> BTW, why do educated Republican women
> vote for the likes of Akin?
Because they know they would never, ever become pregnant unintentionally or
outside of marriage. Having accepted Jesus as their Savior, they are immune
to ectopic pregnancies, rape, and such-like.
> BTW, why do educated Republican women
> vote for the likes of Akin?
Because they know they would never, ever become pregnant unintentionally or
outside of marriage. Having accepted Jesus as their Savior, they are immune
to ectopic pregnancies, rape, and such-like.
Kip Williams wrote:
> Frank Berger wrote, On 8/22/12 8:15 PM:
>> Kip Williams wrote:
>>> Herman wrote, On 8/22/12 2:50 PM:
>>>> The problem is not too much government, but too little. Everyone
>>>> knows that, and there is only one reason to deny that this is how
>>>> it works, and that is if you're making a profit from the current
>>>> situation.
>>> I can think of other reasons.
>>> • Believing (erroneously) that they profit from the situation.
>>> • Believing that one day they will benefit from the situation.
>>> • Believing in it on principle for whatever reason.
>>> • Just going along with what someone else says and not looking into
>>> it. • Believing that this situation sticks it to somebody they don't
>>> like more than it does to them.
>>> • Believing that this situation makes someone else mad, so they'll
>>> go along with it.
>>> I'm not saying any of them are right, of course. Most, if not all,
>>> are wrong. But there's more than one way to be wrong.
>> Congratulations. You're smarter than Herman. But you left out the
>> most important reason. Believing it because you conclude that's
>> what the evidence supports (whether right or wrong). I guess you're
>> not so smart after all. Keep trying, though.
> I think of that as part of the third one, but if you like, there's
> one more.
William Sommerwerck wrote:
>> BTW, why do educated Republican women
>> vote for the likes of Akin?
> Because they know they would never, ever become pregnant
> unintentionally or outside of marriage. Having accepted Jesus as
> their Savior, they are immune to ectopic pregnancies, rape, and
> such-like.
Or because they realize that a belief that all abortion is immoral is not necessarily motivated by an anti-woman sentiment. Some of them believe that abortion is wrong in all cases *even though* they themselves could be tragically inconvenienced or find their faith challenged.
> Kip Williams wrote:
>> Frank Berger wrote, On 8/22/12 8:15 PM:
>>> Kip Williams wrote:
>>>> Herman wrote, On 8/22/12 2:50 PM:
>>>>> The problem is not too much government, but too little. Everyone
>>>>> knows that, and there is only one reason to deny that this is how
>>>>> it works, and that is if you're making a profit from the current
>>>>> situation.
>>>> I can think of other reasons.
>>>> • Believing (erroneously) that they profit from the situation.
>>>> • Believing that one day they will benefit from the situation.
>>>> • Believing in it on principle for whatever reason.
>>>> • Just going along with what someone else says and not looking into
>>>> it. • Believing that this situation sticks it to somebody they don't
>>>> like more than it does to them.
>>>> • Believing that this situation makes someone else mad, so they'll
>>>> go along with it.
>>>> I'm not saying any of them are right, of course. Most, if not all,
>>>> are wrong. But there's more than one way to be wrong.
>>> Congratulations. You're smarter than Herman. But you left out the
>>> most important reason. Believing it because you conclude that's
>>> what the evidence supports (whether right or wrong). I guess you're
>>> not so smart after all. Keep trying, though.
>> I think of that as part of the third one, but if you like, there's
>> one more.
> I took the 3rd one to be blind faith in ideology.
It could be that as well. "For whatever reason" includes reasons both good and bad.
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>> BTW, why do educated Republican women
>>> vote for the likes of Akin?
>> Because they know they would never, ever become pregnant
>> unintentionally or outside of marriage. Having accepted Jesus as
>> their Savior, they are immune to ectopic pregnancies, rape, and
>> such-like.
> Or because they realize that a belief that all abortion is immoral is
> not necessarily motivated by an anti-woman sentiment. Some of them
> believe that abortion is wrong in all cases *even though* they
> themselves could be tragically inconvenienced or find their faith
> challenged.
Frank, that's well and truly said, but just too rational for most of the folks here.
On Aug 23, 1:14 pm, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
> >> BTW, why do educated Republican women
> >> vote for the likes of Akin?
> > Because they know they would never, ever become pregnant
> > unintentionally or outside of marriage. Having accepted Jesus as
> > their Savior, they are immune to ectopic pregnancies, rape, and
> > such-like.
> Or because they realize that a belief that all abortion is immoral is not
> necessarily motivated by an anti-woman sentiment.
Most religions at their heart are anti-woman. Certainly Christianity
and Judaism are anti-woman in many respects. A religious person can
believe they are anti-abortion because they're not anti-woman, but
simply following their religious beliefs. But that ignores the anti-
woman aspects of their religion.
>Some of them believe
> that abortion is wrong in all cases *even though* they themselves could be
> tragically inconvenienced or find their faith challenged.
I know a Jewish woman who went to term and delivered stillborn twins,
even though she knew they would be stillborn well in advance of their
due date. She did it based on her faith, even though the doctors
warned her that it could be harmful to her health. She came through it
fine. I guess that was a challenge to her faith as she could have
taken the more medically sound road and had the dead fetuses aborted.
>>>> BTW, why do educated Republican women
>>>> vote for the likes of Akin?
>>> Because they know they would never, ever become pregnant
>>> unintentionally or outside of marriage. Having accepted Jesus
>>> as their Savior, they are immune to ectopic pregnancies, rape,
>>> and such-like.
>> Or because they realize that a belief that all abortion is immoral is
>> not necessarily motivated by an anti-woman sentiment. Some of
>> them believe that abortion is wrong in all cases *even though* they
>> themselves could be tragically inconvenienced or find their faith
>> challenged.
> Frank, that's well and truly said, but just too rational for most of the
> folks here.
You missed my sarcastic point. If God is all-powerful, then how could they
/ever/ find themselves in a situation where they are "tragically
inconvenienced"?
Mark S wrote:
> On Aug 23, 1:14 pm, "Frank Berger" <frankdber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>>> BTW, why do educated Republican women
>>>> vote for the likes of Akin?
>>> Because they know they would never, ever become pregnant
>>> unintentionally or outside of marriage. Having accepted Jesus as
>>> their Savior, they are immune to ectopic pregnancies, rape, and
>>> such-like.
>> Or because they realize that a belief that all abortion is immoral
>> is not necessarily motivated by an anti-woman sentiment.
> Most religions at their heart are anti-woman. Certainly Christianity
> and Judaism are anti-woman in many respects.
You throw around the term "anti-woman" as if it has a rigorous definition. I suppose you think you know it when you see it.
>A religious person can
> believe they are anti-abortion because they're not anti-woman, but
> simply following their religious beliefs. But that ignores the anti-
> woman aspects of their religion.
>> Some of them believe
>> that abortion is wrong in all cases *even though* they themselves
>> could be tragically inconvenienced or find their faith challenged.
> I know a Jewish woman who went to term and delivered stillborn twins,
> even though she knew they would be stillborn well in advance of their
> due date. She did it based on her faith, even though the doctors
> warned her that it could be harmful to her health. She came through it
> fine. I guess that was a challenge to her faith as she could have
> taken the more medically sound road and had the dead fetuses aborted.
I know of an identical (except it wasn't twins) case in Dallas. A Rabbi's wife. The fact that these women had the maturity and faith to carry to term means, probably, that for them, abortion would have been prohibited by Jewish law. I believe that Jewish law would *mandated* an abortion in the case of the mother's health being threatened. Perhaps the woman in the case you relate never got to a point where her health was really threatened.
William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>>>> BTW, why do educated Republican women
>>>>> vote for the likes of Akin?
>>>> Because they know they would never, ever become pregnant
>>>> unintentionally or outside of marriage. Having accepted Jesus
>>>> as their Savior, they are immune to ectopic pregnancies, rape,
>>>> and such-like.
>>> Or because they realize that a belief that all abortion is immoral
>>> is not necessarily motivated by an anti-woman sentiment. Some of
>>> them believe that abortion is wrong in all cases *even though* they
>>> themselves could be tragically inconvenienced or find their faith
>>> challenged.
>> Frank, that's well and truly said, but just too rational for most of
>> the folks here.
> You missed my sarcastic point. If God is all-powerful, then how could
> they /ever/ find themselves in a situation where they are "tragically
> inconvenienced"?
Because no people of faith I know think for a second that their faith makes them immune from tragedy.
>> You missed my sarcastic point. If God is all-powerful,
>> then how could they /ever/ find themselves in a situation
>> where they are "tragically inconvenienced"?
> Because no people of faith I know think for a second that
> their faith makes them immune from tragedy.
Gee. What a kind and benevolent god they worship.
Oh, and please explain to me why the religious teachings of people who
believe in such teachings without any proof whatsoever are supposed to be
enshrined in law.
William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>> You missed my sarcastic point. If God is all-powerful,
>>> then how could they /ever/ find themselves in a situation
>>> where they are "tragically inconvenienced"?
>> Because no people of faith I know think for a second that
>> their faith makes them immune from tragedy.
> Gee. What a kind and benevolent god they worship.
You obviously don't know much theology. The religions I know about say that God is kind and benevolent and tragedy can *still* happen. It's all pretty much tautological, but that's all right, because it's not science. If something bad happens to me, I'm supposed to believe that in some sense I deserved what happened. Not in the sense that we usually perceive things, but because I believe God to be benevolent, it just *must be* that what happened to me is just, though it's quite possible I don't understand why. Then I'm facing a test of faith. It's a grand tautology. But it's all logically consistent. It just can't be proved.
> Oh, and please explain to me why the religious teachings of people who
> believe in such teachings without any proof whatsoever are supposed
> to be enshrined in law.
Because in general people are entitled to try to elect people who will pass laws they approve of *regardless* of the basis of that approval. I say "in general," because the Constitution and Bill of Rights protect minority rights. I can imagine someone opposing abortion for reasons that have nothing to do with religion. Is that person allowed to try to elect legislators who will pass anti-abortion laws and the person who is anti-abortion because of his religious beliefs *not* so allowed?
You apparently forget we've had this identical conversation before. Apparently I didn't convince you. The fact that you desest religion and religious people (supposing you do) doesn't mean you can disenfranchise them.
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>>> You missed my sarcastic point. If God is all-powerful,
>>>> then how could they /ever/ find themselves in a situation
>>>> where they are "tragically inconvenienced"?
>>> Because no people of faith I know think for a second that
>>> their faith makes them immune from tragedy.
>> Gee. What a kind and benevolent god they worship.
> You obviously don't know much theology. The religions I know about say > that God is kind and benevolent and tragedy can *still* happen. It's all > pretty much tautological, but that's all right, because it's not science. > If something bad happens to me, I'm supposed to believe that in some sense > I deserved what happened. Not in the sense that we usually perceive > things, but because I believe God to be benevolent, it just *must be* that > what happened to me is just, though it's quite possible I don't understand > why. Then I'm facing a test of faith. It's a grand tautology. But it's > all logically consistent. It just can't be proved.
>> Oh, and please explain to me why the religious teachings of people who
>> believe in such teachings without any proof whatsoever are supposed
>> to be enshrined in law.
> Because in general people are entitled to try to elect people who will > pass laws they approve of *regardless* of the basis of that approval. I > say "in general," because the Constitution and Bill of Rights protect > minority rights. I can imagine someone opposing abortion for reasons that > have nothing to do with religion. Is that person allowed to try to elect > legislators who will pass anti-abortion laws and the person who is > anti-abortion because of his religious beliefs *not* so allowed?
> You apparently forget we've had this identical conversation before. > Apparently I didn't convince you. The fact that you desest religion and > religious people (supposing you do) doesn't mean you can disenfranchise > them.
That's right! If there's any disenfranchising to be done, they'll see to it!
On Friday, August 24, 2012 12:11:33 AM, Herman wrote:
> No one is telling anyone that cannot have their baby.
But they're champing at the bit to tell you other things you can't do once the tyke comes out. Germans telling Jews (and Muslims) they can't practice their religion. Such comedy.
<<“I do not want Germany to be the only country in the world where Jews cannot practice their rituals. Otherwise we will become a laughing stock,” the Bild daily quoted Merkel as telling a closed meeting of her Christian Democrats.
Joerg van Essen, parliamentary floor leader of Merkel’s junior coalition partner the Free Democrats, told the Financial Times Deutschland newspaper that the new circumcision law would be introduced in the autumn.>>
'Circumcision is a Jewish ritual that has been at the core of Jewish identity for thousands of years and defines the Jewish people, from the time of the first commandment given by God to Abraham.
"I am therefore confident, Mr President, that Germany, in keeping with its values, will remain committed to conducting their Jewish religious traditions in freedom.' -Shimon Peres letter to German President Joachim Gauck
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
> > > > You missed my sarcastic point. If God is all-powerful,
> > > > then how could they /ever/ find themselves in a situation
> > > > where they are "tragically inconvenienced"?
> > > Because no people of faith I know think for a second that
> > > their faith makes them immune from tragedy.
> > Gee. What a kind and benevolent god they worship.
> You obviously don't know much theology. The religions I know about
> say that God is kind and benevolent and tragedy can *still* happen.
> It's all pretty much tautological, but that's all right, because it's
> not science. If something bad happens to me, I'm supposed to believe
> that in some sense I deserved what happened. Not in the sense that
> we usually perceive things, but because I believe God to be
> benevolent, it just *must be* that what happened to me is just,
> though it's quite possible I don't understand why. Then I'm facing a
> test of faith. It's a grand tautology. But it's all logically
> consistent. It just can't be proved.
> > Oh, and please explain to me why the religious teachings of people
> > who believe in such teachings without any proof whatsoever are
> > supposed to be enshrined in law.
> Because in general people are entitled to try to elect people who
> will pass laws they approve of *regardless* of the basis of that
> approval. I say "in general," because the Constitution and Bill of
> Rights protect minority rights. I can imagine someone opposing
> abortion for reasons that have nothing to do with religion. Is that
> person allowed to try to elect legislators who will pass
> anti-abortion laws and the person who is anti-abortion because of his
> religious beliefs *not* so allowed?
> You apparently forget we've had this identical conversation before.
> Apparently I didn't convince you.
You will never convince anyone.
This kind of conversations will never convince anyone.
There are completely useless (apart form satisfying your personal needs to
"testify with no end").
> >>> You missed my sarcastic point. If God is all-powerful,
> >>> then how could they /ever/ find themselves in a situation
> >>> where they are "tragically inconvenienced"?
> >> Because no people of faith I know think for a second that
> >> their faith makes them immune from tragedy.
> > Gee. What a kind and benevolent god they worship.
> You obviously don't know much theology. The religions I know about say
that
> God is kind and benevolent and tragedy can *still* happen. It's all
pretty
> much tautological, but that's all right, because it's not science. If
> something bad happens to me, I'm supposed to believe that in some sense I
> deserved what happened. Not in the sense that we usually perceive things,
> but because I believe God to be benevolent, it just *must be* that what
> happened to me is just, though it's quite possible I don't understand why.
> Then I'm facing a test of faith. It's a grand tautology. But it's all
> logically consistent. It just can't be proved.
Without sarcasm, I say, thank you for admitting that.
> > Oh, and please explain to me why the religious teachings of people who
>> believe in such teachings without any proof whatsoever are supposed
>> to be enshrined in law.
> Because in general people are entitled to try to elect people who will
pass
> laws they approve of *regardless* of the basis of that approval. I say
"in
> general," because the Constitution and Bill of Rights protect minority
> rights. I can imagine someone opposing abortion for reasons that have
> nothing to do with religion. Is that person allowed to try to elect
> legislators who will pass anti-abortion laws and the person who is
> anti-abortion because of his religious beliefs *not* so allowed?
You see, now you're responding in a way I can answer.
No, you can't disenfranchise people -- but the courts can invalidate laws
that attempt to enforce particular religious beliefs on the basis of the
First Amendment.
>> You apparently forget we've had this identical conversation
>> before. Apparently I didn't convince you. The fact that you
>> detest religion and religious people (supposing you do)
>> doesn't mean you can disenfranchise them.
> I'm making a wild guess and suggest that W.S. is more
> concerned that the religious folks are going to take away
> his rights than the other way around.
Correct.
> No one is telling anyone that they cannot have their baby.
Correct, too.
Though I wish my parents had aborted me, I was, unfortunately, a wanted
child. My parents then proceeded to do a miserable job raising me.
Nevertheless, I'm not comfortable with abortion. It shouldn't be necessary.
The problem is that once you completely outlaw something, you can no longer
have an intelligent discussion about it.
>> BTW, why do educated Republican women vote for the likes of Akin?
>> Henk
> Just because an outsider sees someone as oppressed doesn't been the
> "oppressed" person agrees.
You are probably right. It's called the Stockholm syndrome. These educated Republican women who vote for the likes of Akin probably have learned to resign themselves to what their tradition dictates.
O wrote:
> In article <50366eb5$0$6978$e4fe5...@news2.news.xs4all.nl>, HvT <
> @xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> O wrote:
>>> No, he just evolves them faster.
>> <g> Under the right conditions.
>> BTW, why do educated Republican women vote for the likes of Akin?
> I think the question is, why do Democrats cross party lines to vote in
> the primary for Akin? Because he's the easiest candidate for them to
> beat.
> Democrats put him in this candidacy, and they're trying to hold him
> there for dear life.
Are you implying that educated Republican women don't vote for the likes of Akin? I truly hope so, although I believe that Frank has a point. Those who do accept the likes of Akin, accept the tradition they have grown up in - whatever it has in store for them.
