Abortion Violence.

[jcrawford]

While Americans are focused on violence in other parts of the world, domestic terrorists are hard at work killing all the unborn children of Christian, Jewish and Muslim men they can get their bloody hands on.

Christian and Jewish politicians in New York like Hill and Bill Clinton, bloody Bloomberg and Spitzer all support the indiscriminate killing of the unborn babies of married Christian, Jewish and Muslim men in America.

So who are the terrorists that Homeland Security is supposed to be protecting us from? Muslim, Jewish and Christian abortionists? Or are all the baby-killing medical doctors secular supremacists who coudn't care less whose babies they kill?

[McCulloch]

Secularism is the root of the problem and it goes back to the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror. Just look at the tens of millions of religious people whom secular communists and national socialists butchered in Europe alone during the last century. That's why secularists must be driven out of political office in both Europe and America this century - in this decade - the sooner the better for Jewish and Muslim families.

Secularism is not a problem in itself. The Reign of Terror, Soviet and Chinese communism and naziism were all forms of intolerance, just like the Inquisition and many Islamic republics are forms of intolerance. Any form of intolerance is a problem. Would you replace our tolerant secularism with the rule of a specific religion? What if it had to be someone else's religion?

[Cephus]

What's wrong with pointing fingers at secular judges and Christian medicine men who consent to kill the offspring of married Jewish and Muslim fathers without their informed consent and written permission? Don't married Jewish rabbis and Islamic imams have the right to father children in America anymore? Why not? Because secular feminists, adulterers, homosexuals and male abortionists don't want them to?

Because it isn't secular judges and Christian medicine men who are going to get abortions, it's *YOUR* wives and *YOUR* girlfriends. If you want to blame someone, blame *YOUR* women, or better yet, blame *YOURSELF* for failing utterly as a potential father and man.

Apparently, if they're going behind your back and getting an abortion without even bothering to talk to you about it, your opinion, and indeed yourself, means just about squat.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

That's why secularists must be driven out of political office in both Europe and America this century - in this decade - the sooner the better for Jewish and Muslim families.

In favor of what, theocracy?

You are always welcome to move to the Middle East, if you find that sort of government more acceptable.


"Government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or the prohibition thereof".

That is secularism. Thanks to secularism, may attend the church of your choice. Thanks to secularism, you may pursue the hobbies and activities of your preference, regardless of their religious relevance. Thanks to secularism, at school your children are free from being indoctrinated into Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, diest, or pagan principles. Better thank secularism, or you might not even be allowed to present your opinions on this site.

Secularism is not anti-religion, it is religious indifference (by definition). A secular government does care what religion you practice, and will not limit your right to do so. This also means not making religious considerations in the regulation of civil affairs. Therefore, technically the oppressive communist nations of which you speak are not actually secular, as they prohibit one's right to submit to a particular belief system.

How then, under a properly unbiased system, are these CJ&M men being denied religious consideration? A woman (thanks to her inherent religious freedom) is at liberty to do with her body whatever she pleases. Her boyfriend or husband has no right to forbid this personal freedom, regardless of his faith.

But really, all religious talk aside, let's think through this logically. Who has more jurisdiction over the fetus? It's host, the person who bears and nurses it inside her own body for nine months, or the guy in bed who took a couple minutes to inject the sperm?

By your logic, it would be perfectly justified for a woman to demand that her husband be castrated on grounds that her religion commands it.

Who does the p.enis belong to?

In who's uterus does the baby reside?

[jcrawford]

Don't married Jewish rabbis and Islamic imams have the right to father children in America anymore? Why not? Because secular feminists, adulterers, homosexuals and male abortionists don't want them to?

No man has the unilateral right to father children.

Every married man has the same equal right to father children with his wife as his wife has to mother them. Until this fundamental constitutional right is restored to married Christian, Jewish and Muslim men, no man will ever get the right to marry any other man in this country without inspiring, causing and fomenting a religious revolution.

My wife's Ob/Gyn is a woman who provides medically necessary abortions and assists in childbirth.

No married man's wife is in need of a "medically necessary abortion" until he has been notified of that medical necessity and has given his written permission and consent for the go-ahead.

Abortionists do not want women to not have children. Abortionists do not discriminate based on religion. They provide a service for pregnant women who do not wish to be pregnant. It is the woman's choice. Why do you continue to blame the others?

Besides not believing in one word of your bs, baloney and abortionist propaganda, the reason I blame bloody male abortionists for killing the offspring of millions of married Christian, Jewish and Muslim fathers during the past 33 years in the US, is because they alone with the help of their secular feminist supporters and advocates, secular lawyers, judges and politicians, permitted and advocated it, even if they didn't know what they were doing or claim to have been just doing their job.

Just like the bloody nazis in the last holocaust did.

[jcrawford]

Secularism is the root of the problem and it goes back to the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror. Just look at the tens of millions of religious people whom secular communists and national socialists butchered in Europe alone during the last century. That's why secularists must be driven out of political office in both Europe and America this century - in this decade - the sooner the better for Jewish and Muslim families.

Secularism is not a problem in itself.

Secular abortions performed on the daughters and wives of married Christian, Jewish and Muslim men are a big problem, and partial birth abortions are even a bigger problem because you can't partially deliver 3/4 of a baby and then kill it while its head is still in its mother's birth canal, and not call it partial murder. Kill two babies like that and its Murder 1.5.

Would you replace our tolerant secularism with the rule of a specific religion?

Our tolerant what? Since when do secular abortionists, secular feminists, secular lawyers, secular judges and secular politicians tolerate the idea of married Christian, Jewish and Muslim men having the same sexual reproductive rights in their Christian, Jewish and Islamic marriages as their Christian, Jewish and Muslim wives do?
Since men can't get abortions, according to your secular thinking, they have no right to sexually reproduce themselves if their wives don't want to bear their children, and they have no right to complain or to petition their own government for a redress of grievances against the medical doctors and the states which permitted bloody abortionists to get their filthy hands on the unborn offspring of Christian, Jewish and Muslim marriages in the first place. Lot of money in financial reparations there.

What if it had to be someone else's religion?

No problem. Good Christian, Jewish and Muslim married men in government will guarantee the same reproductive rights which God has given them to any other married man also, no matter what his personal religious persuasion is.

[jcrawford]

What's wrong with pointing fingers at secular judges and Christian medicine men who consent to kill the offspring of married Jewish and Muslim fathers without their informed consent and written permission? Don't married Jewish rabbis and Islamic imams have the right to father children in America anymore? Why not? Because secular feminists, adulterers, homosexuals and male abortionists don't want them to?

Because it isn't secular judges and Christian medicine men who are going to get abortions, it's *YOUR* wives and *YOUR* girlfriends. If you want to blame someone, blame *YOUR* women, or better yet, blame *YOURSELF* for failing utterly as a potential father and man.

We are not self-hating Christians, Jews or Muslims anymore and don't blame our wonderful and beautiful Christian, Jewish and Muslim wives or daughters for being seduced by sinful teenage boys, adulterers or bloody male abortionists. Why should we blame the female victim of these evil and wicked men when we can go after the male pigs who robbed them of their virginity and foetus? You just don't seem to understand the high value which Holy men put of the sanctitity of life, marriage, virtue and domestic tranquility. Why should we let bloody male secular abortionists continue to spill the innocent foetal blood of Christian, Jewish and Muslim Holy Matrimony? They have already butchered over 40 million innocent American babies since 1973. Can you think of any good reason for Christian, Jewish and Muslim families to allow these baby-killers to continue with their inhumane slaughter? We are always willing to be reasonable with our enemies, if they are.

[jcrawford]

How then, under a properly unbiased system, are these CJ&M men being denied religious consideration?

Married men are denied equal reproductive rights, and the right to have their religious marriages recognized in secular law. If religious marriages and male reproductive rights are not recognized by a secular government, on what moral and legal grounds does any man have the religious or secular right to marry another man?

No recognition of sexual and reproductive rights in religious marriages = none for same-sex marriages.

A woman (thanks to her inherent religious freedom) is at liberty to do with her body whatever she pleases. Her boyfriend or husband has no right to forbid this personal freedom, regardless of his faith.

That's secular and pornographic bullcrap. Secularists have arrived at the point where no religious person need believe in them or anything they say any more. Seccies don't seem to have any moral authority over anyone these days, not even their own people.

[jcrawford]

But really, all religious talk aside, let's think through this logically.

That's funny, considering we are posting on DC&R. Only atheists need to put "all religious talk aside" in order to think logically. Mention something religious and they get all emotional, if not hysterical.

Who has more jurisdiction over the fetus? It's host, the person who bears and nurses it inside her own body for nine months, or the guy in bed who took a couple minutes to inject the sperm?

Depends on who the guy in bed with her was. Her husband or the adulterous abortionist who got off in two minutes.

By your logic, it would be perfectly justified for a woman to demand that her husband be castrated on grounds that her religion commands it.

That's your logic - not Christian, Jewish or Islamic logic.

Who does the p.enis belong to?

Depends whether is still attached to an adulter, a rapist or an abortionist.

In who's uterus does the baby reside?

A Christian, Jewish or Muslim man's wife.

[Cephus]

In favor of what, theocracy?

That's pretty much what he advocates. He wants the 'good old days' where the man is in charge and his wife is property and what he says goes.

Most people manage to mature by the time they reach their 60s. Unfortunately, not all of them do, apparently.

In who's uterus does the baby reside?

But the man gets to decide everything, didn't you know?

Seriously, I'd be inclined to think that people who hold that silly belief are likely people who are incapable of being in control, nor should they be. Rather than just being a decent man, they have to declare themselves lord and master by theocratic decree, mostly so they can feel good about their otherwise impotent selves.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

...men are denied the right to have their religious marriages recognized in secular law.

Really? I wasn't aware that marriage has recently become exclusive to women.

Men not allowed to marry? Seriously, what are you talking about? Any examples?

A woman (thanks to her inherent religious freedom) is at liberty to do with her body whatever she pleases. Her boyfriend or husband has no right to forbid this personal freedom, regardless of his faith.

That's secular and pornographic bullcrap. Secularists have arrived at the point where no religious person need believe in them or anything they say any more. Seccies don't seem to have any moral authority over anyone these days, not even their own people.

So basicly, a woman can not do with her body (or what is inside of it) as she pleases, but a man can decide for her?

Male supremacy? Sorry man, that stuff died out a long time ago in America. But if that is really what you are into, I am sure you could find a nice Middle Eastern country to raise your convulted idea of a family in.

In who's uterus does the baby reside?

A Christian, Jewish or Muslim man's wife.

Then render to Caesar what is Caesar's. Give to the woman what is hers, and let her do with it whatever she darn well pleases.

You say that a girl's father or a woman's husband must give their consent before an abortion may take place. But what if they do not consent? "Oh, sorry lady, hubby wants your kid. You're going to have to nurse it for the next nine months and put your freedom on hold for a while".

Reproduction is a joint practice. If one partner decides that he/she does not want to have a kid, there can be no baby, unless one of the parents is willing to foster the child on their own. Obviously, it is physically impossible for a man to do this. He lacks the anatomical means to even take the process past fertilization.

This is a simple law of nature, and holds true in other species. No animal on earth (aside from the primitive) can survive without it's mother in the picture. In most species, the male is not even involved besides the initial injecting of the sperm.

The woman holds the prime responsibility in creating a child. Equal reproduction rights? Who says you deserve that? I don't know if you have ever done it before, but it does not require much work or bodily sacrifice in order to inject sperm.