We recently celebrated the 38th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision that helped free American women, to a certain extent, from the servitude of child-bearing. I just discovered that Denmark also legalized abortion the same year.
A recent Danish study of women who both gave birth or had an abortion between 1995 and 2007 has concluded that contrary to one of the myths propagated by the anti-abortion crowd, women who abort have less mental health issues after the procedure than women who actually give birth.
The research by Danish scientists further debunks the notion that terminating a pregnancy can trigger mental illness and shows postpartum depression to be much more of a factor.
I’m going to go out on a limb here (due to the fact that the dangling participle between my legs disqualifies me generally from pontificating) and say that intuitively, this makes perfect sense.
I think most people would agree that the maternal instinct is strong, and that a woman who knows she is carrying a child does not abort the pregnancy lightly, or impulsively. There are probably multiple considerations that go through her mind when confronted with something so potentially life altering as having a child. She has to take into consideration the father, her own family, her cultural antecedents, and a host of other influences that may or may not influence her decision in varying proportions. Many women choose to have the child, despite the stress and negative consequences an unplanned pregnancy will impose on her. Others simply know that bringing a child into the world is not a good thing. But those who do choose to abort, do so after a long and thoughtful process. It’s a mental process, one with great life changing potential, so the stress of the process alone is daunting.
Once the decision is made, it must by its very nature lift a considerable burden from the shoulders of the pregnant woman. Once the fetus is gone, she’s free to continue her life as she had been living it prior to the unplanned pregnancy (and with abortion, we’re never really talking about planned pregnancies, now are we?). She no longer has the stress of raising a child, often times without the benefit of the assistance or even the income of the father.
More importantly, her body doesn’t go through the physical and hormonal changes and stress that pregnancy creates. It’s long been known that postpartum depression is a natural, recurrent and common side-effect of birth. It affects different women differently, and many women don’t handle it well, oftentimes suffering residual effects long after the child has grown.
So, it makes sense that a woman who has made a life-affirming decision for herself would suffer less residual mental health problems than one who chooses to take on the burden, noble as it is, of bearing and raising a child.
SPANISH INQUISITOR 
We should pay women to abort. $1,000 per abortion, not to exceed one every two years. $2,000 for those with religious beliefs.
One of the dumber anti-abortion arguments I have seen is that if it weren’t for Roe v. Wade, we would not need low skilled immigrants to fill menial jobs.
Besides the condescending attitude that the primary purpose of women in this country should be to crank out strawberry pickers, dishwashers and construction laborers, it overlooks that some of the children who were born after the legalization of abortion would not have existed if abortion were not legal.
Women are generally going to have the number of children that they want. For example, under a legal abortion scenario, Sally has an unintended pregnancy at age 19 while pursuing her college degree and terminates the pregnancy. She goes on to get her degree, get a good paying job, gets married and decides with her husband to have three children together.
However, in a scenario where abortion is not permitted, Sally is forced to bear the pregnancy to term. When she finally does marry down the road, she decides to have only two more children, because she already has one. So, the third child that might have been born under a legal abortion scenario never gets conceived at all.
Post-abortion PTSD is a myth, or at least it’s only a self-fulfilling prophecy. Women feel bad because they’re told that abortion is a horrible, terrible crime, and that it will have terrible negative effects on their mind and body.
Nobody’s trying to take away anyone’s choice, but, there seems to be a blatant disregard for life in general among the “liberal” crowd. The careless and indifferent way that unborn human beings are treated, favoring what is often just a case of convenience for the irresponsible actions of “consenting adults” is criminal and definitely immoral.
If a woman wants a career first, go for it. Stay away from men. There’s no rule that says you have to sleep with every guy on the block, although the liberal media pushes that notion with all the fervor of any fire n’ brimstone preacher. There’s your choice. You sleep with a guy, you’re gambling with not only your future but someone else’s. Trouble is, accountability for one’s actions is not a virtue in this ‘enlightened’ age of ours, is it? Blame someone else and have society clean up after you, is the preferred way, these days.
If a woman is raped, that’s different, in my view. I wouldn’t expect her to carry his seed to term, although many have on the premise their predicament is no fault of the child’s. That’s a choice they should have. But, when you have these promiscuous, cock-hungry young airheads running around with their tails in the air, a retinue of self-absorbed, horn dog adolescents trailing along with their noses pressed up against her butt, my sympathy for their plight wanes rather rapidly.
In the case of severe birth defects, there’s no quality of life, there, nor does a parent or society need the burden of looking after someone that may or may not even know they’re alive.
“We should pay women to abort.”
Yeah, great idea, John-O! Go ahead… YOU pay them! Post your phone number online and get those babies off the street! And, I’m feeling especially generous, today… let’s have you pay parents with fetuses that have the “homo gene” $10,000 to scrape those out. Sound like a plan?
😉
Conservatives don’t get abortions! You heard it here first.
Well, if that’s the case, it’s been that way since time immemorial.You think people have been willy-nilly fucking and procreating only since we’ve split into various philosophical and political camps?
Yup. It’s all those damn wimmins faults. Maybe we should just do away with women? Misogynistic, much?
Hey, I know! Let’s subsidize masturbation. We know we can’t beat those biological urges, so when one comes on, maybe if we got a tax break for every wank, that would keep the conception rate down. Oh, wait, that won’t please the religious, because all those sperms and eggy things (i.e.life) will be dying in droves.
Damn.
They use the same argument about gays being depressed, angry and having addiction problems. That’s due to being maligned, spurred on by the religious. That’s the root of the “uppity” blacks and also the current “angry” atheists argument. Poke people with a stick and when they object, point to how upset they are and blame it on what they are and/or do.
I have to wonder if the issue of abortion, at least in this country, would be as big if there weren’t any fertility issues. The need to create produce pickers is interesting, and I never heard that one before, but I think what also prompts them is the growing infertility issues. Couples who want to adopt get pissed over women here aborting. They selfishly want those potential babies, and religion eases their consciouses about that, perhaps even inspiring some who otherwise wouldn’t react selfishly to do so. Also, notice how none of them are objecting to all the “killings” that occur daily in fertility clinics. No, they’re not going to object to anything which benefits them.
I think in the religious mind, Tommykey, the girl from your scenario should offer her child up for adoption, and then she’s free to go on and get that degree, build a career, marry and have her 3 kids while some WASP family can have the child they “deserve”, with the possible added bonus of it not having to be imported and be one of those yellow or brown babies.
I’m surprised there isn’t a bigger business in baby selling, if the fertility problem was what you say. This is free enterprise, capitalistic America. Some abortion clinic should have gotten the bright idea by now that putting women contemplating abortion and infertile couples together means great middleman fees.
Tell a poor women looking at a lifetime of raising a child that someone with big bucks will pay them to keep it? I know that they still have to carry it for 9 months, but I’d bet many, if not most, would, when they know they wouldn’t have to take care of the child at the back end, which is the main point of abortion – bringing a life into an unhappy and unwanted existence.
Of course the societal structures are not actually conducive to this at the moment, with so many rabid religio-nuts like Gideon breathing down legislatures necks, they just want those “cock-hungry” women to suffer for their bad decisions. Forget the child, and the life of the woman. Idealize the potential life, and keep women in their place.
But if society got behind a process of putting unwanted pregnancies together with infertile couples, it would be a win-win for both sides. If a set of parents backed out after the child was born (say with “defects”, not a “perfect” baby), what would happen? What kind of fees would be paid? What if the infertile couple didn’t have the money? Could it be financed? These are the kinds of things government could get behind, rather than simply encouraging outdated religious notions.
On the East Coast, Catholics have largely dominated the baby trade. They, more than the other sects, seem acutely proficient at keeping secrets, so they’ve been good at making sure the child and adoptive parents are kept unaware of the biological parent(s), and visa versa. (That’s actually become a problem today in light of genetic screening for cancer and other ailments as there’s no access to genetic background for the adopted child). They take care of the women, to varying degrees, until there’s a baby, then that’s it (but probably implanting guilt and a sense of indeptedness for good measure). The adopting parents then become indebted to the church forever, essentially, which promotes church attendance, tithing and the child becoming Catholic as well. Good business indeed, and the Catholics figured that out early.
I was handled like you describe, with my adopted parents paying for my biological mom’s expenses and such, brokered through a lawyer (who no doubt made some ca$h). Only 2 states have open adoption, meaning the deal is one of public record. The other 48 keep the contract sealed, barring even the child from access, which I find ridiculous. The 2 states? Kansas and Alaska. I think the secretive nature is believed to encourage the adoption process, with all involved able to walk away and pretend it didn’t happen. Again, sucks for the kid, especially if they never get told that they were adopted and find out on their own.
The “disregard for life” argument is complete bullshit, for the very same people object to any social programs which regard life rather highly such as universal healthcare, Welfare, education grants and educational spending in general, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, as well as equal rights for all Americans. No, it’s pure selfishness and regard only for their own interests, not any regard for life which prompts them. They either want those potential babies for themselves or simply want to impose their religious beliefs on others. Either way, selfish.
Anyone that has a total disregard for existing life, while championing the rights of , at best, potential life, are hypocrites, and intellectually dishonest, and should not be allowed to wear the moniker “pro-life”.
Funny, I see children and even adults as still having potential. Everyone has potential, until they’re dead.
In the book Freakonomics, the authors attributed the fall in crime beginning in the early 90s to the legalization of abortion in the 70s. There were fewer people raised in the type of environment that leads to crime, thus the decrease in crime when they would have come of age.
The need to create produce pickers is interesting, and I never heard that one before
Phillychief, I have read of some Republican politicians claim we wouldn’t have an illegal alien problem if it weren’t for legal abortion. Of course, the argument is not jus confined to lettuce pickers. Below is a link to a post I did a couple of years ago in response to a letter a woman wrote to the NY Times claiming Roe v. Wade is the reason why we have a shortage of primary care physicians in this country.
http://anexerciseinfutility.blogspot.com/2008/12/really-dumb-anti-abortion-argument.htm
there seems to be a blatant disregard for life in general among the “liberal” crowd. The careless and indifferent way that unborn human beings are treated, favoring what is often just a case of convenience for the irresponsible actions of “consenting adults” is criminal and definitely immoral.
Funny, for as I wrote in this post, it’s the anti-abortion side that has the blatant disregard for life.
While they are so worried about the fate of a fertilized egg inside the uterus of a woman or teenage girl in the developing world, they don’t seem particularly concerned with the dangers that pregnancy can pose for women.
From UNICEF’s “Progress for Children : A Report Card on Maternal Mortality”, comes this sobering statistic: “Each year, more than half a million women die from pregnancy-related causes and an estimated 10 million experience injuries, infections, disease or disability that can cause lifelong suffering.”
The report adds, “Most of these deaths and disabilities are avoidable.”
And while UNICEF’s report “Progress for Children: A World Fit For Children Statistical Review” reports that child mortality rates are in decline, “an estimated 9.7 million children under the age of 5 died before the age of 5” in 2006.
So let’s see if I got this straight. If a woman terminates a pregnancy, it is, to quote Rep. John Boehner above, “tragic.” But if that same woman dies or is seriously injured from delivering her baby due to lack of adequate medical facilities, or the child dies from malaria at the age of 4, well shit happens, right?
I suppose Giddyin’ is also against giving antibiotics to people who contract gonorrhea or chlamydia. After all, it’s all about taking accountability for your actions, right? Or how about people who injure themselves because of errors in judgment when using a circular saw or other potentially dangerous tools?
“Sorry, we can’t reattach your finger, because otherwise you will never learn to take accountability for your actions when using sharp tools.”
Just think how much we could reduce health care costs in this country if we refused to provide medical care for everyone whose injury or condition was caused by a mistake in judgment.
Oh, wait, I forgot, Bible thumping conservatives only want to apply that rule when it comes to women and sex. That’s why you get a political like South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint who has called for banning unmarried pregnant women from being teachers. So, not only do these clowns want to take away the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy, they also want to take away her right to earn a decent living to support the child that they want to force her to have.
Contrary to the caricature of liberals by the troglodyte wing of the Republican Party, the liberal position on sex is not “fuck as many people as you want as many times as you want and don’t worry about the consequences.” Rather it is comprehensive sex education to enable people to make informed choices, the availability of contraceptives to prevent unwanted pregnancies and reduce the transmission of infections, and yes, the right to a safe, legal abortion if the pregnant woman is not ready to have a child at that particular point in her life. And liberals also support a safety net so that if a low income woman has a child, she is not left entirely to her own limited resources in order to take care of her baby. That’s what a genuine regard for life is.
Tommy, doncha know you’re just encouraging those welfare cheats? Their taking my hard earned income in taxes! /sarcasm
There are Republicans currently proposing that HIV/AIDS care not be covered by any state or federal healthcare for that same reason, saying that people who get it brought it on themselves (ie – gays of course, but also promiscuous straights).
I like the cut off finger argument. I’ll steal that one. 😉
Phillychief, here are some links to back up what I was saying about anti-abortion zealots linking legal abortion to illegal immigration:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Tom_DeLay_tells_College_Republicans_that_0718.html
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/tabor/050824
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200604120014
Pro-lifers seem to conveniently overlook that “choice” is exactly that: women who choose to have babies are free to do so. The legality of abortion does not take away any woman’s right to choose childbirth. What it does is ensure that abortions can be regulated, monitored and performed safely.
People who think abortions will cease if they’re illegal are not living in the real world. Women with the means to do so will get safe abortions in other countries. Women without the means to do that will do what they did before Roe v. Wade: coat hangers, poisons, butchery….
Yes. They’ll go to butchers like this.
It’s the same thinking that lead to making alcohol illegal and our current “war on drugs”. You can throw in the bans on sex toys in the South as well.
Truth is, I don’t think they just believe making it illegal will make it stop. I think a lot of the motivation is for punishment. These fuckers NEED to see those who don’t agree with them suffer, and the promise of it occurring after death just isn’t good enough. They want to see it with their own eyes, now. Didn’t the woman W had in charge of Health or something essentially say that when defending Abstinence Only & banning sex ed and condoms? She wanted sexually active teens to suffer, and her daughter to see the potential consequences first hand.
Both motives are probably at work. I think some people sincerely hope outlawing abortion will make it stop – at least within the boundaries of God’s New Israel – and others want to see “sinful” women pay for having, and acting upon, sexual desires. It doesn’t matter to them that children will also pay for the “sins” of their mothers. The OT gives contradictory instructions* on that matter, so people can argue for either malice or mercy with equal biblical support.
*(See Deuteronomy 5:9 and Deuteronomy 24:16. Cherry-picking doesn’t get any easier than this.)
Only an infidel would see anything contradictory in these texts. Why don’t you mention the entire plan of salvation as being contradictory, then? God gives up His own Son to die for ingrates like you, while slaughtering your ancestors wholesale… after they asked for it, of course.
God never condoned the sins of His followers, either. All are equal in unrighteousness before the law. That offends your ego, doesn’t it? Too bad. There are a lot of things that are going to offend you before you’re dead.
If there is one thing that infidels can’t abide, it’s being told that they can’t do something. Yet, there are many things in life that they can’t control.
I’m not wise enough to judge every case on sight, however, God is. He will judge the motives for killing unborn children and there won’t be any hiding the truth or glossing it over. Just like there won’t be any hiding from the justice to follow.
Here’s another thing you won’t like… this life isn’t about yours or other women’s “rights”. Like the rest of us, you’re just damned lucky to be here at all. Like Dirty Harry once said: “You wanna play the game, you better know the rules, love.” And, the rule is that God makes the rules. When you can best Him and create matter from nothing and rearrange it to suit your liking, then you can make the rules.
Till then, you’re just another player like the rest of us… love.
😉
Well, shit, if Dirty Harry said it, it must be true.
Love.
Actually, it’s the Christians who always complain about not being able to do something like condemn gays, have religious tests for public office, preach and lead prayer in public schools, censor religious opposition, plaster government property with Christian icons, well pretty much everything they want to do and can’t they complain about and cry, “persecution!”
And infidel-gays are always slandering Christians and God, simply for daring to criticize their disgusting lifestyle, taking over legislative and legal processes through relentless lobbying and litigation, forcing their propaganda on children in schools, parading their sweaty, naked bodies in “pride parades” in full view of children, where anyone else would be fined for indecent exposure; silencing any and all opposition through threats of lawsuits and public vilification as “haters.” The spoiled little sissies have everything going for them, Chief, so quit complaining.
And, I’ve never heard of any religious tests being required for any public office, not in my neck of the woods… HOWEVER, the fags are forcing public servants against their choice, through litigation and intimidation and politically-correct politicians, to *gag* ‘marry’ them. It’s getting so you have to be fag-friendly (perhaps gay, yourself) to hold any public office, these days. Evolution is preached in all public schools with any religious studies confined to studies of ancient pagan societies like Rome, Greece, etc. Any professor trying to offer anything outside of the Darwinist course is immediately disciplined, if not outright fired, always vilified.
There aren’t any Christian or religious symbols anywhere to be found on public property, here, other than the odd roadside shrine, (e.g. the Virgin Mary) most of those on private land, and those are soon looted and vandalized. Infidels pretty much do whatever the hell they want to do, citing science (their version of it) as the ultimate argument for everything. If it isn’t officially recognized by some infidel ‘scientist’ or other ‘expert’, it isn’t given any credence at all. Christians have to give proof for everything, infidels just say it’s so and that’s the end of it.
Bigotry and whining and selfishness characterize and empower the infidel’s case against God and Christianity, not logic. Nothing’s changed in 6000 years and it never will.
“…Pro-lifers seem to conveniently overlook that “choice” is exactly that: women who choose to have babies are free to do so…”
Most of the ones I run across are very well aware of it, their problem is the chance that females might make the “wrong” choice, the one that they, themselves wouldn’t make. So, choice is something that shouldn’t be “allowed”.
A person once gave me her solemn word that real “freedom of choice” was not having any choice so you were free from making the wrong one.
She also informed me, with a grave and sober frown, that this could and should be applied to other areas of “sin” and “error”.
Typical of you, John, and your sensei Philly to misconstrue and vilify my statements. Of course, anyone not a member of this infidel coven and equipped with a functioning brain, will see what I was getting at.
Christians selfish? LOL! Well, if we are, we’re only learners compared with the infidel ‘elite.’ I’m well aware of the nature of man, more so than you. However, the infidel mindset is a prime example of what man is and what he thinks without God. With nothing but self to distract them, infidels feel free to administer to their needs and wants without restraint. Relentless sexual promiscuity without regard for the consequences to society is antisocial behavior in every respect. It also opens up the floodgates for all manner of perversions, too, like homosexuality.
And, our resident infidel high priest also considers that Christians force their beliefs on him; not seeing, of course, how his religion (evolution) is forced upon ALL of society. But, that’s okay, because, he happens to agree with it and anything else that slams intelligent design and/or God. His lackeys are always right at his butt hole, too, noses pressed solidly against it, ready to parrot his every frenetic utterance like groupies from hell.
So, get out your wallets, then. Pay for something that the application of a little self-restraint and common sense would rectify. I realize those are virtues not synonymous with progressive liberalism, however, you might actually learn to ape them through careful study of those that still do exercise these all-but-extinct traits, though it may not be the fashionable, trendy thing to do.
Let’s see what zillions of years of Darwinism has bought us, shall we?
Yes. You. Makes me want to re-think it.
“Makes me want to re-think it.”
Shhhhhhh… Philly will hear you!
😉
Oops, I see my first link in my post @ 12:03 PM did not paste properly.
http://anexerciseinfutility.blogspot.com/2008/12/really-dumb-anti-abortion-argument.html
I remember reading something from England, a rather sarcastic response to the “pro life” crowd, “To abort little Willie is very silly… that’s what war is for”!
When I listen to the “pro-life” people around here, you get the mixed-message- cognitive-disconnect experience of a lifetime.
“The Fetus” is a “Vessel of the Holy Spirit”, so I’ve heard. It is venerated, I have seen people reduced to tears in contemplation of it.
The mother (the Vessel of the Vessel {shrug}?) Not so much.
Pregmancy is a “beautiful thing”, and women who do that dirty deed should suffer every minute of it and bear the consequence of it.
“Only god is empowered to end a life… (usually said with a lift of the chin and far-away look)” but it is quite alright to terminate lives with bombs and bullets, some of those being children, and pregnant women with their fetuses. That’s different, I guess.
But the attitude seems to change once the fetus stops being a fetus and comes out of the chute. Then it’s as has been previously stated, “Why come to me with your problems?”
I actually know people who chafe because children born out of wedlock can’t be made to bear a “stigma”, penalised for the good of society, you see. They should be icons of shame, since mom and pop did what they did. It seems to be partly their fault, or well, injustice in the name of good order.
Around here in some of the lower case denominations that are sprouting up in the wake of the main stream churches closing, they are practicing “churching” of women.
I am reminded of what was done in (at least) 19th century Prussia: a woman would have to register with the police when she began her period.
I guess that is really as close as you come to state-sponsored “birth control”.
Sarge, you raise some good points, and you might like to know that I share some of that sarcasm in my views, especially where war and the warmongering rich are concerned. That view has been revealed many times on this and other blogs. I see a false patriotism, out there, where people think that they somehow owe these rich fucks their lives and the lives of their offspring to fight in their useless wars, and then that mindset is perpetuated by the cannon fodder, themselves. I don’t see any point of providing breeding stock for these globalist bastards or the manpower that they need to expand their borders and empires, yet society never seems to clue in on what is really going down. They continually fall for the rhetoric that we have to protect ourselves and our borders, yet, all I’ve ever seen is invasions, on yours and my country’s part, of other sovereign nations, based upon the excuse they don’t live according to our way.
I respect the fact that you did a war, a damned unpopular war, (should any war should be a popular one?) and I did some time in a uniform before I knew better, too. I’m currently in a war that is even less popular than yours was, which can only end with the Lord’s return or my death. I’m in it for the duration, either way.
Getting back to the subject at hand, I have nothing against women, one was responsible for bringing me into this… uh… ‘world’, all I’m trying to do is level the playing field for those that don’t have a say. My faith is a faith that says there can and must be a balance in everything. While all that you infidels seem able to see are contradictions and inconsistencies, I see a definite and positive end to everything in God’s Word and through the lives of His professed followers. God has often had to work through and around fallen humanity, just as this world has suffered for theirs and the actions of ungodly people. It will always be that way until He restores everything to the way it originally was and was intended to be.
If you want to find reason to doubt, you will find it. Just like with anything else, scripture can be misquoted and construed to mean something else than what it was intended to mean. I intend to look on the positive points and there are many of them. One look around this old world, however, and I’m not seeing too many of those, and what there is left of them is diminishing rather quickly. Dispute it if you like, that’s how I and a helluva lot of others smarter than me, see it. I once believed evolution occurred the way they say it did, however, there were too many inconsistencies, more than any I see in scripture. Some things are simply too blatant to ignore, however, and this abortion thing is just another issue that shows the lack of balance in our society.
I’m not for abortion… if it’s only a matter of someone being hindered in pursuing a career or simply because it’s inconvenient for them to be pregnant at the time. I think in most cases, they could have prepared more adequately for that eventuality. I’ve already stated my view for when it could be a legitimate alternative. I’m not of the class that says NO under any circumstances, okay?
Tommykey brings up a good point about the girl who gets pregnant in college and terminates the pregnancy and goes on to a happy successful life.
I know some Sallys who decided to have the baby and they ended dropping out of college, never went back, didn’t get a good job, struggle just to provide the basics for their child(ren), and are often avoided by successful men who choose not to deal with the extra baggage that kid(s) and often multiple fathers bring.
Here’s yet another example of the bias that an infidel-controlled media and educational system foment. See? ‘Naturally’, that fossil just HAS to be millions of years old, no contest, no argument. You don’t agree, you’re instantly branded a nut. So much for Christianity running things, eh?
I also had to laugh that a piece of bone gets instant access to a machine that hundreds of people with oftentimes life-threatening ailments have to wait months or even years for access to!
Yep. Life in an infidel world… gotta (no choice) luv it!
If you’re talking about the saber-tooth tiger skull video, (not sure because your link was a little hinky) I’m not sure what your point is?
Are you claiming that it’s NOT 33 million years old? If so how do YOU know? Because there was nothing in the report that indicated how they had dated it.
Yes, I discovered the bad link (their bad) after I posted it, however, I figured you’d know from my mention of the “bone” that you’d clue in on the cat skull… IF is is, indeed, a cat skull. That’s another presumption that ‘science’ makes, they judge everything’s appearance in the past by today’s examples, then classing them as progenitors.
How do I know it’s not millions of years old? Simply on the premise that evolution’s performance on all other fronts, being unprovable and certainly indefinite by any charitable account, would naturally be suspect in this case as well. We don’t have to know how they dated it to know that any dating method currently in use cannot be relied upon for accuracy. However, a case may be made for the biblical flood by the fact that it and most other fossils are generally found encased in minerals deposited by water action. This specimen was encased in limestone, a sedimentary deposit.
Anyway, my reference to it was primarily to show how infidel science has taken over the media and institutes of learning.
Whenever the choice is between one group having the right to something everyone else has a right to versus the “right” to not have to witness them exercising that right, then the choice will always be easy, jackass.
The haters are left trying to show harm. In the case of abortion, they push the idea that the fetuses are people, therefore people are being harmed. It’s bullshit, but it’s something. Denying equal rights to gays, however, has no harm available. One’s discomfort at seeing people one hates exercising their equality doesn’t count as harm. Losing the exclusivity of marriage is not harm, either. That’s like saying a store having to cater to black customers rather than just whites lost its exclusivity and is thus harmed. Nice try, but no.
The religious will claim proselytizing and denigrating others is an exercise of their religion and that preventing them to do such things is an infringement upon their religious freedom. Same fucking thing, pretty much, but it’s made clearer by the old adage, “your freedom to swing your arm ends at the tip of others’ noses”.
“Whenever the choice is between one group having the right to something everyone else has a right to versus the “right” to not have to witness them exercising that right, then the choice will always be easy, jackass.”
Witnessing and participating; e.g. being FORCED to participate, are two different things, Large One. In fact, it’s a contradiction in terms, taking one’s right to abstain away to appease someone else’s perceived slight… and that is all it is with these perverts. They’re pissed, because, we don’t fall all over ourselves praising them for being degenerates. No one says they HAVE to marry at all, they could just live together in peace. But, nooooooo… they have to make a big, fucking issue out of it, don’t they? Rubbing Christians noses in the dirt, when they could just live quietly, together, and no one would even notice them. Also, (and this is probably the primary motive) they want the benefit$ that married and/or common-law heterosexual couples get, e.g. family allowance, maternity benefits, (LOL!) etc, which they could get without forcing abstainers to ‘marry’ them. There are lot’s of ass-kissers out there, like yourself, that are more than willing to do the deed for them, without dragging someone in against their will. So, don’t tell me it’s about any violation of rights, Chiefy-boy.
You’re just on another one of your political-correctness rants, again, trying to look “progressive” and stylish, when all you’re really doing is revealing how truly closed-minded you are by throwing Christians under the bus to please your fag buddies. Go ahead, then… YOU marry your perverted friends, I couldn’t care less. Sleep with them, too, if you like. (Maybe you are?) As long as they leave me and mine alone, they can go play tag in a minefield for all I care. However, when I’m forced to pay for their fun and frolic, such as it is in this ‘demo-commie’ society, that’s when I want a say in what goes down. However, there is no vote where individual rights and freedoms are concerned. Using your analogy, I may not have the right to break your nose, but, you don’t have the right to stick it into my affairs, either.
And, I’m a hater, am I? Ever consider the shit you write about God and Christians? One can almost hear the spittle dribbling from your mouth, the tirades you get into on your blog.
You’re a hypocrite, Chief. Sorry to have to break that to you.
Oh… and the day that a black man’s money changes color from that of a white man’s, yeah, I’ll be complaining. Otherwise, I’m monochromatic.