Pro-choice at record low...41 percent.

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The poll cited wasn't about the law, but about how people self identify, but you're absolutely right. Politicians like to use abortion to rile up their bases, but most Americans see it as a settled issue.

And more importantly, the courts treat it as settled law:

Oklahoma Supreme Court: Personhood Is 'Clearly Unconstitutional' | ThinkProgress

 

[JoeB131]

Slavery in the bible was not the same as slavery today. It was more indentured servitude, as Jews were obligated to turn their slaves free every 7 years, and slaves were allowed to have property, had to be paid wages, and had rights just as everybody else did.

Uh, no, they weren't.

yes, there was indentured servitude for fellow Jews, they were willing to fell out their own...

But for people they took as slaves from other nations, not so much...

Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever. - Leviticus 25:44-46


Of course the whole issue of Hebrews enslaving other Hebrews wasn't all that great, either. From the Book of Exodus-

21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
21:3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
21:4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
21:5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

So all you had to do to latch onto this guy forever was threaten to keep his family hostage. How sweet.

Do you actually ever read that book, or just the parts your minister tells you to?

 

[koshergrl]

That was written for a people who had slaves, before the coming of Christ.
It doesn't mean that we now should go out and get us some slaves, Hoo Yeah!

But nice try.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Slavery in the bible was not the same as slavery today. It was more indentured servitude, as Jews were obligated to turn their slaves free every 7 years, and slaves were allowed to have property, had to be paid wages, and had rights just as everybody else did.

OMG...You really need to pick up a history book every once in a while.

And actually READ the bible. It ain't peaches and cream in there, Princess. It advocates slavery, plain and simple (among other things). Stoning of women and children is popular.

Oh, and my favorite story, Sodom and Gomorrah. There's a story to tell the kiddies before bedtime.

Angels come to warn the one guy in town that god has decided is worth saving. The town, you see, has gotten away from the Christian ideal of "love they neighbor" and were very inhospitable to strangers...kind of a gated community you might say.

But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, 'Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.' I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town. (Luke 10:10-12)

So anyway, back to the story...The townspeople find out about the angels staying with this dude Lott and his family and they get a mob together and head over to Lott's house. You get the idea from the story that these townspeople want to gang rape the angels (not have consensual loving sex, but RAPE them). So this guy Lott, this loving Christian, family man, offers to send his two daughters out to gang rape them instead of the Angels. Real nice guy, that Lott. Father of the year.

God destroys Sodom anyway, including Lott's too curious wife so he runs off to the hills where he has sex with his two daughters.

And out of this whole story, who gets scapegoated? Consenting adult gays and lesbians, who had NOTHING to do with the whole story in the first place.

yep rape them...kinda like stuff that liberals make a big deal over then let rapists out on good behavior (again who cares how good you are IN prison)
Yeah it does advocate that stuff, I figured you guys would really like the Bible, only thing missing is necrophilia, is that why you're disappointed in it? And lets not forget Lott was drunk and his daughters seduced him (wicked women!!!!!!!) and they thought, humans were wiped out and they set about to repopulate.

And since when do liberals not like gang rape. I mean you like Willie Horton and you defend rapists and want them out of jail, so that's kinda like supporting it, if you ask me.

As for the gays comment, wasnt it men who raped male angels? That's gay correct? Or do angels have their own gender? It's kind of like pedophiles, people like you dont consider them gay, but it's men doing boys, kinda gay if you ask me.

 

[JoeB131]

That was written for a people who had slaves, before the coming of Christ.
It doesn't mean that we now should go out and get us some slaves, Hoo Yeah!

But nice try.

Except Jesus never said slavery was wrong,nor did the "New Testement" outlaw slavery, which is why the practice continued for 1900 years after Jesus came and went.

In fact, the message of the New Testement is that slaves should suck it up and enjoy it.


Ephesians 6:5
Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.

Colossians 3:22
Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.

1 Timothy 6:1
Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.

Titus 2:9-10
Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.

1 Peter 2:18
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.


Again, do you actually ever READ the bible, or just take someones word that it's all Puppies and Sunshine?

 

[Katzndogz]

Slavery in the bible was not the same as slavery today. It was more indentured servitude, as Jews were obligated to turn their slaves free every 7 years, and slaves were allowed to have property, had to be paid wages, and had rights just as everybody else did.

OMG...You really need to pick up a history book every once in a while.

And actually READ the bible. It ain't peaches and cream in there, Princess. It advocates slavery, plain and simple (among other things). Stoning of women and children is popular.

Oh, and my favorite story, Sodom and Gomorrah. There's a story to tell the kiddies before bedtime.

Angels come to warn the one guy in town that god has decided is worth saving. The town, you see, has gotten away from the Christian ideal of "love they neighbor" and were very inhospitable to strangers...kind of a gated community you might say.

But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, 'Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.' I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town. (Luke 10:10-12)

So anyway, back to the story...The townspeople find out about the angels staying with this dude Lott and his family and they get a mob together and head over to Lott's house. You get the idea from the story that these townspeople want to gang rape the angels (not have consensual loving sex, but RAPE them). So this guy Lott, this loving Christian, family man, offers to send his two daughters out to gang rape them instead of the Angels. Real nice guy, that Lott. Father of the year.

God destroys Sodom anyway, including Lott's too curious wife so he runs off to the hills where he has sex with his two daughters.

And out of this whole story, who gets scapegoated? Consenting adult gays and lesbians, who had NOTHING to do with the whole story in the first place.

The story of Soddom and Gammorah is an important one. Even though many of the townspeople may not have been homosexuals themselves, they allowed it to exist, they found it normal and so the entire town, both of them had to be destroyed.

As the angels appeared as men, the men of the town intended to gang rape them, because they declined to engage in butt fucking on their own. Lott offered his own daughters to the homosexuals of the town so that they at least would not commit that sin. The men, the angels, were in his home and under his protection. The gays weren't all that interested in the consenting part were they? Because these two men were unwilling they were to be gang raped against their will. Maybe the gays thought these men weren't normal and had to be adjusted into normalcy.

The point of the story is, if homosexuality is acceptable to you as normal you are just as bad as those who engage and will suffer the same punishment as those who do.

 

[BDBoop]

Slavery in the bible was not the same as slavery today. It was more indentured servitude, as Jews were obligated to turn their slaves free every 7 years, and slaves were allowed to have property, had to be paid wages, and had rights just as everybody else did.

OMG...You really need to pick up a history book every once in a while.

And actually READ the bible. It ain't peaches and cream in there, Princess. It advocates slavery, plain and simple (among other things). Stoning of women and children is popular.

Oh, and my favorite story, Sodom and Gomorrah. There's a story to tell the kiddies before bedtime.

Angels come to warn the one guy in town that god has decided is worth saving. The town, you see, has gotten away from the Christian ideal of "love they neighbor" and were very inhospitable to strangers...kind of a gated community you might say.

But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, 'Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.' I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town. (Luke 10:10-12)

So anyway, back to the story...The townspeople find out about the angels staying with this dude Lott and his family and they get a mob together and head over to Lott's house. You get the idea from the story that these townspeople want to gang rape the angels (not have consensual loving sex, but RAPE them). So this guy Lott, this loving Christian, family man, offers to send his two daughters out to gang rape them instead of the Angels. Real nice guy, that Lott. Father of the year.

God destroys Sodom anyway, including Lott's too curious wife so he runs off to the hills where he has sex with his two daughters.

And out of this whole story, who gets scapegoated? Consenting adult gays and lesbians, who had NOTHING to do with the whole story in the first place.

The story of Soddom and Gammorah is an important one. Even though many of the townspeople may not have been homosexuals themselves, they allowed it to exist, they found it normal and so the entire town, both of them had to be destroyed.

As the angels appeared as men, the men of the town intended to gang rape them, because they declined to engage in butt fucking on their own. Lott offered his own daughters to the homosexuals of the town so that they at least would not commit that sin. The men, the angels, were in his home and under his protection. The gays weren't all that interested in the consenting part were they? Because these two men were unwilling they were to be gang raped against their will. Maybe the gays thought these men weren't normal and had to be adjusted into normalcy.

The point of the story is, if homosexuality is acceptable to you as normal you are just as bad as those who engage and will suffer the same punishment as those who do.

Nope. You got that one wrong, too. And in a really disgusting way that you seem to have enjoyed recounting.

Know how I know you're gay?

 

[koshergrl]

Who cares?

 

[JoeB131]

The story of Soddom and Gammorah is an important one. Even though many of the townspeople may not have been homosexuals themselves, they allowed it to exist, they found it normal and so the entire town, both of them had to be destroyed.

As the angels appeared as men, the men of the town intended to gang rape them, because they declined to engage in butt fucking on their own. Lott offered his own daughters to the homosexuals of the town so that they at least would not commit that sin. The men, the angels, were in his home and under his protection. The gays weren't all that interested in the consenting part were they? Because these two men were unwilling they were to be gang raped against their will. Maybe the gays thought these men weren't normal and had to be adjusted into normalcy.

The point of the story is, if homosexuality is acceptable to you as normal you are just as bad as those who engage and will suffer the same punishment as those who do.

I'm just wondering what kind of God considers homosexuality a worse sin than offering up your daughters for gang rape. Especially daughters who apparently had no sexual experience themselves and in that time period were pretty young.

In fact, God considers that such a bad sin that he will not only kill the gays, but had to kill all the non-gays, women, children, puppies and kitties in the town. Just had to kill them all. And turn Mrs. Lot into a pillar of salt because she looked back.

Meanwhile, our boy Lot, the wonderful guy God just had to save (keep that in mind the next time you pray for your Mom's cancer to get better and it doesn't) went on to have drunken sex with both of his daughters.

 

[koshergrl]

The story of Soddom and Gammorah is an important one. Even though many of the townspeople may not have been homosexuals themselves, they allowed it to exist, they found it normal and so the entire town, both of them had to be destroyed.

As the angels appeared as men, the men of the town intended to gang rape them, because they declined to engage in butt fucking on their own. Lott offered his own daughters to the homosexuals of the town so that they at least would not commit that sin. The men, the angels, were in his home and under his protection. The gays weren't all that interested in the consenting part were they? Because these two men were unwilling they were to be gang raped against their will. Maybe the gays thought these men weren't normal and had to be adjusted into normalcy.

The point of the story is, if homosexuality is acceptable to you as normal you are just as bad as those who engage and will suffer the same punishment as those who do.

I'm just wondering what kind of God considers homosexuality a worse sin than offering up your daughters for gang rape. Especially daughters who apparently had no sexual experience themselves and in that time period were pretty young.

In fact, God considers that such a bad sin that he will not only kill the gays, but had to kill all the non-gays, women, children, puppies and kitties in the town. Just had to kill them all. And turn Mrs. Lot into a pillar of salt because she looked back.

Meanwhile, our boy Lot, the wonderful guy God just had to save (keep that in mind the next time you pray for your Mom's cancer to get better and it doesn't) went on to have drunken sex with both of his daughters.

Actually, I think that the idea was that homosexual rape was worse than hetero rape...or maybe it had to do with the fact that the gangs probably had a history of murdering the unfortunate people they met in the streets after dark.

anyway, I see all the anti-Christian weirdoes are here, along with the anti-marriage freaks. Yuck.

 

[JoeB131]

The story of Soddom and Gammorah is an important one. Even though many of the townspeople may not have been homosexuals themselves, they allowed it to exist, they found it normal and so the entire town, both of them had to be destroyed.

As the angels appeared as men, the men of the town intended to gang rape them, because they declined to engage in butt fucking on their own. Lott offered his own daughters to the homosexuals of the town so that they at least would not commit that sin. The men, the angels, were in his home and under his protection. The gays weren't all that interested in the consenting part were they? Because these two men were unwilling they were to be gang raped against their will. Maybe the gays thought these men weren't normal and had to be adjusted into normalcy.

The point of the story is, if homosexuality is acceptable to you as normal you are just as bad as those who engage and will suffer the same punishment as those who do.

I'm just wondering what kind of God considers homosexuality a worse sin than offering up your daughters for gang rape. Especially daughters who apparently had no sexual experience themselves and in that time period were pretty young.

In fact, God considers that such a bad sin that he will not only kill the gays, but had to kill all the non-gays, women, children, puppies and kitties in the town. Just had to kill them all. And turn Mrs. Lot into a pillar of salt because she looked back.

Meanwhile, our boy Lot, the wonderful guy God just had to save (keep that in mind the next time you pray for your Mom's cancer to get better and it doesn't) went on to have drunken sex with both of his daughters.

Actually, I think that the idea was that homosexual rape was worse than hetero rape...or maybe it had to do with the fact that the gangs probably had a history of murdering the unfortunate people they met in the streets after dark.

anyway, I see all the anti-Christian weirdoes are here, along with the anti-marriage freaks. Yuck.

As a philosophy I have no problem with Christianity.

Love they neighbor, treat others as they would treat you, if someone asks for your coat give them your shirt as well, render unto Ceasars what is Ceasars...

It's all the othe weird Old Testament stuff you guys try to justify that's kind of freaky.

Again, these two guys were angels... Now, I'm not even sure if Angels would even have rectums for the town to violate, but it wasn't like they could actually KILL them. So I'm not sure what offering Lot's daughters would have really accomplished, exactly.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Um, yes, Joe, you are failing, guy.

Contradiction only works through grade school. After that, refuting requires more effort.

Actually . . ., guy, your projection of your inner inadequacy is correct in that your arguments fail.

Um. . . kid, it is obvious your failed arguments require no more refutation.

Move along, folks, nothing to see here,.

 

[hortysir]

The middle ground is birth control education. As was stated in the posts preceding the ones you quoted.

More than 46 percent of abortions are the result of unwanted pregnancies which in turn were the result of not using any kind of birth control.

Raising the use of birth control would lower the number of abortions.

This is the middle ground that can be found between the pro-life and pro-choice groups.

Overturning Roe v Wade would not have any effect on the number of abortions. All this rhetorical bomb throwing has no effect, either.

But raising birth control usage would lower the number of abortions. We could put a serious dent in that number. And when abortions become less frequent, they become less socially acceptable.

It's win/win for everyone.

Quite the opposite has occurred in the last 30 years.
Explain that.


Couldn't be the increase in the number of people saying, "It's okay. Do whatever you want to do. We'll worry about the consequences, later", would it????

 

[gxnelson]

Can I just call out KG. Who constantly asks for back up when people state things, but when she does it's just true and there is no need for acts and figures. Because it's through the power of observation and "common sense"?

 

[BDBoop]

Can I just call out KG. Who constantly asks for back up when people state things, but when she does it's just true and there is no need for acts and figures. Because it's through the power of observation and "common sense"?

Actually Gary is the one who got here through 'common sense' but sure; why not.

 

[gxnelson]

Can I just call out KG. Who constantly asks for back up when people state things, but when she does it's just true and there is no need for acts and figures. Because it's through the power of observation and "common sense"?

Actually Gary is the one who got here through 'common sense' but sure; why not.

well she does it to. And whats her face. (Im sure you know who I'm talking about)

 

[buckeye45_73]

The middle ground is birth control education. As was stated in the posts preceding the ones you quoted.

More than 46 percent of abortions are the result of unwanted pregnancies which in turn were the result of not using any kind of birth control.

Raising the use of birth control would lower the number of abortions.

This is the middle ground that can be found between the pro-life and pro-choice groups.

Overturning Roe v Wade would not have any effect on the number of abortions. All this rhetorical bomb throwing has no effect, either.

But raising birth control usage would lower the number of abortions. We could put a serious dent in that number. And when abortions become less frequent, they become less socially acceptable.

It's win/win for everyone.

Quite the opposite has occurred in the last 30 years.
Explain that.


Couldn't be the increase in the number of people saying, "It's okay. Do whatever you want to do. We'll worry about the consequences, later", would it????

Exactally.... Liberals always make these promises but never hold true. So we have birth control, condoms, patches, sex eduacation, and abortions and teen pregnancies are higher then when all this stuff went into effect in the late 60s/early 70s.........something isnt right. It certainly wouldnt be more liberalized attitudes on sex...naaaaaaaaaa...It's great to bang 3 different people and maybe a tranny as well. no need for commitment and responsibiltiy after all people had sonservative views on sex for hundreds of years and all these factors were lower.....gosh I dont understand it!!!!!

 

[BDBoop]

Can I just call out KG. Who constantly asks for back up when people state things, but when she does it's just true and there is no need for acts and figures. Because it's through the power of observation and "common sense"?

Actually Gary is the one who got here through 'common sense' but sure; why not.

well she does it to. And whats her face. (Im sure you know who I'm talking about)

Actually, it's senseless to call trolls out. Fits that old adage about wrestling with pigs.

 

[JoeB131]

Um, yes, Joe, you are failing, guy.

Contradiction only works through grade school. After that, refuting requires more effort.

Actually . . ., guy, your projection of your inner inadequacy is correct in that your arguments fail.

Um. . . kid, it is obvious your failed arguments require no more refutation.

Move along, folks, nothing to see here,.

BD Boop isn't a guy... and I think you thought you were responding to me, but do try to pay attention, Jakey...

 

[snjmom]

The middle ground is birth control education. As was stated in the posts preceding the ones you quoted.

More than 46 percent of abortions are the result of unwanted pregnancies which in turn were the result of not using any kind of birth control.

Raising the use of birth control would lower the number of abortions.

This is the middle ground that can be found between the pro-life and pro-choice groups.

Overturning Roe v Wade would not have any effect on the number of abortions. All this rhetorical bomb throwing has no effect, either.

But raising birth control usage would lower the number of abortions. We could put a serious dent in that number. And when abortions become less frequent, they become less socially acceptable.

It's win/win for everyone.

Quite the opposite has occurred in the last 30 years.
Explain that.


Couldn't be the increase in the number of people saying, "It's okay. Do whatever you want to do. We'll worry about the consequences, later", would it????

Exactally.... Liberals always make these promises but never hold true. So we have birth control, condoms, patches, sex eduacation, and abortions and teen pregnancies are higher then when all this stuff went into effect in the late 60s/early 70s.........something isnt right. It certainly wouldnt be more liberalized attitudes on sex...naaaaaaaaaa...It's great to bang 3 different people and maybe a tranny as well. no need for commitment and responsibiltiy after all people had sonservative views on sex for hundreds of years and all these factors were lower.....gosh I dont understand it!!!!!

Holy Batman, are you guys insane? Teen pregnancies at their lowest levels since the forties, and considering nutritional and medical advances that increase fertility and birth rates, probably lower. The abortion rate has dropped accordingly.

CDC

the national campaign to prevent teen pregnancy

1940-2006

The 50's had the highest rates the country has ever seen. The conservative golden age. Imagine that.