Woman Beware

I'm not trying to imply that if you are religious you are stupid, far from it. As pagan as I am I do belive in intelligent design to a point. I just don't believe in organized religion. Especially when they try to impose their will on others.

An I was serious, I truly think the majority of people's IQs are at 80 or below. I know 80 is average but it's the 21st century, the bar should raise.

But if you blindly follow the teachings of a 1000 year old book w/o questioning wether the folks interpreting it are using it for their own agenda, then you're stupid.

 

I was hoping that by now someone actually would have come up with some good arguments against Del. Black's position, rather than recycling the old standbys. I will say, however, that that tripe from the "non-partisan" Virginia Family Values PAC was a bit amusing, if nothing else. Good work digging it up, Ashburn Farm-Boy (I'm sure you had to look hard).

And here's hoping the Dems stick to their tried and true strategy of branding pro-lifers either stupid or religious nutcases. A few more election cycles and we'll need a microscope to find a blue spot on the map.

 

No arguments against his position? (Kinda reminds me of the Iraqi information minister saying there were no American soldiers in Iraq when the bombs were going off all around him.)

 

I believe the majority of the population exists within a couple of sigmas from the mean. The political activists and definately the politicians are 2sigma+ to either the right or the left. the vast majority of us are confident in our opinions, but recognize this sort of forum for what it is. as such, we refuse to join the meaningless tango....

 

Very typical of a Black response, name calling, and avoiding the question. If I wasn't laughing so hard, I'd probably get upset at the condescending use of the word "boy".

How about defending the issues being debated? Let's see how you justify his spoken words. Put it out there, what do you really think. Go ahead; you might come up with something we haven't thought of.


Originally posted by Brooks5
... Good work digging it up, Ashburn Farm-Boy (I'm sure you had to look hard).
[/quote]

 

Calling someone in the South 'boy' can get you called out to the streets. Although NoVA is all sissified...

 

If I was a politican (never happen, my IQ is too high), I would have a tough time pushing something if a large number of my constituents were against it. I know that getting 100% buyin will never happen, but my guess is that he isn't getting anywhere near that on this topic. How about focusing on property tax cuts, or traffic impovements, or affordable housing, things that I would bet would get better backing...

Gregg

 

Wow, it amazes me that the Democrats and Liberals STILL DON"T GET IT! Keep on talking to yourselves and convincing yourselves about what the rest of us "stupid" people should know and understand and we'll keep building our base and winning elections. You can go around and around and talk about Women's Rights and My Body, but ask yourself if a day after your son or daughter was "fertilized" were they your child? WHy is a miscarraige something a family mourns, yet and abortion is a disposable fetus? Good Luck in the next election...

 

And what you dont understand is that if you try to make this country a theocracy there will be another revolution or civil war. At this moment more and more non christians immigrate into the US. When they reach majority are you going to be OK with following Islamic law? You people are trying to turn America into the christian equivalent of Afghanistan and you are truly disgusting. We shall see what happens. These things have a way af swinging like a pendulum. We're in the 50's now, the 60s and 70s are coming.

 

What you don't understand is the people voted.

 

Less then half voted. Out of that half, a half of that were zealots. Your numbers arent that great, your just focused. You're just gonna get the sensible people mobilized, who are the majority.

 

What you don't understand is that it was a non-Presidential election, and only 1/3 the number of voters voted.

Of course, I can always say: " Don't blame me ... I voted for the other guy. "

Now, we have a primary coming up in June. Both the Democratic Party and Republican Party are holding primaries, so if you can't find the time to help select the party nominee, don't complain about the choices.

Then in November, we'll be having a General Election ... I expect that we may see more than the 1/3 from last time, but not by much.



Neil Z.
Resident since 1999

 

"Bad officials are elected by the good citizens who don't vote."

George Jean Nathan

 

I applaud those with strong religious beliefs, heck I was raised Catholic and am trying to give my daughters a religious base. But why can't the laws that are internal to one's religion be enough for an individual. If your religion says that contraceptives are bad, then don't use them and be proud of the fact that you are being true to your beliefs. Is it that you think that your religion will fail if the government doesn't force individuals to follow the beliefs?

I would think that a better plan would be to convince the doubters that your beliefs are actually fact, instead of forcing them to accept what they believe is wrong through law. I know there will always be doubters but I think that when 50% of the population doesn't agree with you, you have to ask if either your beliefs are wrong or your methods of delivering your message are ineffective.



Gregg

 

<applaud>Good post, Gregg!</applaud>

 

No matter how many facts you present (or untruths disguised as "facts"), this topic will not result in converts. Something this emotional that has the added factor of being grounded in religious belief simply is not an argument that can be won or lost.

 

you mean if i repeat the same things, with no additional data, I just keep repeating it more loudly and more often, more people won't believe me?[)]

 

We're discussing an Editorial that was written on March 3, 2005. Not sure how that can be considered stale. The Editorial is a vehicle to discuss woman's rights, and those that want to control them.

upr_dcker: I agree with you. Many are entrenched, and they have a right not to change their minds. What is possible is to motivate those who did not vote, to get the "facts" and then voice their opinion, one way or another. That voice will come out in the next election. Those who voted for Black last time, will most likely vote for him again. Hopefully, as more people see the truth, they will be motivated to vote their opinions as well, then we all will have to accept what happens. This is a fight against voter apathy as much as anything else.

 

Wasn't trying to offend with the use of "Boy." Just seemed to go well on the end of "Farm." If I was trying to be condescending, I would have called you "French." As for the rest of your message, I don't really get it.

But I will say something about the "religion" argument that always seems to come up in connection with this issue. Abortion is not a religious issue, it's a human rights issue. There are plenty of prolife agnostics and atheists around (Columnist Nat Hentoff, for example), who just don't think human beings should have to do anything more than merely exist to be protected. The fact that most religions come down on the side of human dignity does not mean anyone is trying to create a theocracy in America. The religion argument provides a convenient angle, given the way the Courts have tried to drive religion from society, but it really doesn't apply. Like any other human rights issue, you can't expect people to say and do nothing when they see an injustice.

[/quote]

 

I disagree with your opinion of developmental biology. Individual human beings don’t come into existence upon fertilization – a zygote with the potential to become a human being is created. The zygote has unique genetic components that will eventually develop into a human being. If one was to remove the zygote from the womb hours after the egg was fertilized, it would not be a viable living being, and could not survive despite the best efforts of our current medical technology. I believe that this is the scientific basis of the abortion law, and why abortions are allowed up to a certain period of time (second trimester?) in the development of the fetus. Granted, it’s a tricky thing to try to define from a scientific standpoint when a fetus should be considered a human being, and the issue is further complicated by religious and ethical considerations.