Taxpayer-funded abortions in Illinois

[Starlight]

They are to us. And they are innocent. so maybe you can understand why we don't want to spend our tax money on killing babies?

Sure, you're delusional and have this idea stuck in your head that fetuses are people. So you quite reasonably don't want tax dollars to be spent killing them.

Except you then want tax dollars to be spent killing people via the military (committing various war crimes, terrorizing entire countries by flying death drones over them and dropping bombs on innocents at random, etc), via the police (wanting them armed and to use lethal force at the drop of a hat, and having little to no problem with them killing innocents regularly), and via the justice system (executing people some of whom are going to be innocent). So it's not as if you can remotely plausibly claim to be against the killing of people, or the killing of innocents, or the use of government money to do those things. So your pretense that that's totally why you're so against abortion rings hollow and just makes me laugh at your stupidity.

Whereas I'm actually against the killing of people, unlike you. I don't think the government should execute anyone - no capital punishment, no armed police force, no offensive use of military forces. And when it comes to fetuses, they don't meet my definition of being "people" because they don't have developed brains.

[Sparko]

Sure, you're delusional and have this idea stuck in your head that fetuses are people. So you quite reasonably don't want tax dollars to be spent killing them.

Except you then want tax dollars to be spent killing people via the military (committing various war crimes, terrorizing entire countries by flying death drones over them and dropping bombs on innocents at random, etc), via the police (wanting them armed and to use lethal force at the drop of a hat, and having little to no problem with them killing innocents regularly), and via the justice system (executing people some of whom are going to be innocent). So it's not as if you can remotely plausibly claim to be against the killing of people, or the killing of innocents, or the use of government money to do those things. So your pretense that that's totally why you're so against abortion rings hollow and just makes me laugh at your stupidity.

Whereas I'm actually against the killing of people, unlike you. I don't think the government should execute anyone - no capital punishment, no armed police force, no offensive use of military forces. And when it comes to fetuses, they don't meet my definition of being "people" because they don't have developed brains.

Our armies dont go around killing innocent people on purpose. and neither does the Justice system. Yet abortion does just that: kills innocent human beings on purpose. If anyone is delusional here it is you.

[rogue06]

Sure, you're delusional and have this idea stuck in your head that fetuses are people.

Coming from someone who thinks that babies who are weeks to months old aren't people.

[Sparko]

Coming from someone who thinks that babies who are weeks to months old aren't people.

Legal dictionary:

Person:
n. 1) a human being

as far as I can tell basic biology tells us that fetuses are human beings.

[Darth Executor]

Murdering already born children, perhaps?

that's not worse, it's just as bad

[Mountain Man]

I find the conservative obsession in the US about taxpayer dollars blah blah blah

You do realize that most of us just roll our eyes when you start self-righteously pontificating about the United States. It makes me wonder about your obsession with my country.

[lilpixieofterror]

Coming from someone who thinks that babies who are weeks to months old aren't people.

And it’s a position pro abortionist are inconsistent about. Why is it the personhood argument is only used when the baby is ‘unwanted’, but not for wanted babies? We throw baby showers, tell pregnant women congrats on their new baby, we buy cloths, go to doctor appointments, take extra special care of ourselves, etc. Is that the way a non person should be treated? I think they need to look at reality, the personhood argument is little more than emotional peace of mind that was invented to make the pro abort crowd feel better about what they truly support.

[Adrift]

I can't imagine much worse than murdering unborn children.

While murdering unborn children is near the top, I can imagine worse. There is evidence that throughout parts of the 20th century, American agencies experimented on pregnant women without their knowledge or consent which resulted in abortions, as well as experiments directly on newborns to see the effect of radioactive chemicals on humans. They did painful experimentation on mentally handicapped children that often resulted in their death, and they experimented on regular healthy citizens without their awareness. Wikipedia has a summary on these experiments here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethi..._United_States (check the sources at the bottom, of course, to determine how legit they are). The reason I would consider these practices worse is because abortion is usually done by people who are convinced, either through ignorance or sheer denial, that when aborting a baby they are not killing a human being. I know people, my mother for instance, who endured an abortion, and did so because they were convinced that it was the right thing to do, that there was nothing wrong with it, and that it was their best or sometimes, only option. In my mother's case, she was convinced by the cult we belonged to who claimed that the child could not be considered truly alive until after birth. She deeply regretted that decision, even at the time, and after leaving the cult, repented of it, and has dedicated her life to helping people, particularly women who've been put in similar situations.

I'm familiar with the concept of civil disobedience, but would Jesus approve? Rome was no doubt doing immoral things with its citizens' money, but Jesus made no distinction: give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God.

Yes, he would approve. If a conflict arises between giving to Caesar what belongs to him, and giving to God what belongs to him, the choice should be pretty clear. Civil disobedience has been an action undertaken by Christians throughout millennia, and even those faithful to God before that even. Moses leading the Exodus against the desires of Pharaoh, and Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refusing to bow to Nebuchadnezzar's golden image are good examples, as are those Christian martyrs in the early church who refused to worship Caesar, or who refused to make certain oaths. Martin Luther King's civil disobedience against Jim Crow laws through peaceful, yet illegal or prohibited sit-ins, marches, and protests was the right thing to do as well.

[Darth Executor]

Yes, he would approve. If a conflict arises between giving to Caesar what belongs to him, and giving to God what belongs to him, the choice should be pretty clear. Civil disobedience has been an action undertaken by Christians throughout millennia, and even those faithful to God before that even. Moses leading the Exodus against the desires of Pharaoh, and Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refusing to bow to Nebuchadnezzar's golden image are good examples, as are those Christian martyrs in the early church who refused to worship Caesar, or who refused to make certain oaths. Martin Luther King's civil disobedience against Jim Crow laws through peaceful, yet illegal or prohibited sit-ins, marches, and protests was the right thing to do as well.

Jesus goes out of His way to proscribe protest that does not even amount to civil disobedience (IE: walk 2 miles, turn the other cheek). MLK was not resisting forced idolatry, he was fighting for equal social status, something you'll find difficult to support, both in scripture and the early church. Quite the opposite, Paul told slaves to serve bad masters faithfully.

[RumTumTugger]

Yes, he would approve. If a conflict arises between giving to Caesar what belongs to him, and giving to God what belongs to him, the choice should be pretty clear. Civil disobedience has been an action undertaken by Christians throughout millennia, and even those faithful to God before that even. Moses leading the Exodus against the desires of Pharaoh, and Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refusing to bow to Nebuchadnezzar's golden image are good examples, as are those Christian martyrs in the early church who refused to worship Caesar, or who refused to make certain oaths. Martin Luther King's civil disobedience against Jim Crow laws through peaceful, yet illegal or prohibited sit-ins, marches, and protests was the right thing to do as well.

and don't forget the Israelite midwives who refused to kill the male babies born to Israelite women.

[Adrift]

Jesus goes out of His way to proscribe protest that does not even amount to civil disobedience (IE: walk 2 miles, turn the other cheek).

How does walking two miles and turning the other cheek proscribe protest? Jesus protested against the legal money changers at the temple. He protested against all numbers of rules and laws that were set against the will and purposes of God. That's a major theme of his interaction with the teachers of the law and the Pharisees.

MLK was not resisting forced idolatry, he was fighting for equal social status, something you'll find difficult to support, both in scripture and the early church. Quite the opposite, Paul told slaves to serve bad masters faithfully.

Wow. Out of the mouths of racists... It was Paul who declared that all are equal in Christ, the slave and the free. It was Paul who said to slaves that, "if you get a chance to be free, take it." You see in Paul's letters a man who acknowledged that the station of the slave in the ancient world was just part of the then expected social order. That creating a slave uprising among the small nascent Christian community would be a quick path to total annihilation as the full brunt of the Roman empire would come quickly down upon it. And that no matter one's station in life, no matter how low on the social totem pole you may be, you are still salt and light in the world, that the world can take it's example from. The slave who was obedient, and exhibited the love of God would turn the master onto Christ Jesus as well, and in due process, might then be able to gain his freedom. It wasn't practical for Paul to deliver a message of slave protest in the 50s-60s AD, it would surely lead to very bad things for the early Christian movement. It was enough to plant the seed of equality that would result in the blossoming of the Christian spear-fronted abolitionist movement in the West that would, in time, spread throughout the rest of the world. There's a time and a place, and a season for everything. Paul knew his time and place. We know ours.

But all of this is tangential to what Martin Luther King was dealing with. Maybe when you think "black person" you automatically think slave, but Martin Luther wasn't protesting slavery, he wasn't dealing with good slaves and bad masters. He was dealing with the unjust treatment of full free citizens of the United States, not slaves. This is an issue that Paul himself protested in Acts 16:37 when he was unjustly punished and imprisoned as a free citizen of the Roman Empire.

Look, I sort of figured that if my post was going to trigger anyone, it was going to be you, and you'd jump in with your two cents. You've proven time and again that you can't help but froth a little every time you see anything to do with Christianity and racial integration. I realize that, barring a return to slavery, you want a return to apartheid in the most literal sense (etymologically "separateness", or "the state of being apart", literally "apart-hood") but that isn't Christian. It isn't what Christ wanted, and it certainly wasn't what Paul wanted. They would have been perfectly fine with protesting those things that stand in the way of God's will for us. You need to get your head screwed on straight, man. Seriously.

[Darth Executor]

How does walking two miles and turning the other cheek proscribe protest?

It was a way to protest against the requirements imposed by the Romans to carry a soldier's stuff for a mile. Turning the other cheek was also a way to retaliate against being humiliated by a superior without breaking any rules. In both cases they serve to shame the oppressor and make retaliation cost even more honor.

Jesus protested against the legal money changers at the temple. He protested against all numbers of rules and laws that were set against the will and purposes of God. That's a major theme of his interaction with the teachers of the law and the Pharisees.

Not illegally.

Wow. Out of the mouth's of racists... It was Paul who declared that all are equal in Christ, the slave and the free.

Wow. Out of the mouth's(sic) of illiterates. Social status has nothing to do with whether we are all equal in Christ. And Paul never said we are all equal in Christ anyway, just that these things do not provide you with any special status.

More importantly, when I said you would not find support for it, I was referring to support for illegal fights for it, not support for equal social status (though it's true that you find no support for that either, it's irrelevant to the topic at hand).

It was Paul who said to slaves that, "if you get a chance to be free, take it."

Not illegally.

You see in Paul's letters a man who acknowledged that the station of the slave in the ancient world was just part of the then expected social order. That creating a slave uprising among the small nascent Christian community would be a quick path to total annihilation as the full brunt of the Roman empire would come quickly down upon it. And that no matter one's station in life, no matter how low on the social totem pole you may be, you are still salt and light in the world, that the world can take it's example from. The slave who was obedient, and exhibited the love of God would turn the master onto Christ Jesus as well, and in due process, might then be able to gain his freedom. It wasn't practical for Paul to deliver a message of slave protest in the 50s-60s AD, it would surely lead to very bad things for the early Christian movement. It was enough to plant the seed of equality that would result in the blossoming of the Christian spear-fronted abolitionist movement in the West that would, in time, spread throughout the rest of the world. There's a time and a place, and a season for everything. Paul knew his time and place. We know ours.

Thanks for acknowledging I was correct.

But all of this is tangential to what Martin Luther King was dealing with. Maybe when you think "black person" you automatically think slave, but Martin Luther wasn't protesting slavery, he wasn't dealing with good slaves and bad masters. He was dealing with the unjust treatment of full free citizens of the United States, not slaves. This is an issue that Paul himself protested in Acts 16:37 when he was unjustly punished and imprisoned as a free citizen of the Roman Empire.

No, cretin, I think that if Paul told slaves to serve their masters then MLK's lesser fight does not really provide any justification for illegal behavior either. It's precisely because slavery is worse that I made the comparison.

Look, I sort of figured that if my post was going to trigger anyone, it was going to be you, and you'd jump in with your two cents. You've proven time and again that you can't help but froth a little every time you see anything to do with Christianity and racial integration. I realize that, barring a return to slavery, you want a return to apartheid in the most literal sense (etymologically "separateness", or "the state of being apart", literally "apart-hood") but that isn't Christian. It isn't what Christ wanted, and it certainly wasn't what Paul wanted. They would have been perfectly fine with protesting those things that stand in the way of God's will for us. You need to get your head screwed on straight man, seriously.

lol you're the only one frothing here. You immediately misrepresent my post in every way imaginable and are now going on an extended diatribe about what evil person I am. I think it's obvious to everyone who triggered who.

BTW, do you know how I know I'm significantly smarter than you are? It's because of the low quality of your strawmen. It's pretty easy to demolish them because they don't even remotely resemble the statement you respond to. From my experience intelligent people craft high quality strawmen that differ from the original in only the most subtle of ways. Often a lesser intellect won't even realize he is slowly being guided towards defending a less defensible position. This is the exact opposite to your approach, which is more akin to a big dumb ogre swinging a tree around.

[Starlight]

You do realize that most of us just roll our eyes when you start self-righteously pontificating about the United States. It makes me wonder about your obsession with my country.

In international polls, people rate the US as the number one threat to world peace.

Also, apart from Syria, your country is now the only one to refuse to sign the Paris Climate Agreement, thereby willfully failing to respond to the biggest threat facing humanity and the planet.

Also, your country caused the Great Recession, and is the biggest danger to the rest of the world economically due to its insane refusal to regulate its banking sector in any meaningful way and its ongoing exploitation of the resources of other countries for the benefit of Wall St.

Given that your country is the number one threat to the rest of the world on multiple fronts - militarily, ecologically, and economically - it seems 100% reasonable to be seriously concerned about it and the danger it poses to the rest of us.


P.S. ...I've just read today's media headlines. Reuters: U.S. is a 'danger to the world', warns top economist

[Adrift]

It was a way to protest against the requirements imposed by the Romans to carry a soldier's stuff for a mile. Turning the other cheek was also a way to retaliate against being humiliated by a superior without breaking any rules. In both cases they serve to shame the oppressor and make retaliation cost even more honor.

You're eisegeting if you think these passages are anti-protest. Those passages say nothing about protest, and they're not about protest. As Ben Witherington points out in The Indelible Image, they were are about doing good for both our friends and our enemies. They are about unconditional love, and ending the reciprocity cycle. "One acts on the basis of kindness and love and of one's preexisting ethical commitments. One does not just respond naturally or as required in a situation. Disciples are to respond in a helpful way even to those who have no power over them, giving to a beggar or a borrower generously . . . Self-sacrifice replaces self-interest as the basis of ethics in the kingdom because it is assumed that Jesus has indeed established a new eschatological situation." To stretch these passages to all forms of protest, even (and especially) peaceful forms of protest is reading into the passages what isn't there.

Not illegally.

Flipping tables, and whipping merchants who were at the temple legally, wasn't exactly legal to do, and as NT scholar Larry R. Helyer points out in Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period, those actions directly precipitated Jesus trial and crucifixion.

Wow. Out of the mouth's(sic) of illiterates. Social status has nothing to do with whether we are all equal in Christ. And Paul never said we are all equal in Christ anyway, just that these things do not provide you with any special status.

Yeah, I realize this is your view on Paul's words. You have to reinterpret what, for you, must be a very inconvenient passages because they don't fit nicely into your racist worldview. You're wrong though. Again as Witherington points out,

Source: New Testament Theology and Ethics, Volume 2

Paul's basic strategy for social and spiritual change of the world was to put the leaven of the gospel into the structure of the Christian community, and as a subset of that into the structure of the Christian household and let it do its work over the course of time. The community was to be a witness to all. This focus on the community was for the most part in lieu of placing the leaven directly into secular society. Paul believed in living a true Christian life and letting the implications of that bring reformation to the patriarchal and slave society in which he lived. He insisted that Christians live out their new freedom in Christ as brothers and sisters as as equals (see Gal 3:28). Colossians 3:11 and Galatians 3:28 were not merely slogans without social and spiritual implications, but the implications were played out "in Christ," which meant "in community," which in turn meant "in house" and "in households." By being a new community, a model of how the new creation changes things, a good witness was being borne about a new worldview.

© Copyright Original Source

More importantly, when I said you would not find support for it, I was referring to support for illegal fights for it, not support for equal social status (though it's true that you find no support for that either, it's irrelevant to the topic at hand).

I mentioned several occasions where illegal protest was made against the government in scripture.

Thanks for acknowledging I was correct.

Pointing out that Paul was planting the seed for future abolitionists is acknowledging you were correct?

No, cretin, I think that if Paul told slaves to serve their masters then MLK's lesser fight does not really provide any justification for illegal behavior either. It's precisely because slavery is worse that I made the comparison.

You compared apples and oranges. Paul was discussing the actions of Christian slaves and masters. Martin Luther King Jr. was protesting the unjust treatment of freemen among freemen. Stop reading your twisted view of the world back into scripture, and saying "this is what the Bible says about X". It's bad eisigesis, plain and simple.

lol you're the only one frothing here. You immediately misrepresent my post in every way imaginable and are now going on an extended diatribe about what evil person I am. I think it's obvious to everyone who triggered who.

No, you're the one who got triggered. You're the one who jumped right into discussion with me as soon as you saw the name "Martin Luther King". Everyone knows how rabid you get anytime race comes up. You can't help yourself.

BTW, do you know how I know I'm significantly smarter than you are? It's because of the low quality of your strawmen. It's pretty easy to demolish them because they don't even remotely resemble the statement you respond to. From my experience intelligent people craft high quality strawmen that differ from the original in only the most subtle of ways. Often a lesser intellect won't even realize he is slowly being guided towards defending a less defensible position. This is the exact opposite to your approach, which is more akin to a big dumb ogre swinging a tree around.

Your big aside is to make sure to let me know how much smarter you are? Are you taking notes from Starlight now? Reading this honestly gave me second-hand cringe for you. At any rate, the title of smartest guy on TWeb (or at least "smarter guy than Adrift") is all yours. I'm a simple guy from a simple background, but I know right from wrong, and good from evil.

[RumTumTugger]

In international polls, people rate the US as the number one threat to world peace.

so you found the first leftist source that agrees with you Starlight. No surprise there. Salon had to go back to a survey from 2013( before Isis and while Obama not Trump was president)using an unscientific methodology to get these results they wanted to print. Starlight, do you really expect us to think you did due diligence here? give me a break.

here we have a so called survey that gathered information from 65 countries. The only information I could get on how this information was gathered from the source that Salon used is the list of countries who's surveys they pooled the data from which included Afghanistan, Iraq, ect; but did not include the United Kingdom or Israel to name a few that did some surveys done face to face others online(very questionable there) . Shows to any truly open minded intelligent person, that the information that was gathered by WiN/Gallup was cherry picked. You may get away with pretending to be an open minded intellectual on other forums that won't fact check you or just like you accepting the first source that agrees with them. But not here fact checking will occur.