Christian Jihad!

[BWare 0]

no offense ware but i fail to see how this has nothing to do with religion and is purely scientific. I dont see much science behind the literal day creationism.

Well I do. Perhaps if you looked a little harder? You see, the belief in literal day creationism ties into the young earth theory, which is backed by very large volumes of scientific evidence, and, frankly, in some ways does a better job of explaining what we know about the earth than the idea of an earth that's billions of years old. Now I spend every day studying this stuff in depth. Trust me when I tell you- it's science.

 

NB, a "religion" is a systematic set of rules and traditions. Something that's "religious" relates to these rules and/or traditions. How the hell is a discussion about the origins of the earth religious? If anything it's a clash of worldviews. A literal belief in the Genesis account of earth's creation is NOT RELIGOUS. Neither is belief in an account of Julius Caesar's life, or any other historical document. Get it?

 

 

hmm i dont remember that ever being proved, we all just sort of digressed.

Are you really this slow? First of all, I never digressed. Second of all, it takes one very simple thing to prove that "Christian Jihadism" exists- a SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE. Produce that and you win. Otherwise, shut up about it already. You lose. We've been over this.

[Cygnus X-1 12]

I may be entereing this particullar thread a tad late (c'mon guys, where the DEW system of CNCNZ? :wink: ) but neverhteless, I will speak.

 

ah-hem.

 

King - interesting find, although I am going to go with BWare on this one, atl east partially. While yes, its unbelievably stupid for people like that to even exists, they, like Muslim extremists, represent a minority. And the truth is that that minority of christians is guilty only of childhood brainwashing. While that is a serious crime (those idiots can go to hell ofr all I care) it is nowhere close to what Islamic extremists do. Granted, extremism does start with brainwashing, so if it were legal, I would deffinetly agree to stoning those who start it, like the people portrayed in that video.

 

Oh--and you broke the rules :wink: (but for those you throwing that towel, he did openly warn us)

[Alphabear 11]

no offense ware but i fail to see how this has nothing to do with religion and is purely scientific. I dont see much science behind the literal day creationism.

Well I do. Perhaps if you looked a little harder? You see, the belief in literal day creationism ties into the young earth theory, which is backed by very large volumes of scientific evidence, and, frankly, in some ways does a better job of explaining what we know about the earth than the idea of an earth that's billions of years old. Now I spend every day studying this stuff in depth. Trust me when I tell you- it's science.

Im study science too so forgive me if i dont trust you. I would like to see some of this scientific evidence.

it takes one very simple thing to prove that "Christian Jihadism" exists- a SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE. Produce that and you win.

Some past examples are the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, KKK or murderous anti-abortionists. There are still calls by some christian fundamentalists for new waves of christian jihad

http://wordpress.com/tag/christian-jihad/

http://www.crusadewatch.org/index.php?opti...9&Itemid=30

[BWare 0]

Im study science too so forgive me if i dont trust you. I would like to see some of this scientific evidence.

Are you study english as well? :lol: If you want to butt heads over scientific credibility, you might want to use non-caveman-like grammar :lol:.

 

But you've piqued my curiosity. In what capacity are you "studying science"?

Some past examples are the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, KKK or murderous anti-abortionists.

:roll: Ugh... alright, I'll tear these apart now.

1. The Crusades were motivated more by politics and military ambition than pure religion. They were a brief spasm in history caused by a corrupt and overly powerful Catholic church. Keep in mind that I'm a Protestant, so you won't find me defending the Catholic church. And, for the record, the Muslims weren't exactly saints back then either. But hey, how about a CURRENT (and relevant) example? :roll:

(and for the record- they were committed BY Christians ON Christians)

2. The Spanish Inquisition was, like the Crusades, an example of a corrupt and evil POLITCAL power. These were all about domination and power and NOT about pure religion.

3. The KKK. You're kidding, right? First of all, they were not terrorists. Second of all, they were NOT A RELIGIOUS GRUOP. They were a social club that has degenerated into a purely racist organization, and now a couple of hicks that like to piss off the blacks in America. How the hell do you consider them an example of "Christian Jihadism"? :roll:

4. ANTI ABORTIONISTS?? Alright, you're REALLY reaching. Now I happen to be an anti abortionist (something about sucking the brains out of babies with a hose kinda rubs me the wrong way), so would you consider me a Christian Jihadist? Those COUPLE abortion clinic bombings YEARS AGO were committed by a tiny rogue group (and don't even try to compare that "tiny rogue group" to the modern global movement of Islamo-fascism :roll:). They were motivated by a MORAL objection. Yes, they were technically terrorist attacks (tiny ones), but you'd be an idiot to consider that a Christian Jihad.

Plus, I wouldn't be so quick to compare these couple relatively small bombings to the slayings of THOUSANDS on a GLOBAL scale. But hey, maybe I'm not as "open-minded" as you :roll:.

 

So, yeah. I'm still waiting on evidence of that Christian Jihad. Keep trying. I know I don't see the world through such a blinding and cynical disdain for Christianity as you apparently do, but still... you aren't convincing anyone that a Christian Jihad equivalent exists. We can't all share your blind hatred.

 

 

Oh, and those were some cute websites. Call me crazy, but I don't think that some tongue-in-cheek calls of action to Christians constitute a global crusade to convert people by the sword. Way to miss some lousy humor there alpha .

[Alphabear 11]

I'm currently studing with a physics professor although at the start of next year I will be starting Environmental Science more specifically on ecology.

 

The KKK. You're kidding, right? First of all, they were not terrorists. Second of all, they were NOT A RELIGIOUS GRUOP. They were a social club that has degenerated into a purely racist organization, and now a couple of hicks that like to piss off the blacks in America. How the hell do you consider them an example of "Christian Jihadism"? Rolling Eyes

 

http://www.kkk.com/

 

hmm... seems pretty religiously based to me.

 

ow I happen to be an anti abortionist (something about sucking the brains out of babies with a hose kinda rubs me the wrong way), so would you consider me a Christian Jihadist?

Depends. I dont really know enough about you to make that call. Call me crazy but I dont jump to conclusions about people i dont know enough about.

 

Those COUPLE abortion clinic bombings YEARS AGO were committed by a tiny rogue group (and don't even try to compare that "tiny rogue group" to the modern global movement of Islamo-fascism Rolling Eyes).

Who said i was trying to compare them to "Global Islamo-Facism"? Many of the people that commited the attacks even said it themselves that it was religiously motivated. Im not saying that many of them weren't doing it simply on moral beliefs and not religiously motivated, but you can not deny that many were.

 

Yes, they were technically terrorist attacks (tiny ones), but you'd be an idiot to consider that a Christian Jihad.

Sure they may not be 9/11 scale, but a collection of terrorist attacks that are religiously motivated against the beliefs of others sounds a lot like Christian Jihad to me.

 

Plus, I wouldn't be so quick to compare these couple relatively small bombings to the slayings of THOUSANDS on a GLOBAL scale.

Once again, I compared their scale where?

 

I know I don't see the world through such a blinding and cynical disdain for Christianity as you apparently do, but still... you aren't convincing anyone that a Christian Jihad equivalent exists. We can't all share your blind hatred.

Wow, that seems like a new level for you. Claiming I have blind hate for my own religion. So because i can admit that there are some idiot extremists that belong to the same religious faith as myself i must hate Christianity. Maybe its more accurate to say that im not blind.

 

you aren't convincing anyone that a Christian Jihad equivalent exists.

notice the change of wording from your previous post

it takes one very simple thing to prove that "Christian Jihadism" exists- a SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE

Way to change the topic being debated in an attempt to make my argument seem fruitless :roll: Its a common tactic that politicians use when they cannot live up to their claims/arguments etc.

[BWare 0]

Alpha, I appreciate how you're trying to deflect here, but let me put out there what you're trying to prove:

There exists a certain equivalency between Christians and Muslims in that both are guilty of bloody jihads. Yes, you ARE in fact making this comparison because of the very use of the word "jihad" (a Muslim word- look it up).

 

My assumption that you have a blind disdain and, yes, hatred, is the fact that you can make this claim without seeing how incredibly ridiuculous it is. An alternate explanation would be stupidity, but I don't think you're stupid.

 

Depends. I dont really know enough about you to make that call. Call me crazy but I dont jump to conclusions about people i dont know enough about.

Aw, that's cute. Let me make one thing perfectly clear: A "jihadist", for the sake of this discussion, is someone motivated purely by religion, believes in murder and other attrocities that are justified by God, and acts out this belief by murdering, destroying, and doing the things that jihadists do. And, a "jihad", using the example set by our friends in the Mulsim world and their REAL jihad, is a large scale, global movement of thousands of jihadists who have proven their existence by killing on a LARGE scale.

 

Now if your point is really as benign and boring as "there are extremists in Christianity too" (something ANYONE would agree with), then don't be an idiot and use incredibly loaded words like "jihad" to make it.

 

Sure they may not be 9/11 scale, but a collection of terrorist attacks that are religiously motivated against the beliefs of others sounds a lot like Christian Jihad to me.

What "collection"?? The only relevent examples you could produce were the few isolated abortion bombings from YEARS ago. You compare this (BY USE OF THE WORD "JIHAD") to the Islamic Jihad?? Are you insane?

 

Oh, and for the record, this statement, to the casual observer, sounds incredibly anti-Christian.

 

Wow, that seems like a new level for you. Claiming I have blind hate for my own religion. So because i can admit that there are some idiot extremists that belong to the same religious faith as myself i must hate Christianity. Maybe its more accurate to say that im not blind.

No, it would be more accurate to say that you are a very, very poor communicator and that, yes, you do have some anti-Christian prejudice (whether it be your "religion" or not :lol:).

 

Way to change the topic being debated in an attempt to make my argument seem fruitless :roll: Its a common tactic that politicians use when they cannot live up to their claims/arguments etc.

Yeah, it's called throwing up a straw man. I didn't do that, nor do I ever. I don't have to. How exactly do you think I did this? This is very simple. I believe (like any sane person) that there are extremists in Christianity (just like ANY other group or religion). I don't believe in a Christian Jihad. You believe in a Christian Jihad, but all you can produce are examples that prove, really, a pretty small amount of extremism. That's the argument and where it stands.

[Alphabear 11]

Nice try Bware but im not trying to deflect anything, im trying to keep the argument focused on what your original statement wanted, prrof that christian jihadists exist. Your the one trying to change the argument now that you realise i can provide examples of christian jihad. I was never out to prove an equivilency between the size of christian jihadists and islamic ones. Of course there is a comparison between islamic and christian jihadists, just not in size. Why is it that you are unable to distinguish these.

 

violent jihad' include planning, preparing for, and engaging in, acts of physical violence, including murder, maiming, kidnapping, and hostage-taking.

And yes i know jihad is an islamic term meaning struggle, not 'holy war' as the media has attributed it to. Violent Jihad or 'Jihad of the sword,' is only a small aspect of the term jihad in islam.

 

What "collection"?? The only relevent examples you could produce were the few isolated abortion bombings from YEARS ago. You compare this (BY USE OF THE WORD "JIHAD") to the Islamic Jihad??

Yes but not in size.

 

Oh, and for the record, this statement, to the casual observer, sounds incredibly anti-Christian.

yes, you do have some anti-Christian prejudice (whether it be your "religion" or not Laughing).

I still fail to see how this makes me an anti-christian. So according to you i hate what i beleive in. The fact that you are trying to compare me stating that there is a smaller in comparison yet existant form of christian jihad to me hating christianity is insane.

 

ow exactly do you think I did this?

I already showed how you did that. I pointed out the change in your version of the argument between your two posts.

 

You believe in a Christian Jihad, but all you can produce are examples that prove, really, a pretty small amount of extremism. That's the argument and where it stands.

No I proved violent extremism in the name of religion with historical evidence. All you have done to really proved me wrong is attempted to change the argument into a size comparison and called me anti-christian

[BWare 0]

Alphabear, you can be painfully difficult to talk to because you are so SLOW to see some things. I've never seen anything quite like it.

 

Alright... now here we are in a semantics game. Let me clear the air again, because you sure as hell didn't get it the first time. What I supplied weren't "my own" definitions, but workable meanings for words that we're using that work with the context of the discussion. This is to stop morons from looking up dictionary.com and saying in all caps "OMG NO UR WRONG LOOK @ DEFINITION NUMBER 7 LOL!!!!11" Strict definitions in debates like this are meaningless, and I see that you remembered me mentioning that earlier, though you horribly missed the point. What I did here is lay out what kind of "Jihad" and "jihadist" we're talking about. If you disagree, then we're talking about two different things. Now, with this in mind, go reread my last post. Maybe it will stick this time.

 

Nice try Bware but im not trying to deflect anything, im trying to keep the argument focused on what your original statement wanted, prrof that christian jihadists exist. Your the one trying to change the argument now that you realise i can provide examples of christian jihad.

Alright, now again let me clear the air on THIS one. A Jihad is a very specific and very big thing. To use this term lightly is idiotic and irresponsible.

 

I was never out to prove an equivilency between the size of christian jihadists and islamic ones.

There is NO SUCH THING AS A CHRISTIAN JIHADIST you moron. Man, I am REALLY sick of this. Call them modern day "crusaders" if you like, but pulling a word from a different religion and sticking it on Christianity is nothing but an attempt to equate the two. You are a blind fool for not seeing this. If in fact you are a Christian (you sure can't tell), then this is pure idiocy talking. Knock it off. Jihadists are the ones raping and killing children, raiding and shooting up schools, suicide bombing women and children, and cutting the heads off of westerners with dull knives. Calling even the idiots from my religion by the dirty name "jihadist" is obscene and incredibly offensive. KNOCK IT OFF.

 

Of course there is a comparison between islamic and christian jihadists, just not in size. Why is it that you are unable to distinguish these.

-Extremists exist in EVERY DAMN RELIGION. Evidence of them is relatively small, isolated acts of violence. You've pointed this out (in VERY small numbers) coming from Christianity. Congrats, you proved an extremist minority. I can do that with ANY religion or group. What we've established here: Christian extremists exist. Got it? Be sure to pay attention.

-Jihadists come from ONE religion (that's WHERE THE NAME COMES FROM), and are involved in a Jihad, which is a struggle against an enemy of some sort ("my struggle" in some translations- NOT ALL). Evidence of this includes organized acts of violence on a relatively large scale with a very specific end in mind and run by a religious power with a large amount of influence. Any evidence of this in Christianity? Hell no.

 

And yes i know jihad is an islamic term meaning struggle, not 'holy war' as the media has attributed it to. Violent Jihad or 'Jihad of the sword,' is only a small aspect of the term jihad in islam.

Well it sure ended up pretty big on 9/11 and many other bloody days made so by those animals. Your nitpicking here is really obnoxious, you know that?

 

What "collection"?? The only relevent examples you could produce were the few isolated abortion bombings from YEARS ago. You compare this (BY USE OF THE WORD "JIHAD") to the Islamic Jihad??

Yes but not in size.

You are a fool. Period.

 

I still fail to see how this makes me an anti-christian. So according to you i hate what i beleive in. The fact that you are trying to compare me stating that there is a smaller in comparison yet existant form of christian jihad to me hating christianity is insane.

To so callously lump Christianity in with those Islamic monsters engaged in REAL jihad is unforgivable. I don't see how a Christian could ever, ever do that. But hey, again, maybe I'm not as "open-minded" as you or as loose with definitions. :roll:

 

I already showed how you did that. I pointed out the change in your version of the argument between your two posts.

The record is there to for anyone to see. I still don't see how that happened. It didn't.

 

No I proved violent extremism in the name of religion with historical evidence. All you have done to really proved me wrong is attempted to change the argument into a size comparison and called me anti-christian.

Your stance here IS rabidly anti-Christian. I can't speak for where you stand, but it sure as hell doesn't sound like a Christian talking. Also, size is only one factor here. The fact that you're using a MUSLIM word for Christian extremism is extremely pointed and, given the horrible attrocities commited recently IN the name of Jihad, incredibly upsetting to me, as a Christian. How you can't see where I'm coming from is absolutely unbelievable to me.

[Cygnus X-1 12]

You call yourself Christian, yet instead of trying to understand why fellow Christians did what they did, you take the first response "it was religiously motivated" didnt back it up with proof, then pasted that all over your argument and topped it off with the Jihad cherry. Dude, if you're really a Christian, you wouldnt be going around proclaiming that there is Christian Jihad. The fact that you posted that on the web is equivalent to you walking in the streets with a megaphone shouting at random people that Christianity is just as eveil as Islam when it comes to Jihad. May I be the first, or the 14,607th person to point it out, but Islam is still the only major world religion with a whole set of prayers, mediations, ceremonies, mindsets, and views based soley upon the killing of people of another religion. No where in Judaism is there an official "holy act of war" that can be initiated simply because some leader got pissed off at another religion one day. Christians in no way provoked Muslims into declaring Jihad, they did that on their own. They are the agressors. And no where in Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, or Buddhism is there a chapter devoted to "the holy killing of others who happen to be different than you". So openly saying that there is "Christian Jihad" is openly being a hypocrite. You do realise that Islamic leaders condone Jihad, whereas the Pope has said any Christian who enguages in similar acts against Muslims or any other peoples can consider themselves severed from God. Two completley opposite reactions by the leaders of Christianity and Islam. I suggest you take a look around. Look into the storm of the world, and get out of the eye. You're too used to living off somewhere else, because the conflict has never been on your doorstep or in your schools or neighborhoods. Wake up. Put on your thinking cap. Look at the bigger picture. By attempting to tear apart the views of Christianity from within, you set fellow Christians against you, and thus weaken us as a whole. People like you are doing the terrorists work for them.

[BWare 0]

Well said there cygnus, as always. All true.

[Doctor Destiny 41]

People like you are doing the terrorists work for them.

Isn't that a little extreme? That's a bold statement. One random guy on a gaming fansite is not going to shake the walls of your religion. At best, anyone who has half a brain would just ignore him and chalk it up to the misguided ramblings of another moron who plays into the media's hands.

While I'm not a Christian, I do not particularly enjoy hearing some putz refer to Christian stupidity as a Jihadist or whatever.

 

but Islam is still the only major world religion with a whole set of prayers, mediations, ceremonies, mindsets, and views based soley upon the killing of people of another religion.

No it isn't. That's an ignorant statement. NO religion is based upon the murder of anyone else. What extremists do is far from true to the religion they claim to follow... what these guys have is a mutated form of their initial belief, something so twisted and contorted that it doesn't even begin to make sense.

 

So openly saying that there is "Christian Jihad" is openly being a hypocrite.

I also hate glib use of the word hypocrite. You're misusing the word; what you're describing is sheer lunacy at its best... or worst, depending on how you look at it.

 

-Extremists exist in EVERY DAMN RELIGION.

You ever heard of a Buddhist extremist?

</jokes and such>

[Alphabear 11]

If you disagree, then we're talking about two different things.

Then yes that is the problem. Clearly there are many different definitions so their will be no logical result to the argument if we see them as different.

 

yet instead of trying to understand why fellow Christians did what they did, you take the first response "it was religiously motivated" didnt back it up with proof, then pasted that all over your argument and topped it off with the Jihad cherry.

 

How can you accuse me of not providing proof to my argument. I provided far more historical evidence to my argument and references than anyone else.

 

the fact that you posted that on the web is equivalent to you walking in the streets with a megaphone shouting at random people that Christianity is just as eveil as Islam when it comes to Jihad.

No i never said that once in my argument.

 

They are the agressors.

If you knew anything about islam you would know that if they are agressors it is not a jihad. If we are going to use the term jihad in its strictist sence where it can only apply to islam then use it properly.

 

Maybe this should just be locked if you guys cant keep this a religious debate and spend half your post calling me an anti-christian.

[Cygnus X-1 12]

People like you are doing the terrorists work for them.

Isn't that a little extreme? That's a bold statement. One random guy on a gaming fansite is not going to shake the walls of your religion. At best, anyone who has half a brain would just ignore him and chalk it up to the misguided ramblings of another moron who plays into the media's hands.

While I'm not a Christian, I do not particularly enjoy hearing some putz refer to Christian stupidity as a Jihadist or whatever.

 

but Islam is still the only major world religion with a whole set of prayers, mediations, ceremonies, mindsets, and views based soley upon the killing of people of another religion.

No it isn't. That's an ignorant statement. NO religion is based upon the murder of anyone else. What extremists do is far from true to the religion they claim to follow... what these guys have is a mutated form of their initial belief, something so twisted and contorted that it doesn't even begin to make sense.

 

So openly saying that there is "Christian Jihad" is openly being a hypocrite.

I also hate glib use of the word hypocrite. You're misusing the word; what you're describing is sheer lunacy at its best... or worst, depending on how you look at it.

 

-Extremists exist in EVERY DAMN RELIGION.

You ever heard of a Buddhist extremist?

</jokes and such>

 

1st - he is doing the terrorists work for them. Notice how I said "people like you". So its not just one looney on a game forum. Its millions of people with these ideas in their head spread throughout the world going on abotu how Christians are just as bad as Fanatical Muslims because we also commit Jihad. That mentality is what drives people apart. And if we are all fighting against each other, terrorists will just havfe a field day blowing people up.

 

2nd - I did not say that Islam was "based" off of that fact. I said they are the only major world religion that has an entire "thing" (for lack of a better term) that involved holy war against other religions.

 

3rd - Hmm you may have a point here. So I'll jsut go look up hypocrite and find a better use for the word. :wink:

 

4th - nice one.

 

If you knew anything about islam you would know that if they are agressors it is not a jihad. If we are going to use the term jihad in its strictist sence where it can only apply to islam then use it properly.

 

Well lets review recent history. Relative world peace was turned upside down when Islamic terrorists decided to fly planes into the WTC. No one provoked them. Therefore, they are the agresors. They are claiming Jihad, but you say that Jihad striking first is impossible. So they provoke us into war by blowing up our buildings, then declare Jihad as a "reaction" to our invasions? I dont know about you, but I would deffinetly say they are still the agressors. After all, they started it

[F15pilotX 4]

murderous anti-abortionists.

I'm sorry, but that has got to be the biggest oxymoron I've heard of

 

So, people trying to save kids' lives are murderers? :roll: If the parents can't take care of their kids, then they could find someone to adopt them instead of killing the baby because it's an inconvenience :|

[Cygnus X-1 12]

Or you know, dont get knocked up if you arent prepared to have a kid and take care of him/her.

[Doctor Destiny 41]

Yes, a girl can totally be prepared after she's raped. :roll:

There's more to the abortion debate THAN a girl getting pregnant. Often times, the kid would be better off not existing than living a life of silent agony. We already have enough unloved children in the world, wasting away in orphanages and 'homes'. Why should we bring in MORE? That just adds to the problem.

Besides, we're men, what the **** do we really know about this? Think about that too... we don't know what it's like.... plain and simple.

[BWare 0]

You ever heard of a Buddhist extremist?

HAHA! Okay, you got me. Good point .

 

How can you accuse me of not providing proof to my argument. I provided far more historical evidence to my argument and references than anyone else.

Sorry, but "OMG teh crusades!!1" doesn't exactly count as in depth historical understanding. Plus, your "references" were completely useless except for the abortion clinic bombings... which we all agree are extremism, but far from jihad. You're losing/have lost that argument.

 

If you knew anything about islam you would know that if they are agressors it is not a jihad. If we are going to use the term jihad in its strictist sence where it can only apply to islam then use it properly.

Oh, shut up already alpha. I'm sorry, but I'm really sick of your condescending arrogance. You're going to lecture us on Islam and the TRUE meaning of jihad now?? Well let me tell you this- those REAL Muslims on the planes on 9/11 sure as hell believed that they were in a jihad, and I'd say they were acting pretty aggressively. Now don't get me wrong- We are all in awe of your enlightened understanding of Islam, Jihad, and their true meanings, but please, for our sakes.... knock it off.

 

Maybe this should just be locked if you guys cant keep this a religious debate and spend half your post calling me an anti-christian.

The only person I could ever imagine who could, in all seriousness, compare a couple idiot Christian extremists to Islamic terrorists (BY USE OF THE WORD JIHAD- YES YOU ARE DOING IT), is incredibly anti-Christian. That's where I stand, and you haven't really done anything to prove me wrong on that. But yes, a lock would be good for you, especially considering the position you're in here. You're up against a wall on this jihad thing, and you sure as hell don't seem like you're backing down any time soon.

 

Yes, a girl can totally be prepared after she's raped. :roll:

It's common, but still incredibly misleading to use the extreme minority situation here to paint a picture of the norm. The vast majority of the time, rape is not the reason for abortion. It is almost ALWAYS a form of retroactive birth control, which is sick and wrong. Rape is a tragic thing and a very difficult situation, no question, but it is FAR from the norm. Let's not mischaracterize the situation here.

 

Cygnus was referring to the majority. In that, he was absolutely right.

 

There's more to the abortion debate THAN a girl getting pregnant. Often times, the kid would be better off not existing than living a life of silent agony. We already have enough unloved children in the world, wasting away in orphanages and 'homes'. Why should we bring in MORE? That just adds to the problem.

Man... this is a very cynical and sick way to view things. What about unborn babies with disorders? Should we slice them up to spare them lives of "silent agony" before they get a chance to be born? This is very twisted logic dude. Death is not the answer.

 

Besides, if there ARE too many kids in the world, as you suggest here, then the answer does NOT lie in killing them off. The source is the idiots breeding out of control. THAT'S the problem- not the kids. I don't know about you guys, but I'M sure happy that my parents didn't feel the need to spare me any "silent agony" by slicing me to pieces before I developed any ability to defend myslef.

 

Want some real silent agony? Click here.

http://www.silentscream.org/

 

Besides, we're men, what the **** do we really know about this? Think about that too... we don't know what it's like.... plain and simple.

So we can have no opinions on the matter? Again, this logic is faulty. One doesn't need an emotional understanding to know what's right or wrong. I can condemn murder and rape even though I've never been in the same position as a murderer or rapist.

This is exactly the same kind of thinking that gets murderers off the hook because of plees of insanity.

[Doctor Destiny 41]

It's common, but still incredibly misleading to use the extreme minority situation here to paint a picture of the norm. The vast majority of the time, rape is not the reason for abortion. It is almost ALWAYS a form of retroactive birth control, which is sick and wrong. Rape is a tragic thing and a very difficult situation, no question, but it is FAR from the norm. Let's not mischaracterize the situation here.

 

Cygnus was referring to the majority. In that, he was absolutely right.

I know what he meant but my point is still valid. Minority or not, it still occurs and, thus, is part of 'everything'.

 

Man... this is a very cynical and sick way to view things. What about unborn babies with disorders? Should we slice them up to spare them lives of "silent agony" before they get a chance to be born? This is very twisted logic dude. Death is not the answer.

You're thinking about this the WRONG WAY, you're not considering all the angles here. Place yourself in the kid's shoes. Be him for a minute. There are many kids that just want to die because nobody loves them. If I were in their position, I'd rather be dead too. You need to be realistic here; not everyone wants to live a crappy life.

Oh, that's so typical of you. You'd bring disorders into this too. Figures you'd do that but 'off' them too. Again, you have to BE that child to understand how HE feels. This is not about you feel, it's about HIM. Always remember that.

 

Besides, if there ARE too many kids in the world, as you suggest here, then the answer does NOT lie in killing them off. The source is the idiots breeding out of control. THAT'S the problem- not the kids. I don't know about you guys, but I'M sure happy that my parents didn't feel the need to spare me any "silent agony" by slicing me to pieces before I developed any ability to defend myslef.

I said too many unloved children in the world. You're right, the answer's not in killing them off. However, the answer does lie in not forcing the issue.

And don't call it slicing to pieces. That's not how it's done except in cases where the baby has actually developed, which, in that case, I'm against it.

 

So we can have no opinions on the matter? Again, this logic is faulty. One doesn't need an emotional understanding to know what's right or wrong. I can condemn murder and rape even though I've never been in the same position as a murderer or rapist.

Wait... what? Did you really just post that? Oh never mind... I'm not even going to say anything because the logic you're trying to use is so convoluted.

[Cygnus X-1 12]

BWare - I think you have some solid ground in an argument here. While yes, I was refering to the vast majority, Rape is still part of the whole picture. Personally, I do not support abortion of "rapespawn" however Fenring (Beowulf, w/e) does have a point about unloved children. There are a lot of them. However I seriously douobt many of them want to die....to know that, you'd have to BE one of them (ah-hem Beowulf :wink: )

 

The core of the problem is in the idiots getting drunk/stoned/wasted at parties and such then being taken advantage of, or taking advantage of others, or leaving themsleves open to rape ect. Self control would, quite naturally, solve just about ALL of mankind's problems, but as we all know...that isnt gona happen. So, on with the crusade against stupidity (I really seriously want to try the "remove the warning labels" thing.)

[BWare 0]

Beo, it's seriously sad that you're really advocating abortion because of the suicidal feelings of some people. It takes a very depressing and cynical view of the world to see the issue that way.

Plus, if I can't speak for all the hordes of depressed, suicidal kids that you seem to believe in (what a bleak view of the world you have!!), then why the hell can you?? Do you ACTUALLY think that killing kids before they have a chance to even consider their lives because they may have suicidal feelings in the future is a good way to go?

 

Plus, my point about developmental disorders IS typical because it IS valid. It's a very easy progression. If you have no problem offing kids who may have a less than great life (look to any great historical figure who rose from poverty to burn that sad argument to the ground), then why would this be such a terrible thing to you? Wouldn't it be better to spare them "lives of torture", as you said earlier?

Dismissing this point as typical without offering a reasonable counter (there is none) doesn't really do much for your argument here.

 

 

And, for the record, I'm with Cygnus in being against the abortion of, ahem, "rapespawn", as he so elegantly put it :wink:. "It's easy for me to say", yes I know, but I still have every intellectual right to hold this position. If someone close to me was raped and impregnated, it would take every bit of my moral fiber not to suggest that it be aborted, and I couldn't even IMAGINE the torment of a woman in that position. That is a VERY difficult position, no question... but I see abortion as murder, and I just don't believe that there is enough reason for murder here! Murder is a very, very difficult thing to justify, and unborn babies should have the right to life that we all enjoy.... no matter the mode of their conception. That horrible wrong would be made no better by another wrong.

[F15pilotX 4]

For me, I just don't see how someone could have no qualms getting paid to kill babies :? What twisted person would be willing to do that?

[Cygnus X-1 12]

Amnesty International recently made the move to go Pro-Choice. Now this is interesting, because AI is one of the biggest advocators of Human Rights. They say the mother has the right of choice. She does. But guess what else? The child has a right to LIFE. We say we should ban the death penalty because man should not "decide the ultimate fate of man", yet there are those who would give the unborn less than a ghost of a chance. Doesn't seem very fair does it? Of course, life isnt fair, but you know what? Aborting those children means they didnt get an unfair life. They got zilch. Nadda. Nuttin. ZERO.

[F15pilotX 4]

Mentioning that foundation made me think of the ACLU...what an oxymoronic name...American Civil Liberties Union

 

Of course, it's against people's rights to have a cross that's been standing at a veterans memorial in San Diego for 50 years stay there :roll:

 

More like the Anti Christian Liberal Union :roll: Seriously, that's about all they do

[Cygnus X-1 12]

One that was pulled here in STL at Jefferson Barracks

 

In the American Civil War, Missouri contributed soldiers and officers to both the Union and the Confederacy. Naturally, men from both were killed, and are burried at Jefferson Barracks. The Union graves have an American flag flying over them. The Confederate graves have a Confederate flag. Or rather, they did, until a bunch of Liberal 'tards had it removed. It never once was bigger than the American flag nor did it fly higher. And considering that Jefferson Barracks is run the by the United States Army, I think they knew what they were doing. SO of course, its a rights violation to recognize a piece of history, no matter how turmoiled it is.

[F15pilotX 4]

I wish we could gather all those "it's against our rights for you to do ____" people and send them to france :roll: