What is Liberal?

This is true. However, the point at which a fetus attains rights and termination would become murder is in dispute.The analogy to an acorn previously mentioned is valid. The acorn is NOT a tree, but MAY become one later given the appropriate conditions. A fetus is NOT a child, but will become one given the appropriate conditions.To claim that a potential child (fetus) has human rights allows rights to be given to every step in the reproductive process - the eggs and sperm then have rights as well. Suddenly innocent nocturnal emission, masturbatory ejaculations, and unfertilized egsg discarded during menstruation have rights.The point of seperation between "clump of cells" and "human being," to my mind, occurs when the fetus' brain begins displaying brain activity representative of sentience. This has been shown to occur sometime in the late 2nd trimester, if I recall correctly.It's not game of whitewshing murder, Faith. Pro-choice people simply don't agree with you that it IS murder at all.

Whay do you keep talking about protecting government from religion? The government surely doesnt need protection from anything, as it exists by the will of the people.You aren't understanding, Faith. There are religions OTHER than Christianity. Those religions are protected in the Constitution just as strongly as Christianity. Officially sponsoring Christian prayer in a state organization (public school, Congress, etc.) violates the rights of NON-Christians.Let's imagine the reverse. Say Islam was the religion of the majority in the US. You are still a Christian in this scenario. WOuldn't it violate your rights to have the schools set aside a muslim prayer time several times a day according to Islam? WOuldn't it offend you to have Congress open with a prayer to Allah, when Christianity is supposed to be just as protected?Under the Constitution of the United States, all religion is equal and irrelevant to the government. This is the only way to protect ALL faiths, including Christianity, Islam, atheism, etc. The other Founding Fathers and the First Amendment would beg to differ. Take a look at some of the quotes from other Founding Fathers I provided. I'll dig up more if you like. Because those things do NOT show the intentions of the Founding Fathers. They show the actions of individuals. It has nothing to do with whether it was right, or even constitutional. The First Amendment EXPLICITLY STATES that all religion be abolished from government legislation. Members of the government may still be Christians, of course (to say otherwise would violate THEIR rights), but the state as an entity may NOT officially recognize, sponsor, or promote ANY individual religion, for the sake of ALL religions. Deists, actually. The point is that surely these Founding Fathers did NOT intend the US Government to sponsor or recognize and one religion, including but not limited to Christianity. Semantic nitpicking. Jefferson was talking about religious leaders of all kinds. "Religion in cahoots with government" is exactly what we are talking about here. Prayer in schoold and other such religious displays all demonstrate religion being promoted and sponsored by the state. That sounds like being "in cahoots" to me. So....you support a bloody revolution against a secular government in favor of a theocracy? I've never heard such an un-American statement in my life. So, you conceed that I have not, in fact, misinterpreted Jefferson. Good. No, my argument is historically accurate. Yours is based on current revisionist thinking that confuses the Puritans witht he Founding Fathers.

Why the hell would we want to "keep down" paganism or Islam? Or atheism, or Hindu, or Buddhism, or anything else?Are you REALLY advocating a "convert or you don't have any rights" mentality? Because that sounds awfully similar to the mindset of certain terrorists we've all come to know and hate. Hitler was a Christian (no, not a very good one), not a pagan, and used Christian rhetoric in his speaches and policies. What in God's name are you going on about?! You're not even making SENSE! Nobody is talking about beheading Christians! Nobody is even talking about doing ANYTHING to Christians! All we want is a government unaffected by any one religion so that ALL religions are protected. How the hell do you swing that over to "we might be beheaded or something even more gruesome?!"

No, no. It's part of the womans body until it is born, like her pancreas or heart. It shares her blood, etc. When it is born, it is no longer part of her body.And yes, it is miraculous.

Semantic nitpicking.Genetically human, yes. Existant as a seperate entity granted human rights? No.Besides, a fetus can't even comprehend the meaning of being human. It's brain doesn't function until later on in development. That's kind of the point.

Those are all perfectly good programs. I would agree that bearing the child and letting it be adopted is preferable to abortion.My DISTASTE for abortion does NOT, however, give you or me or anyone else the right to make it illegal. It is still the woman's right to decide what happens inside her body, and whether she is willing to undergo childbirth or not.

A naive ideal? Promoting Christian theocracy is a naive ideal! We know EXACTLY what happens when Christianity is held up by the state! We had 1500 YEARS to watch as the Crusades were followed by the Inquisition was followed by witch trials! We know exactly what happens, Faith. The Founding Fathers did, too.You have literally no concept of the meaning of "freedom." You think it means "the ability to make your own choices, so long as they are choices I or the Lord God would approve of." If that was the kind of life God wanted for humanity, why did he even BOTHER giving us Free Will?!Freedom means the ability to make your own choices, restricted only when those choices injure a person's body, posessions, or right to their own freedom. That's what the Founding Fathers tried to set up with the Constitution. Freedom and Justice for ALL, not just Christians.

You know, that's pretty funny on the surface. But from the perspective of current politics, it's frighteningly accurate.

Think about that statement.Think long and hard.It is wrong for Christians to impose their morality on others so highhandedly. Can you not see your own hypocracy?! You want Christian morality to be legislated...and then argue against doing exactly that! I don't think you've thought hings through very far.Either that, or you've seperated "us" (Christains) from "them" (everybody else) so far in your head that you honestly don't see what a bigotted tyrranical fascistic evil idea you're spouting.

You assume that all Christans agree with you.I consider myself a Christian. I don't agree with nearly anything you have said in this thread.Christians may constitute a majority in this country, but the majority of Christians are not like YOU.

What law makes Christians second-class citizens?! What unlegislated POLICY makes Christians second-class citizens?Did Christians lose the right to vote at some point? Did they lose the right to life, liberty, or the persuit of happiness? How about free speach (with the exception of speach supported by the government, which would be a violation of the First Amendment)? Have you lost the right to practice your religion (again, outside of state-sponsored activities)?I must have missed all of that.

Honestly, can you even understand what you are saying?!What are the "Dangers" of letting people believe whatever they want to believe? If some guy wants to pray to a tree, or a freaking teapot, what does it matter to you? More specifically, what RIGHT do you think you have to stop him? Europe wasn't "civilized" by Christianity, Faith. Or did you forget all of the atrocities done in Christianity's name? The Inquisition certainly wasn't an example of civilized society!As for Islam wanting to "take over the world," listen to what you yourself say! "The depaganization (which I would undertand to be the conversion to Christianity) of the world." One minute you're advocating religious takeover, and then you say it's evil the next! The only difference is because the Islamic extremists are actually trying to DO what you are talking about, and they aren't YOU. For some reason if Tom hits Danny, its bad, but if Danny hits Tom, it's fine with you. You haven't warned us of any danger at all, Faith. All you've said is "there's a danger that the rest of you don't see." Tell us WHAT the danger is, Faith! CONVINCE us with a RATIONAL argument and evidence, rather than spouting off unsubstanciated religious rhetoric! You know, it's just as frustrating to talked to overzealous fundamentalist Christians, too. Whether Hitler WAS a Christian in his core is not the point - as far as the world was concerned, he used Christian rhetoric for political purposes and then proceeded to commit crimes against humanity on an unbelievable scale. What is it that you think I want? Why can't it happen? What consequences do I not forsee? You aren't giving me any reason to believe you, Faith.This may surprise you, Faith. I identify myself as a Christian. I believe in God, and I believe in an afterlife.I do, however, support the rights of ALL religions, and don't believe that Christians, majority or not, have any right to tell someone else what they can or cannot believe. You apparently advocate making paganism and Islam illegal.What a sad bigot you are. If you honestly believe what I understand you to believe, you are no better or different than the torturers of the Inquisition, or the leaders of the Taliban. The ideas and principles are the same. "We are right, they are wrong, and they don't have the right to exist or choose for themselves becasue they are different."This message has been edited by Rahvin, 07-22-2005 02:47 PM

I will certainly agree with you on one thing - overdramatization on either side of the argument helps no one. Calling the fetus a "parasite" is not accurate, though the definition can be squeezed to fit. I don't think anyone would classify a fetus with a tick, however. A tick, after all, is viable as an organism by itself and uses a human host only for food. Plus they're really gross A fetus depends on the mother for nourishment, which makes it look like a parasite. But a fetus is not afully developed organism in that it cannot survive outside of the mother. It's not really a seperate organism, yet.There is a point at which it becomes able to survive outside the womb, and a point at which brain activity is markedly similar to full human conscousness. I think these are the points at which the fetus gains "human" status, and abortion would be murder unless the mother's life is in danger.

I believe that sounded like a concession. Yes, yes it did.It would be far more civil, however to say "You have provided evidence I am unable to refute, neither can I offer a stronger case to prove my own assertion, so I must conceed the point."

Exactly correct.The problem is that many people (Faith included, apparently) have failed to see the difference between what is distateful, versus what should be illegal. One of these is a purely emotional response, and is universally valid. The other requires evidence of harm to the person, property, or rights of another.