In this video clip, a reporter asks anti-abortion protesters if they think abortion should be legal or illegal. When they predictably say illegal, he asks them what the punishment should be for women who have illegal abortions.
posted by The Inside Dope @ 8/01/2007
33 comments
Wise, all-knowing, omniscient, and a snappy dresser besides. Often misunderestimated.
Readers are strongly encouraged to send along any tid-bits, story ideas, event notices, links to articles, background info, or other stuff they feel may be of interest. Just contact me at the link below. It's a lot easier than throwing it through my window tied to a rock.
NOTE:
Due to the fact that the foolish and the disturbed will always be among us,
Your comments may not show up immediately.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You do not have a RIGHT to have your comments published here, they will appear at the editor's sole discretion.
Contact The Inside Dope
by clicking here
Change is Good
Spies, Lies, and the Con Man Who Caused a War
Recommended for wingnuts still wallowing in Bush propaganda
about the phoney intel they used to drive us to war.
Confessions of a Republican Operative
My Secret Life of (Republican) Scandal, Corruption,
Hypocrisy and Dirty Attacks That
Decide Who Gets Elected (and Who Doesn't)
Reclaiming Faith and Politics after the Religious Right
A Citizen's Guide to Faith and Politics
Reviving Faith & Politics in a Post-Religious Right America
--->
Sites You Should Know
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License.
33 Comments:
The religious right uses the words "immoral" and "illegal" so interchangably that they mean nothing seperatly anymore. If they thought about abortion, you can tell all these people would believe the same things many people believe and call themselves pro-choice, but they give in to this knee jerk reaction that killing babies is immoral and make the jump to therefore it should be illegal without thinking about the consequences of what they're saying.
It sounds to me as though those anti-abortion protestors have no expectation that abortion will ever again actually be illegal and might not like the consequences (women going to jail for having abortions) if it were.
A lot of people have commented that if Republicans actually succeed in putting enough right-wing supreme court justices on the court to get Roe-vs-Wade overturned that it might turn out to be a very bad thing for the Republican Party because it would rouse the pro-choice majority from its slumber and make one-issue voters against the Republicans out of a lot of them. But this video raises the possibility pro-life people might also not like the spector of women going to jail because they got an abortion.
Hey, ID, I know this is off-topic, but you should glean onto this website if you haven't yet:
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Cost-of-War/Cost-of-War-3.html
It gives a running tabulation of the cost of the war in Iraq, nationally and by state, along with other things.
Yep, it appears that most haven't bothered even considering step B.
Pretty telling.
The religious right are very simple minded people. These are the same nutcases who believe in natural family planning.
Unfortunately, they are the ones making decisions right now in our government.
And a quick sidenote here referring to the MN bridge tragedy: Republican MN Governor Pawlenty had vetoed a transportation bill, effectively making the MN DOT broke. Enjoy your tax breaks America, those aren't the only breaks you'll get!
It's a relief that there's no rabid call to string up women who have abortions, but the anti-choice people obviously have forgotten what happened when abortion was illegal in the past. It's like they think that if it's illegal, no one will do it. Crikey.
In genealogical searches I've come across microfilmed newspaper articles about women hospitalized for botched abortions. Only when something went wrong was anyone charged, and it was usually the doctor.
I'm against "faith-based" bridge maintenence.
The only reason Pawlenty vetoed it was so that he could say he never raised taxes. (In case he is considered, as the scuttlebutt says, for the Rep. vice presidential spot.) It's pretty disgusting.
Obviously passing the bill this past spring wouldn't have stopped the collapse, but the funding it provided might have prevented a tragedy a year from now, and who knows what that lack of funding will result in.
highxlr8r
I would suggest that what the pro-life group believes is that (1) the taking of a human life is wrong...I would hope that you all agree?
(2) That steps should be taken to make this procedure of killing babies-in-the-womb an illegal act.
(3) That punishment should be for those performing the taking of a human life, not necessarily for the mother.
(4) That the United States taxpayer should not be in a position to fund the killing of a baby.
So you put people on camera that have not thought through who should be penalized - and think that they speak for an entire group of people? Come on...
I really do not want to debate the right and wrong of this, we have done so before. I appreciate that you believe that killing babies is ok, twisted, but it is your right to believe this.
Gee thanks.
Killing babies is twisted.
Aborting a non-viable fetus is NOT the same thing.
That's where opinions differ Jimbo, in case you miss the distinction.
'Aborting non-viable fetus' - if that makes you feel better.
Let's face it, a newborn is a 'non-viable' human. Without the feeding that it gets from others, it cannot sustain its own life - where is the difference?
And if you think that only 'non-viable fetus'' are aborted, with the full and aggressive support of the pro-abortion activists - then you are dillusional.
Viable 'babies' are aborted every day in this country.
But...you believe whatever makes you sleep at night!
I knew it would only be a matter of time before Jim Mowen's fetus sense tingled and led him to this discussion. Jim may have left the Quads, but that doesn't mean he's ready to let us forget how crazy right-wing he is.
Steps should be taken to make this procedure of killing babies-in-the-womb an illegal act.
Punishment should be for those performing the taking of a human life, not necessarily for the mother. I recommend life in prison.
The United States taxpayer should not be in a position to fund the killing of a baby.
The liberal Democrats have done enough to screw up the family value system of the United States.
It is time to get back on course and build a stronger America for the future.
Wow, classic commentary. Allow me to state my arguments and then tell you not to respond because "we have done so before"
1)Taking human life is wrong, but the debate is not there, it is whether or not the fetus is a human.
2)Illegal in the sense that there should be punishments for it like a speeding ticket, or illegal in the sense that it wouldn't be enforced like spitting or jaywalking?
3)So it's not okay to penalize the person who decided to terminate the life, but it is acceptable to penalize the person who actually commits the act.
That sort of rationale says that hiring an assassin to kill your ex spouse means that only the assassin should be punished, and you are free to go about your business.
4)Of course the United States tax dollars shouldn't be enforced to destroy babies. Nor should it be used to murder innocent Japanese civilians with a nuke, or Iraqi "collateral damage" with bombs.
I think putting these people on camera was especially interesting considering they have dedicated hundreds of hours of their time throughout the years to the issue. You think they could at least do their homework.
You wouldn't bring a knife to a gunfight, so don't bring fallacies to an open discussion.
If you listen closely, you can almost hear the hamster falling off the wheel.
Mr. Mowen, first I must say, you really should do something unfriendly to your campaign manager. I don't agree with you, but at least you have a coherent thought... unlike some Republicans who have run for the 17th.
Abortion prior the fetus being viable should be legal and safe. Once the fetus becomes viable and can live outside the womb, then I am with you... except in cases of the health of the mother.
That beings said, the photos being used by the protesters are of a fetus in the third trimester; an abortion of which is illegal.
Yep, those "liberal Democrats" who have busted unions and wrecked the economy forcing both parents to work full-time and those liberals who provide the fine family programming on FOX, etc. Not the conservatives who are always talking pious, but constantly being caught molesting children, sometimes their own, or otherwise engaging in gay sex, adultry, etc.
Thanks Jim. I sleep like a baby.
hifi, if you believe that concern for human life, for protecting human life that cannot protect itself (which, I thought, would indeed be a staple of the Democrat platform), is
"crazy right-wing" - then I will gladly accept this label.
Scott, I do appreciate that we will never (at least for quite some time) have a U.S. without abortion, however, you need to understand that the 'viability' argument does not hold water, as it begs the next question....
When is a human being 'viable'?
- At 8-months in the womb? (I believe that all reasonable people would agree to this).
- But how about 7-months, 29-days?
- And how about at 7-months, 28?
- Etc.
Also, if we want to be totally honest, a newborn baby is not 'viable.' The newborn is 100% reliant upon having someone feed it. As this newborn is not 'viable' - do we have the right to terminate its life?
How about a 2-year old with 'Downs Syndrome' - I would have to say that this child would not be 'viable.' Do we have the right to terminate this child, based on 'viability?'
Serious questions for serious people.
Roe vs. Wade allowed 1st-term abortions. The 'slippery slope' has taken this to allowing 3rd-term (partial birth) abortions. If we deal with 'viability', then the slippery slope would likely allow newborns and Downs babies/ children to be next.
Again, serious issues for serious people (hifi, you had better just go to another post with your flippant 'right-wing' labels).
I will never understand how people, especially people who can't get pregnant, can get on such a crusade about an issue that does nothing but cause division and argument, when there are so much more pressing and important issues to contend with, in particular about quality of life for children who have already been born.
Forgive me if I see more than a bit of religious zealotry and lemming-like following of leaders who have milked the abortion issue for all it's worth to whip up the troops and give their followers that oh-so-crucial sense of self-rightousness and moral superiority.
The bottom line is, eliminate the hype and the zealots (if you can) and it remains a minor issue.
Abortion has a direct impact on only a very, very small minority of people in this country. It has no bearing whatsoever on the economic or social well-being of the country. And the only effect of all this rabid hot air and protest is to make the poor women who find themselves in the desperate straights of even having to consider such a procedure have an even more horrible experience.
Truly, an issue which has taken up FAR too much air, far too much debate, and far too much political energy.
Think abortion is immoral? Think it's "murder"? Then DON'T HAVE ONE.
Otherwise, keep your particular views out of other people's lives, and don't try to dictate what women must do or not do when faced with an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy.
There's plenty of children who desperately need help without wasting so much energy on forcing women to have more in circumstances where they've decided that it would be disasterous or even dangerous to do so.
So simple.
Anon,
I love how you seem to take the Brownback style of showing how liberal democrats like myself have ruined the family values of this country. I think you'd be happy to know I was raised in the Quad Cities by a catholic family, my sister is about to get married to her boyfriend of 6 years, and only two of any of my extended relatives have been divorced, far below the national rate. Look at the divorce rates in a liberal state like Massachusetts compared to a blood red state like Alabama.
You can read about that here:
http://www.logcabin.org/lef/divorce_rates_higher_in_red_states.html?member_key=we3ge6i217nkxn5
You want to talk family values? How about Mark Foley and Ted Haggard, or other ethically challenged Republicans. You destroy these families' values when you give the tax breaks to the richest percent and keep their minimum wage as low as possible.
I have done so much more to better American society through values and economics than most Republicans can say.
Dope, goodness...
"Abortion has a direct impact on only a very, very small minority of people in this country"
and
"It has no bearing whatsoever on the economic and social well-being of the country."
Unbelievable.
1. Abortion impacts a great number of people. (a) the 40,000,000+ (that is 40-million) babies that were not born. I'd say that is a pretty big 'non-impact.' (b) if one is willing to listen, abortion can (and I did say 'can' (it is not a 100% issue)) have serious psychological impact on the woman having the abortion. I have witnessed first-hand the pain of an abortion, 20-years after the fact!
2. There is serious economic impact on the country. Could you imagine the state of Social Security if there were another 20-million working people paying into the system to support those receiving SS income?
3. Social impact, the impact is beyond comprehension. Let's face it when intelligent men and women defend the killing of a human life, even life that has potential to be a human being (I'll even allow for this line of thinking), but to defend, actually not even consider it worthy of consideration...to totally dismiss human life - and you think that there are no social consequences...
Again, I do not want to argue. I appreciate that you are set in your opinion, but, I find it sad that you would make such dismissive and silly arguments.
Dope, it is simple.
Abortion is wrong.
When are you and the liberal Democrats going to understand that?
Abortion divides our country and overturning Roe V Wade is a good step in the "right" direction.
I'd say that fixing potholes has more of an impact on people's lives and "quality of life" than abortion.
You say that women can have a tough time dealing with having an abortion and have to deal with it for the rest of their lives, yet you would instead force them to give birth and then give the child away or barely survive and likely be a poor parent to the child if they keep it.
Which is worse? I think that if a woman makes that decision, then of course she may regret it later, much as everyone regrets it if something that serious occurs in their life. Any woman would likely have second thoughts about "what if", but the fact remains that they felt for whatever reason that bearing a child wasn't practical or rational at that point in time.
The fact they may have misgivings years down the road is small potatoes as far as an argument for banning all abortions (and even sillier as a rationale for making it illegal.)
And... just like a Republican, you see dollar signs behind all those missing taxpayers. I don't even know if I could dignify that line of thinking. But as long as your being that cynical, I will be too.
It's not the loss of future wage slaves, it instead means a slight slow-down of the rapid rate of over-population which, after all, is the tangential cause of nearly all societal problems, from urban crime to bridges collapsing, to economic woes.
The world will face an overpopulation bomb somewhere down the line that will make global warming look like child's play.
And... of course, you act as though these were actual people who somehow were murdered.
As I've noted over and over again, it's impossible to argue, or even discuss something with a person who brings a preconcieved viewpoint as a place to start, and then demands that others share that viewpoint and makes all their arguments as if that viewpoint is fact and the only valid viewpoint.
In this case and others, the fact is that your particular opinion of this moral issue is NOT a fact, nor is it universally shared by intelligent people.
It's simply how you've chosen to view the issue. That's fine.
But the problem arises, as always, when folks like yourself try to impose that belief on others and deny them the right to make important choices in their lives based on their religious, moral, and ethical beliefs. It's even more outrageous when you waste everyone's time trying to actually put your beliefs into law.
And as Peter noted, the fact that this administration alone has done more to widen the already vast gulf between rich and poor, driven down the average wage in this country by a large amount, nearly wrecked the dollar, and on and on and on does more to "destroy" families than anything supposed "liberals" could ever dream of.
Stop worrying about what other people do in their bedrooms and what they may choose to do about it later and start directing your energies towards something which actually HELPS the common good, such as reigning in out of control corporations and their agents in the government, reversing the jihad against all government, no matter how beneficial it can be, and start working to solve real problems, rather than little divisive matters that are better left alone.
You can sleep at night with a clear concious that you've never had an abortion, Jim. That should be the end of it. Stop worrying about other people's intensely private decisions and do something which actually helps people.
Lord knows there's going to be enough to do just untangling and undoing all the damage that remains to be revealed in the wake of the reign of the neocons.
Living breathing people are suffering. Stop crying for the zygotes and do something to help those people.
Anon 12:53
HA HA freaking HA!!!!! Thanks for the belly laugh. That's the best argument I've ever heard! HAHAHAHAHA!
Can I borrow that line of thinking?
Every issue, I'll just say, "It's simple, what I believe in is right, and what you think is wrong. End of story. When are you knuckleheads going to figure it out?"
That's priceless.
But sadly, typical of those who have adopted views based on going along with the crowd and have never spent a moment actually thinking WHY they believe what they do, or if it's in any way necessary or rational to force their beliefs on others.
That way of thinking has infested our country like a cancer. Don't think. It's simple. It just is. Don't think, just get angry.
I think talk radio and cable TV shout-fests have definitely aided and abetted this "moronification" of America.
It's really a serious threat to our future when most of the population doesn't think, can't think, and worse, doesn't LIKE to think.
Dope, you show your lack of understanding with virtually every comment...
As I told (and as was misreported) the QC Times, God made women to bear children. Giving that child up for adoption (so that the child can have a better life), although I suspect leaves the mother wondering what kind of life the child has, is a whole lot different than KILLING the life that God created that woman to have.
To compare the two is unbelievably foolish.
As far as the economics - let's face it, Democrats are the ones that base most everything on how much money the government can take from an individual - I just sited the obvious. (I see that you did not dispute the claim, just tried to make a silly diversion).
As for overpopulation, well, I invite you to read the book, 'America Alone' by Mark Steyn - this book will convey to you what a totally uneducated statement you just made by claiming 20-year old 'overpopulation' claims.
You clearly have no sane argument for killing babies, so I have said what I can say. You are totally incapable of looking logically at the issue. Have a great day!
"As I've noted over and over again, it's impossible to argue, or even discuss something with a person who brings a preconcieved viewpoint as a place to start, and then demands that others share that viewpoint and makes all their arguments as if that viewpoint is fact and the only valid viewpoint."
Who are you talking about, Dope, Mr. Mowen or yourself? It seems as if your views are pretty unchangeable too.
While I disagree with Mr. Mowen's viewpoint on abortion, your comment that we need to stop this divisive arguement only works for you because currently abortions are legal. If abortions were illegal, would you still think the debates should cease?
The sad truth is that this is a debate that will continue regardless of whether abortion is legal or illegal. The only way that it stops is if one side gives up, and I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Whew boy! So that's the only purpose for women, eh? Churning out kids?
Wow.
And the idea that Democrats are driven by some desire to see how much money they can take from people is sheer drivel. The economy under nearly all Democratic administrations has vastly outperformed those of the reckless "borrow and spend" Republican administrations, who still are conning the rubes with the non-sensical notion that if you transfer more wealth to the wealthy, then why all us wage slaves ... are better off.
There's some sort of voodoo disconect in there somewhere which they conveniently skip. It's like a scientist writing a huge formula on the board and in the middle is written "here a miracle occurs".
It never has made sense, it's been tried and has had negative impact on the entire country, and yet you folks still keep it up as if it's some article of faith, which of course, it has to be, as it's based on hocus pocus.
If I recall, a Democrat left this country with a huge surplus, having made huge cuts in government spending and having implemented (spearheaded by his vice-president) and unprecidented assault on government waste, including eliminating thousands of non-essential positions and agencies, etc.
A surplus, for those on the right who have no conception of the meaning, results when you spend less than you take in.
Bush has taken this country from a healthy surplus to a deficit which staggers the imagination, one never approached by any measure in the history of mankind.
And China holds the mortgage, of course.
Don't make me laugh by trotting out that goofy notion that the DEMOCRATS are the ones that somehow are profligate spenders. Your own party makes Dems look like pikers, and you KNOW it.
Evidently billions of windfall profits and sheer graft to defense contractors or other corporations is not so bad, but the thought of some minority getting a few hundred bucks they're not entitled to just drives your type bonkers.
And you're supposed to be God's own party! Morals, religion, God, gays, and all the rest of that rot. It's so bizarre as to be laughable.
And as long as you're being so pious about the sanctity of God created life, better not step on an ant. It's the same thing after all. A life that God created.
(and of course, no more beef, chicken, fish or meat of any kind.)
You obviously have your views, but I seriously doubt that God is up there fretting about what happens to some clump of cells before it's born. He's allowed some of the most fiendishly tortuous events and inhuman suffering to happen thousands of times a day around the world. He doesn't seem like the type that would be that sensitive if a being he'd already created felt it was best not to bring another life into the world when it couldn't be properly cared for.
You also know that there is NO WAY on earth that every unwanted pregnancy could result in a loving adoption. So just drop that phony tactic.
I have no idea what goofy premise is put forth in the book you cite, but I suspect that the author is neither respected by his peers nor creditable.
I also can't hope but notice that you form your views as if the United States is the only country on earth, and that the rest don't matter somehow. That the people within man made boundaries on one part of one continent are somehow favored by God over all the others.
That's a kind of sick way of thinking, to my mind, and it leads directly to a lot of wrong-minded decisions which lead to bad and crazy things. We've suffered too many of them from this gang already.
American exceptionalism only goes so far. Beyond that, it's arrogance and ignorance of the worst sort.
Dope,
1. The simple fact is that women, NOT MEN, have babies...I thought that you would understand this without me having to explain it to you.
2. Sorry, God indeed created 'man' to rule animals, so the 'ant-thing' just don't fly. Maybe, since you believe that you are nothing more than a group of meaningless cells that 'happened' to get together and crawl out of the ocean, maybe YOU are no better than an animal.
3. I'd suggest that you do not go speaking for God - you are not good at it. And by the way, He does believe that life begins at conception (just read His book - but apparently you will discredit the author, huh?).
It's got to be an awesome thing to know more than God, huh Dope?
You're the worst kind of religious kook. You actually think that what you happen to believe is some sort of rock solid universal truth. You can't even comprehend the possibility that you're completely wrong, or that millions of humans around the world don't feel the same way you do about religion, the orgin of life, or even the notion of God.
That's where it gets dangerous. When you stop realizing that your faith is nothing but a personal thing you've decided to believe and start thinking you need to convince others to believe as you do, even if it means forcing them by law. Not good. That sort of thing has not gone down well in the past, if history is any judge.
And please let me know where in the Bible that God or Jesus said anything about abortion, or where and when life begins, or for that matter, delved into biological discussions at all.
You conjure up whatever you want from that book to further boost your belief that the creator of heaven and earth is giving you a big atta-boy. What if he thinks you're way out of line? Naw... couldn't be.
There's as many interpretations of the bible as there are people who care to do so, and they're often diametrically opposed. So essentially, it's a blank slate that men have always projected their views onto and it's always been held up as somehow justification for doing horrible things or supposedly proving just what God wants.
There's some things in the Bible that are clear, such as the fact that Jesus instructed us to care for the poor and infirm, feed the hungry, and so on.
Somewhere there's a list of all the insane things the bible orders us to do as well, things something like stoning disobedient children to death and other similarly ludicrous notions that no one advocates. (at least no sane people).
So I find it rather banal and distasteful when people hold up the bible and twist it to somehow justify bigotry and meaness to those who may be different from the majority.
As for your first comment, it proves that you're so out of it that you don't even catch obvious satire, or you're just so desperate that you felt the need to pretend you thought I was serious.
You also completely miss the point of my saying you can feel better having not had an abortion. (not surprising in your case)
For the more dim-witted, it's that you don't have to deal with abortion personally, so why are you trying to dictate what women can or can not do with something that important and personal?
But I suppose you also feel that God tells us that men are here to rule over their women and control them in every way.
For all your quaking fear of Iran and Muslims, your beliefs sound scarily similar to the Taliban and other theocratic throw-backs.
The 50s are gone, Ward and June have gone away. Get used to it Jim. You can't bring it back. Darker skinned people are everywhere and they don't even think or look or dress like you.
But it's all ok. No need to get in a panic and try to exert one last gasp of white male power to try to stem the tide.
Instead of the futility of trying to push the country back into the past by hook or by crook, why not look forward and embrace all the change and the positives it brings?
Relax.... practice tolerance. Don't be so freaked out that the old white boy's club is going out of power. It'll all work out.
And besides, you'll still be firmly in charge of 90% of the country for decades to come.
But you're going to be VERY disappointed if you continue to think that this country is going to go backwards or somehow be able to be frozen in time. Not gonna happen.
You don't have to be a weatherman to see which way the wind blows.
And just for the record, I'm not sure where I supposed to speak for any God. But it sounds good I guess. So is your other typical straw man where you suggest I think I know more than God.
I don't know if I do or don't. I have no clue how much God knows. Did you learn that in Sunday School decades ago? Did they tell you God knows everything? Well, if that makes you feel better, then that's fine with me.
He has a white beard too, right? And he's a white guy, natch, just like Jesus.
Sheesh.
Dope, based on the above comments, it sounds like you are an atheist female. Is this true?
I'm a believer in the Constitution of the United States and the Declaration of Independence.
Very disappointed you feel that Americans should subject themselves to the values of other countries.
You said "The economy under nearly all Democratic administrations has vastly outperformed those of the reckless "borrow and spend" Republican administrations."
Why don't you send an e-mail to Governor Blago touting his financial success while cc Jim Edgar. What state are you living in, can't be Illinois.
Dope, I will address your first two points, because after you don't make sense for 2 or 3 paragraphs, your rambles kind of blurr for me (must be my ADD).
Yes, I do believe that the fact that 'women' and not 'men' have babies is indeed a "universal truth."
And, yes, I believe that mankind is superior to insects and animals is also a 'universal truth.'
______________________
You asked "where God said anything about the beginning of life" -- Psalm 139:13
For it was you that created my inward parts, YOU KNIT ME TOGETHER IN MY MOTHERS WOMB.
_____________________
As for your blather about the 50's, men ruling over women, etc...since I have no idea why you decided to rant in that direction, I'll allow you to make up whatever you so desire, without comment.
Dope, you'd be far more worth reading if you'd address an issue and stop droning on for 8-paragraphs about your propoganda.
Have a great day!
I guess I'll have to ask you again, since you haven't provided an answer. Where does it say in the Bible exactly when "life" begins?
Some ancient writer noting that life comes from a woman's womb isn't exactly definative. After all, we don't come from an egg or from storks. Of course we come from the womb.
But that says nothing about whether aborting a weeks old clump of cells is "murder".
I'm sure you could make it through my "blather" if you'd maybe stick out your tongue, furrow your brow and actually try to follow. Maybe read it a few times. Or have someone else read it to you. No one else seems to have your difficulty.
But I know it's natural to kind of tune out when you start getting into things that are uncomfortable to read. That's only human nature.
Anon 7:12
That's the best you can do? Some shallow assumptions and then two logically false arguments that aren't even valid?
First of all, am I to assume you think that I must be a female because no male would ever defend a woman's right to choose? That's dumb.
And equally dumb is the assumption that because I'm not willing to take the words written in a text, at text which has been subjected to dozens of re-writes by various rulers in order to keep the rabble in line, and which has been subjected to thousands, if not millions of interpretations, as the word of God or anyone else, I must be an atheist?
Just dumb.
My feeling is that being dead certain that what is written in one particular version of a book is the rock-solid word of God or Jesus is almost child-like in its gullibility.
I don't know if there's a "God", though I suspect there must be something like it. But chosing not to believe the Bible is the literal word of God does not make one an atheist.
And where are you dreaming up that I somehow don't believe in the constitution??!! What the hell??!
And then your fevered imagination goes on to suggest I, "feel that Americans should subject themselves to the values of other countries."
Are you nuts? Try to avoid making shit up when you think you're responding to a statement. Thanks.
Then you go on to do a blatant "apples to oranges" argument which is ridiculous and false on it's face and neither responds to nor addresses the statement you imagine you're refuting.
When Republican administrations have routinely done much worse at managing the economic health of our country, you don't try to refute that by holding up the example of one state governor.
If that's what you have to resort to, you really shouldn't bother.
Post a Comment
<< Home