My hope is that this open, honest and civil dialogue about the issue of abortion will benefit people who struggle with this issue as they carefully consider and weigh both sides of this issue.

Original post: What issues are people basing their vote on? Social, economic or foreign policy? Which one is more important?

P1: Economic

Me: Seems like it should be economic. I think without a strong economy social matters won’t matter much and foreign policy would be unenforceable without a strong economy.

P2: Social. Without strong social policies, you can't have a strong economy.

Me: I guess it depends on what you mean by social issues, I can make the case that without strong ethics a strong economy is not possible. Sure you can pass all kinds of laws but if people can’t self-govern they then need to be governed. That has always led to impoverished conditions. If you go beyond ethics to specific contemporary issues, I would not agree. Not that the contemporary issues don’t have an ethical aspect. However, economically we were fine before those issues arose. That leads me to believe those issues don’t have a large influence on economics.

P3: I don't believe for one moment that Republicans spend less or have smaller government than Democrats. So, if we're just choosing between D and R, and both sides continue to send us deeper into the shitter economically, I vote based on social and foreign policy issues. If we were to throw in some third-party candidates, I would have to actually give some thought to who I would vote for, but I don't see any third-party candidates being a real contender under our current political setup. :(

Me: What type of foreign policy would you propose?

P2: My main social issues here are schools and abortion rights. I would argue that children who receive a good education are less likely to end up in prison or on government assistance, and pay more into taxes because they have higher paying jobs. So decent schools for everyone is a social issue that we should fund better than we do. Abortion rights are important, because if a woman doesn't have the right to determine whether she wants to have more children, then not only do we have a lot more unwanted children, many born into homes without adequate funds, we also have women who cannot go to school or get jobs, because they are home taking care of children. One could argue that that's contraception, not abortion, but I think that the same government that wants to deny one, wants to deny the other.

P3: Me? I align much more with the Libertarians when it comes to foreign policy.

Me: P2, sorry I don't see how abortion rights helps or hinders the economy. Maybe I am missing something there. I also don’t see schools as a social issue especially if you feel they need more funding. Education is important for Jobs I agree but if we think it is a funding issue then it is economic. If you think the schools teaching philosophy is wrong or needs to change then I would see it as a social issue.

P2: http://www.rooseveltinstitute.org/new-roosevelt/access-contraception-economic-issue

Me: P3, in theory as a libertarian I tend to agree, however, I don’t know if it is a tenable position anymore. If we retreat into our boarders and pretend the rest of the world does not exist what would happen? Would Iran wipe Israel off the face of the Earth? Would China continue to exploit 3rd world countries and drain natural resources from those countries? The issue about foreign policy is about stability in the world. Given history and human nature 100% peace and stability is impossible. Without a strong economy and some reasonably decent treatment of foreign countries there would be war around the world. Some may say the United States is imperialistic. That may be true but do you think if we weren’t no other country would fill the void? Pax Romana. This is the reason why Obama broke his promise to get our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. He couldn’t do it with creating massive instability in the region.

P2: http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/200604dickenssawhill.pdf

P3: Don, think of it like this: There are over a million abortions performed each year (a sad statistic, and proof that we need more reproductive education and cheap, easy access to all forms of birth control). If every one of those children had been born, many of them to poor families, that's just that many more children being taken care of by welfare, food stamps, and medicaid -- a huge drain on the economy. I think our best bet to end abortions is not to make them illegal (which does little to reduce the number of abortions performed, and greatly increases the number of dead women AND fetuses), but to make them unneeded through education, affordable health care, and adequate social programs.

Me: Not to poison the well but didn’t the Roosevelt’s fund Margret Sanger’s eugenics here in the United States?

P2: I'm not sure what that has to do with the discussion, though...

P3: Iraq and Afghanistan are a different beast now because we did so much to create instability in the region. However, I would like to see the US do a lot less invading and a lot more diplomacy wherever possible. I think there is a huge area between "police of the world" and "hunkering down ignoring the world."

Me: P2, your right, I just not sure I would consider them to be unbiased.

P3: *cough* you're *cough* :P

Me: P3 who should be the police of the world then? Or should we let Iran do what they want with Israel?

Me: P3 your idea of ending abortion by education does not seem to be rational. Do you really think education would end it? I don’t think it would. I think it is a stretch. The only real question is when is ok to take the life of an innocent human being. Is being poor a reason?

P3: There shouldn't be just one "police of the world" at all. It should be a group of nations, such as the UN or something similar.

Me: The UN has not troops or money. They have to borrow from us.

P3: Education alone? Not at all. You have to look at all the reasons a woman chooses to have an abortion and then find solutions to those. Just making it illegal accomplishes nothing other than killing women. If your goal is killing off the whores who opened their legs, then making it illegal is a great solution. If your goal is to protect ALL stages of life, then reducing abortion can only be brought about through comprehensive education policies, accessible and affordable health care (prenatal, psychiatric, etc.), and social programs.

Me: The UN has sanctions but often they don’t produce the desired results. Plus China and Russia veto any action.

Me: P3, you didn't answer my questions. When is ok to take the life of an innocent human being?

P3: I personally don't think it's ever okay. But I realize that not everyone shares my views on when a fetus is a human and when not. I think that's a decision that should be left between a woman and her doctor. At the same time, I think that we need to work hard to reduce the reasons women make that choice in the first place. Think about this practically. The way things are now, there are a lot of abortions. Making it illegal would have little impact on the number of abortions performed, but a great impact on the number of dead women. So approaching this from a legal standpoint, we need to keep it legal while at the same time working hard to reduce the need for abortions. THAT is how I can help to save innocent lives.

Me: If it is never ok then why would we allow it?

Me: Isn’t the point of law to protect the innocent?

P3: You're talking in ideals. I'm looking at reality. The reality of the situation is that making abortion illegal will just result in more dead women, with little affect on the number of dead fetuses. What has that accomplished, aside from MORE death? I feel like a broken record here. If you want to protect innocent unborn children, you have to reduce the CAUSE of abortions. You have to make women not WANT to get one and not feel so desperate that they NEED one. You need to educate women about their bodies so they don't get pregnant in the first place. You need to provide women (and men) with as much contraception as they need to prevent unwanted pregnancy. If your goal is to reduce the number of abortions, this is the only way. I value ALL life, and I'm not into slut-shaming. I want to be realistic and create laws that ACTUALLY protect the innocent by reducing the number of abortions.

Me: What proof do you have that there will be more dead woman? It sounds like you are saying it is ok to take an innocent human life if the perpetrator might hurt or kill them themself. If we apply that logic to other crimes we would not make bank robbery illegal because banks robbers might get hurt. We should really just focus on the cause of them being a bank robber instead of making it against the law. What is sounds like to me is it IS alright to take the life of an innocent human being if it what a person thinks is best for them.

P3: No, what I'm saying is that no one should get an abortion because I believe it's killing an innocent life. And in order to achieve the goal of no abortions, I support social programs, education, and access to healthcare that will lead to a great decrease in the number performed. Where are you getting that I think it's okay to take a life? I'm only arguing for what is PROVEN to work (see Europe) at reducing abortions. Again, if you want fewer abortions, you reduce the reasons that women seek them in the first place. If you just make them illegal, all you're saying is that women dying in alleys and from drinking lysol somehow deserve it (slut-shaming).

P3: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/12/4/gpr120402.html

Me: Does Europe still have abortions? Is one human life worth less than two? Maybe you won’t hurt or kill an innocent human being but other people would. Shouldn’t we do something to stop them from killing an innocent human being beyond just trying to low the numbers of killing?

P3: Many European countries have a much lower per-capita abortion rate than the US. Again, making abortion illegal will not stop it. How do you propose to make the abortion rate 0? Aside from waving a magic wand, the next best bet is to reduce the need for abortions by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies, and increasing the support for women who want to CTT but don't feel they can (emotionally, financially, etc).

Me: I am not saying that woman deserve to die (slut-shamming).

P3: That's what happens when abortions are illegal. Then you have two dead instead of one. I am "pro-life" in the sense that I place value on ALL life and want to decrease the number of deaths of all living people (born and unborn).

Me: Do we create laws and really think crime will be zero? No we don’t but it is not a reason not to have a law.

Me: Who will speak for the innocent? Who will stand up for their right to life? If you are “pro-life” why would you support the only one who has a choice of life and death for the other?

P3: I support reducing abortions in the only way that works. Again, if you want to save lives, you reduce the REASONS women get abortions. If you actually care about saving lives (women and unborn children), you would do everything in your power to decrease the deaths. Making abortion illegal is not the way you accomplish that. Hundreds of years of history shows this. If you want to bury your head in the sand and just hope that it will "go away" if you wish hard enough, be my guest. But it won't do squat. You have to educate and support these women if you want to reduce abortions (and deaths via back-alley and at-home abortions).

P3: I support the rights of the unborn by supporting policies that are proven to decrease abortions. It won't happen overnight, but perhaps in a few decades or a century, by continuing to support women and their reproductive health and knowledge, we can come to a point where it isn't needed any more.

Me: So it is ok to take the life of an innocent human being if we have not addressed the reasons why woman want to take the life of an innocent human being that they conceived?

P3: /sigh. Where on earth are you getting that from?

P3: If I thought it was "ok" why on earth would I be fighting for reducing the number of abortions?

P2: Personally, I believe that the issue in the abortion debate is whose rights are paramount, the unborn child's, or the mother's? The child's right to life vs. the mother's right to control her own body and reproduction. Innocent vs. guilty shouldn't be a part of it. To tell a fully grown and developed person that her rights are subservient to those of the child developing inside of her is to say that she is less than the child. If it were possible to beam that baby out, and put it in the uterus of a woman who wanted a child, we'd live in a perfect world. But we don't. I do agree with Sarah that education is key, and even more important is access to free or at least affordable contraception. When people have access to these things, abortion rates and teen pregnancies go down. But so many people focus on the teen pregnancy, they ignore a woman who has 3 kids already, her birth control fails, and she doesn't want another child. Should the family be forced to have an unwanted child? I don't think so. The only 100% effective form of birth control is abstinence. My great grandmother resorted to that after 6 pregnancies in 7 years. I don't think either she or her husband were too thrilled about that solution, but it's the only one that was available to them.

Me: I am not burying my head in the sand hundreds of years of history has shown that laws and punishments ARE a deterrent. Plus your argument keeps coming around to the idea that it is ok to take the life of an innocent human being because it is a practical way to reduce abortions. Maybe the keep word is innocent. An INNOCENT human life is killed.

Me: I am not saying we should not do what we can to give woman reasons not to have abortions or prevent pregnancy. Why not have a law as well? A law to protect the innocent.

P3: Where did I say that it's okay to take a life because it's a way to reduce abortions? I don't believe those words have ever come from my fingers. I said that the way to reduce abortions is to educate, empower, and support women so that there is no NEED for abortions. Where are you getting that I think it's all fine and dandy to get an abortion? Am I being misunderstood? I cannot even comprehend where you are getting that.

P3: Because reality, history, and evidence suggest that just making abortion illegal across the board only has a small affect on the number of abortions, while having a huge affect on the number of dead women. If you're cool with more death, that's fine. I, on the other hand, would like to reduce the death.

Me: P2, how do we determine whose rights are paramount? Who should determine that? So you agree the child has rights? And the mothers right to… (whatever reason she comes up with) over rides the child’s right to life?

Me: P3, I am just following your conclusions to their logical ends. If there is no excuse for taking the life of an innocent human being why do you keep saying there is a reason mainly the possibility the mother might harm herself in an illegal abortion? So it is OK in your worldview for someone else to take the life of an innocent human being.

P2: Yes. A fully formed human being who can survive on her own has rights that override those of an unborn child. That is how we determine whose rights are paramount. If there were a way to separate them, that would be awesome. But we can't, so someone has to decide. You decide the rights of the child are more important than the rights of the mother. I disagree.

Me: P2, what about a child of 6 months? Does the mother have the right to take that life? It is not fully formed and can't live on its own either.

Me: P2, I do not think that any all rights are equal. Do you? I do think the right to life is greater than the right to more disposable income. Mother’s or child’s right to life should be equal unless we want to define a child as something less than human.

P3: That is not at all the logical end to my argument. My point is that we need to reduce the number of abortions. Period. Full stop. Now, looking at this objectively, whether or not abortion remains legal or illegal has little affect on the rate of abortions performed. By saying that I wish them to remain legal is NOT saying that I support them or think it's okay to have one. I just know, from facts and research, that illegal = more deaths, while legal = fewer deaths. Looking at it from an "all life is sacred" point of view, I support the side the results in the fewest deaths. Again, that does not mean I like abortions or think they are okay. In fact, I support policies that would actually have an affect on reducing, and possibly eventually ending, abortions. Isn't that the goal we all have? Why choose a method that will never get us to our goal, when there is one that can and will?

P2: No, not a baby that has been born. The mother's right to her body is no longer the issue. When the baby is 6 months old, then the child's right to life doesn't come into direct conflict with the mother's rights.

Me: P3, if that is true why not do both? Education and giving woman reasons not to get pregnant and a law? Wouldn’t that give us the best results?

P2: Disposable income? What about being able to feed the children you have first? What about being able to attend college and work? What about not being forced to go through pregnancy and childbirth? You make it sound like a flippant decision that loose women make lightly. I would disagree, and I think that above all, a woman has the right to decide if she is going to go through all of that or not. No matter her reasons, be they noble or foolish.

Me: P2, why does or how does the location of a child increase or decrease the Child’s right to life? This is actually interesting article on this topic http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411 Basically The Journal of Medical Ethics has an article that states that the reason given for an abortion are no different than the arguments for after-birth abortions.

P3: As it stands right now, making it illegal would do more harm than good. But if we ever get to the point where all women have the financial and mental support to carry a pregnancy to term, and pregnancy was never a life-threatening condition, I might be able to get behind that. I just think that's still a long way off. In the meantime, I am coming at this from a purely practical perspective: the goal is fewer deaths, so I support the policies that achieve that result. Period.

P2: I think that's a ridiculous argument, actually. The mother has the right to decide whether she wants to have a baby or not. The state should not be able to decide that for her. The very real right to life of the baby are not made less real, it's just that the very real right of the mother are in direct opposition. The right of the mother to not have children is not in opposition to her child's right to life once it is born. Then she can put it up for adoption, have it raised by her parents (if they're willing), etc. It is ONLY when the child is still within her body, and there is NO way for both people's rights to be honored, that, sadly, hers take precedence.

Me: P2, I don’t know what mothers are make flippant decisions. I don’t know what they are thinking, but I can’t conceive of a reason why a mother should be able to kill her child. Nor do I think it is good policy of the government to make umpteen exceptions for a mother to take the life of her child.

P2: Well, I'll agree that exceptions are trying to have it both ways. If it's murder when you conceived consensually, it's still murder when rape or incest were the cause. But I do think, if a mother does not want to have a child, she should not be forced to do so.

Me: P2, but why does the location matter? You said it is her child. Is it an innocent life? We shouldn’t protect an innocent life simple based upon its location. Am I missing something?

P2: Yes. You are missing that the child's right to life is in direct opposition to the mother's right to her own body and future. Period. They are both very valid rights. It's a tragic situation. But they cannot, CAN NOT, both be satisfied. If she does not want to give birth, and the baby wants to be born, there is no way for them both to have their rights. Once the baby is out, there are many, many ways for them both to have their rights.

Me: P3, I think you are making my point, you are not pro-life. You are equivocating the term to mean something less than someone who is pro-life. You do think it is ok to take the life of an innocent human so long as it reduces the number of deaths. So, if we apply that logic we should have just given Germans more reasons not to kill Jews instead of stopping them with force? Because that would have worked. BTW lots of American men and woman died to protect the Jews right to life.

Me: P2, “child's right to life is in direct opposition to the mother's right to her own body and future.” I get that, I just don’t see the mother’s right to her body or future is greater than the life of her child. Being a parent is about sacrifice. I should ask what you mean buy future. Is that a nice way to wrap what is essential greed with a nice bow? I mean more disposable income over the life of another child, that seems selfish and greed based to me. I am not saying that all woman have that as a reason but I think greed will account for most of them. It is not mother’s right to life and her child’s right to life it is a mothers “future” verse the life of her child. I hate to call it greed because that sounds terrible on the mother’s part but I really seems to be correct.

P2: I don't think it's greed to want to have control over your own life, your own body, and your own reproduction. Perhaps you do. Her future? By that I mean, she doesn't want (more) children. (I put more in parenthesis because some women who have abortions already have children, others do not, and I want to acknowledge both possibilities.) I don't think it's greed to want to have some control over your life and your future. Being a parent is indeed about sacrifice. What if you do not want that sacrifice? What if you do not want to be a parent? You have that right. It's a complicated, sticky issue. But to use the term 'innocent' every time you talk about the child, and the term 'greed' when you talk about the mother, brings a level of blame into it that I do not think belongs here. There is no need to blame a woman for getting pregnant, which is a pretty bow for what I'm hearing. But when it comes down to it, at a very base level, I think that a woman's greed when it comes to how she is going to live her own life takes precedent over the right of her unborn child to be born. Anything we can do to make abortions less common is a good thing, short of denying women the right to have control over their bodies and their reproductive life.

Me: P2, I don’t have problems with woman having control over their lives, bodies or reproductive provided it does not take the life of an innocent child. The reasons you gave above all seem to be selfish (a border and better term than greed). You are trying to change the terms you use to make it sound better. “Reproductive life” sounds better than killing her “child”. You are the one who call it a child. That’s call it what it is and stop trying to whitewash what we are talking about. I think a child’s right to life supersedes any right of the mother short of the mother’s right to life.

P2: So we agree that it's a matter of rights. We just disagree about whose rights are paramount. I think it's the mother's rights, you think it's the child's. That's fine. So, to your original question, what issue is most important to you? This discussion was mainly about social issues, but I'm not sure you ever had the chance to say what was most important to you. Social, economic, or foreign?

P2 (And I don't think I've whitewashed anything...I called it a child, I said I think that exceptions are just politics. I think ending a life is tragic. But I think forcing a woman to carry an unwanted child to term and go through labor is tragic as well.)

Me: I am grateful that you are so candid about your position. I am just surprised that you don’t see something wrong with the idea that the rights of some people supersede the right to life to an innocent child. I appreciate your stance, but I feel it is important that someone stand up for those innocent children that cannot exercise their rights.

Me: I don’t think the killing of a child as tragic, I think it is wrong or even evil. Life is full of choices and all choices have consequences. Taking the life of a child should not be an alternative to avoid the consequences of our choices.

P2: What about rape and incest, where the consequences have no relation to the mother's choice? I've said what I think, but you're saying that abortion is an alternative to consequences of choices.

P2: And I feel very strongly about this issue, and I do appreciate your passion towards your view. I wish there were a way to bring our views in line with each other. Alas, it can not be. Women cannot have the full right to control their bodies if abortion is illegal. The lives of unborn children cannot have the full right to be born if women have the right to control their bodies. That's the tragic part, to me, that there is truly no good answer. At the end of it all, I am absolutely unwilling to say that a woman who has had an abortion is evil.

Me: I was wondering why that had not come up yet. Fist this is a logical fallacy taking a minority event as justification for all. Logic issues aside. Do you think it right to punish a child for the crimes of the father?

P2: I didn't bring it up because I don't think it's a real issue. As I said before, I think it's politics. But you brought the matter of choices, and consequences of those choices up, so I wondered what you felt.

Me: So, do you think it right to punish a child for the crimes of the father?

Me: P2, you are right everyone can’t have every right because it will infringe on the rights of others. Our country was founded on the principle that you have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness provided it does not infringe on the right s of others. This is the essence of the libertarian platform. The child’s rights are being infringed. This is the most basic of all rights and it can’t be superseded otherwise all other rights are meaningless. If you could see that it is the most basic and necessary right I think you would see that it should not be superseded.

P2: I see your point, but I disagree with your conclusions. I was raised in a libertarian, pro-choice household. The majority of libertarians are pro choice, because they value individual rights. I don't consider myself libertarian any more, and haven't for a long time. But I cut my teeth on the principles of it, and I understand it. I'm not saying you don't, just that I do understand the issues and the politics involved. Thanks for a spirited discussion tonight, it's been a lot more reasoned than that on the TV, that's for sure. :)

Me: I know many Libertarians live a contradiction. They have not followed their stated ideals to their logical conclusion.

P2: Well, your interpretation of the logical conclusion. Not theirs. I don't think all logical conclusions are the same.

Me: Without the right to life no other right matter. We can just kill people and they never have an opportunity to practice any other right. What is tragic is there is a war against women, especially the unborn women who never get any rights.

Me: Please tell me how my logical conclusion is wrong. I am a rational person, I can handle it. If libertarians believe that we have the right to do as we wish provided we don’t infringe upon the rights of others, how does the pro-life position not follow? The only way that follows is if all rights are viewed as equal. However, other than in this discussion I have never had anyone make the claim that the right to buy a car supersedes the right of a life. Or a less drastic example of the right to free speech supersedes the right to life. In fact, our government recognizes you don’t have the right to shout “fire” in a crowded theater because someone might get hurt or killed. In other words, their right to life and safety (Basic human needs) supersedes the free speech rights of the individual yelling “fire”.

Me: To clarify and put it as plainly as possible. If the unborn is not a human person, no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a child, no justification for abortion is adequate.

P2: I didn't say your logical conclusion was wrong, so much as that it does not agree with mine or that of the pro-choice libertarians. I don't think anyone said the right to buy a car, or the right to free speech, superseded the right to life, though certainly people have died for the right to free speech, as you well know, as you have served our country in the military, which I have not. I do think you're rational and can handle it, I just think that one person's logical conclusion is not the same as another person's. In my opinion, the right to liberty over my own body supersedes the right of the UNBORN child. A woman should not be forced to carry a life inside of her that she does not want. That is the argument. The right to life of the unborn child does NOT supersede the woman's right to freedom. The definition of unborn child = person is mostly semantics, and I don't like to get pulled into that argument, because I can see both sides. That unborn child, fetus, embryo, would be a person if they were allowed to be born, and to pretend otherwise is fallacious. But to say that the unborn child has the same rights as the woman carrying it is wrong. I understand that you do not agree on this, but that is how I feel.

Me: I don’t think logic is not the issue it is the presuppositions that are different. Logic is not opinion based where presuppositions are. Logic is just the tool.

Me: I think we are going back in a circle now, but maybe we did not explore the depth of this issue. I don’t see the location of the child as an adequate justification for taking the life of a child. Giubilini and Minerva make a convincing argument that any argument for abortion is valid for what they call “after birth abortion”. Their argument is valid and logically flows even if it is disturbing. I don’t see a difference of location to be compelling and neither do they. So why is it different for you?

P2: See, we're never going to agree. You do not see the location of the child as being the crux of the issue, and I see it as the entire issue. I disagree with their argument and find it silly. It is different because a woman is being forced to carry a life form inside of her body that she does. not. want. That's liberty. That's privacy. That is the entire issue.

P4: Interesting discussion. So if a baby is aborted at 7 months it does not have the right to life. But if it is born prematurely at 7 months it does? Isn't that rather arbitrary?

P2: Not arbitrary. At 7 months pregnancy, it is still inside the mother, and her rights take precedent. If it is born, her rights are no longer infringed by the baby's rights. But abortions of 7 month old fetuses are extremely rare, and generally involve cases when the baby would not survive, or the mother would not survive, or both. They are not generally done because a woman has decided that she doesn't want to have a baby.

P4: The rarity of something is irrelevant to whether it is right or wrong. The same sustainable baby still lives or dies at the whim of the mother for any reason. By definition - arbitrary. And what I get from this discussion is that women get abortions not because of what is happening inside their bodies but of the consequences of what happens outside their bodies i.e.being responsible for the baby. So the right being claimed is not really about their bodies but about the ability to decide whether to be a mother or not. Which I think is a different discussion.

Me: P2, it has gone from a child to a “life form" now. Either way it is a distinct life form or human being than the mother. It is not the mothers body that is being killed it is a child. This is a biological fact.

Me: P2, so let me see if I can sum up your position. It is ok for a mother to take the life of her child only when it is in her uterus. Any other time or place is wrong. Because any right of the mother outweighs the life of her child only in utero. After the child is born the right of the child to life supersedes all of the mother’s rights. Is that your position?

P2: Yes, that is my position.

Me: It seems in your position a great amount of rights transfer only after birth. The child has no rights until it is born?

P2: Not if the child's rights are in violation with the mother's. It's not that I don't think the child has any rights...it's that when the choice has to be made between hers and the baby's, hers take precedence.

Me: What kinds of rights does the unborn child have then?

Me: What I don’t get is how you or anyone justifies that birth is the critical factor. Who’s to say Giubilini and Minerva are wrong? You pick birth they pick a few months after and Alex Sanger even longer after birth. All three use the same arguments. So picking the time i.e. birth, seems arbitrary to me. How are your arguments different from Giubilini and Minerva or Sanger?

P2: Sigh. Can we agree to disagree here? It seems to me like you are a man who really enjoys political arguments, and I am a woman who really, really does not. I have tried to make my point, which is that I think the woman has rights while she is carrying the baby. Her rights come first. That is all. Giubilini and Minerva are arguing a stupid point, trying to trap people who believe in a woman's right to choose into saying that abortion is murder, and therefore, murder of anyone who is dependent upon them is fine. And how is my arguing that a woman has the right to control her body the same as someone arguing that it's ok to kill a 6 month old baby? It's not the same at all. The critical factor is, it's HER BODY, HER CHOICE.

Me: P2, I think we agree that we disagree. BTW I appreciate your taking the time to discuss this frankly and honestly without malice. I like to discuss issues because that is how we learn and avoid counterproductive conflicts. I would like to add one final point if I could. Your last statement is just simple not accurate. It is not HER BODY that is the issue here, it is the CHILD’S BODY that is. Second, her choice for what? Choice sounds so noble and liberty affirming. Well until you realize the CHOCIE is to take the life of an INNOCENT CHILD. HER CHOICE is meaningless without what the CHOICE is really about. This becomes a misleading shell game of words. I guess you are right we will just disagree, hopefully someone else finds these posts helpful as they carefully consider and weigh both side of this issue.

Me: “Slavery consists in being subject to the will of another…” Thomas Paine

A photo posted on facebook showing gay activists hold a sign that says, “With the divorce rate as 50% worry about your own marriage.”

What follows is the comments to this post. Notice Deuteronomy 22:28–29 comes up in the discussion.

The Poster commented:

For the life of me, I cannot understand this argument. The argument seems to go:
A: A lot of marriages end unhappily therefore:
B: The definition of marriage ought to be altered so as to include relationships which do not involve a wife.
Sort of like the argument, "Some people abandon their dogs or abuse them. Therefore, nobody should object to the definition of "dog" being altered such that Burmese pythons are included as dogs." I mite protest "there is absolutely no way pythons are dogs"

Me

If 50% of marriages end in devoice, why do they want to get married? Do they like paying lawyer’s fees? Dissolutions of same-sex relationship are actually higher than 50%.

Person 1

"Nobody has the right to properly define any sort of contract between two people unless they're part of that contract"
More libertarian nonsense. What about unconscionable contracts? What about when intense pressure has been exerted? What about contracts with minors?

What about orphaned or abandoned children whose parents have no will about them?

Me

Nothing stops same-sex people from having a marriage. The only laws in place simply do not recognize them. However, some states recognize civil unions. In short there is nothing to legalize, they can do it now if they want. The real agenda is force religious and conservatives into acceptance of their lifestyle and to bring lawsuits because they want it defined as a civil right. Pro-gay groups have already filed lawsuits against Churches and in Canada speaking at Church, as if it is a sin, is considered a hate crime. Good bye 1st amendment and hello to the fashionable police state.

BTW the government does not recognize marriages between siblings, 1st cousins, adults and minors, mothers or fathers and their children, or marriages of more than two people. All the arguments for same-sex marriage apply equally to these other forms of marriage as well. Should we allow them too?

Person 1

I'm about to throw in the towel and say it doesn't matter. To steal from Edward Peters's quip on a related subject, flawed arguments for gay marriage persist, perhaps because good arguments don't exist. The premises they are built on are so deeply ingrained and so far out of whack it's pulling teeth just to have a discussion on the subject. #nohopeformankind

Person 2

While the far-left gay marriage crusaders certainly do want to force societal acceptance of not just their lifestyle, but their marriages, more reasonable gay marriage advocates think it's reasonable for two consenting adults to enter into any contract, provided it isn't done through coercion, wasn't reached while one or both parties was intoxicated, or a slew of other things that apply to literally every other contract. I don't really think churches should be forced to accept gay marriages, but I think the government should recognize it like any other contract-- one that it will enforce.

Person 3

Any contract is between two consenting parties, and, with individuals, two persons which have reached an age of consent, and that consent must be proven to be authentic, and not obtained by force or threat of force/repercussions. If a party wishes to prove, in a court, that their consent was gained after use of force or threat of force, then the contract is void.

As to relations between relatives, I think that it's unethical just because, in most situations where it occurs with siblings or with parents/spawn, it was obtained through force, established by threat of force and maintained by threat of force, or is replete with the same psychological guilt/shame games employed by salesmen, cult missionaries, etc, and is questionable for that purpose.
And, so, those are also void.

But, I can't find any religious justification for any ban on inbreeding, pedophilia, or cousin-banging... Especially not in the Book of Genesis, or anywhere in the Bible that forms a major part of Christian theology as a whole.

Person 4

Most of the talk against gays comes from the part of the Bible that also teaches us not to get tattoos, not to let women on their periods back into the house, not to eat pork and other stuff. As soon as you stop doing all of these things, we can concentrate on what two adults want to do to prove their love.

Me

You can find prohibitions in the Bible. The principles are all there plus Jesus outlines in Matthew 19 God's view on marriage which is strictly one man, one woman, for life. In addition, for the entire 2000 years of church history this traditional marriage has been upheld, uncontested I might add. Judaism before and after has upheld the same view as well, plus every other culture and religion. Even the homosexual Spartans still kept marriage between a man and a woman. If religion and culture do not provide enough reason just remember that any same-sex relationships are evolutionary dead ends. Why should the government now overturn all that? For what 2% of the population at the most? Just so they can force their lifestyle on everyone. Zach Wahls even betrayed his true intentions in his speech when he said the government cannot define his family. A family which, by the way, he already had. The government didn’t stop his mothers from having a family. So why does he want the government to recognize it, especially since in his own words the government can’t define his family?

Traditional marriage has not been done for a long period of time for illogical reasons. Don’t misrepresent people’s position. Marriage is the solid foundation for any society. It was done to protect children, to acclimate children to people of both sexes while they are being raised in their formative years and it was to procreate and create the next generation. PS I am not saying gays can’t have whatever they want to call a family as a family.

Person 2

What makes a religious justification for opposing gay marriage different than a religious justification from doing something else that's way worse and prescribed in the Bible, like marrying rape victims? As Santorum said (rather eloquently) in his opposition to gay marriage (the only halfway intellectual one I've ever heard), if gay marriage advocates are going to say gay marriage is OK using the "people who love eachother" argument, they have to show why gay people loving eachother is different from siblings loving eachother or a group of people loving eachother; likewise, if you use a religious justification for opposing gay marriage, you have to show why the opposition to gay marriage is an OK thing to pull from the Bible, but Deuteronomy 22:28–29 isn't.

The government shouldn't be in the business of dealing with evolutionary dead-ends. If it was, it'd be totally legit to abort kids with Tay-Sachs without the more serious ethical discussion that it deserves, not to mention a series of other problems, mostly abortion-related. The government even touching what makes something evolutionarily sound with a 10 foot pole is a nice recipe for tyrannical government, something that both conservatives and liberals ostensibly agree is not a good thing.
Because something has been done for a long time is a completely illogical reason to continue doing it (though it tends to be the most consistent conservative refrain with regards to social issues). I'm sure I don't have to give examples.

Person 5

Marriage is not a contract. It is supposed to be a covenant. Contracts are based on distrust.

Me

Actually, I don't have to justify a Bible passage that is taken out of context.

Person 2

How about Deuteronomy 22:22. That's actually completely *in* context. I mean, I've read the Bible, and I do my best not to bloviate about it absent any kind of knowledge. Thankfully, I can find the full text of the King James online, and I can also read it in original Greek. Please, tell me how I took Deuteronomy 22 out of context. It seems pretty clear in context to me.

Person 3

Let's compare this to the duck test: If it looks like a family, and it acts like a family, and it lives like a family, then it's probably a family. And if it's probably a family, they might as well receive the same legal recognition as a family, and the same tax breaks.
If it looks like a marriage, or could be a marriage by common-law, or could even be a religious marriage depending on what religion you're a part of, then it might as well be a marriage.

Also, Donald... It's a book whereupon a series of sects and new religious movements have been formed based on differing interpretation. You don't have to justify any Bible passage that you feel is taken out of context, because, in the eyes of someone else, they don't always feel the need to interpret the text in the same manner you've been interpreting it in.

Person 2

All's I'm saying is that not everything in the Bible is defensible. If you're going to take it as a justification for doing something, you are, by logic, required to disambiguate it from other acts that rely solely upon the same justification. That requires using more logic, not avoiding the actual issue by calling my verse as being taken out of context.

Me

Ok Deuteronomy is not originally in Greek. Deuteronomy was a civil code for Israel that was a theocracy. Are we Israel? Are we a theocracy? Is it 3500 years ago? NO, NO. NO. Context.

Person 3, there is a science to interpreting the text. We have to go back to the author’s original intent and take the text in context. What you propose is that meaning comes from the hearer and not the speaker. This relativistic understanding decays to the point that I can interpret your post as your intent to give me one million dollars.

Person 3, Tax breaks? What tax breaks? There has actually a marriage penalty tax that is scheduled to return in 2013.

Person 2

Derp, yeah it's in Hebrew. I meant the New Testament in Greek.
"Are we Israel? Are we a theocracy? Is it [2000] years ago? NO, NO. NO. Context."
I mean...unless you're referring to Rome with regards to context.
EDIT: But I'm glad you used that choice of response-- that's kind of what I was trying to get at.

Me

Deuteronomy was written by Moses 3500 years ago. Jesus explains that God original intend was for one man and one woman for life. He even says God made provision for divorce in the law, to protect woman, because people were doing it anyway. Same thing with marriage of rape victim. It was not to promote it but as any law goes it was to deter and punish. You rape someone you are going to have to support her for the rest of your life. Deterrent and punishment. Context yet again.

Person 2

Are you taking the New Testament, then, to be more applicable due to it's creation either between 0-32 AD or 325 AD (Council of Nicea)? I guess the base question at play here is: If the Old Testament is less applicable due to its historic context, then what religious sources (other than general "tradition") do you use to bolster your argument against gay marriage?

Me

Provisions in the law to protect woman and punish and deter wrong doers does not mean God wanted or condoned such behavior. This is evidenced by Jesus explanation of Old Testament divorce in Matthew 19. In context Jesus explains in Matthew 19 that the original and only intent God had for marriage and he gets that from Genesis. God’s intent, in context of the Bible as a whole and explained to us by Jesus in Matthew 19 and understood by the church for 2000 years. Not to mention all the other logical reasons they had during that time as well.

It is all applicable in context. Jesus was kind enough to explain it as well.

Person 6

Dang...love who ever you want. Just don't try to force the world to approve of your choices.

Me

They can love who they want and I will defend their right to do so. I don’t think that myself or the State should be involved in their relationship. The state should neither deny nor endorse same-sex marriage. Personally, I will not be bullied into calling the sin homosexuality something it is not. Truth is not built on consensus or popularity. At the same time, as a Christian, I will love homosexuals in accordance to 1 Corinthians 13. Calling an action sin and still loving the sinner is not contradictory. In fact, if I truly do love them I will not hold back vital information.

Person 7

I don't think marriages ending unhappily has anything to do with wanted equal rights.
Also marriage is not definitionally between one man and one woman. That's silly and is made up.

Me

What do you mean? They do have equal rights! They can marry anyone they want and live as a family. They have the exact same rights that I do. For example I can’t marry my first cousin and neither can they. The only laws out there are by states that have passed laws prohibiting states from recognizing same-sex marriage. Nothing in any law stops them from entering into a contract or civil union etc.

It is funny how everyone wants to call it a civil rights issue. I guess they hope people don’t actually think about it. I admit many people are intimidated by it because it implies bigotry or intolerance. It is a great way for people to feel like they have won an argument, however, it is intellectually shallow.

Same-sex Marriage Debate on Facebook

This is the discussion I had with Matt (not his or her real name) on Facebook on the issue of same-sex marriage. Matt had commented on a meme (info graphic that ridicules) that mischaracterized the Christian perspective and had commented that Christians had been PWND (owned). What follows is our discussion minus the other random comments from others not invested in the discussion.

My Comment:
“I have to admit it is a good rhetorical strategy to take things out of context and misrepresent the other view. Although I would not say anyone is PWND simply with empty rhetoric.”

Matt’s Comment:
“@Donald - As an honest, non-rhetorical question, what's being taken out of context here? The root of this photo (and similar items like it) seems to be that some fundamentalist Christians are selectively choosing what parts of scripture they will ignore, and which parts they will not. When I was growing up my family was stricter than most (we would not eat anything with cloven hoofs or shells, and let's just say that the sunset to sunset observation of the Sabbath was rough on the kids) but we never made our womenfolk cover their heads, and we never stoned anyone for adultery. In the US today it is not uncommon for politicians and religious leaders to use the Bible as a justification for denying rights and legal protection to homosexuals. If this part of the Bible is appropriate for modern times, what makes it different from the parts which those same politicians and religious leaders choose to ignore?”

My Reply:
“@Matt - I am not a Christina Fundamentalist nor do I play one on TV, so I really can’t speak for them. However, I see that context is the problem. People take texts from the Bible out of context and assume either that Christians support crazy ideas like those portrayed by graphics like this or they are ignoring certain texts. Careful Christian scholars are not selectively ignoring passages in the Bible, they are taking into account the broader context. (e.g. historical, socio-political, geographical, cultural, linguistic / grammatical, theological, and broader biblical context). My point is the graphic misrepresent their position, thereby creating a straw man they can call a hypocrite. (I didn’t even mentioning the problems with the first post or the logical contradictions in the reply. Note that there are problems on both sides. I even take issues with the original post.)

The Christian fundamentalist may very well be wrong, but this line of shallow rhetoric only deepens the divide. I think a better and more reasonable argument for replier can be made from the framework of the fundamentalist position without the need for emotional appeals. This would then create meaningful dialogue instead of hostility. Of course people on both sides of the debate would have to do their homework and discuss the issues with mutual respect and tolerance. (Note: tolerance means respecting someone’s opinion without acceptance; to disagree without being disagreeable) I guess it is easier to cast the proverbial stone then to take time to understand the complexities of the issue from both sides.

Unfortunately, well thought out ideas cannot fit into a sound bite and most people can’t focus long enough or are unwilling to spend the time to understand them. Obviously if you have read this far, then this would not be a criticism of you (the reader). ;-)
Coincidentally, I often call BS on both sides. Either the reaction is “don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up” or it is the far better “yes we need more civil discourse on this issue.”

To PWN someone with an emotional argument or attacking a straw man is not really a great victory. To defeating their arguments with sound reasons may not be as ostentatious as with empty rhetoric, but it is much more intellectually satisfying.”

Matt:
“Well said, and thank you for the thoughtful response. I would love to see deeper and more meaningful discourse all around here. When I look at the public discourse I see the conversation shown here on a micro scale, simply expanded to the macro scale. I have homosexual friends who have been in loving, committed relationships for longer than my wife and I have (we've been together for 20 years, and married for 16) and I have seen those friends suffer and struggle because our laws deny them the benefits and protections that my wife and I have been able to take for granted. When I see Christian scripture used to justify this inequality and discrimination, it baffles, saddens and angers me.

I'm interested in your take on whether "careful Christian scholars" are those who want to perpetuate the status quo. My interpretation is that the strictures against homosexuality are made as invalid by changes in the factors you list as are the dietary and/or fashion strictures, but I don't claim to be either careful or a scholar.”

Me:
We are in agreement, we need more thoughtful discourse. I would say that a carful Christian scholar is one that reads the Bible applies the appropriate interpretation methodology (hermeneutics) and from there derives their theology. What can happen is the theology is presupposed and applied to the text. This would then take passages out of context.

I can’t say that a carful Christian scholar will not see homosexuality as morally wrong. There are those who do debate this within the Church. Some see it as morally wrong and others that it is no different from the dietary restrictions and cleanliness laws of the Old Testament that were later removed in the New. (I want to be careful to limit this to a Christian view of the Old Testament; a Jewish view would be quite different.) I don’t know that I am careful enough to make a theologically sound argument either way.

What I can say is this, that some Christians treat homosexuality as the greatest of all abominations. I would argue that they are wrong (this would be more of an in-house debate between Christians). Even if it is morally wrong there is a much more complex issue at hand.

1. What role should Christian’s or anyone else’s moralities play in a participative government in a pluralistic society?
2. Whose morality should be used as the basis for law? Many people don’t know that not only can you legislate morality but it is actually the only thing you can legislate.
3. How do we protect people’s right to practice their beliefs? Don’t force your beliefs on me but I am going to force mine on you.
4. What role does and should the government play in marriage? Why have the Government involved at all?
5. Is this a civil rights issue? The government sees marriage is a licensed privilege not a right even in current legal marriages. This then gets into the issue of genetics, polygamy etc…
6. Domestic partnerships and equivalency
7. For the Christians, if government recognizes the marriage does that mean God has too or does?

The list goes on. I hope my point is clear that it is much more complex than most people get.

If we had to distill it down to one issue I would say the issue come down to acceptance. If you boil it all down to the real reasons I think homosexuals want acceptance and they won’t feel accepted until everyone accepts them the way they want to be accepted. (Good luck with that emotional desire.) I think everything else is smoke and mirrors for what is seen as a good cause. I admit I could be wrong. On the other side I think Christians fear they will be forced to accept something that is morally wrong for them and that homosexuals will cause their children to be homosexual. I don’t know that the fear is unfounded or not. Unfounded or not, I don’t think the current response of some Christians is helpful.

Point-Counterpoint: Gay Marriage

If you know me, you know I like to hear all sides of a debate. I think it is wise to gather as much data as possible and review all the evidence for and against any issue. That way you can then make an educated assessment and decision. Making decision based on your emotions is extremely dangerous. I like to take some time to think through a position and don’t rush to judgment. I don’t get fall for slick campaign rhetoric or user car salesmen tactics.

I found one of these videos very emotionally compelling and the other more logically compelling.

The first video is of Zach Wahls, a 19-year-old University of Iowa student spoke about the strength of his family during a public forum on House Joint Resolution 6 in the Iowa House of Representatives.

The second video is a response from Brett Kunkle of Stand to Reason.

What do you think about each of these videos?

 

I have found that the Internet does give us unprecedented access to information. However, not all information on the Internet is worth having. Now that we have an election coming up, I am having a difficult time finding accurate, fair, and balanced information about candidates. What I find is a bunch of other people’s opinions about the candidates. Should I really base my vote on someone else’s opinion?

We have a participative form of government here in the United States. If you think about it, we have the power. Who we elect will shape not only our future but the future of the entire world. I think we have a responsibility to vote wisely.

As we learn from Spiderman “With great power come great responsibility.” I actually believe, and for good reason, that I have a responsibility to vote and to be informed on the issues I am voting on.

I was just reading a piece today about a candidate and the article was nothing more that twisting the candidates statements out of context, misrepresentations, fear mongering and mudslinging. What followed were comments that followed that same vein.

I actually want to be educated about the issues and I can’t do it. It is as if there is an invisible force that makes getting educated on the issues nearly impossible. Do I really have to dig up my own source documents and research each point? When was the last time you heard from an accountant about the state or federal budgets? We always hear it from people who can’t balance their own checkbook, let alone the government’s budget.

Why is it when we ask for reasons why we should pass a law people attack you? They call you names because you don’t accept what they say and just believe that they have it right. Since when is it wrong to ask for reasons? This just happened to me last month on the gay marriage debate. I was asking a supporter of gay marriage about the role of government in marriage, asking for reasons why they think it is a civil right issue, etc…

I am not trying to be divisive; I am trying to be informed on the issues. I think, with any issue, we should know the pros and the cons and be able to ask questions without being attacked. Instead, you get empty rhetoric and unqualified, biased opinions.

While reading this article, I noticed that it was nothing more than rhetoric and contained nothing scientific about global warming or climate change. I am undecided on the debate of global warming and do like to keep abreast of the latest developments in this field of study. While this article did not increase my knowledge in the area of climate change, the benefit I found in this article was a chance to exercise my critical reading and practice finding fallacious reasoning.

The thing I love about scientism is the appeal, the authority that is often claimed by “overwhelming scientific consensus”; we all agree, therefore, it is true. Which, in my opinion, does not count for much given the “overwhelming scientific consensus” is that nothing can travel faster than light. Given the speed of light theory might have recently been shattered. We await confirmation that the speed of light can be broken so let me use a different example. 60 years ago the “overwhelming scientific consensus” was that the sound barrier could not be broken. So much for the overwhelming scientific consensus, as it turns out, they were all wrong. The number of scientific claims that have been destroyed over the years is countless. Is global warming immune to such mistakes? Are we still so arrogant to think that we have all the answers in spite of constant new discoveries and paradigm shifts?

I also wonder how a consensus is a scientific methodology; it sounds more like a philosophy to me. Truth is truth no matter what the “consensus” came up with. I do grant that if the consensus is made up of qualified people, the likelihood that they are correct is greater, however, it is not a guarantee they are correct. In addition, knowing that the “overwhelming scientific consensus” may have been built on some facts which are now known to have been misrepresented at best and outright fraudulent at worst, statistically lowers the probability their premise is correct. If CO₂ emissions is really the cause of climate change, they have done the greatest disservice to us all by their skullduggery.

If you deny the “overwhelming scientific consensus,” then you are a victim of the “well-funded, highly complex and relatively coordinated denial machine.” Seriously, a conspiracy? The conspiracy card can be played for or against climate change and each side could produce enough damning evidence. Poison the well and fling mud, don’t worry about the facts. The facts should be able to stand by themselves. Mudslinging is the recourse for a weak argument.

Notice this article does not address any claims or counter-claims that are relevant to the scientific discussion. It is nothing more than intellectual bullying and vitriolic attacks. Notice that most comments are nothing more than emotionally loaded rhetoric. Even if I was on the side of climate change, I would want well-reasoned arguments and not rhetoric.

Where has reason and logic gone that we must now accept rhetoric as golden truth?

Related Reading Update:

• Climategate (Phil Jones and Climate Research Unit scandal)
  
• Charles Monnett scandal
  
• Solar activity the real cause of climate change (Jan 2012)
  
• Pro Global Warming report (Oct 2011)
  

Osama bin Laden is Dead
Now what? He is dead but al Qaeda is still alive and well. The question is, does his death change anything? Will it make him a martyr? Will that increase anger at the US? These are definitely some really tough questions. Should we all be happy that he is dead? I am given pause when I remember Proverbs 24:17.

“Do not gloat when your enemy falls; when he stumbles, do not let your heart rejoice” (NIV)

A question that always pops into my mind when people judge people is, “How does Jesus view that person?” I am reminded of that question in this situation as well. How does Jesus view Osama bin Laden? Jesus sees him as a man in need of a savior. He sees him as someone He died for. He sees him as someone He loved. The obvious question then is, how should I see Osama bin Laden? I can’t help but think that had bin Laden experienced true Christian love, his life would have been radically different and that even the events of 9-11-01 may have been avoided.

I think we forget that our enemy is not ourselves (the human race). In this instance, our enemy is a philosophy; a philosophy of hate and revenge and selfishness on both sides. The only weapon against such an enemy is love. I know it sounds like a 1960s’ clich, but it is, logically, the only answer.

So, who is our real enemy?

Taxes the most despised and shady business there is. I gathered a few quotes on taxes for your pleasure. There are always crooks involved with taxes whether it be congress taking more than is needed or the individual who cooks his/her books so that he can pay as little as possible. Enjoy these gems as you send your money away to Uncle Sam. By the way, do you know what they spend that money on?

Someone on FaceBook sent me a link to this video. It compares slavery and the holocaust with abortion. I know that everyone does not think that it is fair to compare the three different events. Citing they are to vastly different. However, I think that there is room to debate the coloration. I lean more toward the idea they are fair comparisons even if the events are different given in each case the value of life was in question.

Volition (n)- The act of making a choice. Sometimes the choice of inaction has consequences stronger than we could ever imagine. Throughout history, men have been faced with difficult choices in a world that makes it easy for them to conform. This film explores the hope that lies behind every decision made in the face of adversity; the hope that is buried in the heart of those that look beyond themselves and see something bigger worth fighting for.   Pasted from <http://www.thedoorpost.com/hope/film/?film=420351f1aefa2b42b1772fe9d5cc044a>

Why can't Muslims, Jews and Christians get along? For thousands of years there has been the unresolved conflict between the Arabs and the Jews. The Arab Israeli conflict defies a simple solution. Come to think of it; it defies a complex solution. The problem seems to be the control of the holy land. Now to look at this we need to get some context.

"He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing. And you are to love those who are aliens, for you yourselves were aliens in Egypt."¹

 

"He shows love to the foreigners living among you and gives them food and clothing. So you, too, must show love to foreigners, for you yourselves were once foreigners in the land of Egypt. "²

 

$100,000.00	deposit amount individually that is insured
$13,300,000,000,000.00	total amount of all accounts insured
$38,000,000,000.00	total amount of money FDIC has to pay out
$0.76	amount you would receive per $100 deposited, if the FDIC had to pay out on all accounts

Director Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League recently said of Europeans:

"Anti-Semitism remains alive and well in the minds of many Europeans. It is distressing that there seems to be no movement away from the constancy of anti-Semitic held views, with accusations about Jews of disloyalty, control and responsibility for the death of Jesus," http://www.jnewswire.com/article/2617

I think that in a free society we should allow for the freedom of inquiry. We should not withhold information because we think that we know better than other people and there for we have to help people 'see the light'. The fair and honest approach is not to withhold information. The fair and honest way is to present all pertinent facts with out favor or hindrance. Put all the cards on the table and allow truth to be seen. Truth will prevail if it can be seen.

The problem is many people are not interested in truth, they play lip service to truth while they are focused on self-interest. Agree with them or else. How scary is that.

The second post in a series exploring homosexuality and Christianity.

I want to take some time and explore different perspectives on homosexuality.� I have not spent any time researching homosexuality from a Biblical perspective.� The funny thing is I know Christians who have good reasons to have opposing positions.�

I think that in today’s culture it is important to have an educated opinion on a subject that is causing a great deal of separation.� Currently, I don’t have an opinion only because I have heard very convincing and contradicting opinions from many Christians.� I really don’t want to take the easy way out and just except someone else’s opinion.

As I work through this, I will end up with a series of blogs and hopefully I will receive comments that will help me explore this issue in ways I would not have conceived.

Some of the issues I think that need to be addressed are:

• Is homosexuality a sin?
• Can you be a Christian and a Homosexual?
• How should Christians treat homosexuals?
• Should Christians enforce their morals on non-Christians?
• Gay marriage, the State’s and Church’s role in marriage.

�

Stay tuned for more posts on the subject and please let me know your opinion.� This is a very divisive topic and one where emotions tend to run wild.� My intention is to learn and reserve judgment until I feel confident I have an educated opinion.