Printable View
I can't speak for her, but most of the Christians I know don't believe that. They believe that unrepentant sin, regardless of the nature, is the problem. If a woman were to have an abortion, but later repented for it, then she would be forgiven, not subjected to eternal torment. I don't know of very many Christians who reject the notion of salvation/grace, though I do know some that certainly don't seem to focus on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Her choices included birth control (or none), pre-natal testing to know if there were anomalies in advance (assuming she would never choose abortion, of course). Defining life or personhood from the moment of conception, and anti-abortion views based on God, the soul, heaven or hell are based on religious faith. No one's forcing women to have abortions against those religious beliefs, but they don't get to choose for all other women and force their beliefs on anyone else.
Remind how these views are "extreme right" when they're shared by about half the population?
Source?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
http://people-press.org/2011/03/03/s...social-issues/
That's 42% supporting Palin's position. But I guess anyone to the right of you must be an extremist.
Not what I said at all. I said (IMO) her letter to God was part of her anti-abortion political platform. She even put it in her first book.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
You're the only one here using words like evil or conspiracy. :donkey: Or hinting that pro-choice means not seeing children as precious. As I said earlier, the "bogeymen" are in the anti-abortion religious who are also anti-birth control, anti-sex ed, and anti-family planning that includes abortions.Quote:
I don't think the constitution makes any statements about legislating from the pulpit, (and before you ask, no, the first amendment does not do that), nor do I believe that the only objections that can be raised to abortion are religious, but I don't disagree with your sentiment. That being said, I don't see bogeymen in people who are opposed to abortion, or mothers who believe that children are precious gifts, regardless of the challenges that they may have been born with. They may hold beliefs that I don't agree with, but I don't see evil or conspiracies in all that they do.
Then you should have been more clear when asking why "these views are extreme right when shared by half the population". Right after my post about life beginning at conception, souls, and God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I am criticizing the extreme right wing in the GOP who want to make abortions illegal, and have that in their platform.
Source/ page #? None of the news sites I've seen talking about this mention it. Seems a glaring omission.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
And does this even really matter?
Does any of this really matter?
It was in the LA times article and mentioned more than once in the comments. No, the e-mail releases don't matter. I even said this isn't singularly about Palin (include Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, etc.) It's the mindset of the extreme religious fringe that wants to legislate against abortion. For some that also includes pharmaceuticals that prevent or disrupt implantation.
Yes, that matters to me.
The extreme religious fringe that makes up 42% of the population. You might want to look up the words "extreme" and "fringe" in the dictionary.
Her letter from God was no doubt based on her beliefs, (both in God, and abortion) and that you are feigning surprise that her politics are influenced by her beliefs is absurd. Of course her politics are, at least in part, derived from her beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Quote:
You're the only one here using words like evil or conspiracy. :donkey: Or hinting that pro-choice means not seeing children as precious. As I said earlier, the "bogeymen" are in the anti-abortion religious who are also anti-birth control, anti-sex ed, and anti-family planning that includes abortions.
Quote:
So private that she sent e-mails knowing full well the public would eventually read them. Right. :rolleyes:
You don't know much about US politicking so you get a free pass, minx.
Sorry, how should I read this? You're saying that this is a cleverly orchestrated ploy, masterminded by the national anti-abortion movement, pushed by extreme social conservatives to ground their propaganda and hatred of women/the poor in religious faith. Is that about right?Quote:
As I see it, as an American voter, this is early 2012 campaigning for legislating extreme-right social conservatism. Advanced preparation for national defunding of Planned Parenthood, orchestrating a national anti-abortion movement, using "Letters from God" to justify laws making women victims of their pregnancies/bodies.
Just sounds more "Christian" when they try to ban abortions by proxy, using pro-life propaganda and "Letters from God" to appeal to voters. But they also won't fund reproductive health and birth control with public tax dollars, let alone "welfare" in the form of food aid for women-infants-children (WIC). Great pro-life ethic, huh.
But no, you aren't saying evil or conspiracy. Your posts are.
No, I said the religious right within the Republican party. And GOP candidates competing for who can be most socially conservative--being anti-abortion is the expectation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
:rolleyes: Oh, FFS. Previously we'd discussed the same conservative religious-based propaganda before voting on Prop 8 to ban same-sex marriage. That even Democrats were heavily campaigned by religious anti-gay groups before the vote. We've also discussed Islamaphobia and those suspicious of Muslims, trying to influence laws preventing building Park 151 based on their religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
For some reason you're trying to pick a fight about the damn letter, instead of the GOP's talking points about God and religion, abortion and family planning....or in general using religious beliefs to legislate.
I'll change the title of the OP once I figure out a new one. Any suggestions?
Address what you said, and then we'll talk.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
You seem to be in the habit of saying one thing, abandoning that position when you are called out on it, all the while taking umbrage because what you actually posted was never the point in the first place.
No, you've backpedaled to your tired but trusty general stance regarding a segment of society after your original specific assertions in this thread were properly challenged as being full of shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Off-topic: A viewpoint should be classified independent of the number of people in the population who hold such a view. For instance, Nazis are at one end of the political spectrum, whether there is one person who is a Nazi, or a billion people who are Nazis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Extreme relative to what? I should note that GGT used extreme in tandem with fringe, which definitely requires the term to apply to a small section of the population.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
An objective center. In a hypothetical population of bloodthirsty murderers, we could still create an axis/scale whereby on one end we have "Murder Nobody" and on the other "Murder Everybody" and come up with an objective means to class them. 95% of them could be on the far end of "Murder Everybody" on the Murder Scale and they could still be classed as extreme.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Does it make any sense to talk of someone's political position as being extreme when it's widely shared? Being pro-slavery is "objectively" an extreme position. Does that mean you'd describe every early 19th century politician (except for the handful that opposed slavery on moral grounds) as an extremist? What's the value-added of using that term in that circumstance?Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
Yes, it does. How do you argue against a viewpoint you feel is wrong, diametrically opposed to your own, but held by a larger percentage of people? Its still extreme compared to your own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
You could if you were discussing their position on slave holding relative to other people's positions on slave holding.Quote:
Being pro-slavery is "objectively" an extreme position. Does that mean you'd describe every early 19th century politician (except for the handful that opposed slavery on moral grounds) as an extremist?
None, but there are other possible circumstances you could discuss where it would make sense. Like the above.Quote:
What's the value-added of using that term in that circumstance?
Why are you assuming that extreme means bad? I would argue that being an abolitionist was an extremist position 200 years ago. Political labels are always relative. There's nothing useful about calling everyone who holds a "bad" position an extremist, when that belief is the norm (which is the opposite of extreme).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Early on I answered a few questions minx asked about the letter and author, and why it's in D & D. Admittedly, I wasn't clear about the intent of this thread, and posting the letter muddied it up, starting the thread off in a weird tangent. Mea culpa, my bad, I suck at title-making, should have spent more time anticipating how it would be interpreted and been clearer. Shouldn't have started out with the damn letter.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
My subsequent posts are spent trying to clarify -- not backpedal -- that within the GOP leadership there's a small number (fringe) of social conservatives whose top priority is banning abortion (extreme); they're both at odds with, and part of, the party whose priority is small government staying out of private lives (hypocritical); the polarity within the GOP has candidates jumping to appease the far right (fringe) instead of the center, moderates or independents; the religious contingent that is more anti-abortion than pro-life would also cut services for women by defunding services, including abortive pharmaceuticals; using state's rights to legislate away Roe v Wade is part of their political agenda (platform)....
I'll try to fix the title or have someone merge a couple of threads together later.
Once again, you can't call 42% of the population (i.e. those who want to ban abortion) to be a "fringe" population. Lying repeatedly won't make something true.
That is scary. How many people were surveyed and where?? :bulb: *shudders* when they say "most cases" do they or do they not include things like down's syndrome?
Do I have to explain to you how national polls are done? :bored:
The general exceptions are rape, incest, and when the mother's life is in danger.
Yes, you do have to explain. It's your punishment for answering my honest question with your usual kneejerk douchiness. Go on, I'm listening
How many posts have been made about polls on this forum (and its predecessor)? Do you only have a problem with polls when they provide results you don't like?
Are you on drugs? Do you have a psychiatric illness?
You could start reading my posts completely, instead of name-calling :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Your pew poll asked Legal/Illegal in All/Most cases. Sections for party affiliation and religion but only Protestant white, evangelical or mainline or Catholic white. That poll doesn't really show a comprehensive picture, and you know it. :donkey:
Within the GOP leadership (already a smaller number than all Republicans) there are those who want to ban abortion in all cases, including rape or incest, want the US to be a "pro-life country", don't want any US funds used in poor countries -- or at home for poor women -- for comprehensive education, BC or family planning unless any/all abortion is excluded, want to limit or ban pharmaceuticals (Plan B, RU 486), don't want sex-ed taught in public schools, want to use anti-abortion a litmus test for all Republican candidates....based on their religious beliefs.
Within the states, there are numerous Republican bills to define personhood from the moment of conception, add all sorts of hoops for women -- from looking at ultrasounds to listening to heart beats to hearing a pro-life lecture to waiting periods, zoning or facility restrictions meant to close abortion clinics and chase physician providers from a region/state, even introducing bills banning abortions after ten weeks conception (I believe that was Georgia?)....based on their religious beliefs.
IMO this is a disturbing trend. Trying to undo the rights of Roe v Wade state-by-state, and by stacking the GOP from the top down with anti-abortion legislators.
Now, if you're trying to say that legislating the above agenda, based on religious beliefs, is "main stream" then it's even more disturbing. Even among the pro-life crowd there's support for teaching sex-ed in schools, comprehensive care with BC and family planning, reducing abortions by preventing unintended pregnancy. I'd like to discuss the fringe that ignores science and health with claims that God is on their side....
Is this how you deal with difficult patients?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
It shows 42% in support of Palin's view. You shifting the goal posts, attempting to change the topic, and blatantly lying doesn't change that fact. Are you trying to replace Alber?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Your Pew poll didn't say a damn thing about other races besides white, or religions outside Protestant or Catholic. They also didn't ask about any grey area such as selective termination for IVF multiples, or fetal anomalies like anencephaly or Downs. It didn't ask about things like federal or state funding for abortion prevention done thru public schools or clinics. They didn't poll GOP leadership for their views.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Even if 50% of people polled agree with Palin, that doesn't exclude other sub-categories that could disagree with the issues I mentioned. Does that the Pew poll is lying? Does that make you a liar for using one poll in ways it didn't even track? :donkey:
You're not a difficult patient and we're not at work. I asked out of curiosity and because I was surprised. You shouldn't be asking me about my behaviour. You should instead scrutinize your own automatic reaction to my questions. Go on, scrutinize it. Is this how you treat people when they ask you an innocuous question? How's that working out for you? Perhaps you can examine your last 100 exchanges on this forum for some clues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
No suggestions? Since I screwed up the OP title, I don't want to screw it up twice! :noob:Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
As did the fact that initially you kept referring to the emails as the initial source for this and only announcing later *like it was something you'd just found out* that apparently the "letter" had been in Palin's first book as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I was answering minx's questions. The letter hit main stream news (the second time) after her Governorship e-mails were released....first time I personally read it. It was published in her first book which I have not read. You going to bitch at me for that, too?Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Look, you all can stop hounding me about the damn letter or how I started the thread badly. I've already said the letter wasn't the main topic but how the subtext fits in with a trend of GOP pro-life politics and religious propaganda. I've already apologized for making a suck ass title and asked for suggestions before I change it. :mad:
edit for those who won't let the Letter go---
A review of her book (Going Rogue) by Washington Post in '09.Quote:
To tell her children that their brother will be born with disabilities, she pens a letter in the voice of "Trig's Creator, Your Heavenly Father."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111603732.html
She's loads above family Santorum, evidently, though that seems a bar awful easy to jump.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Personally, I think the Christian Conservative Fundies are flat out dangerous! Dangerous to our health, happiness, and general welfare! According to what I have read in different places over the years, they think anyone who doesn't jump up and down to agree with them are "terrible" and "shouldn't be allowed a voice". We are just supposed to blindly follow them and their beliefs because they know best how we should live our lives!
I think Palin's "Letter from God" was a sneaky little ploy to get HER views out there, making it seem that women...or couples...who choose abortion over a child with birth defects, are being selfish! She is in a position, financially, to care for this child. Maybe Joe and Jane Doe can't afford the care that is needed for a child like this!
She also makes it seem like she got a direct transmission from God! Isn't that the main belief of cults? I can't speak for others, but I sure as shit do NOT want to live in a country where the person who is running for Pres. is a person who believes God talks directly to her!
You start a thread and topic, people don't react the way you were hoping, so you always try and switch focus to get the reaction you want. Which usually means you just try and reintroduce an older thread where the reaction was closer to what you were looking for. And then, sometime later in the thread, you'll refer back to the original post and conflate all the subsequent discussion back onto it, because to you they were all one and the same. But they're not for me, or for a number of other posters. It's aggravating so no, I'm not going to stop spreading that aggravation back to its source.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
After replies I didn't understand, and criticisms that I finally understood....I admit my flawed and failed attempt when starting this thread. Of course it's my fault when people don't discuss the intended topic, when it began on such vague footing! I should have known better.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
I tried to turn it around and asked for suggestions, but that's also met by aggravation and more criticisms. The horse is dead, already.
Going forward, being pedantically true to the OP, there's nothing left to discuss but Ms. Palin and her Letter from God.
Low blow, GGT. Not to mention almost meaningless.
She wrote a personal letter to friends and family about her soon-to-be-born son with Down's Syndrome. She tried to keep it upbeat. Years later, these e-mails get released to the public because Sarah wasn't bright enough to not send work-related e-mails on her personal account.
So now we're mocking/vilifying her for this e-mail of all things?
Yes, it was a personal e-mail...sent on a government owned computer, using a government e-mail address (I am assuming this because of the release of the e-mails.)! Should she just be allowed to ignore those facts? If she used her own computer, then we shouldn't be invading her privacy, as long as it was a personal computer and a personal e-mail account! (But that's another subject...high-visibility people and their privacy.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Yes, I realize she was trying to be upbeat in writing this e-mail. But, I have a problem with her, or anyone for that matter, acting like she had a personal conversation with God! Most cults have leaders who claim they have a direct hotline to God. Yay...just what we need to run the USA!
Oh, I love to mock and vilify her for any reason, or none at all. I don't like her. I don't like her political views. I don't like her seeming desire to force religion back into politics. I don't like her pretending to be perfect, and have the perfect family, when her daughter was pregnant with a bastard child and her husband was being watched by authorities for some reason I never did get. I don't like her voice, her dress style, her demeanor, or her bullshit! But, this e-mail makes it just too fucking easy! She set herself up for this shit, and now she is whining about it!