2 years ago: Fake authenticity and pretending not to use hair products

November 25, 2011, here on slacktivist: Fake authenticity and pretending not to use hair products

The expert also says this is all silly. There’s nothing morally wrong with using products to keep your hair in place and there’s nothing shameful about deciding to keep your hair the same color it was when you were younger. The expert feels its an insult to her profession that candidates tend to lie about this sort of thing.

Political candidates have to go before the cameras on television — that means lots of work on hair and makeup, lots of necessary product, just to appear normal under the lights in high-def. We never criticize a candidate for wearing a shirt that’s been ironed, or a suit that’s been tailored, or for otherwise looking more presentable than someone who’s just rolled out of bed. But after several election cycles of stupidity and silliness around candidates’ hairstyles, the current vogue requires them to lie for the sake of “authenticity.”

And let’s be clear that this is what we’re doing. We expect and require our candidates to appear presentable. And at the same time we expect and require them to tell us that they expend no money or time meeting this expectation.

"You beat me! Yeah, they interviewed Rep. Fischbach on MPR this evening and apparently she ..."

As American as apple pie: ‘The ..."
"Apparently when Tina Smith resigns as Lt. Governor to become U.S. Senator, her position will ..."

As American as apple pie: ‘The ..."
"I hope your furry friends are in the other room!"

As American as apple pie: ‘The ..."
"Sounds good. Good luck to her.But what was that Republican spox on about?"

As American as apple pie: ‘The ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • dpolicar

    Repaste it somewhere else. I’ll start anyway because
    AnonaMiss said this thread is now crashing web browsers. So I’d say this
    thread should be gracefully exited. :)

    OK, I’ll give it a shot and see how it goes.

    (Repasting from here.)

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Actually this is a better idea than the one on Sunday Favorites.

    So off we go. :) Hopefully the movement can be done without too much hassle.

  • AnonaMiss

    Oh hello.

    Do most people post from email or something? Because Disqus threads start causing Chrome to hang around 800 comments in, and Firefox-with-NoScript around 1000 comments in.

  • dpolicar

    I use bog-standard Firefox and it hasn’t complained.

  • AnonaMiss

    How much RAM?

  • dpolicar

    Ah, yeah, that’s probably it. I have stupid amounts of RAM on this computer for other reasons.

  • AnonaMiss

    Yeah I’ve been using 4 GB. Got another as a Christmas present for myself but the second slot on the motherboard won’t recognize either chip. So it’s looking like I’m going to have to keep running only 4 until I can get a new motherboard.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Pale Moon 64bit with Noscript manages to hang in there even with ~1200 comments, but even so it’s sluggish.

    EDIT: mainbox has 16 gigs of RAM, laptop has 8.

  • dpolicar

    Incidentally, I am keeping my discussions with our latest helpful teacher of God’s true word on the previous thread, but if anyone actually wants me to move them here, let me know.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    That’s not going to help much, due to the aforementioned browser sluggishness issue. I highly suggest moving your replies over.

  • dpolicar

    I’m surprised that y’all actually want to read them. But, OK, fair enough.

  • dpolicar

    I have combined a number of different threads with nolidad into one and moved our discussion into a different post because the size of the old discussion was exceeding what some browsers can handle.

    ================
    You say:

    IF Christian kids are having less premarital sex, it is not by much as secular kids and kids of other faiths.

    and also

    without a person having the Holy Spirit in them, odds are they will have sex as you know the stats show

    If the Holy Spirit is what prevents premarital sex, and Christians have about as much premarital sex as Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, and atheists, that seems to suggest that Christians do not have significantly more of the Holy Spirit than Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, and atheists.

    I doubt you would agree with that conclusion, but it seems to follow from your own claims.

    Have I misunderstood something?
    ================

    Well I wasn’t directing that comment towards rape victims. I was referring to the abstinence programs and the fact that they are th eonly 100% fail safe method of preventing STD’s and pregnancy.

    But once you acknowledge the existence of rape, then I don’t see how you can believe that.

    Just to unpack that a little further: if I practice abstinence and am raped, I can get an STD. So if rape exists, abstinence does not 100% protect me from STDs. If a woman practices abstinence and is raped, she can get pregnant. So if rape exists, abstinence does not 100% protect her from pregnancy.
    ================

    While I would not aid you in committing whatever sin you involved in, the fact that you were injured is a separate issue. I would jump in and do what I could to get you the needed help.

    Great. I’m delighted to hear that.
    But now I don’t understand what you mean by

    just because someone is determined to disobey the Word of God [..] is not justification biblically to aid them in committing sin by lessening the possible physical consequences.

    If I injure myself while committing a sin and will die without your intervention, is my death not a possible physical consequence of my sin? If you intervene and save my life (as you say you would do), have you not thereby lessened the possible physical consequences of my sin (as you say there is no biblical justification for doing)?

    How do you reconcile that tension?
    ================

    You say

    it appears that you as well as others answer from a biased presupposition of who you think I am.

    and also

    I do not think you are answerring from a preconceived bias.

    I don’t know how both of those things can be true at the same time.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    Moving from here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2013/11/24/christians-have-not-been-reading-the-bible-this-way-for-2000-years/

    “1. Well countless children are born onto poverty worldwide that were unplanned and pose a great fiscal burden, but the women still make a choice to love that child. Here in the U.S. that woman would qualify for medicaid, housing subsidies, snap, wic as well as other benefits, to help her raise her family.”

    “America still is an extraordinary generous nation. If someone goes starving in America given all the avenues of help available in all 50 states there are other reasons in that help wasn’t around. Like I said in my state snap benefits for a single mom with 3 kids amounts to $638 a mointh or $159 week. Have these women move to my state.”

    Firstly, as Veleda K pointed out, Republicans — you know, the same people who claim to be “pro-family” — are slashing SNAP and other social programs as fast as they can. Second, if you actually factor in costs of living (some examples here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2013/07/16/mcdonalds-own-mcbudget-shows-workers-underpaid/ ), the numbers you quoted aren’t really enough to live on. Third, remember how I mentioned lack of healthcare? How much do you think pre-natal care, hospital birth, and medical emergencies can cost? Fourth, people who are really poor CAN’T just up and move. If you talked to people who were genuinely poor, not just, “I’m kinda broke until I move for my next job”, you’d be aware of this. Fifth, there’s the matter of this woman already having a kid and two jobs. She’s not only wanting to have food and shelter, but also to have time and energy to raise her child.

    “2. That girl needs to seek counseling. She is entrapped in the after effects of her trauma. The vast majority of women can successfully surmount the emotional aftermath with decent. counseling.”

    Yes. Specifically, she needs counselors who will not try to talk over her when she tells them what she feels would traumatize her more vs. what she feels would help her to heal and move on.

    “Killing her child will not erase the memory of the rape.People in this kind of situation can go on to become abusers of other children that come later because the trauma roots in their life and cause behavior they would never commit if the rape hadn’t occurred.”

    Citations badly needed.

    I notice that you completely ignored an issue I brought up in a few other comments: what if her rapist threatens to sue for custody? In 31 states, he can legally do this.

    “3.Tell that girl to come to my church or Thomas Road Baptist Church. We openly welcome girls needing helpo and wanting it.”

    As well as the fact that people who are too poor can’t just up and move, MINORS especially can’t just up and move.

    Minors are also warned, with good reason, against going to meet a stranger from the internet.

    4.Well I must take prescriptions that for a woman would be considered teratogenic. I don’t which one or ones she is taking that requires a six month lag time. Most teratogenics MAY cause defects in the child-but that is not a guarantee. I do not know of any that DEFINITELY will in the super majority of cases, but there probably is. I dont know al the restricitveness of all meds. First her and her husband should have used a more stronger contraception. Pills, and condoms fail. An IUD or even tubal ligation would be better if her case is that severe where being off medications nearly incapacitates her.”

    Any form of birth control can fail. Even a tubal ligation can be done wrong.

    “Sometime difficult decisions m,ust be made in advance. But come to my church and see the number of children born with birth defects (some very severe) and see the joy and warmth and love the parents have and while they all will tell you at times it is a great struggle, they are so grateful that child is there.”

    You’re making a great number of assumptions, and leaving out a great number of factors. First of all, that thing I mentioned about the woman barely functioning without her medication? How is she supposed to cope for herself, let alone cope for two?

    Second, even with your “some very severe” aside, you’re clearly assuming it’ll be a fairly minor birth defect. What if it’s not? What if it only lives for a few weeks or months, in constant pain, with its parents helpless to do anything to alleviate that? What if it’s likely to die in the uterus and become a health hazard?

    Third, do you have any idea what kind of resources are required to make a home safe and accessible for someone with a disability? A lot of people can’t afford that.

    “And I would be surprised that cases like this make up more than .0001% of the pregnancies in America.”

    Even the rarest cases need proper contingencies.

    “5. There are numerous ways a woman can escape an abusive relationship without her trackiong her down unless he is a man of great resources and can drop much cash on P.I.’s. If the relationship is abusive and her and her children are living in fear of continued harm= they need to leave immediately, seek legal counsel (there are numerous attys who do this type of work pro bono.) there are many steps to take . It may not be as convenient or according to her best plan but that still is no answer for killing a child.”

    “If a woman is in a situation where there is real and imminent threat to her health and safety (or her children) she needs to leave imediatley. If she is squirreling money away for a future date to do it, then maybe the threat isn’t so gresat or she is a fool for keeping her life in danger. I am sorry but if a poerson is standing in the middle of the road with an approaching car and says they know they need to move but don’t- I feel terrible but they are going to get the results of that decision. For the woman she is trading safety for extra money. That is a terrible reason to stay in a dangerous situation.”

    Wow, you really don’t have a clue. A woman with an abusive partner can’t “just leave” — she has to VANISH. When her partner finds out that she has left him, she (and any kids she might have) are in more danger, because now he sees it as a war. She needs to have a bank account in her own name, and to have arranged that no bank statements will be mailed to her house, nor will the bank attempt to call her house. She needs to make sure that family, friends, workplace, and even acquaintances will know not to give away her new location. She needs to have a place to go which her partner cannot guess, nor track her to. She needs to make sure that there are no records left at her house concerning calls or other messages arranging help. All of these things require a certain amount of preparation and resources. Here’s some information:

    http://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/17/science/personal-health-planning-to-escape-from-an-abusive-relationship.html

    http://www.endingviolence.org/node/1114

    I also recommend Gavin de Becker’s book The Gift of Fear, which is still widely available and in print.

  • nolidad

    Well to the political question, all the republicans did is let the “temporary increase” ihn Snap be3nefits expire when they were supposed to.

    The numbers I quoted may not be enough to live in a middle class or upper middle class lifestyle but it is enough for people to survive fairly comfortable in nearly all regions of America. It won’t be the lap of luxury and maybe they have to get a generic 32″ HDTV instead of a 65″ Aquous or whatever its called (and that is not meant to slam anyone byt he way) Then again benefits are designed not as a way of life but as a temporary help until people can get back on their feet. I know some have extenuating circumstances and I refer not to them, but American poor on full benefits have a more comfortable lifestyle than many middle class Europeans do . They have more to eat per capita, more living space, and as good or better extraneous material possessions.

  • P J Evans

    American poor on full benefits
    [Citation needed]
    especially because they’re not actually enough to live on. Ask anyone who’s actually on them, not a politician or a newsface.

  • nolidad

    Well I guess it depends on which state you live and what state benefits are available besides federal benefits. But if a family of four cannot eat somewhat decently on $638 a month in benefits paid for by the taxpayers something is very wrong.

  • P J Evans

    Rent. Utilities. Clothes and laundry. Car. Bus, even.
    I eat fairly cheaply, and I can tell you that food for four for a month is going to run at least $200.

    I don’t know any place where you can find a place for four that’s even available for $600 a month.

  • nolidad

    Well I can get you in places where right now over 1,000 families pay an average of $40 to $250 /month for 2 bedroom 800+ sq. foot apts. And the full benefit in my state for SNAP for a family is $638/month or a little over $150 per week.

  • http://www.gayellowpages.com/ hagsrus

    Where? I’m genuinely interested, no snark.

    And are there jobs available?

  • nolidad

    Massachusetts but those are low income subsidized housing units so you rincome must be limited. As for a job, if you can prove to me that you are a hard worker I can probably get you in my organization. $15/hyour no guarentee of 40/week (though those ate that level have been on overtime for a while like me) and you get $125 a pay period for health care costs. plus 2 weeks vacation a year. But you need to impress me if I am going to put my reputation on the line. That is no “snark” (I picked up a new slang!!!) That is not ominopus either. I am highly thought of at work (not to sound braggish) and I value that highly. I recommend people if I feel they will be good workers for my employer.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    If you’re referring to section 8 housing, I recommend looking into how those places are paid for. If not, I’m curious what you’re referring to, as my living situation is very grim right now.

  • nolidad

    I am but in my state there is also fed and state subsidies for people based on need.

    Some people I see daily complain that they now have to pay $30 month for their electricity in an all electric apartment. Like I said their rent payment is based on need.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Wait. So you object to welfare, but not to the government paying for your home? The only significant difference is who’s getting paid: poor people to take care of their needs, or a person who is often already very wealthy. That’s the whole reason Dave Hagstrom’s letter to his tenets, in which he told them to forget having the government take care of them and get used to the idea of working two or more jobs and still having a significantly lower quality of life standard was so reprehensible — the man is a millionaire whose primary income is government-funded housing.

  • nolidad

    Well I never said I was against welfare so I don’t know where that came from. Refresh my memory who is Dave
    Hagstrom? I have written so many responses my memory is fuzzed if we talked about this guy or if he inserted a response or two.

  • P J Evans

    SUBSIDIZED housing. I best there’s a long waiting list for that. And for food stamps (where most people DON’T get that maximum benefit).

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    For the record, too, there’s an income cap on section 8 housing and it’s not particularly generous — minimum wage, part time, not much higher. I think it’s $16K in our area.

  • nolidad

    Well one unit I see daily has 5 empties now- in my state there are numerous housing complexes. at least 10,000 subsized units just in my section of the state. Well the figure I qouted was for a family of four. Once again it is a formula based on income and need.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    It won’t be the lap of luxury and maybe they have to get a generic 32″ HDTV instead of a 65″ Aquous

    People the world over have had to buy lower-end things when they’re poor. Considering that in the case of TV sets back in the day the poor person had a 12″ black and white while the rich person had a much larger model, I don’t see how it advances your point to talk about cheapo 32″ TVs versus the 65″ monster-size models.

    It’s still the same sort of differentiation of ability to buy.

  • nolidad

    and the point you are trying to make is?? Yes they has always been poor people and there always will be. If we redistribute the wealth of the rich- that is a one shot deal and then we will all be poor. It didn’t work anywhere full blown socialism has been tried. Once again the poor in America is still better off than 85% of the rest of the world in material goods.

  • P J Evans

    But they’re still POOR. Comparing them to places where the average wage is less than $5 a day doesn’t make your argument stronger.

  • nolidad

    poor by what standard though? Compared to the middle class in America yes they have less. Compared to the poor in the rest of the world in over 165 countries they would be upper middle class. It is all a matter of perspective.

  • P J Evans

    The income is relative to average – they’d be poor if they were living in those countries, too.Income standards don’t cross national boundaries.

  • nolidad

    Werll having visited over 15 nations I can positively say that if a poor family from America went to one of over 160 nations with the level of benefits received here transferred to the new country they would be middle to upper middle class.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino
  • nolidad

    Well if ones abiding passion is to be at teh top of the heap, I agree no amount of possessions will suffice- but that is an emotional and psychological issue and not a material needs issue. Most people call that greed and materialism.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    The key point is this line from the text:

    “no matter how well off the bottom layers of the pyramid might be on an absolute scale, they are always dispossessed in comparison with the apex [of their own societies]”

    (Italics and brackets mine)

    The poor of the USA are always poorer with respect to the wealthy of the USA. And it is this standard that applies.

    My God, why are you not embarrassed that the wealthiest nation on Earth freely discards and dismisses the legions of poor people within it and attributes their facts of life to moral and personal failings rather than regarding the fact of their existence as a national shame?

    The USA should start acting like the wealthiest country in the world instead of just talking a good game about it.

  • nolidad

    I just saw I need to reply to more. Well just above point three. I am sure there are rapists that want to go to court and sue for custody, but teh potential rape charge keeps many away.

    But let me get kind o general here and not specific. People no matter how poor can always flee. I can’t say that every town and hamlet has the same level of protection, but there are always answers. I know that there are nuts out there who would chase down their partners and kids ( Julia Roberts movie and the movie kindergaden cop I know happen in real life) I never said it would be easy nor fraught with potentiasl dangers. But I also know that there is a God who loves that woman and can move heaven and earth to help . I know that to you and many others on this thread that is acop out answer, but it is true nonetheless You see many Christians take the Divine perspective of things and know that Jesus keeps the promises He made to those who would just trust Him.

    I also fully concede that in these desperate situations you cite as either real ife or just examples that are probable, having an abortion “seems” to be the most easiest, convenient and quickest way to try to alleviate the situation. But as Proverbs 14:12 states : “There is a way that seems right to a man,
    But its end is the way of death”. I will defend a womans right to have abortions in America as long as they remain legal, but I also will defend my right to try to convince her that what she did is murder in the eyes of God. And I also would tell her that His love is greater than any sin that she Or I or anyone can commit. Let me repeat for the umpteenth time- I hate abortions, but I do not and cannot in good conscience hate the woman who had the abortion.

  • P J Evans

    Abortions are a legal medical procedure, and you are working hard to make them unacceptable if not illegal, even for people for whom they are life-saving procedures.
    You don’t get a pass.

  • nolidad

    I never said abortions weren’t legal.
    and I am doing nothing nor financially giving to legislation to overthrow abortion.

    As for life saving procedures, I guess you didn’t read my posts about my wife’s ectopic pregnancy.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    ie. “It’s nit the abortions I object to, it’s women being able to freely choose them”.

    THank you for once again confirming that this isn’t really aout babies for you, but about denying agency to women.

  • nolidad

    Well as I didn’t say that I don’t know where you got that unless you pasted words of mine form differing comments to make that statement. It is about both for me-the neddless killing of the unborn and the needless act of killing the unborn that has been inculcated in woman today. If I could would I make abortion illegal? Yes. Would I supprot adoptions for woman who did not want to keep their children? Yes. Would I make sure the poor had help? Yes. Would I make sure women were given good counseling if the pregnancy was the result of tragic circumstances? Yes! Do I want every one to receive Christ as Savior and know eternal life? yes! But I know none of these things are going to happen so I do the best I can.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    I should just point out that making abortion illegal, historically, doesn’t significantly change how often it occurs. It just increases the number of people who die from botched abortion attempts. That’s why the medical community was one of the biggest supporters of legalizing it, as they could at least perform it correctly, minimizing the risk to the adult.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    Yeah, but that’s because those heathen doctors cared about saving lives. Nolidad freely admits that it’s not really about saving lives for him; it’s about the right to kill people — he wants to make sure that it’s reserved to God; we’re foiling His divine will, dontcha know, if we keep women from dying of sepsis with coathangers jammed inside them

  • nolidad

    Well following that line of logic- we should make theft legal- that way not as many people would get harmed from robbers. Drugs should be legalized so the number of thefts would go dowen for junkies to support their habits. Maybe we should make supplying heroin and crack part of a RX program. I am being sarcastic of course. I know if abortion becomes illegal the number of abortions will go down. Many women would not want to rtisk their lives to rid themselves of a baby. But that doesn’t anser the number of women who would die. I suspect that even if we provided great counseling, WIC< food, housing, a chance for furthering education or job training for a woman who decides to keep her child women would still want to get rid of that life growing in her. As a society we do supply all those and more and we still are killing 1.2 million unborn a year.

  • Daniel

    “Drugs should be legalized so the number of thefts would go dowen for junkies to support their habits. Maybe we should make supplying heroin and crack part of a RX program.”

    That has been done in Portugal and has lessened the crime rate and rate of death from heroin overdoses dramatically.

    “This is working. Drug consumption has not increased severely. There is no mass chaos. For me as an evaluator, that’s a very good outcome.”- http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/evaluating-drug-decriminalization-in-portugal-12-years-later-a-891060-2.html

    http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/drug-policy-in-portugal-english-20120814.pdf

  • nolidad

    Well as the quoote said drug use has not increased SEVERELY, which implies still an increase. but not stats on impaired accidents, increase in absenteeism, etc etc,, decriminalizing drugs is still a bad bad idea. But that is another topic for another thread.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Forgive me if I don’t believe you are in a position to say how well the United States treats women.

  • nolidad

    Neither are you . But it is funny name me another country in the world that has an illegal immigration problem. Why do so many womewn risk so much to sneak in here? Because they know they’ll be treated like dogs? Or maybe that though we are far from a perfect nation we do much better than so many other nations.

  • Daniel

    “But it is funny name me another country in the world that has an illegal immigration problem.”
    If the media are to be believed: the UK. All the Scandinavian countries. Italy. France. Germany. In fact most of Europe. Australia. Just off the top of my head, and as I say, only if reports from their own (usually right wing) media are to be believed.

  • P J Evans

    Many men come here, and leave their families behind, or wait to bring them in.
    Women come here because we don’t generally treat them as property.
    (Other countries do have illegal immigrants. Europe, particularly, has them. All you need are poor countries close to wealthier ones.)

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Europe and Canada both do deal with sizable populations of immigrants entering without due process, yes.

  • Baby_Raptor

    The point is to heroically MAKE A STAND! It’s not to actually save snowflake baybees.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    “I am sure there are rapists that want to go to court and sue for custody, but teh potential rape charge keeps many away.”

    You really didn’t read any of the links I posted, did you? Because that’s not what happens at all — it’s the OPPOSITE. Rapists threaten to sue their victims for child custody if their victims don’t drop charges.

    “People no matter how poor can always flee.”

    This is just plain untrue. Again, actually READ the links I posted. The facts are not on your side.

  • nolidad

    Unless someone is chained and imprisoned they can LEAVE! I am not saying it is going to be easy materially or even emotionally, but people can always just leave whern the opportunity arises. It has been done before and can still be done today.

    I am wondering how few rapists actually do what you say. I would be amazed if there is actual empirical evidence that is reliable to say more than scant few.

    Well I was referring to unknown rapists. But rapists that know their vicitms are still guilty of rape can and do get prosecuted. One thing I am glad of in our PC society is that sexual crimes are being less and less tolerated.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    In many abuse cases, the abusive partner has made certain that the victim has absolutely no access to finances whatsoever, no contacts, no one they can talk to, no one who would believe them. They deliberately isolate the victim from both witnesses and escape. If the victim is pregnant, they may have reduced mobility and prenatal needs which they will be dependent on the abuser to take care of, and if the victim has already given birth, the abuser will almost certainly hold the child hostage.

    I have firsthand experience with this subject. My stepfather was just arrested for domestic abuse within the past 24 hours. I’ve spent the last several urging my mother to leave the house and disappear, explaining women’s shelters to her and how they operate — she had no idea. Even now, I’m frightened for her, because as was pointed out, 70% of domestic homicides happen after the woman leaves, and her resources are extremely limited. She’ll probably go to her mother’s home, and my stepfather knows where that is and will almost certainly come after her. So by all means, tell me how readily the woman can leave and let’s cross our fingers together that my mother doesn’t become a murder statistic.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Holy crap! :O I hope your mom will be okay and she can get to a women’s shelter ASAP.

  • Daniel

    Bloody hell! I really hope your mum is ok. At least it’s been reported- that’s a major step to challenging an abuser’s power. I don’t know what else to say but…I hope everything goes as well as it possibly can in such a shitty situation.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Yeah. It puts some things into context. I knew it was an abusive relationship when I lived with them, but I couldn’t convince her that she was in a cycle of abuse. She’d think about leaving when it was abusive and get suckered back in during the second honeymoon phase. Now I find out that the reason my vacation back home sucked so much (besides the fire, which now I’m really not sure if that was an accident or not anymore) was because he was deliberately antagonizing me, trying to make sure I’d go away vowing never to return — just like I did.

    So yes, I have both studied this extensively as part of my schooling (Psychology of Sex and Gender, Social Problems, Sociology, Bioethics) and I have lived it to see the subject of my schooling play with firsthand experience.

  • Daniel

    That might be helpful, if you can speak with some authority about it it may help expose the manipulation that goes along with the abuse (like making you pissed off so he alienates you and isolates himself and your mum from you) so your mum can see what he’s doing and avoid the temptation to go back.
    I can’t pretend I know much more about this than I’ve picked up from general psychology, and I’m sorry if my vague presumptions are wide of the mark. Other than waffley bullshit I can only offer internet hugs- if you need them.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    I did. I spent all night putting things in context for her and trying to get her to see it. I think she does. My two biggest fears at this point are that she’ll either forget it all when he turns on the waterworks and promises to change (… for the 68th time) or that he’ll make good on his threats. But I tried to drive in the importance and I hope it sticks this time.

  • Daniel

    I hope she does too. Good luck.

  • nolidad

    Well Sam my heart goes out to you and your mom. I will pray for her and in my divorce care group we shall pray for her safety as well. I will offer this, if you are convinced that if your stepdad will stalk your mom after he is released (which I wish would not happen) and she is in serious jeapordy, if you let me know your state, I will have my chruch make contacts if we have them near you and we can arrange for safety for your mom if not in a womans shelter then in somebodies home and help her get back on her feet. This is a serious offer.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    My mother would not accept the help. I have directed her to a women’s shelter, though. Those are very secure places since their location is not made public.

  • nolidad

    Well then I shall pray for her and bring it to my church to prayer for her aid and comfort.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    “I am wondering how few rapists actually do what you say. I would be amazed if there is actual empirical evidence that is reliable to say more than scant few.”

    Well, here, let me google that for you: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=rapists+sue+for+child+custody

    Notice how many stories there are?

    Pro tip: next time you’re about to say, “Well, I don’t know…” try looking it up for yourself first. You’ll look a bit less ignorant. Hell, if you actually read some of the results that pop up, you might become less ignorant, too.

  • nolidad

    Well thank you for the info. If it was just you and I and not 10 or soothers I would gladly spend time googling. As it is I have to ask for your aid when you need to “educate” me. I was aghast. I never would have imagined that so many states would allow a rapist to sue for custody or visitation! That is a wrong that needs to be made right. A rapist should spend at least 20 years in hard labor after he is castrated imho. It is an enormously despicable act. I knew many areas made it hard for women to prove rape and that is detestable enough. I though it was far better for women in America than that. I am glad you persevered in getting me the info. Now back to the original question.

    Let me address it this way. The reason I remain convinced abortion is not the answer even in these horrendous situations is because I know there is a God who loves and cares and has mercy on victims. If as you said teh bulk of rapists use this tool to try to keep women from filing charges, I say file the charges, call for prayer and watch God work miracles. I work now with divorced folk and we have seen many miracles take place because not only do we get involved, but we pray and find proper help for people as well as hooking them up. I know of women who have been stalked where we got it stopped successfully. would it stop every instance? No, but the baby is not the villain. God can break through all the emotional and psychological trauma a woman experiences to help her eith er raise the child with love or find a home for the baby if she is still incapable of handling it well. I know of one nationwide network called rachels house and there are many others throughout all 50 states.

  • P J Evans

    Castration doesn’t prevent rape. Rape is not a sex crime as such: it’s about power.

  • Daniel

    Also I thought the core of Christianity was the principle of forgiveness, but evidently it’s actually potentially fatal corporal punishment. Good to clear that up.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Nitpick:

    It is the expression of power in a sexual manner.

    Else why would rapists choose that particular method?

  • nolidad

    No its punishment for rape. Do you know any eunuchs who have raped women?

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    You must be quite sheltered if you haven’t heard of people using objects to rape others.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    I do, in fact.

  • Baby_Raptor

    You have no idea what coercion is, do you? There are more ways to trap a person than simply locking them up.

    And yes, we know. It would utterly shock you to find out that you’re wrong. That’s why you completely ignore any evidence that might lead to that conclusion.

    But thanks for the laugh. A person who wants to force pregnant women to stay pregnant to placate his delusions talking about society becoming less tolerant of sex crimes…Forcing people to stay pregnant against their will IS a sex crime. You’re a criminal. And yet you expect us to not only tolerate you, but to enshrine your views into law.

  • nolidad

    I do know what coercion is and when I said the same thing as you above I was roundly condemned by someone else on this thread. And you are wrong about your second sentence. That is just you beating your own straw man.

    Well if demanding women not kill their unborn babies makes me a criminal then yes I will gladly bear that mantle. I am prolife for both the mother and child.

    Whether you tolerate me or not is inconsequential. Will my views ever become law again in this land? I don’t think they ever will again sadly. Will I hate women who have abortions, no I will “cry”.

    Just yesterday at church we had our Christmas cantata and play. If you had your way based on what you have written on these threads, If you were Elizabeth or Mary, John the Baptist and Jesus, God in Human flesh would have been aborted and mankind would still have no salvation. that is truly sad.

  • quietglow

    If Mary hadn’t wanted to abort her baby, she wouldn’t have. Nobody is insisting women who don’t want abortions should have to get them.

  • Baby_Raptor

    That wasn’t a strawman. You have, several times in this very thread, dismissed evidence that would contradict your preferred beliefs.

    And you do it again when you insist on carrying on about people murdering “unborn baby.” There’s no such thing as an unborn baby, It’s a complete contradiction of terms. But for whatever reason, you can’t accept that fact. You need the lies because your belief is in no way based on truth.

    “It’s so sad that the country won’t buy into my lies and let me enslave people to their biology just so I’ll feel better.” Do you hear yourself? This is sick.

    You *do* realize that things that cause abortions have existed about as long as people have been getting pregnant, yes? God ordered abortions in the Old Testament. If Mary or Elizabeth hadn’t wanted their pregnancies, they could have aborted them. It has Fuck-all to do with whether abortion is legal now. That was some creative demonizing, though. In no way logical, but definitely creative.

    It says a lot that you believe that god would let his giant plan to redeem humankind from how he created them be undermined by one person and then simply give up. If one person deciding they didn’t want to be pregnant would make god give up on his ever-so-loved creation, isn’t that just still more proof your god isn’t worth worshiping? Leaving aside the fact that he had to rape a 14 year old to even start said plan.

  • http://www.gayellowpages.com/ hagsrus

    See what’s-her-name in That Hideous Strength!

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    Oh, and also? I don’t know where you get your ideas about rapists or abusive partners, but it’s clear that they have little to do with reality.

    Most rapes are committed by someone the victim knows. This often makes prosecution extremely difficult. And that’s not even taking into account how a victim is often treated by law enforcement ( http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/apr/13/rape-sexual-assault-frances-andrade-court , http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/08/13/2457991/virginia-law-enforcement-rape/ , http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/nov/26/women-report-rape-criminal-justice , http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/late-victim-blaming-admits-rape-sentence-mistake-article-1.1446531) and their communities ( http://www.kansascity.com/2013/10/12/4549775/nightmare-in-maryville-teens-sexual.html , http://www.dallasnews.com/news/columnists/jacquielynn-floyd/20121101-victim-blaming-hits-new-low-in-highland-park-rape-case.ece )

    Domestic violence is not rare ( http://domesticviolencestatistics.org/domestic-violence-statistics/ ), nor are abusers willing to stalk and kill ex-partners rare ( http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/domviol/facts.htm , http://www.domesticabuseshelter.org/InfoDomesticViolence.htm#statistics )

    Domestic violence does not end immediately with separation. Over 70% of the women injured in domestic violence cases are injured after separation.

    About 4,000 women die each year due to domestic violence.

    Of the total domestic violence homicides, about 75% of the victims were killed as they attempted to leave the relationship or after the relationship had ended.

    Please remedy your ignorance immediately.

  • nolidad

    Well then I guess I just know a lot fo success stories then. I know that many women are stalked. It is a tragedy that needs to be addresses more. I for one am for castration of men who rape. But this is a law enforcement problem killing the unborn child is not going to solve the problem. Also I am sorry I don’t care how crazy the man is, if a woman is in danger physically in a relationship, I will always counsel her to leave and seek whatever legal help we can to keep the pig away. If she has kids and chooses to stay in that dangerous enviornment- then I would call Social Services and have her children removed. She is of age and can choose to stay in a violent situation ( I know there are alot of complicating factors in this emotionally and psychologically) but her children need to be protected- even from her if she wishes toi stay.

    And that is 4,000 women too many. May be I am biased in this because I live in a state where this kind of stuff is dealt with severely. It still happens, but there are more resources available.

  • nolidad

    I need to write another response here. This will sound cold to you but it is still issues that have to be considered. First I hope you agree that every decision a person makes has consequences and can also have cascading consequences as time goes on.

    Speaking strictly form personal experience and observation– I have seen the majority of cases of domestic abuse involve one or all of the following– drug and or alcohol abuse, low income, lower education, emotional instability on the part of one or both people, unfaithfulness that results in rage uncontrolled. I say generally because I know abuse crosses all levels and all lines and is never justified under any circumstances. But many cases are the results of people making bad decisions due to whatever causes and then getting thrust into a relationship that if they were thinking better they may have never gotten into. Once again I also know that abuse can happen in stable relations after years of “happiness”. Just because I do not list everything about these issues do not th ink I am uninformed. I try to keep answers succinct. Maybe for you I need more verbose answers. I do not need to cite statistics to know that domestic abuse is a problem (thankfully the murder rate is smaller than I would have guessed.)

    It is not an issue I deal with alot, others are more invovled and I am grateful for that.

    Once again there are remedies for a woman who wishes to leave a very violent relationship. They are not without risk ( I should have included that) But staying iin a known violent relationship for a risk that may or may not appear (as I said earlier one instance is too many) is not the wisest choice.

    I must speak in general terms because every case is unique and has differing qualifications to them that can alter answers, but the best general answer is to flee at the first “safe” opportunity a woman can.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    Law enforcement often does not help. All too often, they recommend things like restraining orders, which not only fail to reduce domestic violence, they put victims in danger of further violence. As Gavin de Becker notes in The Gift of Fear ( http://www.amazon.com/Other-Survival-Signals-Protect-Violence/dp/0440508835/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1387130461&sr=8-1&keywords=the+gift+of+fear ), restraining orders are, to the abuser, an escalation of the “war” between him and his victim, and an inappropriate intrusion into what he sees as a private matter. They, and any other law enforcement measures that do not involve making the victim disappear, are likely to provoke further violence and even murder attempts.

    Your continual assertion that an abused woman can “just leave” is a LIE. Not only are you bearing false witness, you are telling lies that ENDANGER WOMEN — note that 75% of the women who are killed by abusers are murdered after they attempt to leave; like getting law enforcement visibly involved, the abuser sees this as an escalation.

    You should be ASHAMED of yourself. Right now, you should step away from your keyboard, get down on your knees, and pray for forgiveness. Then, when you get back up, you should make a genuine effort to start listening to, and learning from, people outside of your comfy little bubble.

    I’m officially done with you. You, and your endangering lies, and your willful ignorance, disgust me. I hope never to see you here again. And I hope that you spend your remaining time mending your ways.

    http://www.cooltuna.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/epic_facepalm.jpg

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Part of the problem with restraining orders is that for them to be truly effective a police officer would have to effectively be that person’s bodyguard 24/7.

  • nolidad

    Well I am sorry shifter, but this morning in service I talked with some professionals in the field and they all said that no matter how harsh it may be, if a woman is physically at risk she should leave. Even if it is with just the clothes on her back. You tell me when ever you know of a woman who is in danger and what state she lives in and I will personally contact organizations that will safely escort her out of the situation and hide her until something can be done to insure her safety or anonymity form the abuser.

  • P J Evans

    That isn’t ‘just leaving’. They don’t ‘escort her out’ – they can’t let the abuser know she (or sometimes he) is leaving.

    It’s a carefully planned move, and they have to be very careful that they aren’t followed, because any abuser who can learn where the shelter is is a danger to everyone in it.

  • nolidad

    R U shifters spokeperson now?

    How many of these Carefully planned moves did you witness or have read detailed reports about? I have been involved in 2.

  • quietglow

    I don’t see how anyone’s going to trust you to help. It was never the job of anyone here to educate you, and you shouldn’t be turning around lecturing anyone here on the strength of speaking to a few unnamed individuals one morning.

    If you really want to help, you still have a wealth of learning to do before you try to jump into situations you’re not prepared for.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    I will defend a womans right to have abortions in America as long as they remain legal

    Given the way you’ve talked – if you had your druthers you’d make abortion illegal – I’m gonna go ahead with this sarcastic reaction gif.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    My original post, for reference:

    Christians should never hurl guilt and condemnation at a woman or anyone for that matter.

    Oh really now?

    Do you deny you said this?

    I wish more women would have enormous guilt in aprroaching
    abortion clinics. In my mind they should be weighed down heavily with
    guilt!

    And what is this absurd business about inner guilt and the Holy
    Spirit? You do know that’s profoundly offensive to the beliefs of anyone
    who is not a Christian who wants an abortion?

    As spake by nolidad in a reply to me:

    Well that is the type of guilt I wish women would be laid down with. I
    was not proposing people lay guilt down. And you know that but you choise to selectively edit my comment to make it appear that I was saying we should make women feel guilty when what I wrote was the opposite. Bearing false witness is bad as you told me.

    Ah, cleverly escaping any actual responsibility for being a shit to women by adopting the passive voice and letting “God” just speak through you by “relaying His word”.

  • nolidad

    Wrong again. You are making false conclusions based on a skewed reading of my words.

    As far as it being offensive to people who aren’t Christians, much of what we believe is very offensive to unbelievers. That is why Christians are even being murdered today for just simply being Christians.

    Despite what ever spin you wish to put on my words, they still remain, I will choose top pray for a woman her aborted her child and hope that it bothers her enough so she will seek Jesus who can not only forgive her, but remove the guilt and fill her with Joy and give her eternal life. If that is unloving, then I want to be unloving to everyone I meet.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Do you or do you not claim to be telling us all God’s Word as given in the Bible?

  • nolidad

    I am quoting Gods Word yes. But you and others in your responses skew what I have said to alter what was said.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    As spake by nolidad:

    Well He did, and in much less vulgar lace language said to knock it off, did miracles to prove His Deity and they crucified Him for it. I think if He opted to do it again , mankiond would crucify Him again.

    Unsubstantiated and unproven. No broad-based historical record of such “miracles”.

    Just as a simple example is there a reliable record of the fishes-and-loaves-multiplying story beyond one section of the Bible?

  • http://www.gayellowpages.com/ hagsrus

    What is “lace language”?

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    No idea, I quoted it verbatim from nolidad.

  • nolidad

    should have added a “d” vulgar laced language . I don’t know if that idion is used anymore but it means peppered with swears and crude terminology.

  • http://www.gayellowpages.com/ hagsrus

    Thanks

  • nolidad

    As far as I know there is no other historical record other than Scripture. The crowds that followed Jesus for the most part were illiterate or semi literate and weren’ty busy writing everything down. Those who did had their records preserved by those who knew the truth of it. The world has sought to destroy these records from time to time. So I don’t think you will find unbelievers posting something they weren’t too interested in getting out. Besides Judea was a backwater hell hole for the Romans and it was considered a bad thing to get assigned there. It usually meant you were less than marginal. How do I track down comments posted on the old site to answer them here nso they make sense. I am not a real super tech savvy person.

  • P J Evans

    Oh, then NO historical record, just thirdhand (at best) stories, passed on word-of-mouth for eighty or so years.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino
  • nolidad

    and your proof that teh New Testament is third hand stories is??? What historical proof do you offer for these being 3rd hand stories?

  • P J Evans

    Being written down more than fifty years after the events: that’s two generations. Third-fucking-hand stories.

  • nolidad

    Sorry but teh gospels are first hand accountsd in three cases, and second hand account in the fourth (Luke) The rest of the New Testament is first hand account of Paul being taught by the Lord directly in how to plant the church in the gentile world.And first hand accounts from the other writers.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    That explains why the four Gospels have such variance in details, including a rather significant event which is completely left out of the other three accounts of the exact same moment. Apparently it wasn’t considered important enough to mention in lieu of four separate versions of Jesus’s last words?

  • nolidad

    Well if by variance you mean citing just some of the events that others didn’t in their narrative to the audience God ordained them to write you then I agree. But if by variance you mean making stuff up then I would disagree.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    As far as I know there is no other historical record other than Scripture.

    Oh well that’s such a ringing endorsement

  • nolidad

    And yet that Book has survived despite the many attempts to eradicate it and alter it. It has also changed the lives of untold millions and millions. Not bad for something the cynics like to dismiss so easily.

  • P J Evans

    There haven’t been any attempts to eradicate it, outside of regionally, in the last 1500 years.

    History fail. Logic ain’t doing so well, either.

  • nolidad

    Wrong but that is okay, this is a subject I don’t suspect you would keep up with.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    How would you define altering it? The Bible has indeed been altered in many ways, some recently. Even without counting the various differences between translations (some significant, many not) — starting at the 1960’s, there have been at least two lasting alterations (meaning carried between multiple versions and over the decades) that I am aware of:

    Exodus 21:22-25 was altered to refer to the woman giving birth prematurely, rather than having a miscarriage, in order to coincide with the beliefs of pro-life Christians of the time. This is a distortion of the unambiguous Hebrew.

    Isaiah 55:10 was altered to interject “without” or “until,” making it more scientifically accurate. Prior to the early 20th century, it was not well understood that rain and snow do eventually return to the Above.
    In addition, the thirteenth century scholars altered the kinswoman Junia to render her “Junias” instead, a masculine name without meaning.

    There are various others, but it’s been too long a day to go comparing the dozens of versions I have on hand…

  • nolidad

    By altering I am not referring to translations. Any time you go from language to another there will be some “defiencies?” for lack of a better term. That is the nature of linguistic translations. When I speak of altering I am talking about intentional changing the context to suit ones agenda. Classic examples of altering are the Jehovahs

    Witness New World Translation of the Scriptures. The group “The Way” and their translation. those are cultic heretical translations. Problem translations within Christendom are the modern paraphrases like the “Living Bible”. While they do not intentionally promulgate error they are opinion translations and that is a very murky area. The paraphrases all have a tendency to water down not mistranslate doctrine.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Then… yes, the Bible has been altered. As I pointed out, even recently. Fred covered one significant alteration here, in which he transcribed comparisons of a line now frequently used as proof of the Bible’s message against abortion. Here was the primary example:
    1977 edition of NAS:

    And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is not further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

    1995 edition of NAS:

    If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

    See the rather huge difference? The original Hebrew is rather euphemistic, but still unambiguous; the first translation is the correct meaning. But as the idea of a fetus not being valued equally to an adult was inconvenient for the pro-life movement, they have changed the Bible to coincide with their beliefs. The fetus, rather than being killed, is now simply born early and is otherwise healthy. For bonus points, the wording now implies that harming the fetus would garner the death penalty.

    At the bottom of the thread is a collection of modern translations, and a large number of them have also been changed. This is an alteration of the Bible within our very lifetimes.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    This sort of thing is actually why I prefer the older Revised Standard Version.

  • nolidad

    Actually the 1995 translation is more attuned to our understanding of words as our definitions have changed. The Hebrew is: yatsa which is in teh Kal perfect tense which is translated thus:

    to go out, come out, exit, go forth

    (Qal)

    to go or come out or forth, depart

    to go forth (to a place)

    to go forward, proceed to (to or toward something)

    to come or go forth (with purpose or for result)

    to come out of

    with the come out with purpose or reason the most accurate in English. Miscarry is an old term that had multiple uses in times gone by and one was premature birth!

    That is why the following verse called for the penalty of eye for eye if harm (mischief) followed because of the strike to the woman fell upon the baby.

    So no the Bible wasn’t altered- the English was substituted to give a better rendering of the original in our language use.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    Sorry, no.
    Traumatic pre-term birth in the bronze age resulted in either a stillbirth or a baby who died shortly after birth. Unless you think the Ark of the Covenant doubled as a NICU incubator?

  • nolidad

    Wow! You can travel in time and were there to witness every birth in Israel that was less than 40 weeks!! Maybe I should defer to your trans dimensional travel wisdom.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Oh, for heaven’s sake, use your head. They didn’t have modern medical tech so by simple heuristic* reasoning it can be deduced that stillbirth rates were probably higher than today.


    * I use the term here to mean “reasoned without formally being justified”. a heuristic argument in science is one that is apparently valid but is not rigorously justifiied. One example is Bohr’s proof of quantized orbits in atoms, which was essentially based on the same kind of reasoning that Planck used to come up with why the “Ultraviolet catastrophe” didn’t happen. The theory was not fully proven until Schroedinger and Heisenberg showed that given a wave (or matrix) equation, you could derive from first principles that the orbits in atoms are indeed quantized.

    Of course we now call them orbitals.

  • Baby_Raptor

    No, Ross has a basic understanding of how pregnancy works. And how modern medicine intervenes.

    Neither of which you possess.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    “How do I track down comments posted on the old site to answer them here nso they make sense. I am not a real super tech savvy person.”

    Copy and paste text to Notepad, or whatever simple text-editor program your computer has. Use quotation marks to clarify which parts you’re quoting. Enter your replies. Then copy and paste into a comment box.

    Notepad is good for checking your spelling and grammar before you post, too.

  • nolidad

    Thanks. I just want you to know shifter. Though I am vehemently against abortion I am not anti woman. As I have said that abortion has 2 victims. the baby and the woman deceived into thinking it is not a child. I know you disagree, that is why we are debating! I also know that finances, and crimes against a woman and other factors can cause a woman not to want that baby. My heart hurts for women who struggle with hard and real issues. This is why I help in the areas I am burdened to help people in. To solve problems (and hopefully lead them to Christ).

    I know that counseling doesn’t always work,I know that other means don’t always work either. I also know that if a woman is so traumatized by negative factors and she is pregnant- killing her unborn child will do nothing to remedy the mitigating factors. If anything,it can add further burdens to her. I haven’t done a study for cause and effect and I don’t even know if a study has been doen, but I see more emotional child neglect and abuse more kids in more trouble, a less respect for lifer in our society than the historic “norm” (which is disgusting) since we have adopted abortions for more and more reasons, and have promoted assissted sauicides (some are legitimate) and have cheapened human life to a point where material factors are more of a factor than the person themself. It is a general statement and certainly not overly predominant, but riots in black friday lines, :knockout gangs” and many other things even more comon than those are very very worrisome.

  • dpolicar

    I haven’t done a study for cause and effect and I don’t even know if a study has been done, but I see more [bad things] since we have adopted abortions

    Does it matter?

    That is… suppose, hypothetically, that such a study were done.

    Suppose someone went out and carefully measured the amount of violence, emotional child neglect, abuse, kids in trouble, suicide rates, etc. in the world every day for, say, 50 years, and then compared that to the legalization of abortion in different countries.

    Suppose, hypothetically, that such a study showed that in each nation, when abortion is legalized, all of those rates of bad things start to increase… that there is more violence, neglect, abuse, etc.

    Should we, on that basis, oppose the legalization of abortion?

    Conversely, suppose (hypothetically) that such a study showed that in each nation, when abortion is legalized, all of those rates of bad things start to decrease… that there is less violence, neglect, abuse, etc. Should we, on that basis, support the legalization of abortion?

  • nolidad

    never. I just threw that out because shifter likes to throw many stats at me. Even if one woman dies from abuse it is one too many. We will never rid the world of violence but when numbers go down it is a good thing nonetheless. Making something legal or illegal should never be because of statistics or popularity. Our country wasn’t founded that way. Our country was founded by numerous men who believed that the Bible should be the foundation for our morals One proposes legislation either for political gain or because they have a belief system that supports the concept.

  • Daniel

    “Our country was founded by numerous men who believed that the Bible should be the foundation for our morals”
    No it wasn’t. That is what the separation of church and state is all about. I know that, and I’m not even from there- I live in a country that has got an established religion, and where, interestingly, abortion is accepted and legal.
    http://www.liarsforjesus.com/downloads/LFJ_FINAL.pdf

  • nolidad

    Yes it was and you are confusing religion with an ideology.

    http://internationalcopsforchrist.com/blog/?page_id=78

    http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=8755

    http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Resources/Quotes.aspx

    http://christianity.about.com/od/independenceday/a/foundingfathers.htm

    http://www.aproundtable.org/tps30info/beliefs.html

    And I didn’t include statments from the charters and covenants when many of the states were formed.

    America was founded to the glory of God and as a Christian nation. Not a sectarian one like the european Countries but as a christian nation .

  • quietglow

    If we’re going on charters that formed the states, America was founded to acquire land belonging to other people.

    In fact, I’m not surprised you’re not listing some of the early colonies. They were ideologically locked little theocracy-wannabes that in one case caused a whole new state to be put together by banishing people who didn’t think like them.

    Your links are not very compelling, since I clicked one at random and found “When this concept is applied to the Declaration of Independence, it is clear the reference to ‘All men are created equal,’ was about the holy Trinity.” The whole reason people like “all men are created equal” is that it captures the basic equality of man, assuming a creator because nobody at the time had a better idea. If “all men are created equal” is instead a theological statement about a confusing Christian-centric concept, we no longer aspire to equality.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    ‘All men are created equal,’ was about the holy Trinity.”

    WAT – I mean, the foundation of Christian doctrine, which is in line with the other Abrahamic religions, is that God is inherently NOT equal to humans, by definition. :O

    http://i.imgur.com/dFvr5W6.jpg

  • Baby_Raptor

    He’s really starting to make my head hurt.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    As I said once to someone else, but which is applicable to nolidad, he could give a headache to an Aspirin :P

  • Baby_Raptor

    He probably could.

    Request received. If he replies to me again, I’ll move over to the other thread and find one of his comments to stick the reply on.

    Also, I finally got over the aforementioned communication issues. It only took a week of yelling at customer “help.” >.<

  • Baby_Raptor

    Which is why the Constitution says specifically that we’re *not* founded on Christianity, that everyone (not just Christbots) has freedom of religion, that laws can’t be based on religion, that there can’t be any religious test for voting/holding office…

  • dpolicar

    So, if I’ve understood you correctly, on your account even if legalizing abortion reliably correlates with less violence, neglect, abuse, etc., if I believe based on my reading of the Bible that God opposes abortion, I should want abortion to be illegal regardless of those statistics.

    Did I get that right?

  • nolidad

    Those are big IFS which are questionable at best. But How does one filter out other factors so one can come with a reliable cause and effect relation between abortion and reduced violence? I wouldn’t be surprised if someone can pull some quote somewhere but I would find that survey questionable at best. There are just too many variables to get specific.

    But let us assume that they could and violence has been empirically reduced due to legalized abortion. Biblically the ends never justifies the means if the means are biblically wrong. And how does the murder of 1.2 million children equal a reduction in violence? Because it is done under the guise of civility and reason?

  • Daniel

    “Biblically the ends never justifies the means if the means are biblically wrong. And how does the murder of 1.2 million children equal a reduction in violence?”
    Purely as a question- how many children were killed when Jesus escaped Bethlehem to hide in Egypt? God allowed that to happen to save His own incarnation’s life. When Jesus grew up his message was supposed to spread peace. In other words, then, God surely allowed the murder of children in order to try and spread peace on the earth.
    “There are just too many variables to get specific.”
    Yet you ignored that in your earlier comment when you claimed that there has been an increase in really bad things since abortion became more socially acceptable. Those variables can be ignore to suit your purposes it would seem.

  • dpolicar

    How does one filter out other factors so one can come with a reliable cause and effect relation between abortion and reduced violence?

    I didn’t say anything about cause and effect.

    There are just too many variables to get specific.

    So if someone comes out with a study showing that abortion reliably correlates with increased violence, you’d be skeptical of that study?

    Biblically the ends never justifies the means if the means are biblically wrong.

    So, if I’ve understood you correctly, on your account even if legalizing abortion reliably correlates with less violence, if I believe based on my reading of the Bible that abortion is biblically wrong, I should want abortion to be illegal regardless of those statistics.

    Did I get that right?

    how does the murder of 1.2 million children equal a reduction in violence? Because it is done under the guise of civility and reason?

    Hypothetically speaking, murdering 1.2 million children would be an extremely violent act, even were it done civilly.

  • P J Evans

    numerous men who believed that the Bible should be the foundation for our morals

    Actually, they wrote the Constitution without religious considerations. They were quite familiar with state religions and their coercive behavior. They also stated explicitly that the US is not a Christian nation. Wherever you got that information from is lying to you and everyone else.

  • nolidad

    Only Thomas Jefferson said that in the Treaty of Tripoli and as for the rest sorry but that is just the history of the US in the time of the founders. In reality the revisionists you have read are the ones lying to you.

    Here are a few other historic documents

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/mayflower.asp

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/va01.asp

    (Maybe Yale Law is lying to?)

    http://www.independentamericanparty.org/2013/10/declarations-of-christian-faith-in-americas-colonial-charters-state-constitutions-etc/

    How dare all these states give glory to God!!!!

    http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/cypresscreek/living/scot-wall-is-america-a-christian-nation-some-arguments-to/article_f6a9acae-5a87-5cfc-8740-3c9ddd3d3ee1.html

    Even sCOTUS called America a christian nation!!!!!

  • Baby_Raptor

    The treaty of Tripoli was ratified by the then-current Congress and Signed by the then-President, who was one of the authors of the Constitution. If everyone else disagreed with it, it wouldn’t have been ratified.

    Sorry, you can’t explain that one away with your selective reading.

    As to what SCOTUS says…Well, SCOTUS was once okay with slaves, banning mixed race marriage, refusing women the right to vote and a myriad of other wrongs. SCOTUS isn’t only wrong when it’s something you disagree with.

    This is a secular country. It’s in the Constitution. If you want a theocracy, move to Iran…they’re perfectly fine with assholes like you who have no issue throwing other peoples’ rights under the bus for your personal opinions.

  • P J Evans

    Better yet, Israel or Saudi Arabia, neither of which seems to be interested in the 21st century.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    You know this is all false, right? Knockout gangs are an urban legend and the “historical norm” is that if you weren’t an adult, straight, in almost all places and times a man, in most places and times wealthy, in many places and times a practitioner of the proper religion, in lots of places and times white, you could pretty much be killed with impunity by whatever member of the privileged class your personhood was legally subsidiary to? A roman citizen could kill his wife, children and slaves; a feudal landlord could kill anyony lf lower stature that he had a grievance against, and until pretty much modern times, a man could beat his wife as much as he liked provided he did not actually kill her.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    The last state (North Carolina) to remove its legal statutes exempting a husband from rape convictions for sexually assaulting his wife did so in 1993.

  • nolidad

    Wow you need to watch the news! Even MSNBC which is the worst rag on TV admits to knockout gangs. As a matter of fact even
    Chris Matthews played a video showing about 1/2 dozen scenes of knockout gangs just simply sneaking up on someone and knocking them out!

    http://www.nbcnews.com/id/45783310/#.Uq44gBDFla8

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrrefIUupZM

    http://nypost.com/2013/11/22/pol-proposes-bill-to-make-knockout-game-gang-assault/

    http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/11/16/potentially-fatal-knockout-game-targeting-strangers-may-be-spreading-to-d-c/

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/knockout-game-suspect-charged-hate-crime/story?id=20992590

    http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/20/former-nypd-detective-media-suppressing-racial-anti-semitic-elements-behind-knockout-game/

    These3 are but a few of the hundreds of post showing knockout is real.

    And the “historic norm” I was talking about wasn’t referring to these things. If you want to speak of these other issues, I would tend to agree with you. Most societies have been tough. Even America has gone through many prejudicial times and I am not talking jkust blacks, If you don’t know these derisive terms for immigrants here are some spics, wops, ginnies, harps, frogs, chinks, hebes, dagos, nips, ragheads etc. etc. and many of these groups went through discrimination and even murder.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino
  • nolidad

    so a b;log site and a ultra liberal site trump even the liberal mainstream media? Nop I will take their word for it over the beast and a blog site. If you want I think I can still find the interview done in jail with a guywho was involved in the “knockout game” several times. Sorry but you should just accept reality and watch the videos available.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com/ Ross

    You should go back to the news and look again. The reputable ones are all backing away very gingerly now and the good ones are admitting that they jumped on the bandwagon and hyped up something that doesn’t exist.

  • P J Evans

    In other words, no records. Hearsay is not a record; that’s why it isn’t admissible evidence in a court of law.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Well as our laws do not hold infants capable of crimes then in utero absorption could not be a criminal act. It could not be iinvoluntary manslaughter by statuate.

    An entirely reasonable stance. It then follows that removal of a zygote or an embryo or a fetus can therefore also not be a criminal offence.

    (nolidad’s reply)

    If the laws of a land do not consider that a person, then according to the laws of that land it would not be criminal, I agree totally. I however hold to higher laws and know that the Creator of the Universe has laws that many times disagree with human laws. His Word says we all will stand before HIm to give account, so I seek to move life to obeying His laws. The Apostles also faced these very things and their answer was they would rather obey God than man.

    The exact problem with this is it ignores the very real fact that not everybody believes in the exact same God or “higher law”.

  • nolidad

    Yes people do believe in different gods and hold to differing laws as proposed by their gods, but the God of the Bible is God and all others are cheap counterfeits. Time will prove this true for all to see. Not because I say so, but bercause it is so whether I would choose to believe it or not.

  • P J Evans

    Your opinion, not fact.

  • nolidad

    In time we all will know. We will also know if heaven and hell are real and we all will know that the only entrance to heaven is the narrow way which is Christ alone.

  • P J Evans

    I’m a Pastafarian, an Herbangelist, or a Quintarian, depending on how I feel that day. Those are all as valid as your flavor of Christianity.

  • nolidad

    On teh face of the earth anyone’s belief is as valid as another for being a belief system. But none of them will get you into heaven , nor keep you out of hell.

  • dpolicar

    Nor turn the contents of one Internet commenter’s brain into a reliable guide to the afterlife.

  • Andrew

    Quintarian, eh? Do you favor the Mother, the Father, the Son, the Daughter, or the Bastard?

  • P J Evans

    The Bastard seems to be my kind. (My sister describes me as ‘weird’, my last manager, who was very good, called me ‘high maintenance’, and I don’t fit pigeonholes well.)

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Has it not occurred to you that someone who believes in, oh, the Greek Pantheon, or some other supernatural entity, could make exactly the opposite claim to you?

  • nolidad

    Yes and over 40 years ago I was one of those making the opposite claims. then I met HIM (Jesus) and know that He is God with His Father and the Holy Spirit. I will also say this, even if I were the most erudite writer (which I am far from as you all can attest to) I could not convince you. One can only be convinced if they really want to know and are willing to submit to His will if He shows HImself to be who He is.

    Only HIs Word can create in you the faith (which by the way biblical faith is not a hope so thing but a know so thing) to bring you to the place where you meet Him. I in my frail way am just trying to point the direction out.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    That’s mighty sure of you. You do realize that your claim is essentially unverifiable, right?

  • nolidad

    Until you meet Him and then it becomes verified fact.

  • P J Evans

    That’s opinion, not verified (or even verifiable) fact.

  • nolidad

    Well you will meet HIm .Either in this life as Savior or after death as your and Judge. The chjoice is yours- He prefers you meet HIm as Savior.

  • P J Evans

    Your opinion. Not mine. No evidence to back up either view.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    You had a religious experience and it led you to Christianity. That’s good for you. I’ve visited Paradise and I can speak with final authority that the means of getting there isn’t specific to Christianity, much less a specific denomination thereof.

  • nolidad

    I agree it is not Christianity that gets you to heaven (sorry but paradise is now closed and empty) it is faith in Jesus alone and not religion that gets you to heaven. You may not even know what the biblical definition of what Christianity is,is!

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Faith in Jesus is a religious tenet. It is also irrelevant.

  • nolidad

    Only to those who have not met Him yet

  • P J Evans

    “In my father’s house are many rooms’ – doesn’t that suggest to you that there might be more than one way to get there?

  • Dr. Rocketscience

    Really? How tall was he? Did he speak with an accent? What kind of shoes did he wear?

  • nolidad

    YAWN

  • Dr. Rocketscience

    What? OK, so the shoes thing is probably unfair. I mean, I couldn’t tell you what kind of shoes Patrick Stewart was wearing when I met him on the set of TNG 25 years ago. Though I do distinctly remember that he was shorter than I expected, only a few inches taller than my 5’7″. And his accent was less pronounced than on the show, I remember that. I also remember that he was very polite, though not particularly effusive, and that it was clear that he was in “work mode”.

    But can’t you give us anything? I mean, you could at least help us clear up the whole Megyn Kelly, “Santa and Jesus are white” thing. We’ve got Santa covered, but Jesus is a bit tougher.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Or that the other writings were a corrupt version form the originals
    after the Tower of Babel dispersion and people forgot God and ended up
    corrupting th eaccounts. I know there are 226 flood accounts in all the
    ancient writings.

    So nolidad concedes that the authorship of the Bible could potentially be in dispute.

    So much for being God’s Inerrant Word!

  • nolidad

    Well many consider the authorship of the Bible to be in great dispute. I don’t. I am confident that when writing slike the Babylonian Gilgamesh epic have similar things found in Scripture- it is the Gilgamesh that has the corrupted information not the Bible.

  • P J Evans

    Gilgamesh is far older. 18th century BCE for the epic, which is at least three hundred years before the claimed (and totally undocumented) era of Moses. Gilgamesh the king was about 25th century BCE.

  • nolidad

    So besides the epic of Gilgamesh what other historical documentation do you have to prove the document exists other than the document. itself?

    As for Moses don’t tell that to Israel or all of Islam as a matter of fact.

  • P J Evans

    There are tablets from the period. Archeology has found a lot of stuff … but nothing that proves that the Bible is ‘true’.

  • nolidad

    How wrong you are. Nineveh was found because the Bible said it was so when archeology scoffed. Paul spoke of Greek ruling bodies called Archons and archeology hgad hysterics. Until about 75 years later they found the proof outside of the Bible for Archons. If you are looking for proof of miracles–good luck! Miracles are one time events designed by God to display HIs power. And seeing as miracles are done only on teh basis for Gods own people- you won’t find the Hittites, or the Amelikites. or the Peruzites writing about the miracles of Yawheh the Hebrew God.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    This explains why people who carefully monitored the sun and stars failed to notice the sun remain high in the sky for over 24 hours, or why only Matthew noticed a rather significant miracle which Luke, Paul and John did not.

  • nolidad

    Well we don’t know of any recors that remain except the biblical one. But if God ordered the Sun and moon to stand still (whatever that would mean to us today) I have no problem with it. Just because we haven’t heard of a record doesn’t mean there isn’t one.

    As for Matthew they all noticed the significant miracle (which one I am not sure), But God chose only Matthew to write it down. Why is that so difficult?

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    This is untrue. Cultures around the world kept meticulous records of a lot of things around that time; that’s how we know there most likely was a man we would name Jesus around that era. Their records omit any mention of miraculous events, however.

    Here’s what I was talking about. Immediately after Jesus dies, in Matthew 27:

    At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook, the rocks split and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

    Why would only Matthew write down a miracle which everyone would have noticed? This isn’t a trivial detail! Matthew was the only writer to refer to this event, and that seems doubly odd because Matthew’s Gospel was written last.

    There’s a huge series of differences between the Gospels — who was there, how Jesus spoke to them, where Jesus went from there, where and when he ascended… and whether or not an earthquake which raised the dead occurred. If God deliberately had his historians write significantly different accounts of the most important story ever, then God deliberately wanted many people not to believe it.

  • nolidad

    Well I can’t speak of other cultures but in Israel about the only ones keeping records were the scribes. They were about the only ones (outside of the wealthy) who could read and write well. Nearly all records were sent to Jerusalem for storage in the temple archives and those were destroyed in 70 AD when Titus sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the temple and burned it.

  • http://anonsam.wordpress.com/ AnonymousSam

    Something like the sun remaining in the sky for over 24 hours would have been noticed across the entire planet. It wasn’t..

  • nolidad

    Well how He did it doesn’t say. Maybe He just held a giant mirror and refracted the rays. It is no big deal for as Jesus said: 26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Have you even thought about how that would be physically possible?

    I am not an expert on General Relativity which is unfortunate, since Einstein’s field equations need to be used to work out the gravitational lensing needed to bend the light of the sun in such a way as to shine on the night side of earth.

    Suffice it to say that any mass of appreciable light-bending ability would also have had noticeable effects on the orbits of the planets in the solar system and would likely have been indirectly deduced from studies of the Earth and other planets in our solar system. (This effect can be calculated with pure Newtonian mechanics since it involves mass-mass interactions)

  • Baby_Raptor

    Is it bad that I saw “Have you even thought…” in the sidebar attached to your name and knew who you were talking to and that the answer is “No. No, he hasn’t”?

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    You just know me too well ;)

  • P J Evans

    Troy was found because one man insisted that it was real. But he found nine Troys, stacked, and the one he believed was in Homer’s story wasn’t the one he thought it was.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    I accidentally replied to nolidad on the 1291 comment post so I am repasting it here.

    nolidad –> Ross

    Sorry but I cannot condone the law to force a person to donate body parts. Man is too imperfect and history has shown us that when these kind or type of laws are in effect evil always ensues..

    So babies are babies in the womb if the woman decides it is? And babies are not babies if the woman decides it isn’t?

    Invisible Neutrino –> nolidad

    Then if you endorse the principle of bodily integrity (which is why, societally, we have voluntary organ donor registries) in general, clearly abortion must fall into that category too. It’s not your decision to make.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    nolidad spake to dpolicar:

    I should have been a little clearer. I was speaking in the grand scheme of life- the moment we are conceived we begin the march towards death. I realize we grow and develop up to age X then we actually slowly decay until death, but we are al born with death as the goal. Maybe that was a poetic way of saying it.

    Then you agree that clearly, all of us, even those allegedly redeemed in Christ, nevertheless gain the wages of sin.

    It seems to me that if Jesus Christ was to “redeem” the wages of sin by taking all sin onto himself, he has done a rather bad job of it.

  • dpolicar

    Moving this nolidad-response thread from here so others can read it.

    I know how I wish to see laws based, but what authority do you stand on to base laws.

    I assume you mean moral authority… that is, you aren’t asking about the legislative process.

    Broadly, I’m a moral consequentialist… right action is that which moves the world to a better state, which is to say a state that more closely aligns with my values. I value joy, for example, and anti-value suffering. (I have other values as well, but those can stand for the whole for now.)

    So to a first approximation I would say that laws, like other actions, are morally justified (or unjustified) on the basis of the suffering they alleviate (or cause) and the joy they facilitate (or impede).

    I would assume you applaud states legalizing gay marriage. What do you base your position in that it is right?

    As above: approximately, the joy such legalization facilitates, and the suffering it alleviates. (I also find it personally gratifying for other reasons, but that’s independent of it being right.)

  • nolidad

    So if it seems to better a society it is a good law?

  • dpolicar

    If it betters society (or, more generally, if it creates more of what I value or less of what I don’t), it’s a good law. If it seems to better society, it seems like a good law.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    PSA: Christians have not been ‘reading the Bible this way for 2,000 years’ is now nearly unpostable from a web browser.

    PLEASE MOVE COMMENTS AND THREADS HERE, I BEG OF YOU.

    Edit update: It is literally taking almost a minute to post a reply in that thread with a web browser. Each time.

  • dpolicar

    nolidad sez (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2013/11/24/christians-have-not-been-reading-the-bible-this-way-for-2000-years/#comment-1166804780):

    If two gays wish to marry and lead a celibate life- I think(this is my opinion) that God would allow that.

    Well, God clearly allows it, in the sense that they are not prevented from doing so.

    I suppose what you mean here is that God would not subsequently punish it, if we choose to take advantage of the option.

    How confident are you in that opinion?

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    As spake by nolidad:

    If a woman is under mental duress several states allow her to abort in
    late term after viability. Sorry unless you think Guttmacher is lying
    and courts are lying.

    This is a case of carving out “acceptable abortion” exceptions which satisfy the weasel-wordy moral consciences of “pro-lifers” who realize that caving in to allowing some abortions makes them look less heartless than they actually are.

    It’s also embedded in the Madonna-Whore paradigm commonly employed among those who hold socially conservative views, since it allows them to slice up the population of abortion-seekers the same way.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    As spake by nolidad:

    Let me ask you– Which sex is designed to carry a baby and nurture it until it leaves the womb?

    I use the Bible as my reference that at conception that “thing” is a person in Gods eyes.

    I was morally bankrupt long before I met you. Got my account filled with His righteousness- mine couldn’t cut it.

    Before the ban here is a report

    http://www.abortionfacts.com/literature/partial-birth-abortion

    They have been done and SCotus ruled they are constitutional

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/18/us/18cnd-scotus.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

    Life here also means emotional health as I cited earlier so they are still being done if rare.

    As Baby_Raptor pointed out on the other thread, the term “partial birth abortion” is just something some numbnuts made up to score cheap emotional points with the electorate.

    Medically it comes under the heading of D&X, D&E, D&C, etc. The only reason it is even used is when the fetus would, if born, be what is commonly called a stillbirth (that is, the baby would be dead already), or if there are other serious issues that necessitate such an abortion.

    0.17% of all abortions fall under that category and it is not, contrary to your HALP HALP THE SKY IS FALLING IN pearl clutching, an epidemic among abortions.

    That said, I reiterate it isn’t any of your damn business who gets an abortion and for what reason they get one. Didn’t you ever learn busybodies get no respect?

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    nolidad pontificated:

    I do find it amazing that your side holds that even if a woman is in labor but the head isn’t crowned she has a right to snuff that life out! Even by the loose standards of the pro choice crowd. That baby is a person who will be viable and yet even though the woman is now in th eprocess of giving birth- she has the right to snuff that life out as a non person.

    You know, for someone who has repeatedly been told to mind their own business you spend a lot of time spinning emotion-laden OMGWTFPEARLCLUTCH horror stories about slavering masses of “pro-abortion” crowds lustily calling for the ending of pregnancies in any way possible.

    Even if you don’t ever SAY it, that’s what you imply every time you start rolling on in to a thread to discuss abortion.

    First, who gets an abortion and for what reason is none of your busybody little nosy self’s business.

    Second, I point out that quite frankly, ending a pregnancy that late in the game – that’s almost invariably a stage which becomes the best of a set of possibly really bad alternatives. It is the rankest absurdity to think that the day before a woman is due to give birth she goes, “Oh well just fuck a duck, I want an abortion!”

    It would probably be far more likely that a doctor would recommend inducing birth and placing the resulting baby for adoption, provided that the fetus is viable at that point.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    nolidad bloviated:

    I do believe woman are human despite you rstraw man and I do believe she
    has the right to control her body. When she becomes pregnant she is
    now a steward for another life. And now she is responsible for 2 lives
    not one.

    And from an ethical perspective that is a knotty question.

    However, as I stated if one starts from the perspective of “do not harm someone else” as a first principle, one might conclude that abortion should be illegal.

    The problem with that is it is far too simplistic a treatment of pregnancy especially given modern medical understanding that it can cause problems for a pregnant individual that necessitates early ending of that pregnancy.

    And of course humans are capable of abstracting “harm” to more than just the physical, and indeed projecting into the future possible effects of things in the present.

    For example, it is perhaps harmful more generally for someone to have a child they are not emotionally or financially equipped for and which they cannot undertake the full ~9 months to adopt the resulting child out to someone else.

    In such a case the lesser harm is to permit the abortion.

    Given the obvious intrusiveness of a state apparatus designed to try and gauge cases of harm each time someone wants an abortion the simpler and more effective remedy (from a ZOMGFREEDOM!!1111 perspective, too, given the fetishization of individualism among some Americans) is to let each person seeking an abortion make their own decision, in consultation with a doctor and any other medically competent person, without the interference of anyone else.