One Progressive’s View: The Abortion Debate 12/28/2011

I have just read an article this morning that said that Rick Perry, GOP presidential contender has just made a pledge to a “Personhood USA” where he commits to anti-abortion even in the case of rape or incest. He is a signatory to the pledge along with Michelle Bachman, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich (the epitome of moral rectitude) and Ron Paul. Ron Paul, the Libertarian, who is ok with legalizing marijuana and prostitution, but still wants to put that lock box on a woman’s womb. These folks are playing for the red-meat crowd. It is like an auction, one trying to be just that more outrageous than the others. The next concession is that they all pledge to oppose abortion even if the life of the mother is in danger, wait and see. This rightwing stuff will surely turn off independents. Is the GOP insane? But we already know the answer to that. I am counting on a nice altercation between the moderates and the fanatics, each disqualifying the other in the run against Mr. Obama next year.

My View

This is a very contentious issue for us all. While I am pro-choice, I can support legislation that makes abortion more difficult at the late stages of pregnancy. Particularly, at and beyond the point that the fetus can live outside of its mother’s body. The state has a vested interest in preserving life and that is reasonable. But, that has to be balanced with rights of the mother. Thoughtful conservatives and progressives can discuss this and may well agree to disagree. While, I believe that life begins at conception based on philosophical and spiritual beliefs, that is where it ends. My neighbor has a different view and he or she may well not subscribe to the same principles that I do. Being a progressive, I am uncomfortable with those that want to apply their rules and regulations to those most private and intimate aspect of the lives of others. So, somewhere between the point of conception and very late stages of pregnancy, there is room to debate the ethics of this process.

The Right-winger

The right-winger and it appears that the aforementioned people mentioned earlier in this article are such, are fanatical and extreme by their very nature. Making mothers carry a pregnancy to term after rape or incest is unconscionable. Who do these people think they are? I never had a high opinion of right-wingers, generally. A woman is not an incubating machine. The words roll from their tongues so easily when none of these ‘candidates’ face such things in their own lives. What is the arrogance in thinking that they have a right to force a woman to carry such a pregnancy to term when it is her own physical body involved and the discomfort and mental anguish is hers alone to bear for 9 months. These “fembots” are to be told that ‘lemons can become lemonade’? Yeah, right. The victim bears no responsibility for these kinds of pregnancies, how dare they force the individual to carry to term.

Point-Counterpoint

Let’s say that the right-wingers prevail and the push for the legislation that they all say that they support is successful. Since life starts at conception for these folks, who is going to tell the authorities that a woman is pregnant, so that the state can know to begin monitoring the woman? It has to be possible for a woman to ingest toxins or the RU-486 overnight pill to terminate a pregnancy. So, now, there has to be someone that watches what she eats and drinks. Conservatives have had 40 years to try to overturn Roe Vs Wade. I know that they would prefer a constitutional amendment to ban abortion nationwide. But there are too many progressive states and influences and it just ain’t going to happen. But if they can have the landmark decision overturned and the decision making relegated to states, how would that work? Woman that can’t get an abortion in South Dakota can take the drive to relatively progressive Colorado to have the procedure done, anyway. You still lose. But, the right-winger and its legislatures will want to pass laws restricting the movement of women who are pregnant. I don’t have to tell anyone what that will lead to

Our Thoroughly Modern Maidens

Not being female, I can only guess. But, I would be concerned that considering the work over the last century to get some degree of parity in a male dominated society,is my

life, aspirations and ambitions being firmly linked to my reproductive function?. Is it a sinister plan to return me to a domesticated role? How does all of this affect your ability to compete for resources and opportunities outside the affairs of your intimate and personal life? In the interests of my “protection” what other laws are being contemplated that enhances and buttresses the new rightwing abortion laws? It takes two to tango, you know. Are men imposed upon in this manner, commensurate to their role in the pregnancy? It seems like another way to take the already structural disadvantages in the workplace that women have to contend with and exacerbate them ten fold. All this may well need to be adjudicated with my concern of a violation of the 4th amendment to the Constitution prohibiting unreasonable search and seizure.

So when each of the “Fab 5” proposes banning abortion even in the case of rape and incest, I think that they bite off more than they can chew. They know that this will never happen within this diverse society of ours and they are just pandering to gain favor. So, I share with my conservative friend and warn the right-winger, that you had better find another way….

More by this Author


75 comments

gmwilliams profile image

gmwilliams 4 years ago from the Greatest City In The World-New York City, New York

To Credence2: Informative hub. Rick Perry is an unmitigated idiot. I apologize, I mean quarteridiot. How dare he make such a horrific and unthinking statement. I am a staunch prochoice feminist and proud of it!

Women have a right to choose their reproductive destiny. No pregnancy should be unwanted. Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and others of their ilk keep your paws off my body and my womb! These *&^$@ conservatives are not going to make this country regress back to back alley abortions. I will never stand for it! These "men" do not know that women are persons too. We are not slaves to our anatomy but free agents therein!


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 4 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

Here's a good analogy I heard years ago by a Populist radio host:

If you enter a burning building, and there is a woman and a fetus in a jar, and you can only save one, which will it be?

Which takes precedence? The possible life, or the life already here?

Imagine forcing a female to give birth against her will....such outrageous Gvt control of HER personhood!


Borsia profile image

Borsia 4 years ago from Currently, Philippines

Personally I am about as pro-choice as anyone can be.

I’m not happy that late term abortions take place but they are extremely rare, around 1%, and those cases are most often very complicated involving threat to the mother or more often a fetus that is known to be deformed in some way.

I believe that all medical decisions should be made by doctors and patients and never by governments or society in general.

I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion but I have also never met anyone who wants to step up and adopt and pay for the million+ babies that would have been born each year.

A huge number of those would have been born to drug addicts, alcoholics and other with a very high rate of retardation or deformities and require huge amounts of money to keep alive.

It is the one point on which the Republicans may very well insure another 4 years of Obummer.

I would point out that Ron Paul says that the Federal government shouldn’t be involved and that it is a state issue and should remain a state issue.

Every candidate has flaws but, for me, Paul has the least and he is the only one who has laid out spending cuts and huge reduction of government. So I still plan to vote for him in the primaries.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

GM, so nice of you to drop in with your observation and comment. Yes, if this is what the GOP is putting forth they are in for trouble come next year with the general electorate. Who do they think that they are going to sell this stuff to? Cred2


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

LMC, thanks for your reading the article and your comment. Your point is well taken, and is all the reason why this is a contentious debate, because, who knows, some folks might take the fetus.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Hi, Borsia, thanks for dropping by an sharing your opinion.

I good we agree on the pro-choice stance. However, Ron Paul did sign that "pledge". Why would he, as a libertarian, I would think he would be the last one to do so. If Paul and the Libertarians have a government hands off policy, why did he sign the pledge? Romney and Huntsman steered clear, but it will unfortunately contribute to their being identified as moderates, which is the kiss of death in today's GOP.

You let the fruitcakes in the GOP dominate and it will surely lose.

Of course, I am a Democrat and will accept Obama over any of the GOP contenders. I did not like Paul's response to accusations of publishing racist views and how he circumvented the issue by saying he was not aware and did not read what he wrote. I don't think that any of the GOP contenders are doing so well that they can afford to outright offend any constituency in mass. I was offended by what he wrote and more so how he handled it when confronted. He did not behave like a straight shooter. Fortunately, life is not all politics, but I will stick with Obama.


HSchneider 4 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey

Excellent analysis Cred2. Most of the GOP Presidential candidates are simply pandering to the Social Conservatives on the abortion issue. They are adopting the views that fetuses are people and have all the rights of citizens. This is an extreme view and nonsensical. Ron Paul should know better with his supposed Libertarian views. Shouldn't a Libertarian be for pro-choice? I agree with your reservations about a lot of the late term abortions. For the most part beyond those, these choices should be left to the woman.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

It is nice to have you visit me HS, yes I don't know what the GOP hope to prove with this tack. It is definitely not prime time and this stuff will get them creamed in the general election. But, I guess that it is all ok as long as they stay in their own sandbox. In defense of nonsense, extremism is a vice. Cred2


Borsia profile image

Borsia 4 years ago from Currently, Philippines

Paul has no choice about signing the pledge or stating his personal beliefs about abortion. He is running as a Republican not as a Libertarian. He has always said he was pro-life but has also said in the past and now that it isn’t an issue for the Federal Gov. and should be left to the states.

As for the 1970s newsletters; I really don’t care much what he wrote. He has been asked about these thousands of times over the twenty years since and has answered it thousands of times.

In 1996 his opponent had those same newsletters and didn’t use them because everyone basically agreed.

Everyone who knows him personally does agree that they have never heard him say a single racist or anti-Semitic word. Including his closest aids, even after they went to work for others.

Obama has been a dismal failure from day one. In my book he is just as bad as W and that is about as bad as is possible.

He spent more in his first year than W did in 8, and the country didn’t benefit at all from it.

In fact when you add the 7.7 Trillion that the Feral Reserve pulled out of thin air and what that is doing to our economy the bailout has been a bigger disaster than all of the wars.

Paul was against all of them, wars and bailout, and he is the only candidate that actually has a plan that isn’t just smoke & mirrors.

All of the other Republicans are aching to get into a fight with Iran, yet another unwinnable war with unlimited costs. And the $662 Billion “defense” bill was mostly written by Democrats and overwhelmingly supported by them.

For me Paul is still the ONLY choice. If he doesn’t get the Republican ticket, and that is doubtful, I will either write in for Paul or, more likely, I’ll vote for the Libertarian candidate.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 4 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

Why are women's rights a state issue? That tells me all I need to know about him. He is NOT for freedom, not at all.

And good luck, if you think Paul can get elected and go up against Congress, the Military, the State department, AIPAC, AARP, NRA(even though they like him) and all the other sundry special interests up there....Obama can't even get help from the R's in gvt!! Because they think their way or the highway. Ron Paul is not a magician either, and unless he practice evil magic, he is stuck in the mire, just like all of them.

Get money out, and what do you have? Ideology.

I think Obama has done fantastic given what he's up against. And Paul would side with these R's way too much for a freedom-loving woman like me.

Filthy rich and destitute: that's what they are offering.IMO


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 4 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

Uh Huh.....

"Paul’s state chair in Iowa is a member of the Christian Right and an extreme one at that) and he’s been lining up social conservative support."

http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2011/12/29/ron-paul...


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Borsia, I don't think that we disagree about the fact that everybody is spending too much money. What made Paul attractive is that he did not cave to the crowd and that his dedicated followers want radical changes, not just moving chairs around.

From my position, I have to be more concerned about what he writes and what attitudes he adheres to and what that would portend in policy positions.

If you did not like "W" or Obama, you have a fundemental issue with how things are being done. While people say that want a change from "business as usual", are they prepared for what they may really mean? I think not.

The rank and file GOP probably won't support Paul because of non-interventionist ideas in foreign policy and from what I once thought was laissez-faire attitudes toward the social issues.

I am not Libertarian, but I certainly will give Paul a fair audience. I still think that he should not have caved in to the fundamentalists, as he is basically quite different and would have to compromise over and over again to get the nomination. He becomes just another Rick Perry or Newt Gingrich, disappointing his devoted flock. Happy 2012 Cred2


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Greetings, LMC, I think when facing all the resistance from the GOP headwinds, and considering the sheer magnitude of the economic downturn caused by GOP ideology and policy, I am surprised that the president is still standing. This idea of bartering a woman's options in the abortion debate like so much meat on shelf is going to cost the GOP much support from moderates that will not tolerate such extremism. Huntsman and Romney are smart enough to stay away from making any such pledge. Obama will carve the GOP nominee up like rosst beef in any debate when the GOP contender has to admit to selling women out. Thanks for your participation and Happy New Year, Cred2


Alastar Packer profile image

Alastar Packer 4 years ago from North Carolina

Cred, I generally stay out of the politics though I do try to keep up with whats going on. You've stated your position and feelings well here along with the politicos so I'll be brief and only say this: until that glorious day when we can say to ourselves, yes we have a spirit and it enters the baby at this point, or no we don't have one. Until that day I suppose the arguments will go back and forth and the abortions will just continue. Peace my friend.


WD Curry 111 profile image

WD Curry 111 4 years ago from Space Coast

I'm afraid to comment. I don't believe in abortion. I am concerned about the rights of every woman over her own body. Sometimes an abortion is a necessary medical procedure.

What concerns me is how we perceive the unborn human and how we regard that person's rights. Most "Pro-choice" proponents don't recognize the humanity of a fertilized egg. My discernment says it is a human life at that point.

Let's say the universe recognizes the fertilized egg as a realized human being with full rights. I would hate to be the one to terminally interfere with those rights.

Politically . . . we can spout what we believe, but that doesn't mean that we have the power to force that on the majority. If the majority consensus does not align with your views, welcome to the democratic republic, let's have that Mai-Tai.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Hi, Alastar, yes, endless debate. But, I have fun stirring the pot and seeing what rises to the top. I have earned the reputation of being Anerica's preminent troublemaker. Always enjoy your dropping by and saying whatever comes to mind.... Best regards, Cred2


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Hi, WD, you are always welcome to share what is on your mind, we are adults here. I, too, would prefer that we could do without abortion, but as it is said, the ideal and the reality are most often times, far apart. I believe that life starts at conception, but how that translates politically and legally is an entirely different kettle of fish. Thanks for weighing in and have a happy new year!


phdast7 profile image

phdast7 4 years ago from Atlanta, Georgia

Another good article on a difficult and emotion fraught topic. I too am appalled by the rhetoric coming from some of the republican candidates.

I would prefer that we not have abortions as I am concerned about the sanctity of life. But I am also concerned about women who are unprepared for a child - being forced to have one. If we passed an anti- abortion law, abortions would still take place. Both republicans and democrats would be obtaining them illegally, under shady circumstances like they used to.

That is not a solution; that is not an improvement. We don;t need to change the laws; we need to change attitudes and character; we, both men and women, need to be more responsible people who take seriously the immense consequences of our actions.

By making better, moral, and responsible choices, we could greatly reduce the need for abortions without actually making them illegal. And we will always have to respond compassionately to women whose pregnancies are the result of rape or incest.


lovemychris profile image

lovemychris 4 years ago from Cape Cod, USA

Happy New Year to you too!

But, Romney wants to overturn Roe v Wade...he's for an amendment to change the constitution to make abortion illegal.

Another borrow billions from China to give to wealthy people, let big gvt dictate your private life, Republican. ;)


Borsia profile image

Borsia 4 years ago from Currently, Philippines

Credence; You are 100% correct that I want to see major changes in how things are done in the US. I think that while people are afraid of change the public would soon realize that they are far better off.

However the problem is that the majority of people in both parties don’t understand that the changes are going to happen regardless of any fears or desires.

The US is on the brink of complete financial failure we are today where the USSR was in 1977 possibly even 1978. People can burry their heads in the sand and say that things will improve,,, but they won’t.

The reason that they won’t is that the road leading up to this point goes back to the 60s, to a large extent back to WWI.

Our “leaders” have been lying their way to the top and filling their pockets along the way. And it has been happening regardless of which party has held power. They are BOTH equally corrupt and equally bought and sold like 3rd world bar girls.

Just look back over the last few decades.

JFK didn’t like the high unemployment numbers during his time, sound familiar, but rather than tackling the root problem he just changed the way we count the unemployed.

He set a cut off time so that when someone’s unemployment reached 6 months they are dropped from the counting. He also counted the part time / underemployed as simply employed.

We still do this today and the result is that what is claimed as 9.1% or 8.6%, if you ask Obama, is really closer to 21% in reality.

The next big event was when LBJ took over after JFK’s death.

LBJ wanted to get on the ground in Vietnam but there wasn’t just cause to be anything more than advisers to South VN in what was really a civil war and none of our business.

Then came the“Gulf of Tonkin Incident”.

North VN patrol boats attacked American destroyers in the Gulf.

This led to the “Gulf of Tonkin Resolution” which was the gateway for LBL to enter the war.

Except that it is all lies & fabrication, as told by McNamara 30 years later, it never happened.

But entering the war presented a big problem for LBJ. The American people weren’t behind the war, sound even more familiar, and the mounting cost were huge. LBJ needed a way to hide the cost and prop up the General Fund.

His answer was to loot the Social Security Fund and transfer that money into the General Fund with as little traces as possible.

Every president since has done the same and today the SS Fund which should have $4.7 Trillion accumulated has virtually nothing.

Each president took their turn cooking the books to make things look far better than they are.

But the cold truth is that things have been in an ever increasing plunge for decades and the only thing that has really changed has been the speed, which has also increased over time.

Check out this explanation of what has been done;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPkTItOXuN0&feature...

Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate who can, or will, look at all of this. He has been predicting this day since the 70s and everything that was claimed to be wild crazy talk has come to pass.

He is the only one who has laid out what must be done.

America has a choice; do it now from a position of some strength or have it done later just like Greece.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

phdast7, Thanks for reading the article and providing an insightful comment. Yes, we are indeed inbetween a rock and a hard place here. But having the government and authorities pursue this matter is like having an elephant pick a daisy.

I came only hope for a time when the human family advances beyond its infancy, evolving to a higher plane. In the meantime we have to find manageable solutions to the problems at hand.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

LMC, thanks for your observation. Romney was pro-choice not that long ago. He is in his famous pandering mode. He can be for all he wants, but the reality is that such a proposal given the volatility of this issue will never see the light of day. He knows that going out of the gate. His positions on key issues change as often as the weather, is it no wonder the rightwing base does not trust him and withhold their support? Its GOP, what else can you say?

That talk about opposing big government depends on just what it is you do or do not want to oppose, hypocrites, all.... Thanks again, Cred2


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Borsia, thanks I did check out the video and visited the Libertarian site to get a better idea of what its beliefs are and what if professes. Who is in a position to impose change on so many that are frightful and untrusting? Both parties are involved in the current morass, so why hitch your star to the GOP, they’re certainly not any good. I simply don’t have confidence that free-markets left unfettered by government intervention provide the best outcomes for the most people. Fundamental to being of the left is a distrust of the money men and their designs on society as a whole. I don’t trust laissez-faire anything. The film helps to explain the reality of inflation and the real reasons people losing so much ground financially. The actual levels of inflation data are not being properly reported. All the once reliable data are being skewed for political purposes. The Libertarian idea of total freedom flies in the face that there are 300 million people and we cannot all just do what we want, that is a fantasy in so complex a world, where my relative freedom has to end where your nose begins. Freedom is a relative concept, in our world the question is for who and to what extent is this freedom available.

Neither major party is ready for a Ron Paul, the radical changes and the bitter medicine that the American people will, as you say, eventually have to swallow. Short of imposing a dictatorship, which is in direct opposition to Libertarian principles, how does he and Libertarian ideals see the light of day?

How is one man going to come to Dodge City and make the fundamental, radical changes called for? Every presidential contender has always promised what they will do or will not do, but the reality is far different. We live in a democracy and legislators want to stay in power and they can’t do that by telling people the truth and being constant bearers of bad news. Much of the budget debates and the eventual waterloo of mismanaged budgets can be worked through on the short term when both parties agree to compromise. The left is not going to allow the right to take it all, and vice-versa.

The picture is dismal, indeed, I agree. There are billions of dollars of waste and misappropriation within the American economy that most are really not aware of. I guess that we will have to prune the branches of the tree that we can reach rather than those that are out of our reach. I am afraid that it may well take an economic catastrophe before the people will be willing to take radical steps away from business as usual. Thanks, Cred2


Borsia profile image

Borsia 4 years ago from Currently, Philippines

His claim to have created 5 million jobs worked out to very few when you subtract the jobs lost over the same period. He is like the gambler who says he won big but didn't come home with $1 more than he left with.

Even if we accept his number if we do the math each job cost the taxpayers $226,000 for a job that only pays a small fraction of that amount.

Very, very few of those jobs can continue to exist without endless government funding. Very few are in the private sector beyond name only,IE; in the Obamian world a government contractor who hires someone is a private sector job,,, except that it isn't because the government is paying the bills and all of the money is coming out of taxpayer's wallets.

Obama's "jobs bill" is nothing more than a massive public works plan entirely at the expense of the American taxpayer, there is no funding plan other than higher taxes.

Speaking of Taxes Paul has said again and again that he is in favor of raising taxes and imposing fees on businesses that have ripped of the taxpayers while adding no new taxes to those who have succeeded on their own merits.

Everyone wants to say that one party is better, more honest, has the Nation more at heart when the truth is that they are equally corrupt and equally at fault and have equally failed to deliver any improvement to our crumbling nation.

Its come down to "try something new or loose all we have".

When the USSR reached this point in 1977 they opted to try the same old thing one more time. In 1979 it imploded and the structure collapsed. What followed was equal to the US breaking down into 50 little countries.

People all say that "it can't happen here, America is too big to fail".

That is a fools misunderstanding of reality, America is very close to that point and we are balanced precariously on the edge. If we put the "same old thing" into power for another 4 years there is a very good chance it will be too late to recover without a depression so deep that it will take decades of total austerity to see the sun again.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

You know Borsia, we may be looking at this from the wrong side, I don't really believe the current system was intrinsically a failure, it is the people that administered the government that failed. The smoke and mirrors could have well been started with JFK. It was their dishonesty and desire for unearned gain that put us on the precipice today. That includes both parties, how are the Libertarians going to be different? And really, it does not matter whether the system is Libertarian or Marxist, the approach is only as good as the people that are in charge for administering it. As long as greed is the preeminent feature, no system is going to work and those corrupt persons doom it to failure. The magnitude of scale shaking the system down the way its need to be so that it can get the cleaning needed by Paul or anyone, makes the moonshot look like a walk in the park. If the basic problem of corrupt politicians and business interests are not checked anything we do will fail anyway.

I disagree about the stimulus and its effects, without increasing demand by wages of those working on what so many call make work projects, that I see as necessary repair of infrastructure that is going to have to be done at somepoint anyway, there is no incentive for those sitting on their hands waiting for Thurston Howell to decide that conditions are right to invest, to do anything.


Borsia profile image

Borsia 4 years ago from Currently, Philippines

The Libertarian philosophy differs in that they want to take all of the big money out of politics.

Right now, they don't accept donations from anyone other than individuals. This means that they don't owe any favors and that is where corruption starts.

But the goal is to get everything on an even keel. To have the best candidates win rather than the most corrupted through campaign funding.

Today’s politicians spend something like 70% of their time trying to raise money to get reelected, rather than doing the job they are supposed to be doing. It’s no small wonder that they do such a crappy job.

The best way to do that would be to have a media time / space pool, through either donated funds or as a stipulation of media licensing, that grants air time and press to everyone who qualifies in all the states equally. That concept can be carried down to every level of government. At the same time prohibit all other ads, such as attack ads. Of course there would have to be some sort of an oversight system to insure that all ads meet a certain quality level as far as truthfulness.

All of this is never going to happen!

The powers that be are far too corrupt to ever let it pass and their backers far too willing to finance SOS.

As to the wasted stimulus money it is pretty much a matter of history as to what happened to the money.

And "nothing good" is where it ended up.

The American government is like a juvenile delinquent with a stolen credit card. Only when a credit card is stolen and used the cardholder isn't on the hook while the taxpayers are.

Almost all of the infrastructure repairs fall into the state realm rather than the Feds. Most of it was private sector. The government never built a steel mill or a refinery or a railroad for that matter. There was never a USS Merchant fleet or a Federally built factory, although it can be argued that most arms factories are publicly funded after WWII given the contract system.

Make manufacturing attractive in the US and the same corporations that are building factories and developing infrastructure in foreign countries will do it here, or there as the case may be with me.

There is one great truth; the least efficient and most expensive way to

do anything is to have the government involved.

Followed by the question; "Name anything that the government does well?”

The only thing the government is really good at is blowing money and going broke. The greatest talent that the majority of politicians have is scratching backs and filling pockets.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 4 years ago from Chicago

"While, I believe that life begins at conception based on philosophical and spiritual beliefs, that is where it ends"

Yes, it does end there. Killing babies is wrong no matter what your political persuasion—one would hope.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Hello, Borsia,

"Right now, they don't accept donations from anyone other than individuals. This means that they don't owe any favors and that is where corruption starts"

That is a good start, is that what Ron Paul is emphasizing in his campaign?

As yousay, the powers that be have a vested interest in the Status Quo, which puts the same kinds of people in charge, that we have been getting. Almost something revolutionary is needed to break the system the entire apple barrel is rotten, it will no longer do to just throw out 1 apple.

I dunno, Borsia, I have been a contracting officer for many years. We have successfully taken tax money to acquire goods and services for our various agencies and the lions share of that money went to small business. There were many small business set aside programs. All these private sector entities we given work to do that needed to be done for example, National Park Sevice, logging and costruction for example. They hire on people to do the work, it seems to work pretty well. The government often gets a bad rap, but it procures billions of dollars in goods and services every year. Take it from, me, I had my role to play toward this end. I can't see how this concept can fail, it never has?

The feds can apportion funds to the state for similar procurement activity by the state governments.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Thanks for stopping by James, You know what the problem with you and most rightwingers are? You think that you can ramrod your point of view down everybody's throat. I have to ask you, how are you going to do that. California is not Alabama. Come back if you have the courage and tell me why anybody should care and universally adhere to your absolutes? You are not in a postion to force my way or the highway, so how do you do it?


Lady Quill profile image

Lady Quill 4 years ago

Excellent and enlightening post - if not infuriating in its accuracy.

That women's health is an issue at all is a disgrace. The majority of GOP candidates still standing have agreed to a constitutional amendment giving "personhood" status to a zygote. With that amendment, there wouldn't be an opportunity for South Dakota women to drive anywhere but Canada.

These candidates are so (willingly) blind to the ramifications of their views that they want to destroy affordable health services for women by defunding Planned Parenthood - which provides such a variety of health services that abortion makes up only 3%.

Santorum believes states have the right (and should exercise that right) to outlaw contraception. The overreach of these "small government" candidates is shocking - and terrifying. They've taken the tiniest of steps over the years, which together have had tremendous negative impact on women - like the new law in Texas, which forces doctors to first subject an abortion-seeking women to an ultrasound that includes a vocal - and excruciatingly detailed - description of the fetus. An appeals court has upheld this law.

I do agree with your concerns about late-term abortion, but I reserve judgment on that since I believe it's a rare necessity, and only a woman and her doctor are truly aware of the need for it. Blanket statements do not apply, IMO.

One thing you mentioned that I'd like to expand on is this:

"What is the arrogance in thinking that they have a right to force a woman to carry such a pregnancy to term when it is her own physical body involved and the discomfort and mental anguish is hers alone to bear for 9 months."

This is spot on until the very end. The joys or wounds of pregnancy - depending on your point of view - do not end after nine months. They last a lifetime. If a woman carries a pregnancy to term, the resulting child is part of her. Whether she keeps this child or releases it to an adoptive family, she will forever live with the knowledge of the life she brought into this world. For a woman who did not want to continue that pregnancy, it would be torture until her dying day. If she’d had an abortion, there would never have been a child, only the possibility of one. There may still be regret at times - we never know for sure how we'll feel as we go through our lives. But it will never be the same gut-wrenching agony of either seeing her child as a constant reminder of a horrific time in her life, or knowing she has a child out there somewhere and wondering if she'd made the right choice in giving it away since she may never know if that child is warm, fed, safe.

The desire of the Right to control life should show just how dangerous they are. Unfortunately, their followers are also blind to the ramifications and when presented with them, seem unconcerned.

You mentioned believing that their wish to ban all pregnancies will never happen. Unfortunately, given the strides they’ve taken since Roe, I can't help believe we have much to fear.

Sorry to go on so long. This is, obviously, a topic that cuts deeply. Thank you for posting such a clear and thorough opinion.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Lady Quill, thanks for reading and providing your insightful comment.

Believe me that is not going anywhere politically. With the GOP pledge, it will scare independents in the general election. Note how carefully the GOP is downplaying this, much like the “no tax increase pledge” Retrograde states like Texas, Miss, Ala, Tex, So.Dakota is one thing, but this on a “Prohibition” type national fervor and scale, I doubt we will see again.

Roe has stood up pretty well over the last 40 years considering the forces that have been so adamantly determined to have it overruled.

This is a surreptitious attack on women’s rights that have implications far beyond the womb. What is that they say about letting the elephant’s trunk slip under the tent….. If these guys have their way they will make Sharia law appear relatively enlightened. Outlaw contraception? Santorum should be in a sanatorium, that Catholic doctrine will never sell here.

And it is as you say, I would not be so arrogant as to legislate something about life experience for which I can only empathize, at best. Of course, you are right, the childbearing experience have profound effect upon women over a lifetime.

We cannot give the enemy any quarter in the struggle. Every time they try to break through the envelope, the cases end up in court and hopefully the rightwingers are slapped back once again.

Thanks again, Cred2


Auntie D profile image

Auntie D 4 years ago from California

You describe the Conservatives and their narrow minded thinking to a T. I also agree with you and think the majority of Americans will fight for Roe vs Wade. This may be a bit off the subject buy why is birth control only an issue with women? I wonder how many of these good religious conservatives have had vasectomies to limit the size of their families. That is a form of birth control and yet is never mentioned. Thanks for the good hub Cred.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Thanks Auntie, for taking the time to visit and read this article. You all of the feminine persuasion will be once again be reduced to a "barefoot and pregnant" sort of lifestyle, you can bet these guys are working on it fulltime.


feenix profile image

feenix 4 years ago

Hey, Cred,

You wrote, "...I am pro-choice..."

Well, my reaction to that is, man up, my righteous homey.

Just as I always man up and come right out say that I am strictly opposed to abortion under all circumstances (including in the cases of rape, incest and when carrying a baby to term would endanger a woman's health or life), you should man up and come right out say that you are pro-abortion.

Now if you are personally opposed to abortion but believe that the procedure should be legal, then come right out and say, "Personally, I am opposed to abortion but I believe that women should have easy access to the procedure."

One of the things that liberals are quite guilty of is sugar-coating what they really are -- i.e. homosexuals always describe themselves as "gay" instead of what they actually are, homosexuals -- liberal socialists tend to describe themselves as "progressives" instead of what they actually are which is liberals with socialistic views -- and individuals who do not have a problem with unborn babies being drowned and/or suffocated in the womb always describe themselves as "pro-choice" instead of what they actually are which is individuals who are not concerned about innocent little babies suffering painful deaths at the hands of homicidal abortion doctors.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Thanks for weighing in Feenix,

Yes, I am pro-choice, while I believe that life begins at conception. That is possible. Just because I would dissaprove of my sister having an abortion, does not mean I would deny her the choice as it is her body and her affair. But that is the fundamental difference between the right and left, I cannot see legislating against everything that I might personally disapprove of...

Your descriptions as what constitutes a liberal/progressive are noted, the women who have the make the decision are concerned about the procedure. I just think that it is their business as to how they resolve it and when it becomes otherwise would have grave implications as to the enforcement and the very nature of this society.

So, Gay is homosexual, we both know what the terms mean, there is nothing sugar coating here. Black, colored, African-American, the same quantity is in the box, just another label

Again, I do man up, I am pro-choice, adverse to abortion, but do not need to stick my nose in the affairs of a woman across the country that is directly confronted with a choice of course of action in this matter.


feenix profile image

feenix 4 years ago

Hey, Cred,

I am opposed to legalized abortion because I am black.

First, so-called pro-choicers are in the same league as the whites who enslaved my ancestors, and the ones who just stood by and allowed slavery to happen -- because "it was none of their business."

Furthermore, just as the American system of slavery was underpinned by a belief that blacks were not human beings - but were creatures that whites had "the right" to enslave and treat cruelly ---- the "pro-choice" stance is underpinned by a belief that unborn babies are not human beings -- but are "non-humans" that "real human beings" have "the right" to execute.

And then there is black genocide.

For many years now, abortion has been serving as a means to kill millions of blacks in Africa and the Western Hemisphere before they are even born.

Years ago, "The Power Elite" decided that the world's rapidly growing black population had to be reduced to, and maintained at, what could described as a "manageable level."

Finally, I must say that legalized abortion is a slippery slope to getting rid of other humans who are deemed to be "unviable," such as elderly people, the mentally ill and individuals with serious physical defects.

In fact, one of my credos is, "Fetuses today, maybe me tomorrow."


Wesman Todd Shaw profile image

Wesman Todd Shaw 4 years ago from Kaufman, Texas

Besides my endorsement of Feenix's comment, it's absolutely a given that a fetus is, in fact, a human being.

It's the most outright blinded stupidity using pseudo science terminology that tries to make it easy for a human to pretend that a human not yet born isn't a human.

What a sick joke.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

You know, feenix, I have never thought of this issue in terms of euthenasia or eugenics. There are by far more whites using the abortion procedure than black folks, even considering their relative percentage of the population.

It is pretty clear that one man does not have the right to own another, but are you going to tell a woman that the state is in control of that little clump of cells growing in her body?

Feenix, It is almost impossible to make a woman carry a child to term that she does not want. As I said in the article there is the 'abortion pill', or just enough Jim Beam will do the trick. There is no way politically that it can happen, definitely not in New York.

It is a fools errand for conservatives to think that they can really change the view of so many and try to mandate something that clearly has no legs. Remember they tried such a course in Alabama, conservative Alabama, or was it Mississippi and it still went down to defeat. Again thanks for your comment.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Wesman, thanks for taking the time to read and comment. But it appears much that I have to say to you, I said to feenix, in reply to his comments.

Cred2


feenix profile image

feenix 4 years ago

Cred, Cred,

Because I am a well-seasoned, street-wise man of the world, I am well aware that women have been aborting their unborn babies ever since the "beginning of time" and they will continue to do so until the "end of time."

However, that does not mean that I and many others should not be opposed to the procedure, and that we should not be doing every thing we can to bring an end to such barbarism.

Furthermore, "conservatives" who are trying to bring an end to abortions are on the same plain as "progressives" who are crusading for world peace and the cessation of child abuse.

In each of the cases cited above, both the "conservatives" and the "progressives" are fighting wars that are impossible for them to win, but that does not mean that they should give up their fights.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Your right, Feenix, never give up the fight. We just have to remember that your opposition is not coming to the fight unarmed, especially on so controversial an issue. Since neither side is going to get its way, it has to be the way it has always been, a tug here and a pull there. It would be nice if the left and right can see both sides and work toward a common solution, but that in the cards right now.


feenix profile image

feenix 4 years ago

Cred,

The way I see it, there is no such thing as the opposing sides of the issue of abortion reaching common ground.

That is true, in my opinion, because if those of us who are strictly pro-life ever reached compromises with those who are strictly pro-abortion, that would be the same as people who could never bring themselves to commit murder reaching compromises with homicidal criminals.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

You see how contentious an issue this is, have you been checking out what goes on in Virginia that the GOP legislature proposed regarding mandatory medical procures prior to a woman getting an abortion. The furor created among the left and feminist group is bringing unwanted publicity and negative attention to the GOP. But I did read in one of your articles about Santorum that you knew that he would be unelectable because compromise must be made with the left to elect a candidate that could beat Obama next fall. Just seems to me a fight that conservatives are simply not going to win.


Borsia 4 years ago

While I have never known anyone who is pro-abortion I am strictly anti-government in our private lives, as are the majority of pro-choice people.

Both parties need to accept that the role of government doesn't extend into the bedrooms and bodies of the people.

For those who are anti-choice I will point out that we would never try to force you to have an abortion or an assisted suicide. We might marry you to someone of your own sex if we got really drunk at a party but we won't force you to come to the party or get that drunk. Your body, your private life, your choices to make.

The only correct political stance is that it doesn't fall under the Constitution for government to invade our personal freedom and / or make medical decisions against our will.

This is the view of the majority of independents and independents almost always decide the winner in the general election.

Given that it is not likely that any of the republicans can win against Obama.

For the republicans it is too bad you can't see that you are going to loose over these issues over and over.

Trying to push your religious views against a population that doesn't share them will only get you a seat in the back row.

I hope you are comfortable there.

I don't like Obama and I think he has been a bad president and I think he will be a bad president for the next 4 years,,, but I won't vote for any of the republicans other than Paul.


feenix profile image

feenix 4 years ago

Cred,

You wrote, "...I did read in one of your articles about Santorum that you knew that he would be unelectable because compromise must be made with the left to elect a candidate that could beat Obama next fall..."

There you go again, putting words in my mouth.

I have never written that the right must reach "compromises" with the left.

What I have written is that there are those times when the right must give up ground to the left -- in order to survive to fight another day.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Hi Borsia, yes I am waiting for the GOP to self destruct with the nomination of Santorum. The right and their culture conservatives will bring the entire she-bang down to defeat. I am counting on it! Nice to have you drop by, best wishes,

Ron Paul is not a Republican and that is his problem, he will be brought down by being associated with the GOP. He has as little in common with the true believers in the GOP as he does with the Democrats.

Cred2


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Sorry, feenix I guess when you give ground it sound like a compromise.

Serioulsly, though, If you did not have as many personal problems with Santorum and he was the more ideologically consistent between him and Romney, would you support the true article or vote for Romney?

Would it not be holding yourself back not going into this with the most conservative candidate, or are you more concerned about not spooking the left with some right wing fanatic and his extreme views which could guarantee the failure of the GOP ticket, next fall? Which school of thought do you hail from?


feenix profile image

feenix 4 years ago

Hey, Cred,

I totally agree with you. I do believe that the GOP is in self-destruct mode.

And what is happening today might be a case of "what goes around comes around."

Specifically, just as the Republican Party replaced the Whig Party, perhaps the GOP is about to be replaced by a "brand-new party."


feenix profile image

feenix 4 years ago

Hey, Cred,

You inquired, "...If you did not have as many personal problems with Santorum and he was the more ideologically consistent between him and Romney, would you support the true article or vote for Romney?..."

My answer to that question is, at this point in time, I will not support any other Republican than the "moderate Mitt Romney."

And the reason why that is the case is I am an old-school, street-wise dude who is very knowledgeable of what it takes for me to survive as well as what it takes for an entity like the Republican Party to survive.

In other words, I know that because of the present climate in the U.S., the Republican Party will not be able to survive, advance and win unless it fields a "moderate" for president.

My strong survival instincts tell me that this is not the season for the party to field a so-called true conservative.


Borsia profile image

Borsia 4 years ago from Currently, Philippines

With the republicans and democrats having gone to the extreme right and left it should be prime time for a 3rd party of moderates, but I don't see that happening.


feenix profile image

feenix 4 years ago

Hello, Borsia,

Do not be too pessimistic about that. A brand-new "moderate party" just might emerge a lot sooner than we think.

In my opinion, the time is ripe for there to be some earth-shaking changes in the ways we conduct political business in this country.


Auntie D profile image

Auntie D 4 years ago from California

I think we soon see some earth-shaking due to the good ole Republicans and there never ending desire to control a woman's body. Good grief... invasive ultrasounds! I seriously think these men have a masculinity problem. Mom's came on too strong? Or father's belittling their wives? Whatever the case the crazy states trying to get new ultrasound laws passed are in for a lot of trouble. Women are not going to go, quietly or whatever...their not going...period. They'll band together and fight. The GOP is going down, not the women.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Hi, feenix, so its "the old trojan horse behind the enemy's gate trick'

Your position is the sensible one if I was one of your number I would embrace it, but since I am not, I have to root for Sanitorium winning the nomination.

Whenever anybody wants to give someone the shaft, it has got to go in easy, or they will balk if you ram it in too hard and too fast. A little KY and moderation goes a long way toward a successful infiltration plan.

Thanks and forgive the crude analogy, but it does get to the crux of the matter. Your instincts are still good, but I don't know if the rest of the GOP will get on board.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Borsia, Ron Paul and the libertarians are sufficiently different from either major political party that the only real voice he has is through a third party candidacy. History has not been too kind to such a plan as part of the American political process.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Aujtie, I don't know what has gotten into these guys, perhaps they have been violated with their own probes?

The Right must be committing hari kari. This diversionary tactic is going to cost them votes from the middle, big time. The situation in Virginia was an embarrassment for the party. The sheer brazen and arrogance associated with 'probe thing' is beyond belief. I will have to tune in to Bill Maher, I know that he will have something to say about it in his next monologue.

I hope that Santorum and the Tea Party takes hold and brings the entire party to defeat as soundly as the pasting they took in 1964!

As always thanks for dropping by! Cred2


feenix profile image

feenix 4 years ago

Cred,

Due to the fact that I am not on the "down-low," your analogy does not make any sense to me at all. When it comes to use of KY and "ramming it in too hard and too fast," I am totally ignorant.


FSlovenec profile image

FSlovenec 4 years ago from San Francisco, CA

You are a thinker, name calling and labels "right-winger" is part of the reason the emotion seeps in and nothing gets done...abortion is contentious..if you have children or grand children you can realize that the only thing about a child at conception and 2, 3 or 50 years old is time...the Bible tells us the God knitted us together in the womb...killing a child is no matter the age is not a good thing..what would Jesus say and do... God Bless You...


Lady Quill profile image

Lady Quill 4 years ago

FSlovenec, as a woman with a child, I disagree completely because I realize there is indeed a difference between a child and a fetus. Though I respect your opinion regarding your god and the bible, I in no way bow to either and care not what others, including Jesus, might say or do. I do, however, care what a doctor and patient determine to be right given a particular medical instance.

As a woman I am so tired of hearing others talk about what other women should or shouldn't do with their bodies. A fetus growing inside of a woman who does not want to be pregnant is as harrowing for her as a malignant tumor that needs to be removed. For the woman who does not want to be or should not be pregnant, for whatever reasons, that fetus is a sign of everything she cannot have or does not want. For others to strip choice from her is for others to strip her of her personal freedom. I am sick that in this day, in the USA and other developed nations, there are still public and political discussions about this, when it is - and should remain - a private issue between a woman, her confidants and her doctor. Period.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

F. slovenec, thanks for your comment.

The issue is not seen by everyone in religious terms, thats the problem. There are as many religions as stars in the heavens, whose interpretation of this issue is the right one? It is an emotional issue regardless of how the opposing groups are named. Was I not fair about the nature of the contending groups involved?


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Hi, Lady Quill, thanks for saving me from having to write a great deal in reply to FSlovenec. I hope that all is good and that a happy Thankgiving awaits you just around the corner....


FSlovenec profile image

FSlovenec 4 years ago from San Francisco, CA

Just because you want to fool yourself into believing that God breaths life into a child at conception, does not mean it is not true...It is clear in His Word, which if you do not want to believe also does not mean it is not true..some people do not believe in gravity after taking one step off of a high building they prove it to be true.. Protect the rights of the unborn child...by the way if you want to be called a progressive you may want to research the history of the term...thank you God Bless You and Happy Thanksgiving!!


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but how are you going to enforce that perspective in a multicultural society? That is the question here


FSlovenec profile image

FSlovenec 4 years ago from San Francisco, CA

Maybe not want you want to hear but we need to turn our hearts to the Lord, who created us, loves us to the ultimate... God will bring a revival..it more than likely cannot be legislated.. Happy Thanksgiving..


Lady Quill profile image

Lady Quill 4 years ago

It's people who feel others must do as 'they' do because that is how 'they' believe, that causes the most problems in the world. If everyone would believe as they see fit while respecting and accepting the beliefs or non-beliefs of others, this world would be a much happier and more peaceful place.

Beyond that...

Credence2, it's always a pleasure to 'speak' with you. I hope your Thanksgiving was wonderful!


FSlovenec profile image

FSlovenec 4 years ago from San Francisco, CA

I respect the beliefs of other people...we have to acknowledge truth..the Bible is the basic unchanged and unchangeable truth..we see in the Old Testament the people sacrificing their babies to the sex goddess..abortion plays into that same context..killing babies can never be right..God Bless You!!


FSlovenec profile image

FSlovenec 4 years ago from San Francisco, CA

I respect the beliefs of other people...we have to acknowledge truth..the Bible is the basic unchanged and unchangeable truth..we see in the Old Testament the people sacrificing their babies to the sex goddess..abortion plays into that same context..killing babies can never be right..God Bless You!!


Lady Quill profile image

Lady Quill 4 years ago

FSlovence, if you respected the beliefs of other people, you would have written, "I have to acknowledge my truth" because saying 'we' and 'truth' as if yours is 'it', dismisses the beliefs of those whose 'truth' varies greatly from, or completely invalidates, yours. I do agree, however, that killing babies is a horrific thing. Despite that, the original discussion here was about abortion, and since an embryo merely has the potential to become a human being, the discussion of killing babies has no place here.

Credence2, my sincerest apologies for hijacking your hub. There are times when I see a point of view expressed as if it is law and I can simply turn away with a shake of my head. In this instance, where the topic is about a private and potentially agonizing moment in a woman's life, however, I find myself unable to walk away as if it does not matter. It does - we've seen that in the aggressive and despicable anti-woman laws recently enacted in several states. I am fortunate to have a daughter who understands what is at stake and who will fight the good fight for her generation and those who come next. This was a fabulous hub. I will do my best to refrain from further takeovers. ;-)


FSlovenec profile image

FSlovenec 4 years ago from San Francisco, CA

It is not my truth, It is God's truth, the only truth.


Borsia profile image

Borsia 4 years ago from Currently, Philippines

FS; You believe that your god is somehow more valid than the other hundreds if not thousands of others or that belief is somehow more moral than non-belief, all without any form of proof.

But the truth is that your beliefs aren't shared by everyone any more than your god is. The bible to me and billions of others is just a book written by men with no more validity than, and far less clarity than, Grimm’s Fairy Tales.

What you, and those who somehow think that if they say something enough times it will somehow become so, refuse to accept is that while perhaps these things are fact to you, they don’t carry that weight with everyone. Our different belief or complete lack of belief in gods or religion is every bit as strong and obvious to us as yours is to you and that is a fact.

As for abortion; I’ve never met a single woman, or man, who doesn’t think it is a sad and unfortunate situation for any woman to be in.

More and better sex education and promotion of family planning and contraception is the answer to reducing the number of abortions required regardless of what one considers a “requirement” to be.

I wish that those in the first world countries who claim that their “great truth” condemns and seeks to ban abortion and contraception would spend some time in the 3rd world squalor seeing firsthand what a disaster over population brings at every level.

As someone who has, and who has seen all the tiny faces peering out from the endless shanties without hope or dreams; beyond help and without any future. See the suffering that comes to families who have too many mouths and how the poverty that comes with it locks them into an endless cycle.

Every time I drive through the cities I see the children begging for money, not for food, not for their families but for glue or paint to sniff to try and get a few hours of relief from what is and will always be their lives.

But in most places I have been they all do have one thing in common with you. They all believe in that same god and that same book and it is that very faith that condemns them to endlessly repeat that suffering generation after generation. That is the truth.


FSlovenec profile image

FSlovenec 4 years ago from San Francisco, CA

Mine is the creator, mine is the only God, mine and yours is the only one who died on a cross, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. There is one true God..God Bless You..He promises that if you seek Him with all your heart you will find Him..if you and He never changes..


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Hi, Lady Quill, I wrote these articles to encourage stimulating debate. I am glad that you are here to contribute and bring important points to bear on the discussion. You are always welcome!

It is always good to have a extra hand to deal with intractable conservatives and their staked out positions.


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

FS, the problem with the religious right is that they often overlook the fact the in the scriptures God gives every man and woman a choice as to which path they want to take. What was it " Choose today who you will serve". Who is it for man to take away a choice that God has granted. The truth that you are adamant about has to be discovered and appreciated by each individual and that means they would have to find it for themselves. Coercion and imposition of YOUR truth on others, when you cannot prove your position objectively, isn't going to work.

In a pluralistic society, outside of your sermon, how would you address the problem?


Credence2 profile image

Credence2 4 years ago from Florida (Space Coast) Author

Borsia, as always, good to see you, thanks for the helpful comments that support the points that me and Lady Quill are trying to make


FSlovenec profile image

FSlovenec 4 years ago from San Francisco, CA

Credence2: use all of scripture not pieces..Jesus said "I am the way the truth and the life no one goes to the Father accept though me" The Word of God is the truth..God Bless You...He loves yo so much He died on the cross for you and if you were the only person on earth He would have died for you..


Borsia profile image

Borsia 4 years ago from Currently, Philippines

FS; Believe what ever you wish but don't try to somehow attach your god to me. I have none, don't want any.

In order for someone man, or god to die in my place they would first have to have a contract with me giving them that right. Without my consent nothing can be done in my name and I can assure you that I've entered into no such contract.

As to your assurtion that your flavor of god is the one and only; this is pretty much what every religion says and history has yet to confirm any such position in that no religious group has ever fared any better than any other.

No matter which religion you might choose you are in a minority, there are more people who believe something different than who share your belief.

The fastest growing of all of them is atheism / agnosticism.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working