Wrong time for Planned Parenthood debate

bisleybisley Senior MemberPosts: 10,552 Senior Member
In my opinion, this election needs to be about issues that threaten our existence - immigration, Iran, ISIS, taxes, economy, cyber security, national defense, campaign finance, government corruption, etc.

I am pro-life, I guess, if I had to choose, but as important as that debate is, it does not immediately threaten the entire republic. It can be debated in a non-presidential election year. The lefties are only too happy to have the debate now, to distract from all the issues they have failed so miserably on. I fear that the pro-life movement smells 'blood in the water' because of the Planned Parenthood outrage, and will allow the lefties to make this THE issue. They need to realize that there is also 'blood in the water' on nearly all of the important issues, if they will only take advantage of it.

Now is just not the right time, in my opinion, and the Republican candidates who bite too hard on that issue will go down. One of my favorites, Ted Cruz, is in danger of being a casualty, I think.
«13

Replies

  • shootbrownelkshootbrownelk Senior Member Posts: 2,019 Senior Member
    You are absolutely, positively right Bisley. Stick with the important issues like Illegal Aliens, ISIS, Iran, and imprisoning Over-the-Hillary. Forget Planned Parenthood.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 25,789 Senior Member
    Planned Parenthood should be off the table as an election issue. Too many people see it as an attack on abortion, which it isn't. But that's how the Left is running with it. Like you said, "immigration, Iran, ISIS, taxes, economy, cyber security, national defense, campaign finance, government corruption, etc." are the issues that need attention from the candidates. Any talk about Planned Parenthood and 'lady parts' is kryptonite for Republican candidates, and will turn off the low information voters to Republican candidates and the real issues.
    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.


  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 6,651 Senior Member
    I agree. It just amazes me that anyone would think that the selling of aborted baby parts is OK.
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,985 Senior Member
    They want to portray it as an Rep Attack on Wimmens.................
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 19,104 Senior Member
    I've said it before, I'll say it now, and I'll keep on saying it.

    The GOP needs to boot the Christianists OUT - and stick to security and economics (and maybe even FREEDOM?). They WILL, once again, snatch defeat from the jaws of victory if they continue their usual tactics. I don't agree with the PP thing either, but given the GOP's track record, this issue WILL drive votes away.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,352 Senior Member
    First, worry about actually fielding a candidate that people can vote for. Jobs, the economy, security (of all sorts)...these are the things that need to be addressed now. PP and other such BS can be taken care of later.

    No offense, but 'booting' folks out will just turn them third party. So much for the party of inclusion, eh?
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 25,789 Senior Member
    The GOP kicking that voting block out would ensure a Democrat in the White House for generations. Southern Democrats didn't leave the Democrat party; the party left them, and they went with the Republican party due to common interests and ideology. Kick them out, and they won't go back to the Democrat party, but they'll stay home in enough numbers, or be forced to the third party, to let the Democrat candidate take the electoral votes and the election. Be careful what you wish for, Zorba; you might not like the results. :tooth:
    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.


  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 19,104 Senior Member
    You may be right, or you may not be. From "here", I think Christianists would be irrelevant anywhere BUT the GOP - but I could be wrong. They certainly cause more problems than their size/numbers would indicate.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,352 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »
    You may be right, or you may not be. From "here", I think Christianists would be irrelevant anywhere BUT the GOP - but I could be wrong. They certainly cause more problems than their size/numbers would indicate.


    From my side of the fence, this seems like slander, but maybe you'd care to show where I'm wrong? Namely: What problems?

    Not looking for a fight, just wonderin'
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 25,789 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »
    You may be right, or you may not be. From "here", I think Christianists would be irrelevant anywhere BUT the GOP - but I could be wrong. They certainly cause more problems than their size/numbers would indicate.

    You have NO idea how wrong you are. A little brush-up study on American history would enlighten on that point.
    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.


  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 6,482 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »
    You may be right, or you may not be. From "here", I think Christianists would be irrelevant anywhere BUT the GOP - but I could be wrong. They certainly cause more problems than their size/numbers would indicate.

    What the heck is a Chistianist? You've been throwing that word around like it's common talk, but you're the only person I've ever heard use it. Please explain.
    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • tubabucknuttubabucknut Banned Posts: 3,520 Senior Member
    Hey Zorba,

    Is Christianist a play on the word Islamist?

    Inquiring minds want to know.
    It's because I hate Trump.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,803 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »
    I've said it before, I'll say it now, and I'll keep on saying it.

    The GOP needs to boot the Christianists OUT - and stick to security and economics (and maybe even FREEDOM?). They WILL, once again, snatch defeat from the jaws of victory if they continue their usual tactics. I don't agree with the PP thing either, but given the GOP's track record, this issue WILL drive votes away.

    Hey, I resemble that remark! I'm kinda one of those, though not a fanatic like those that irritate people like you. I'm an Episcopal only not quite as liberal as Sam. I'm a little more on the fundamentalist side, but I try not to get stupid about it. I really believe in live and let live, but some Atheist and others are attacking us.
    One thing, guys like Cruz would probably put those important issues on the top of the heap, but they have to at least pay lip service to their base.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 19,104 Senior Member
    Hey Zorba,

    Is Christianist a play on the word Islamist?

    Inquiring minds want to know.
    Yes, one is to the one as the other is to the other.

    Here's another: "Charia Law".

    As for Christianist trouble - there's been PLENTY of it, one of the most disgraceful incidents involved a KIA vet named Patrick Stewart - a simple COMMENT by a Christianist president - BEFORE he was even president - was taken as a directive by the VA, that took about ten years and multiple lawsuits to straighten out. Google's your friend. Of course, there's the whole abortion and gay marriage debacle - things best left to individual conscience but those who will not Mind Their Own Business (tm) want their "Charia" to be the law of the land.

    That's not the kind of world I want to live in. We've already had one mono-theistic Dark Age, we sure don't need another.

    All this is, of course, my own opinion - but I've been watching these characters ever since I was old enough to be aware such evil existed in the world.

    I use the term Christianist to differentiate them from Christians - of whom I've "met" quite a few right here on this board who are reasonable, ethical people.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 19,104 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    Hey, I resemble that remark! I'm kinda one of those, though not a fanatic like those that irritate people like you. I'm an Episcopal only not quite as liberal as Sam. I'm a little more on the fundamentalist side, but I try not to get stupid about it. I really believe in live and let live, but some Atheist and others are attacking us.
    One thing, guys like Cruz would probably put those important issues on the top of the heap, but they have to at least pay lip service to their base.

    Snake - you don't come across to me as a Christianist, but as a Christian. And seems to me that you're a credit to your religion!
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 14,836 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    I really believe in live and let live, but some Atheist and others are attacking us.

    Then deal with those attacks, but religion has no place in politics. In this day and age, as long a vehement bible thumpers dominate a party and use it to promote a theological agenda...that party is hosed.
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • tubabucknuttubabucknut Banned Posts: 3,520 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »
    Yes, one is to the one as the other is to the other.

    Here's another: "Charia Law".

    As for Christianist trouble - there's been PLENTY of it, one of the most disgraceful incidents involved a KIA vet named Patrick Stewart - a simple COMMENT by a Christianist president - BEFORE he was even president - was taken as a directive by the VA, that took about ten years and multiple lawsuits to straighten out. Google's your friend. Of course, there's the whole abortion and gay marriage debacle - things best left to individual conscience but those who will not Mind Their Own Business (tm) want their "Charia" to be the law of the land.

    That's not the kind of world I want to live in. We've already had one mono-theistic Dark Age, we sure don't need another.

    All this is, of course, my own opinion - but I've been watching these characters ever since I was old enough to be aware such evil existed in the world.

    I use the term Christianist to differentiate them from Christians - of whom I've "met" quite a few right here on this board who are reasonable, ethical people.
    So I need some more clarification.

    Is a Christianist anyone with strongly held fundamental biblical beliefs? Read against abortion, homosexuality, adultery, fornication, all that kind of stuff

    Or is it someone who holds the previous views, but tries to force these views on you through the power of government.
    It's because I hate Trump.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 25,789 Senior Member
    Hey Zorba,

    Is Christianist a play on the word Islamist?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

    Christianist has two meanings. One meaning is a follower of Christ. The other meaning is the equal of Islamist and sharia law. One meaning is O.K. and one is pejorative and a slur in the same vein as 'Fundy Christian'.
    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.


  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 6,945 Senior Member
    So I need some more clarification.

    Is a Christianist anyone with strongly held fundamental biblical beliefs? Read against abortion, homosexuality, adultery, fornication, all that kind of stuff

    Or is it someone who holds the previous views, but tries to force these views on you through the power of government.

    I've got Zorby's back 100% on this - He'll chime in soon enough, I'm sure, but I'd describe it as the latter. Most of us would agree that "Don't be a , don't hurt anyone, and don't mess with other people's stuff" is enough of a moral code on which to run a melting pot society such as ours. As for strongly held biblical/sectarian beliefs, the Chistianist (or Islamist) can't wrap their brain around the fact that a lot of people don't hold them, even flat out reject them, and DAMN SURE don't want to be governed by them. A common thread running through the minds of many religious kooks is "wouldn't the world be great if everyone else was just like me?" Legislating on that mindset is one step short of stake burnings, IMO.

    Of the biblical-based oppositions you list, I would grant that only on abortion is there a leg to stand on for legislating against it, and that comes down to the old debating point of fetal life vs. woman's sovereignty over her own body. The rest of it falls under the heading of M.Y.O.B.

    As long as the GOP can't get away from trying to legislate morality, they're going to have a hard time winning the freedom-seeking middle that wants nothing to do with legislation originating in either the Vatican or the Kremlin.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 25,789 Senior Member
    What Bigslug said. :up:

    Problem of the last 20-30 years is that the government is injecting themselves in the business of the churches. The separation of church and state should be just that, not unlike oil and water; a clear and unmistakable dividing line . Forcing a minister/preacher to officiate a gay marriage or face a legal battle is one that is coming up. The bakery thing is another. Same for suing a church that won't allow a gay wedding. Forcing one's secular views on people that don't believe in such things is going too far. Destroying them financially is nothing more than vindictive and ill conceived hatred. "Accept me or I will sue into oblivion"; yep, that's a real way to win friends and influence people.
    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.


  • EliEli Senior Member Posts: 3,074 Senior Member
    Bigslug wrote: »


    As long as the GOP can't get away from trying to legislate morality, they're going to have a hard time winning the freedom-seeking middle that wants nothing to do with legislation originating in either the Vatican or the Kremlin.

    :that:

    I'm with the dress wearing Californian, 100%........oh, and I agree with Zorba as well. :tooth:
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 19,104 Senior Member
    What bigslug and Jayhawker said.

    It annoys me to no end when Christianists start posting the 10 commandments in public buildings - as a for instance. Part of the Decalogue does deal with what I'll call "Universal Ethics" for lack of a better term - but the rest deal with "internal considerations" of Abrahamic, monotheism and as such have no place in the law of the land.

    Nuts - I actually agree with a lot of christian "stuff" - I think men and women were made for each other (kinda obvious to me), don't particularly agree with homosexuality. With that said, what other people do is their own business and it isn't up to me to tell them how to live their lives - nor theirs to tell me how to live mine. Blah, blah, blah... :blah:

    It is my opinion that an abortion after the first trimester is murder - but that's my OPINION, not something that should be legislated into law. I don't hold with the opinions of SOME sects of Christians that life begins at conception and have ZERO problems with birth control of ANY kind - so I think the "Hobby Lobby" SCOTUS decision was wrong and disastrous - regardless of where one stands on ObamaCare (Which I don't care for either).
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 19,104 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    What Bigslug said. :up:

    Problem of the last 20-30 years is that the government is injecting themselves in the business of the churches. The separation of church and state should be just that, not unlike oil and water; a clear and unmistakable dividing line . Forcing a minister/preacher to officiate a gay marriage or face a legal battle is one that is coming up. The bakery thing is another.
    I'm not convinced that the former (forcing a church to officiate a gay marriage) is going to happen - BUT IF IT DOES - I will come down solidly on the side of the Christians on this. Their church, their rules.

    The bakery thing isn't so clear to me.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,985 Senior Member
    This sums it up by folks a lot smarter than me. Our country was founded on these principles.

    http://www.gotquestions.org/Judeo-Christian-ethic.html

    Question: "What is the Judeo-Christian ethic?"

    Answer: The term “Judeo-Christian” refers to something that has its source in the common foundations of Judaism and Christianity. The Bible includes the Jewish Scriptures of the Old Testament, so the moral foundations laid down in Judaism are upheld in Christianity. The first use of the term "Judeo-Christian ethic" was apparently by the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche in his 1888 book The Antichrist: Curse on Christianity. The early uses of the term "Judeo-Christian ethic" referred to the Jewish roots and identity of the early Christian church, but it wasn't used to speak of a common set of morals until much later.

    In 1952, President-elect Dwight Eisenhower, speaking to the Freedoms Foundation in New York, said, "Our sense of government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply religious faith, and I don't care what it is. With us of course it is the Judeo-Christian concept, but it must be a religion that all men are created equal." This began the modern use of the term in American political and social circles. From Eisenhower's day to the present, the term has become particularly associated with political conservatives in America, though there are much broader applications. In our American military schools, it is commonly taught that the modern rules for war, like the protection of captives and non-combatants, are based on biblical themes. American jurisprudence is firmly based in Judeo-Christian ethics and celebrates that fact with a variety of artwork throughout Washington, D.C. In the House of Representatives there are 23 marble relief portraits of great lawgivers, including Moses, who is given the central point of focus. The sculptures over the main entrance to the Supreme Court building are centered on Moses with the Ten Commandments, and there are several other representations of Moses and the Ten Commandments in various places throughout the building.

    Though there are many aspects to the Judeo-Christian ethic, some of the more common ones are the sanctity of human life, personal responsibility, a high regard for marriage, and compassion for others. Much of what is best in Western civilization can be directly attributed to the Judeo-Christian ethic. Historian Thomas Cahill, in pointing out the common themes of Christianity and Judaism, said, “The heart of the Torah is not obedience to regulations about such things as diet—what one may eat, whom one may eat with, how one must prepare oneself beforehand—but to tzedakka, justice like God's Justice, justice toward the downtrodden.” The foundations of the Judeo-Christian ethic can be summarized in the “Golden Rule” which Jesus taught His disciples in Matthew 7:12, “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”

    Recommended Resources: Faith of Israel, 2d ed.: A Theological Survey of the Old Testament by William Dumbrell and Logos Bible Software.
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • LanceLance Member Posts: 149 Member
    This type of infighting is counterproductive. To use Tennmike's example, it took southerners/exurbans almost thirty years to quit voting D, despite the actions of LBJ, or Nixon's Southern Strategy.

    I don't see how alienating Christians who may believe in a stricter interpretation of their religion is politically expedient. They'll continue to vote R, if only by default, so why "cast them out"?

    As far as abortion goes, I've posted my arguments before and I stand by them. IMO this is not the hill to plant a flag on in 2015.
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,352 Senior Member
    Okay, just so I know we're on the same page (I think we are), I'm taking 'Christianist' (as Tennmike stated) to be a pejorative aimed at either folks go for the image, but not the lifestyle, or those who DO go for the lifestyle and want to force YOU to do so as well...am I pinging on target?

    If yes, then I can heartily agree with your statement.

    Having said that, I also have a problem with folks at the opposite end of the political/social spectrum forcing their beliefs on me.

    Pick your morality wisely, or pick it foolishly...no matter what, it's going to be legislated to you from one side or the other.
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • LanceLance Member Posts: 149 Member
    coolgunguy wrote: »
    Okay, just so I know we're on the same page (I think we are), I'm taking 'Christianist' (as Tennmike stated) to be a pejorative aimed at either folks go for the image, but not the lifestyle, or those who DO go for the lifestyle and want to force YOU to do so as well...am I pinging on target?

    If yes, then I can heartily agree with your statement.

    Having said that, I also have a problem with folks at the opposite end of the political/social spectrum forcing their beliefs on me.

    Pick your morality wisely, or pick it foolishly...no matter what, it's going to be legislated to you from one side or the other.


    What's depressing is how the onus seems to be on white evangelicals for "outreach", while minority churches are still allowed to preach as much "hate" as they please, with no media coverage, no repercussions. Not exactly equality, is it?

    The soft bigotry of low expectations.
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,588 Senior Member

    Or is it someone who holds the previous views, but tries to force these views on you through the power of government.

    This. At least that is how I would interpret it.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,588 Senior Member
    coolgunguy wrote: »
    Okay, just so I know we're on the same page (I think we are), I'm taking 'Christianist' (as Tennmike stated) to be a pejorative aimed at either folks go for the image, but not the lifestyle, or those who DO go for the lifestyle and want to force YOU to do so as well...am I pinging on target?

    If yes, then I can heartily agree with your statement.

    Having said that, I also have a problem with folks at the opposite end of the political/social spectrum forcing their beliefs on me.

    Pick your morality wisely, or pick it foolishly...no matter what, it's going to be legislated to you from one side or the other.

    The logic on where to draw the line is simple right or left. If a law forces someone to do something they don't want to do and reasonably should be able to not do (no not paying taxes etc.) or prevents you from doing something that you want to do and should reasonably be able to do because it's not hurting anyone, then it's a bad law. If you use this logic when evaluating policy you'll come out on the right side at least 95% of the time and probably close to 100%.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,552 Senior Member
    Some of the responses to this thread make the point I was trying to make. This election should not be about emotional arguments between atheists and Christians. Both have been responsible for some bad legislation, but none that immediately affected the security or economics of the country in the immediate future. This is an issue that can be debated when the more immediate potential catastrophes have been stabilized.

    I would gladly vote for an atheist or a Christian, if I trusted him or her to follow the Constitution and start trying to fix what is very badly broken with actual actions, instead of political rhetoric.
«13
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.