pregnancy. I look to doctors and scientists to educate me as to what the threshold should be.

Susan1
That is why i point to science as the only perpective that will provide the answers to why abortion goes against humanity

Yes I was confused, sorry! Thanks and I found the exchanges with you and everyone as respectful exchanges. Now its super bowl time!

Thank you for your nice words. I try to be respectful, but like everyone else, I do tend to get carried away at times by my passion for certain topics. I love the fact that Patch serves as a virtual " town square" where people can discuss issues.

Now for something really vital - How about those Giants?!!

And what a nail-biter! :)

All life is sacred, that is the point. What the heck is this term fetal life!? Nonsense, call is what it is a baby!

I already explained fetal life, Concerned. Just because you refuse to accept this scientific fact does not mean it is an abstract concept to everyone. It's just an abstract concept to you.

The term fetus is not degrading (seriously?) but rather an accurate scientific description. Have you ever made scrambled eggs? Cracked open an egg and poured it's contents into a skillet? Is that a chicken? Is an acorn a tree? For you to claim a fetus is a human is akin to calling the liquid inside an egg a chicken and an acorn a tree.

Fetuses are different from born human beings, which casts doubt on the claim that they can be classified as human beings. The most basic difference is that a fetus is entirely dependent on a woman's body to survive. Pro-lifers might argue that born humans can be entirely dependent on other people too but the crucial difference is that they are not dependent on one specific person to the exclusion of all others. Anybody can take care of a newborn but only a pregnant woman can nurture her fetus. She can’t hire someone else to do it.

A key difference is that a fetus doesn't just depend on a woman's body for survival, it actually resides inside her body. Human beings must, by definition, be separate individuals. They do not gain the status of human being by virtue of living inside the body of another human being. The very thought is inherently ridiculous.

There is no "if a one pound premie is a fetal life or a baby". It's not one or the other. A one-pound premie is a baby. A zygote is a zygote. A blastocyst is a blastocyst. A morula is a morula.

I find it a bit ridiculous that you invoke science and claim it will find a way to avoid abortions altogether yet fail to grasp the very basics of sicientific biology as it relates to fetal life. No matter how much you attempt to employ mental gymnastics to convince yourself of the perception you currently hold, it doesn't change the scientific truth that there is a drastic difference between the various stages of fetal life.

Here is an elegant piece by Carl Sagan exploring the abortion issue. http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml

Ever studied much biology? Come across Haeckel's embryo drawings?

http://xd8.xanga.com/77df651658335235738609/b182584471.jpg

Occidentalist
there is an order in creation
Human (created in God's image) Highest form of creation
animals are the lower order. Sorry but I don't see what sense your analogy with the chicken makes. I think your view is scrambled

You don't see it because you don't understand science, Pastor.

You can think my view is scrambled all you want just as I can think your belief in fairy tales for adults is laughable.

I'll take science and proven fact over a ridiculous book about an invisible skydaddy, written by anonymous authors in the Iron Age any day of the week.

Took the words right out of my mouth Occidentalist.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/26/georgia-lawmakers-anti-abortion-proposal-punish-women-miscarriages/

http://troylaplante.hubpages.com/hub/Stupid-bills-on-abortion-and-miscarriage

Karen you probably believe that the drawing of the little hunched over primate man who over several subsequent drawings becomes a brief case carrying man is scientific. Sad

Please. Someone who believes in a talking snake, man created from dirt, a 600 year old man who built a wooden boat that contained 2 of every animal on the planet, and a 6,000 year old Earth shouldn't be ridiculing someone else on their perception of science, even though I'm sure Karen doesn't think that nor has alluded to that.

Hey um Pastor ****head, that drawing makes more sense than any single word in the bible.

But I can give you the answer to this one. At what point does making your views known become something that's not taken seriously? Using the wrong choice of words gets no respect. I respect the opinion of both sides but not when it means being a hypocrite. My position has been that you cannot fight for the rights of the unborn but then do a complete reversal and not support their rights if they were born different than you.

People sure use a lot of flawed logic.

Ricky, being born different doesn't necessarily make the difference good or acceptable. I don't know any people born with a genetic propensity toward morbid obesity or cancer or alcoholism who would like a morbid obesity or cancer or alcoholic pride month to be designated or have morbid obesity or cancer or alcoholic pride parades.

Disagreement isn't the same as intolerance, although some people cannot tolerate being disagreed with. The premises of a position make a great deal of difference. That's for sure.

lol comparing homosexuality with alcoholism/obesity?

*whistles* I have to admit. There is something impressive about such a display of gross bigotry and ignorance. Well done, sir!

Occi, you just made my point! I'm not laughing out loud (or even quietly) at your positions. Nor have I dismissed them. Yet you mock mine, and go further, calling them bigoted and ignorant! Aren't you demonstrating intolerance of the highest order?

All of the folks who have stated they will no longer support SGK over this abortion business seem to be very, very dogmatic in their world view.

Tom, spend some time considering your comparison of homosexuality with alcoholism and obesity and why someone like me might call it ignorant.

Occi! You don't have to accept my arguments or others' views, but you could at least engage in debate rather than laughing out loud, whistling, labeling ideas as bigoted and ignorant, mocking others' Scripture as a "ridiculous book about an invisible skydaddy". Belittling others undermines your credibility. It's not mature behavior at any rate.

"""being born different doesn't necessarily make the difference good or acceptable"""...maybe not good or acceptable to you yourself but it should have been acceptable to be different and be born black in the south in 1955 though there were many who found it not acceptable and not good. One day somewhere in the year 2042 someone will make the same statement about what happened to persons born gay back in 2012 and how many did not accept them as equals back then.

Holy crap! (pun intended). You actually believe a guy lived inside the belly of a whale for three days and three nights? And that a 600 year old man built a wooden ship on which he somehow populated with 2 of every animal on the planet while keeping them from tearing each other apart?

At this point, what does it matter what I think when you claim your beliefs that I listed above are based on logic?

Those of other faiths can be as sure of their beliefs as you.

I have faith in my gods. When I was 15 there was 1 in 100 chance of not surviving the effects of a birth defect. Doctors saved me, but the divine had its hand in it, (I believe) because my birth defect caused cerebral hemorrhaging, not when I was at home, not when I was in the middle of Canadian lake country hours away from basic medical services. It happened when I was traveling to the middle of nowhere and just happened to be in the city where they were pioneering the laser surgery that saved my life. My birth defect had been a unknown, hidden ticking timebomb that blew up when I was in the best place to get treated.

I don't credit the god of the bible, but the Goddess that was worshiped at Bath; Sulis Minerva.

Sulis Minerva didn't heal me, just made sure I was in the right place at the right time to have surgery with 100 in 1 odds of survival.

The doctors and researchers that developed the laser did the healing.

Any moron can pull some number out of his ass and put it into a book, ever considered that?

Greg, please provide evidence that your god destroyed the earth. Please provide evidence of someone having lived to 600 and remained spry enough to build a huge boat out of wood. Please provide evidence as to how a man can live inside the belly of a whale for three days and three nights.

Until you provide evidence, I refer you to the immortal words of Christopher Hitchens: "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence." as well as, "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence."

I estimate the age of the Earth and the rest of the solar system to be about 4.55 billion years, plus or minus 1%. Based on a few things. First, using radiometric dating, the oldest rocks found on the Earth date to about 3.8 - 3.9 billion years ago. Many of these rocks are sedimentary which contain minerals which date to 4.1 - 4.2 billion years. So while these rocks alone are not indicative, they set a date from which we can begin. We arrive the rest of the way using lead isochron dating which, to be frank, I think will elude you.

Two questions Pastor:

1) If your god told you to kill one of your children, would you do it?
2) Can your god create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift?

Atheists are truly the worst. I'm not a hardcore Catholic, but go to church on Sundays and believe in God. But to Atheists, anyone who has faith and believes in a higher being is stupid and ignorant.

By the way, I bet Chuck Norris could survive for three days and nights inside the belly of a whale. What do you say to that!

I will not discuss the merits of your blog here as it is not my intention. As a believer, a man who believes in God and Jesus Christ, faith is the reality that cannot be seen. I respect your opinion, but do not agree with it. You sound quite intelligent and I'm sure you are, perhaps, much more intelligent than I. However not all of us lead our lives based on proof. I can prove however that prayer to a higher power, which I call God, has bailed me out of some cicumstances in my life. I do not find that to be a coincidence, as it has happened much more than once. I believe they call that synchronicity, I think. There are disparities between religeous beliefs and science. However, when we read the bible or other ancient texts, we as humans trying to understand what we believe God is saying or telling us, does not always mean we are getting it right. I too sometimes am conflicted between what sciece tells us and my faith and beliefs tell me. That validates or proves one thing, we all are human.

Al, all I care about is whether the things I believe are true or not. I am compelled to analyze my beliefs and question everything. And faith is not reality. By definition, faith is the belief in something without evidence. I have no problem with peoples' faith. I have a problem with people trying to pass it off as reality for anyone other than themselves.

Average Joe, I don't think people who believe in a higher power are stupid. Ignorant, maybe but only about science and their refusal to analyze their beliefs. Ignorant is not an insult. It's just a lack of knowledge about something. I'm personally ignorant about lots of things: how to make paella, what a woman feels during pregnancy, the causes of autism, and the list goes on.

As for your Chuck Norris comment, well, if you already believe in a talking snake, a 600 year old man who built a wooden boat and put 2 of every animal on it, a man who was created from dirt and a woman who was created from dirt man's rib, well I don't think it's much of a stretch to believe Chuck Norris could survive inside a whale.

Occi, why do you insist on mocking others? It really undermines your credibility. Don't you realize that most Christians have come to understand that their sacred books are a great library of inspired books of many genres? So, quit with the preface "if you already believe in a talking snake, a 600 year old man who built a wooden boat and put 2 of every animal on it, a man who was created from dirt and a woman who was created from dirt man's rib" when calling your opponents ignorant. You should learn about something before mocking and dismissing it.

A question: Do you love anyone? If so, what is the scientific basis for it?

So pointing out that you "believe in a talking snake, a 600 year old man, a man who was created from dirt and a woman who was created from dirt man's rib" undermines my credibility but actually believing in those things doesn't undermine yours? What is this, bizzarro world?

I realize Christians think their holy book is great just as I realize Muslims think their Koran is, and Jews/Torah, Taoists/Tao Te Ching. What's your point? Just because they feel wonderful about those doesn't make them true. I adore Lord of the Rings not only based on it's fantasy merit but it's archetypes and themes such as addiction, fate/free will, death/immortality, and power/temptation. But my regard for the book doesn't mean Orcs and Elves are real.

As for 'learning something before I mock it', I am quite familiar with the Bible (know thy enemy) and have found in various debates that more often than not I am more well versed in it's contents than the Christians that purport to follow it! Something I find humor in as I observe Christians eating pork/shellfish, wearing clothing of mixed fibers and other things forbidden by the god they claim to follow.

And yes I love lots of people! My wife, son, family and friends. Just because I understand the chemicals & hormones (serotonin, oxytocin, dopamine, etc.) that cause feelings of love and the neurological process does not make it any less real or moving than for someone who doesn't understand it on a scientific level.

Occi, you completely missed my point! Educated Christians understand that scripture is a collection of inspired writings of many genres such as sacred myth, poetry, history, liturgical texts, laws, etc. written over thousands of years and not intended to be taken literally. I personally never said I believed "in a talking snake, a 600 year old man, a man who was created from dirt and a woman who was created from dirt man's rib". If you were more knowledgeable about Christianity and scripture, you wouldn't make such statements. You sure jump to a lot of conclusions and broad brush people for a smart guy. You don't seem to have much patience. And I don't get the impression you value humility very much either. I'm not putting you or your ideas down ... like you don't hesitate to call others ignorant and bigoted. I am trying to imagine what sort of person you are, given all of your comments. I mean, do you really consider feelings of love as just the pleasant effects of chemicals and hormones? Is the world just a big laboratory for you? Is there nothing transcendent in your life?

What about Pascal's wager? What's your opinion of that?

My son gets up @ 5:30 so just one more reply then bed time for bonzo.

Sorry if I missed your point. I agree with what you say about the bible. It's a hodge podge of earlier writings and some of it's legends were blatantly plagiarized from the writings of earlier religions. The comparisons of Jesus to Gilgamesh, Horus, Mithra, Krishna, Dionysus are too identical to ignore...apparently, virgin births, resurrections, torture, betrayal, 'miracles', are quote common amongst the divine. ;) The problem is, the bible claims to be the word of god. So any attempts to reinterpret it are blatant rejections of gods words.

I only take people by their words. If someone is a Christian, it's a pretty safe assumption they believe in the bible stories. If they don't, well, then they're not Christian. And yes, I'm aware of people who call themselves Christian but don't follow a word of the bible.

Your psychoanalysis of me as a person doesn't bug me in the least. You are more than free to draw your own conclusions about who I am as a person. I don't consider it a personal attack and am not offended. So by all means, draw whatever conclusions about me you want. I'm sure that in your mind, I am whatever you think I am.

Like I said before, I care about truth. Just because I know the scientific explanation for what love is doesn't mean it holds no value to me. I honestly don't understand the suggestion that injecting the divine into something makes it more enjoyable. That reminds me of the mentality of a smoker who feels he can only enjoy a cup of coffee or a meal if he has a cigarette immediately afterwards. I know because I was a smoker. It was a realization of this mentality that caused me to quit cold turkey. It's an affect of the brain trying to rationalize the irrational. I find no less beauty in a flower than a Xian just because I understand germination. I find no less beauty in a Schubert quartet than an Xian just because I have knowledge of musical theory. If anything, I would make the case that I find these things MORE beautiful because I understand the beautiful complexities that are unregistered by the unknowing eye.

And no, there is nothing transcendent in my life. I don't believe in luck, ghosts, fate, or miracles. There have been lots of things during humanity's existence that have been attributed to the work of gods which we have long since explained. Anything we don't have explanations for I am perfectly willing to admit lack of knowledge of. But I love the idea of discovery and new knowledge. Under no circumstances will I surrender to superstition and insert a god into these areas.

As for Pascal's Wager, two things. First, don't you think an all knowing god would know that you're believing in him just to play it safe? If I were a god and one requirement that I had was that mortals must truly believe in me, and then some schmuck met me and I knew he only pretended to believe to play it safe, well I wouldn't exactly be inviting him for a seat at the dinner table. Second, Pascal made the error in suggesting belief in a Christian god. He didn't even consider the plausibility of other gods: Zeus, Odin, Wotan, Dionysus, Horus, etc. By suggesting, in his wager, the belief in a Christian god, he essentially dismisses the vast majority of the human population of Earth that do not believe in a Christian god.

All of that said, I would have to invoke the response of Bertrand Russell who responded, when asked why he did not believe if he were to meet God upon death, "You did not give enough evidence, my Lord."

Whew! Those typing lessons paid off! Heading to bed. G'night Tom.

Karen
I promise that I will be praying for you and like Al I have had experiences where I witnessed God heal the sick and show up in peoples lives in ways that they know it was God. I have had success praying for sick people to be healed. Just last week I prayed for a woman in ICU at the families request and now she is much better. That family credits God and those prayers.I am sorry because I acted without facting concerning you Karen and I ask your forgivness. Please seek the love of God and learn about His Son Jesus who is our great physician.

I have no idea what you're talking about. Frankly I'm amazed at how you make assumptions then leap to your god as causation. It's the classic "God of the Gaps" argument which says "I do not know X, therefore God." Also the sun is actually a nuclear reactor that creates energy by nuclear fission (hydrogen fusion to be specific). It's not burning fuel.

Do you know how a star destroys itself? What it will do is balloon into a Red Giant as it begins fusing helium instead of hydrogen. It will grow so big that it will consume Mercury & Venus. After a few hundred million years the bloated sun will collapse in on itself into a white dwarf.

There are 2 things you've revealed. One, you and science may have been acquainted at one point in youth but you've grown very far apart, haven't reunited since, & you've forgotten everything about it. Two, you are bold enough to make claims and try to pass them off as science but lack the testicular fortitude to answer 2 simple questions I posed to you. I've answered every one of your questions: how old I think the Earth is & about the Sun. You have not extended me the same consideration. Not very good etiquette, Greg.

I'll post them again and hope that you want to actually have a discussion and realize that discussions are give and take. I've given by answering your questions. Now it's your turn.

1) If your god told you to kill one of your children would you do it?
2) Can your god create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift?

I think people who believe prayer is more powerful than medicine should be barred from using the services of hospitals and medical doctors who have spent years learning and understanding human physiology.

Just go ahead and stay home the next time you're sick and pray to get better. See how that works out for ya!

god is impotent.

Thank you Pastor for that~

while I am agnostic in some ways...I have a deep relationship with a higher power. I was saved along the way from illnesses that could kill me. Now I face my greatest battle.

Karen

Sure! lol.

All you have to do is lookup the Kansas State Board of Ed. hearings on evolution. In short, the Board of Ed. intended to introduce Intelligent Design into the classroom under the "Teach the Controversy" method.

A man named Bobby Henderson wrote a letter to the Board of Ed. protesting their intent to teach Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution. Henderson professed belief in a supernatural creator that resembled spaghetti and meatballs and demanded that if Intelligent Design were to be taught, then equal time should be given to teach the Flying Spaghetti Monster method of creation.

Here's Bobby's letter if you wish to read it yourself: http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

I have a 30-month old son who will be entering the school system and if I even hear of anything resembling creationism or intelligent design attempting to be taught, I will be bringing out the full force of the FFRF's legal team down on the school system. It's fine if people want to teach their kids whatever their religions' version of creation is as long as it happens in the home, church, temple, mosque, etc. but the minute I get wind of theocratical encroachment on public schooling, I'll be putting the kibosh on that real quick like.

You say miraculous one. I say farcical one.

Miracles do not happen every day. If you make this claim, please back it up with an example.

Whether you believe it was a whale, a giant fish, or a sea monster is irrelevant. A man cannot and did not live for three days in any one of them.

Al let me pose the questions that Pastor Greg is unable to answer to you:

1) If your god told you to kill one of your children would you do it?
2) Can your god create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift?

Example of miracle: Giants beat the 18-0 Patriots to win the 2007 Super Bowl.

Boom! Nailed you!

Maybe it was the Flying Spaghetti Monster! (Occi, you are my new favorite poster here...)

lol B@B! Have you been touched by his noodley appendage? :)

See the leaps of logic you have to take Al? I see lots of "possible!" "Possible!". That's a lot of concessions you have to make to square up your theory.

Dunkleoestus existed 350-360 million years ago.

Christians believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.

The math doesn't work. Unless of course like most young earth creationists, you believe humans and dinosaurs walked side by side.

If the bible - a book - is the only proof of these things, well, that's a pretty weak basis. Might as well hold up Dr. Doolittle for proof of the existence of a Pushmi-Pullyu.

The fact is, there is the same amount of proof for the existence of the Christian god as there is for proof of unicorns, zombies, elves, leprechauns, Thor, Ra, Odin, Shiva, Zeus, Poseidon, and Scientology's Xenu. Books. Nothing but books.

Ok so if God asked you to kill your son, you would say no. So you would disobey your god, the thing you believe created everything and holds your fate and future in it's hands? And if you believe he is omniscient, then he already knows deep down in your mind that you would disobey him. Don't you think, knowing that, he would condemn you to Hell? Knowing that you would disobey him?

And 2 - if your god cannot create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift, then he is not all powerful. He's impotent. He's unable to do that.

Don't you care about whether or not what you believe in is true? Do you believe in it just because it feels good?

Have you considered that your religion is a byproduct of where you were born? Most folks are born into the religion of their parents. There is no such thing as a "Christian child" or a "Muslim child". Only "a child of Christian parents". We are all born atheists, not believing in any gods. Then our parents force their religion onto us and we grow up following whatever religion they were. I was raised Roman Catholic. When I asked my parents why they baptized me and raised me Catholic, they just responded because it was what they believe in. So if I was born in Iraq, I'd be Muslim. In India I might be a Jain or Hindu.

I'd also like to point out that you are an atheist. You surely don't believe in Zeus or Odin or Thor or Poseidon or Wotan or Ra. In fact, you probably don't believe in any of the hundreds of gods that supposedly have existed since the dawn of man. The only difference between you and me is that I go one god further.

Al, great observation, is the mind made of matter? If Occi and his like are consistent, because science has to be consistent,right; and science says that life has to be made up of matter, then what of the mind, what form of matter is ones conscience made of? Or is the mind dead?
I say that the only reasonable explanation is God. At least in my mind :)

Pastor, you have an infantile understanding of science. It's impossible to have a discussion, about science, with someone who thinks that conscience must be made of matter.

So how do you account for things like fossils?

We have fossilized remains of early humans that sure look a lot like apes. I'm curious as to how that fits into your views. I'm not bring disrespectful. I honestly don't understand.

What question? I answered two of yours and told you that I will not be answering any more of your questions until you extend the same courtesy to me. I posed two questions you are too cowardly to answer.

As for your ridiculous sun shrinking argument, I won't spend time debunking it but instead will point you to an article that does just that. Know that the basis for your sun shrinking argument rests on 80 year old science (the Heinholtz Contraction) that was rendered obsolete once we discovered nuclear fusion.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/specific_arguments/sun_shrinking.html

Get with the times Greg. You're basing your belief on almost 100 year old, obsolete science. See, that's what's cool about science. We can come up with a theory and it can actually change or be dismissed as new discoveries are made. Religion, through it's doctrine and dogma, is forever stuck in a single position, primitive and ignorant in nature.

And you're right. We didn't come from apes. Another common misperception by religious nuts. We share a common ancestor. But go ahead believing we were created from dirt. That's real elegant!

Fossils of Giants? Where?

And no, you can't accept fossils that have been dated to millions of years and still accept that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Well you can, but then everyone else has the right to laugh at you.

You;re doing it again Greg. You're saying because you don't think there is evidence for macroevolution, that means Noah and the Ark is true. But you haven't provided evidence for Noah and the Ark!

As for evidence of macroevolution, lots of evidence exists. The problem is, you haven't bothered to seek it out because you're happy with your pied piper on a boat explanation. If you like reading, I point you here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Well the RC faith has historically been very slanted against science so that wouldn't be a shocker.

Shocker, carbon 12 & carbon 14 found in stuff that contains carbon. I bet if you looked hard enough, you might even find water in a glacier.

Seriously, the only implication here is you seemed to have not taken any science classes.

Prayer is worthless. When people pray, two things happen. Either their prayer is "answered" or it isn't. If it is, they say "Praise the Lord!". If it doesn't, they say "God works in mysterious ways."

Not to mention it runs contrary to the whole "divine plan" thing. If your god has a divine plan that's already laid out, praying is useless because if what you asked for isn't in the divine plan, it's not getting answered. If it is in the divine plan, no use praying since it would happen anyway.

"Two hands working can do more than a thousand hands clasped in prayer."

If Pastor Greg and I are standing in front of someone choking to death and I employ the Heimlich and CPR while Greg prays, guess who is going to save that persons' life? Likewise, why do people who believe in prayer call the fire department when their house is on fire? Why not pray the fire away? Or if someone has cancer. Stay away from chemotherapy and pray to be cured. Need a liver transplant? Pray to be healed. My guess is that deep down, they know no one is listening. Prayer is nothing more than the art of talking to yourself. It's a placebo.

Here's actually a legitimate scientific study that revealed, "Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567/

As Hitch said, "You pray for me and I'll think for you."

I agree with you. I was just pointing out that there is a kind spirit in Pastor Greg that I see, even as I disagree with him. And for the record, Christopher Hitchens was a favorite writer of mine, too.

Isn't that how "faith" is defined? Belief in something with no proof? I'm still a science-girl, but I sometimes envy those with faith - they derive great comfort from it, especially during difficult times.

Ok, I'll give you that these scientific theories are theories because no one is here who actually witnessed these events. But what about the Bible that you rely upon? What evidence is there that it is anything other than some stories written down by people?

Prove it. Prove there's a god. Prove there was a miraculous birth. Prove that these are not simply stories in a book.

You're asking an awful lot of evidence from me but providing none of your own.

For all who have followed this please think for yourself. Religion has fought tooth & nail to keep humanity in a perpetual state of infantile ignorance because it knows that as the world becomes smarter, their power over the ignorant would diminish. Priests would not be able to live off the money of their sheep if people began to realize what a scam religion was.

All of our scientific advancements & knowledge was gained in spite of religion. Religion thought the Earth was flat, science proved it was spherical. Religion thought the Earth was the center of the universe, science proved that not only was the sun the center of our solar system but the universe was huge. Religion thought thunder & lightning were the work of gods, science proved the natural causes behind these. Religion claimed gods were the source of storms @ sea. Science revealed these to be hurricanes.The only people who still call hurricanes "acts of God" are those who write insurance forms. And priests.

Don't just accept what the pastor says as factual. Unless he was there billions of years ago and can prove it all he has is speculation. The evidence for god is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance that is getting smaller and smaller as time goes on.

Believe in yourself. Don't attribute your good traits or success to some invisible being. You did it. Savor this life knowing this is all we have. Make this one count. There is no afterlife. This life is not some grimy Greyhound bus stop.

We need to stop a moment and separate this suggestion that the only way to enjoy life is through belief in the divine. There have been hundreds of brilliant atheists and most likely more, since for thousands of years anyone who admitted to apostasy was tortured and murdered by religion.

Just a quick list of some affirmed atheist musicians: Bela Bartok, Verdi, Frank Zappa, Roger Waters & Dave Gilmour, Berlioz, Brian Eno, Ravel, Rimsky-Korsakov, Sir Michael Tippett.

How about authors? Isaac Asimov, Primo Levi, HP Lovecraft, Ian McEwan, Arthur Miller, Orwell, Louis Stevenson, Thom Wolfe, Vonnegut and HG Wells.

Are their compositions and novels any less interesting because of their refusal to believe in the supernatural? I think the suggestion is rather offensive to be honest. I take people on their word and on their deeds. Is there something else?

As for FFRF, as long as the schools my children will be attending maintain that church/state separation, there will be no fallout. The minute some overzealous teacher or principal decides to hang some religious decree from a wall or attempts to lead the school in prayer, I will be there to ensure our great Constitution is adhered to. So give your heart to jesus. Here on Earth, everyones butt belongs to the laws of the land. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars I believe the proverb goes.

Occi, I never suggested that the only way to enjoy life is through belief in the divine. One hedonist proves that. And I wasn't using "transcendent" to mean supernatural, but I see you were. You really are narrow in your use of language, and jump to conclusions a lot. (I don't mean you literally jump. It's a figure of speech.)

Now, I am amazed that you would present yourself as such a free thinker, and yet demand absolute allegiance to one controversial interpretation of a clause of the U.S. Constitution. You are full of contradictions!

Like I said, T, I take people at their words. Has it ever occurred to you that if I'm not understanding your words the way you want me to that maybe you're not explaining your position clearly? As for the term transcendent, there are numerous definitions. This is just a simple matter of me using one definition while you are using another. This is why it's important to clarify your position so that nothing gets lost in translation.

As for the First Amendment, I don't think there is anything controversial about it's interpretation. What it says is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Jefferson made an interpretation of the First Amendment to his January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State." Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from our Founding Fathers.

In addition, there contains a specific statement in the Treaty of Tripoli (a document dictating the behavior of the USA in international affairs as it related to Tripoli), "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

So yes, I demand absolute allegiance to the Constitution as the authors of our nation intended. I don't want to see this country turned into the Christian equivalent of a Muslim theocracy like in Iran or Saudi Arabia. Dress up, wear the silly hats, and send telepathic messages to the great invisible grand pooba in the sky in your tax exempt buildings that increase the tax pressure on the rest of us citizens. Just keep it out of the public sphere.

Occi...then why does the Pledge of Allegiance say "One nation under God" Another thought. Yesterday you said we are all born atheists.I understand your point, however you can't scientifically prove that. You and I don't know the thoughts of a newborn baby and its progression of thought prior to its parents leading their children into their beliefs and religeon.

Al - "One Nation Under God" was added to the pledge in 1954. What's also funny is that the pledge was written by a Christian Socialist and there was no mention of "God" in the original pledge. The pledge has been modified 4 times, the last being the addition of "God" in 1954.

Originally, the line was "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

While we're on the topic, the words "In God We Trust" was not added to paper currency until 1957. It was officially adopted as the nation's motto in 1956 and the Founding Fathers have been rolling in their graves ever since. The original motto of the USA was "E Pluribus Unum" which means, "From may, one".

As for the babies being born atheist, this is absolutely provable. If babies had thoughts regarding religion before their parents indoctrinated them, then we would see Christian babies being born in India, Muslim babies in America, Hindu babies being born in Norway. Instead, we see that in various countries and regions around the world, there is one predominant religion and all babies born are indoctrinated into that religion. A quick look at Sweden and Norway, two of the most non-religious countries on Earth where the majority of the population are atheists, and you see that babies born do not have religious thoughts. If babies could think of religion, surely Christian/Muslim/Jewish babies would be born to atheist Scandinavian parents.

I'm not afraid of science I encourage it, in fact I need it.
Over 25 years ago NASA launched Voyager2 into space. It's mission, find intelligent life. The result defening silence. Scientists used to think that the moon was a source of light (not a reflection) but the oldest book of the bible had already told us it was reflected light. "behold even the moon and it shineth not..." Job 25:5
For the record I don't accept a salary, I only pay out of pocket to feed the poor, cloth the needy, visit the sick and imprisoned.

Pastor, you do realize that it's pretty easy to determine that the moon is a source of light? The Voyager mission just verified it.

While I fall on the side of believing in science, the thought of how many billions of people on the planet subscribe to a religion makes me think that these discussions are necessary. How are we all going to get along if we don't talk? Agreement is not necessary, as long as we agree on the boundaries (public schools or government come to mind). I appreciate that people have been able to have a fairly civilized discussion here.

Occi, I guess I can't condemn homosexual activity if you're telling me there is nothing wrong with repurposing something. I mean, I've used a dime to pry open a battery compartment even though it wasn't designed for that purpose.

HobokenOwl, while the urge to sexual activity can be quite strong in some, it doesn't make every act appropriate or healthy.

Well how about this line of logic Tom.

Men's g-spots are located up our buttholes. Our prostates. This area is reachable only by inserting something into the anus. How's that for "purpose"?

If a religious person believes man is created in god's image, then logic dictates that god's g-spot is up his butthole too. If you believe god created man, then do you think he put it there with the intent that it be reached through anal sex? That would seem to indicate that not only does god think male homosexual sex is okay, but by putting the g-spot up men's butts, and since he created man in his own image, your god likes to receive anal sex!

I think maybe the saying "God is Great" was rephrased from it's original incarnation:
"God is Gay!" Not to mention, Jesus had two dads!

I realized my rant was a bit muddled. Here's the clearer version. You spoke of repurposing a penis in relation to gaymale sex, Tom. However let's look at known facts and the biblical timeline.

1) We know the male g-spot is the prostate which is only reachable by inserting something into the anus.
2) God created man in his image. This would suggest that god also has a g-spot up his butt.
3) God creates Adam. At this point, no woman is present. Just Adam and the god who made him. Two dudes, alone, with g-spots up their butts, only reachable by inserting something into the anus. No vaginas exist at this point.

That said, then it appears, without woman present, that the original purpose of the penis, aside from urination, was to put it in a place to reach something that was too far away for a finger. I'll leave it up to you to guess where.

Then god decides to create Eve. Gives her a vagina. This timeline would suggest that the original purpose of the penis was for God and Adam to have a little fun in paradise. Once he created Eve, Adam's penis was then repurposed for reproduction.

So how's that line of logic? ;)

No need to wish for it when some of us are older b/c it will already be broke by then.

Get lost Concerned, we're having fun. If you don't like it, don't read it. Simple. Isn't that the American ethos? Personal Responsibility? Take it upon yourself to remove yourself from the situation.

I for one thank Patch for allowing us to have a fun discussion without over moderating it. Despite some heated moments, I think we've gained a level of respect for each other and all future exchanges will be much more civil. In return, I hope Patch is enjoying the increased traffic. :)