By Dan Gilgoff, CNN.com Religion Editor
Washington (CNN) – It was the first-ever debate between two Roman Catholics vying for a White House perch, and in Thursday’s face-off between Vice President Joe Biden and vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan, the question was put plainly: How does your faith shape your position on abortion?
It’s one of the most divisive questions in American politics, and the query from debate moderator Martha Raddatz, asked near the end of the sole vice presidential debate, set the table for some of the night’s most personal and poignant moments.
“I don't see how a person can separate their public life from their private life or from their faith,” said Ryan. “Our faith informs us in everything we do.”
“My religion defines who I am,” said Biden. “I’ve been a practicing Catholic my whole life.”
But the two men took very different tacks on applying their faith to the abortion issue. Ryan said his religion – combined with “reason and science” – led him to oppose legalized abortion, and that “the policy of a Romney administration is to oppose abortion with exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother.”
Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter
Ryan recalled when he and his wife, Janna, saw the ultrasound of their firstborn child, Liza. “We saw that heartbeat – a little baby was in the shape of a bean,” he said, noting that they still called their daughter “Bean” and saying he believes that “life begins at conception.”
“With respect to abortion, the Democratic Party used to say they wanted it to be safe, legal and rare,” Ryan continued. “Now they support it without restriction and with taxpayer funding … that to me is pretty extreme.”
Biden said he accepted his church’s anti-abortion position – “life begins at conception in the church’s judgment” – but that he refused to impose that view on “equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews.”
“The next president will get one or two Supreme Court nominees,” Biden said. “That’s how close Roe v. Wade is. … Do you think (Romney is) likely to appoint someone like Scalia or someone else on the court far right that would outlaw abortion? I suspect that would happen.”
Both men also used the question on abortion and Roman Catholicism to pivot to other issues, with Ryan saying the Obama White House is “infringing on Catholic charities, Catholic churches, Catholic hospitals” presumably because of a new rule requiring insurers to provide free contraception coverage for virtually all American employees.
CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories
Before answering the abortion question, Biden said his Catholicism has “informed my social doctrine … about taking care of those who can’t take care of themselves, people who need help.”
The Obama campaign and liberal Catholic groups used the debate to organize Catholic watch parties and to argue that Ryan’s proposed budget in the House of Representative ran counter to Catholic values.
About one in four American voters is Catholic, though there is such a broad range in Catholic political concerns and voting habits that many political experts reject the notion of a cohesive Catholic bloc.
Catholics have voted with the winning presidential candidate in every election since the early 1990s.
Obama camp, liberal groups use VP debate to organize Catholic voters
In 2008, Obama beat John McCain among Catholics by 54% to 45%. In 2004, John Kerry – the first Catholic nominee for president since John F. Kennedy – lost the Catholic vote to George W. Bush, provoking Democrats to take Catholic outreach more seriously.
Both major parties had America’s highest-profile Catholic cleric, New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan, give the closing prayer at their recent political conventions.
I am going to state the obvious and it has probably been said to you many times before. You cannot hate what you do not believe exists. Your supports this points. Atheists would be mad. We are not insane. We are sane. We don't believe in your God.
To all the non-believers of God, here is a quote from Archbishop Fulton Sheen from an old booklet published after WWII. “If there be no God, why should I hate God and religion? Either my hatred is directed against a reality of God, or it is directed against a fantasy. If it be directed against a figment of my imagination, then I am mad. Would there be anti-cigarette laws unless there were cigarettes? Would there be prohibition unless there were something to prohibit? How can there be atheism unless there is something to “atheate”? What saves atheism from madness and insanity is the fact that God exists; otherwise it is storming ghosts and fighting windmills.”
Joe Biden has had a rebuke from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops . Joe Biden needs to go to confession after he reads the HHS mandate thoroughly, the damage he is doing to poorly catechized voters and the damage to his own soul for talking such nonsense.
That's a fairly weird quote. If this were a blog about Harry Potter and I said I don't like people that read HP, that doesn't make HP real. I rail against some of the thing believers say, not the thing they believe in.
" God exists; otherwise it is storming ghosts and fighting windmills."
Believers in this "God" exist - that's the only real part... and that's who we are debating, so that their various and sundry fantasies and superst'itions do not rule everyone's lives.
So, if I can show that I am not mentally ill and I say that I hate the so-called Virgin Mary because I think she was a sl.ut then it must be true because if you hate something it must exist. How do supposedly intelligent beings fall for such blatantly bad logic?
Atheism is statement of a lack of belief in god(s). As such, there is no debating against god, it is a debate against the existence of god and the opponent is the Theist, not the god the Theist believes in.
Look up the words misotheism and atheism, then come back and apologize.
@tanya: I enjoyed how you attempted to lend credibility to your delusion with a quote that is distinct only in its lack of logic.
There is a joy in prayer known to quite a few. This very day this very hour that joy is there for you. God bless
Despite our dischords, we can surely all agree that this "Tom Tom Piper Son" character is the world's biggest fvckface loser of all time.
Tom Tom is obviously a tool. He (sadly) can only derive self esteem and even false delusions of grandeur via his terrible comments. What a total mung.
Then why read my posts? And if you have to change your screen name every time you post about them, what does that make you?
Given that TTTPS does not suffer the delusions of religion, she is kilometers ahead of anyone that is a believer.
I might have agreed, until your post that is.
"Then why read my posts? And if you have to change your screen name every time you post about them, what does that make you?"
Another home run for Captain Fvcktard!! I swear, the human race will encounter peace and enlightenment when your feeble spirit finally takes a dirt nap!
Tom Tom the Piper's Son is woman, and an important fixture on the Belief Blog.
Tom Tom is likely a pedophile who beats off in public restrooms to the smell of other peoples' bowel movements. Sock puppet.
For what it's worth, I much prefer your reasoned debates - and you are good at it.
I know that zingers are even called for once in a while - keywords, "once in a while". You know, you are not alone here, and considering your numerous posts, many people are apt to get a mistaken impression of us non-believers.
Is this from that nasty "truth be told" person? It wouldn't surprise me. This seems to be a very angry baseless claim against Tom Tom
I'll post as I wish. If someone doesn't like it, tough toenails.
I suspect the Curious Jorge/Xerxes/Colonel Sander is a little turd who had his azz handed to him by me and it's still a sore point for him.
"we can surely all agree that this "Tom Tom Piper Son" character is the world's biggest fvckface loser of all time."
Your argument is unsupported. I have never known TomTom to lose a fuckface.
Thank you, ER. You are correct. I never have. ;)
In lieu of Planned Parenthood I have been distributing wire hangers to all the young women in my town.
generous and considerate of you
If abortion is murder even in the 1st trimester, then every woman who was beaten by her husband or boyfriend and has a miscarriage, that man should be executed for murder. Every woman who has a miscarriage after a car accident she caused should be charged with manslaughter. Every woman who has had an abortion should be arrested and charged with murder. Every woman who uses birth control to prevent an egg that has been fertilized from implanting in the uterus should be punished. If a pregnant women drinks and smokes during pregnancy should be charged with child abuse. The attempt by religious fundamentalists to assign a fetus person-hood fails because of these possible scenarios. How far do they really want the government involved with protecting every fetus?
Leaders today speak of sins against "human rights".
They do not speak of sins against the One God. Christ is defined only as a religion.
XES...to serve and magnify oneself.
john – because in this diverse society, there is not simply one god. there are on the other hand plenty of humans.
Which god John and how are you so certain you have the right one?
See you at the goat sacrifice, John. God will torture you eternally if you are a no show.
Joe Biden cannot be a Catholic if he believes in abortion and gay marriage. I wish the media would stop calling him a Catholic. And, I wish he would stop calling himself a Catholic -– along with Pelosi and Sebelius as well as anyother Cathlics who believe in abortion and gay marriage.
Is there a special 'I AM CATHOLIC' card that they pull if one states they believe in abortion or gay marriage or is this simply your own invalid opinion?
elaine – don't be silly. you can certainly be a member of a club, but not agree with all their beliefs.
this all or nothing mentality is exactly what is wrong with so many people in america. use your brain and stop believing something just because someone told you that you should.
You are correct, Elaine! The media does identify the souls that you mention as 'Catholic', as they proclaim themselves to be. In the not so distant past, very accurate and descriptive terms were used to identify these persons, these words are still accurate: Blasphemer, HERETIC & APOSTATE. Remember the 4 last things: Death, Judgement, Heaven & Hell are a reality for all. The Divine Mercy Chaplet is a great prayer. If you have not already begun to pray it, please join the souls who currently do, for MERCY in atonement for our sins, and those of the whole world. LaSallete!
"Remember the 4 last things: Death, Judgement, Heaven & Hell are a reality for all."
The only one of those that is a reality is Death. No-one has the right to judge anyone (not even a christian's imaginary friend god). Heaven and hell are only pertinent to christians, not everyone else.
sam – just what we need, some religious fanatic declaring members of their own religion to be blasphemers, heretics and apostates. i didn't think this type of thinking existed outside of the middle east.
snowboarder, ummmm, believers are NOT asking for your help.
Believers already have their help, snowboarder, so no thanks......'1Jo 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.'.... So as you can see, you and your beastie (gubmint) pals should buzz off.
Elaine is right. True Scotsmen wear kilts.
read – if people didn't want to discuss their "beliefs" they would not post them to online comment forums.
the only purpose for words such as apostate, heretic and blasphemer is control. nothing more than an attempt to quash differing opinions and independent thought.
Well, snowcake, please remind your aggie and athie pals of your judgments, when they be doing the quashing.
Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
read – that is a fantastically false statement. did you even think about it prior to posting it?
i am quite certain that i have never heard any agnostic or atheist accuse anyone of apostacy or blasphemy.
Post by 'Elaine' is an instance of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
You're right Elaine! Our Catholic Church is NOT a Democracy and that's why it's hard for many Americans to understand. Granted, we all sin, but we recognize that our sins are wrong. Then there are others (like Biden) who believe their own personal opinion is superior. These "cafeteria catholics" pick and choose what suits their personal taste. Humility is in short supply in this culture. Pride runs rampant.
Is your argument that anyone who disagrees with the Catholic church even if it is on public policy questions and not personal issues cannot be catholic? If that is the case there are hardly any catholics in the U.S. That is nice to hear.
chaffeur, you haven't recently killed anyone who worked on a sunday, have you? That's because you "picked and chose" which of your god's commandments to heed.
I'm not sure of the relevance of you comment, but to you I respond with:
All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king
From a Public Servant that cares about your health: '....ook, I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby......'
typical male response "if they make a mistake" what about the young teenage boy, he doesn't have to be responsible? so typical
mfsbt, the fathers have NO input whatsoever. The gubmint likes it that way. It's the new daddy on the block.
Women have the final say because they are the ones whose bodies are affected. Don't like it? Don't ever have an abortion. What's that you say? You're male? Fine. The day you can carry a pregnancy to term is the day you get to decide what you want to do about it. Third parties don't get to dictate. Get over it.
Yup, our father, who art in washington...............The PUblic Servants 'evolved', heh, heh, into the fathers and Masters! The revolution already occurred. Ye olde usurpation of power by the teenage mutant servants.
Leaving aside women's rights for a second.
Generally the people who say no abortions, are also not prepared to help with the upbringing of a child.
Also they provide a lot of rhetoric about no abortions but do nothing about the myriad of causes for loss of life: food safety and availability; water safety and availability; road safety; drug safety, gun safety, drug availability; etc.
10s of 1000s of children die daily of starvation, 1500 people die daily of malaria, etc. etc. What actions are the anti-abortion crowd taking on behalf of the living?
Hitting the sauce early, Anybody? Poor thing.
Biden said: "I believe my church's doctrine that life begins at conception."
then Biden said: "[it's] about taking care of those who can't take care of themselves."
If he believes life begins at conception, who is less able to take care of themselves than defenseless children?
If I had my own little baby featus, I wouldn't kill it. We would drink milk shakes every day and listen to Grace Jones.
That life (personhood) begins at conception is his BELIEF, it is not a FACT.
He also stated that he didn't think it was right to IMPOSE his RELIGIOUS BELIEFS on others.
russ – just because biden believes it, does not mean he has the right to attempt to impose his beliefs on the remainder of society.
that is the difference between ryan and biden. ryan believes that his station is a mandate that he must impose his beliefs on the populace. biden understands the fact that this is a pluralistic society and his beliefs are only his own.
@ snowboarder & notheism: you are missing my point. most pro-choice folks point out that b/c they believe *this is not a person*, they can do what they want with their own bodies.
but Biden is claiming otherwise: that he knows this is a person – so this is MURDER in Biden's thinking. in the case of murder, you come to the defense of the defenseless precisely because OTHERS are already imposing their beliefs on this life (by attempting to kill it).
if Biden believes abortion ends life (i.e., is MURDER), then "I won't intervene" is hugely flawed argument. It'd be like watching someone murdering your neighbor & saying "I'm not going to intervene because I'm not going to impose my beliefs on society." That's ludicrous and unethical.
Biden's position is blatantly hypocritical and self-contradictory. Helping the defenseless is most fundamentally defending the life of those who cannot defend themselves.
russ – this is a controversial issue and not comparable to murder, as a large segment of the population do not agree with that label. bidens belief is simply his belief and is rooted in his religious background, but attempting to impose his religiously rooted view on the population is simply wrong.
there is nothing hypocritical about making decision for yourself according to your beliefs and allowing others to make their own decisions according to theirs.
russ- besides, the whole abortion issue is a red herring. abortion is simply a symptom of the problem. outlawing abortion will accomplish nothing more than creating a new class of criminals.
the real issue is a nearly total lack of reproductive education resulting in unwanted pregnancies. tackle the that problem and abortion will nolonger be an issue.
I'd throw in free access to contraceptives under universal healthcare along with mandatory eduction in public schools on their use . Still, people will do irresponsible things...
@ snowboarder: you are very much correct to say it is symptomatic. there is a greater underlying issue.
but my point still holds. Biden's argument must be judged from within: if you know that someone is committing murder, it doesn't matter what the perpetrator thinks about his crime – it should be stopped.
consider Penn Jilette's similar argument regarding proselytizing (particularly the part about a truck bearing down on you). this is also a discussing on "imposing your beliefs on someone else"...
Universal healthcare? Hopefully not in my lifetime.
Well, russ, you can see that the lost use abortion as contraception. Very brutish.
russ – all but the most dogmatic realize that it isn't really a truck bearing down on you and that their opinion on abortion is not the only way to look at it. education has gone a long way toward blunting the effect of religion on the populace.
read – except for the religious connotation of the word "lost", i agree that abortion is a barbaric form of contraception when so many other forms are available.
@ snowboarder: you can't have it both ways.
"all but the most dogmatic realize..."
"don't impose your beliefs on others"
your first argument assumes there is an objective reality that IS imposed on false beliefs. that is exactly my position – we simply hold opposing positions on the nature of that objective truth.
but then to argue "don't impose your beliefs" when you are doing EXACTLY the same thing is self-contradictory. do you see that your argument here is self-refuting?
russ – that is a logical fallacy. "not imposing my beliefs on other" is not "imposing my beliefs on others."
by supporting gay marriage, i am in no way forcing someone to marry a member of the same s3x. by allowing others to make their own choice and have their own beliefs, i am in no way forcing their choice.
stop urinating on my leg and trying to tell me it's raining.
russ – in the end, scientific advancement and education will make the abortion argument moot.
@ snowboarder: you've changed discussions. I've said nothing about gay marriage.
you are *dogmatically* assuming that "there is no truck" (in this case... that it's not a life) – even though science cannot and does not define life. this is a metaphysical presupposition (not evidence-based) of yours that you assert openly as an objective reality. and not just that, but a commonly agreed upon objective reality. but that sort of assertion is the very thing you are criticizing (here's the reality I believe in; no matter what you believe, we should legislate according to my belief).
what basis do you have to claim this is not a life? and yet you do so dogmatically in proclaiming "all but the most dogmatic realize this is not REALLY a truck..." it's a not too thinly veiled statement: "hey, *everybody* knows better than this. only idiots think this is a life." how is that not a dogmatic position you are taking?
It's not peeing on you leg & calling it rain. It's the pot calling the kettle black – and meaning it as an insult.
The fetus is alive. That doesn't mean its rights trump those of the woman carrying it. As long as it is not viable outside the uterus she has the right to choose whether to continue the pregnancy or end it. Your beliefs on the matter are irrelevant. No one is required to abide by them.
russ – again with the false statements. "not legislating my beliefs" is not the same as "legislating my beliefs". allowing people to choose is not choosing for them.
by labeling someone as dogmatic, i am not forcing them to change.
by keeping them from legislating their dogma, i am preserving the rights of those who disagree.
"Murder" is a legal term. The law, not your belief, decides what const itutes murder. Abortion is not murder unless the law deems it so.
If you believe it's "murder" because your bible and your god say it is, then your god can mete out the punishment for it. You don't get to use secular law to impose religious rules.
@ snowboarder: that is short-sighted on your part.
do you claim to hold the same position in regard to hate crimes? how about the Nazis? or even just basic murder?
to put it differently: is what Charles Manson did wrong inherently – or only if the majority legislate it as such? is racism wrong objectively, or is it ok for the Nazis or the old South to treat people as less than human?
you necessarily attempt legislate your beliefs. and in this case, you believe there is no life, so abortions are no big deal. take it or leave it. just about the mother's rights. but suddenly, if we talk about a mom abusing her newborn child, things are different. we legislate as a society – even though (TomTom, take note) the newborn is EQUALLY in need of ongoing care to survive. THEN, we *impose* our beliefs.
you are calling me dogmatic, but you only because you are *assuming* (instead of openly stating, as I am) your presuppositions (namely, that this is not life). and yet the entire discussion IS the presupposition.
when you believe life IS at stake, you openly legislate it & fight for it, right? why else fight for civil rights? isn't that what MLK did? took on the majority opinion that there is a form of existence that is less than life & pushed back on it? or was he wrong to "impose his beliefs"? should he have "respected" racist beliefs more?
@ TomTom: so by your definition, the Nazi soldiers in concentration camps were just keeping the law – not murdering?
Russ. Are you saying that Nazi Germany was a civikized country?
Russ brings up Nazis. Russ loses argument.
You talk about the life of the child, but what about the life of the mother? When does her life become valuable?
@ Veritas: I don't think anyone in 1933 would have argued otherwise... and yet their beliefs began to gain ground.
"Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it." We're fools if we don't think we are capable of the same sort of blindness. As genius as Shakespeare was, even he fell pray to his cultural values. Just read "Merchant of Venice" for a huge dose of anti-Semitism. Do we really think we are so much more sophisticated & somehow unsusceptible?
@ TomTom: being unable to engage with historical reality is losing the argument.
Abortion has been legal for more years than it's been illegal in this country, Russ. It has existed since women started getting pregnant. It was legal and acceptable when the founding fathers wrote the Const itution.
See any concentration camps spring up yet?
Historical or hysterical? It's always hard to see the difference with you, Russ.
@ Damocles: the mother's life is at risk FAR less than 1% of the time.
What you are referring to is *quality* of life. But the mother already HAS life. What is at risk for her is to what degree her life will be affected. Comparing that with the child's life is not an apples to apples discussion. It's categorically different – b/c we're not talking about the child's quality of life but rather whether or not the child will continue to live AT ALL.
@ TomTom: again, your same argument could be made for slavery & civil rights. does quanti.ty of years make it right?
and yes, i do see something worse than concentration camps. 6 million Jews died in the Holocaust. consider this: if pro-life folks are right in saying abortion ends life, there have been more than 54.5M murders since Roe v. Wade. that's NINE holocausts.
Less than 1%? I find that hard to believe, but I can look up those stats myself. How do you know what I'm referring to? At what percentage does the life of the mother trump the life of the child? Say there's a 30% chance she will die if she tries to give birth, is this acceptable?
Whether her life is "at risk" is not the only issue, Russ. She has rights. The fetus before viability does not. Women are not required to be incubators, nor are they required to do anything else with their bodies just because you think they should. Do you think the government should be able to force you to donate an organ? The same principle applies. The government does not have the right to demand that you give up your rights to your own bodily integrity. Even if you are the only possible donor who could save another person's life by donating a kidney, you cannot be forced to do so.
Russ, you're attempting to apply your logic onto a person who illogically believes in imaginary people. If one believes in a religion, logic no longer applies unfortunately. It is no more or less logical or moral for the religious person to proselytize. That logic is something we may try to impose from the outside upon the religiously minded, but the person himself is suffering from a personal delusion which can hold any number of odd attributes.
I personally feel a religious person should proselytize because to me, along the same lines as Penn above, it seems logical if one truly believes in damnation and also cares for others one should try to help others avoid hell.
Unfortunately once one believes in a religion, logic can no longer be applied to their delusion since the belief is illogical to begin with. There are thousands of religions and branches and likely millions of variations among people about what is "true." Applying one person's logic to another's personal delusion just can't bear any fruit.
Poor Russ. I wonder what you think would have happened to all those women who had abortions had been forced to carry those pregnancies to term. Do you really think that would have been a good thing? To bring millions of unwanted babies into a society which doesn't even care enough about them to provide them with health care?
You can continue to delude yourself that a fetus is equal to a born person and pretend that the Holocaust and slavery are no different, but that's all it is: a delusion.
@ Damocles: here's a CBS article from 2009. maternal deaths: the *highest rate in years* was the cause for concern, with 679 deaths per 100,000. That's still FAR less than one percent of births.
now that's all i could find in a quick search. i'm open to hearing other stats directly linked to abortion.
So only the mothers' deaths const itute 'risk' as far as you're concerned, Russ?
I suggest you look up some of the stats on what other things can occur in pregnancy and childbirth that can permanently affect women.
Why do you imagine that you have any right to tell someone else what she should do with her own body and the contents thereof?
A recent study showed that providing free contraceptives to girls and women cut the rate of abortion and unintended pregnancy drastically. Do you approve of such an action? Why?
It is shocking to see Tom Tom on here. I swear this loser never leaves his parents' basement.
What always makes me laugh about people like you, Russ, is that you will NEVER have to live under your own beliefs as far as abortion is concerned. You wish you could force others to remain pregnant against their will when you will never face an unintended pregnancy yourself.
@ TomTom: you are not admitting your premise. the entire argument is whether or not this is life. the govt already legislates against murder. the entire discussion hangs on that question.
the delusion is not admitting that you equally base your approach on a metaphysical presupposition. science does not & cannot define life. it's p.1 biology. check it out. this discussion is necessarily a metaphysical one. who metaphysical presuppositions more greatly applies?
saying "i won't impose my beliefs on yours" is either blindness, lying or self-delusion. you hold a metaphysical conviction (that this is not life) and impose it upon others with whom you disagree. that's why i'm bringing up slavery & concentration camps. back to Biden's quote: if his social doctrine tells him it's "about defending the defenseless" & he believes this is life in the womb, there is no more defenseless person than that child.
to say "the mom has rights, too" is preposterous. take for example the mom who just got 99 years for gluing her child's hands to the wall & beating her. who is claiming "the mom has rights, too – what about her life?" it would be laughable if it were not so tragic.
Xerxes, funny that you have to post these sorts of tidbits using a different sock puppet every time.
Otherwise, the truth would out-that you're on here day and night looking for my posts so you can make inane comments about them.
No, Russ, as usual, you're incorrect. The issue is not whether 'this is life.' The issue is whether a fetus's being alive gives it equal or special rights that trump those of the woman carrying and therefore deprive her of her right to bodily integrity and autonomy. To give the fetus rights will make women second-class citizens.
Furthermore, ending a life is not 'murder' as you seem to fail to realize. Look up "murder" and figure out what it means legally.
You don't seem to know.
@ End Religion:
Jim & Jane walk into a room.
Jim sees 25 people.
Jane sees 25 more that Jim cannot see.
Jane thinks Jim is blind. Jim thinks Jane is crazy.
But the question remains: are there 25 people or 50?
Calling me crazy doesn't advance the argument. All that matters is: what is the objective reality? It begs for an examination of both of our metaphysical presuppositions. I'm being open about mine. What about you?
Being eight and a half months pregnant with my third child and having been hospitalized several times during this pregnancy, I can tell you for a FACT that being pregnant is much more than an 'inconvenience'. Sure a newborn needs round the clock care, but there are many people that can provide that care. Until a fetus reaches viability, NO ONE can provide care to it except for the mother, which as Tom Tom says makes me the incubator. How dare you tell me that I have to be an incubator, that I have to suffer through this pregnancy and be in the hospital and pay the medical costs. I do not believe that an embryo is a human, but I do believe it is now (as my baby is now viable outside the womb). That's my opinion. I don't force my opinion on you and you have no right to force yours on me.
The womb was created as and for the child's living space. The woman can live without it. The child can't. Tenants' RIGHTS! No bullyin' landlords that break contracts!
Thank you Tom Tom for another revelatory bit of insight. Your wisdom exceeds that of even the most enlightened! Instead of spending eight hours a day on this blog, you should focus your genius in a more resourceful manner. Might I suggest self trapanization?
Ah, so you want to be the one who defines what life is.
Look, I'm not a fan of abortion, if it were up to me every child would be wanted. The reality is far different. It really is something that can only be seen in black or white, it is either allowed or not. When you try to debate it, it spirals out of control. It is legal and the woman's choice.
Russ, you are really a hoot. What do you not grasp about the concept that a born child DOES have rights and that no person has the right to injure, abuse, or kill that child because it is a person? A fetus is not a 'person' under law.
You can rail on and on about the morality of it, but it will avail you nothing. We are not a theocracy and religious convictions do not rule the day here.
I do not believe that abortion should be illegal. Why should your view hold sway when the issue will never ever affect your body or your rights or the rights of any other person? Don't even bother typing some inanity about the fetus being a person. It is not one under the law.
first, Murder is not first & foremost a legal term. But again, I'm making a metaphysical claim there. What about you? are your metaphysical claims based on subjective, shifting govt decrees? or do you base them on something deeper? hence the racism/Nazi discussion...
secondly, i do have to live under this reality. unlike Obama, I don't think i should give my daughter the right to murder my granddaughter. this is an incredibly personal issue that affects us all.
and to be even more personal, as i think i told you before, my parents were divorcing when my mom found out she was pregnant in 1974 (just after Roe v. Wade). i wouldn't be here if my mom would have decided her career path & personal autonomy were more important than my existence.
Poor Kat Man Doo/Xerxes. Do you have no life?
The landlord can sue for damages to the rented unit. Are you suggesting that a woman would have to sue the fetus?
Now see, I can agree with you to a degree that a career path is not the most honest of reasons to have an abortion. I can see both sides of the issue which makes it difficult for me sometimes.
You will never be pregnant, Russ.
Murder is indeed a legal term. Abortion is not, nor has it ever been, murder under the laws of this country.
I'm not interested in your philosophy or your beliefs, Russ. They don't matter. They are irrelevant.
You're welcome to believe whatever you want about abortion and a woman's right to choose. Good luck getting your way.
You have grandchildren and you were born in 1974? Yikes. I am still having children and am only one year younger than you. Let me guess you live in the south.
@ Jen: as i've said above, so do you do the same with racism? should MLK have said "i'm just not going to impose my beliefs on those with whom I disagree"?
Tom Tom- Each and every one of your comments is a dreadful abortion in and of itself. You existence is fundamentally flawed. I suggest you assess your life and aim to better yourself.
Apparently, Russ can't tell the difference between a blastocyst or embryo and a born person.
@ Jen: no, I'm not having grandchildren. I was giving you a hypothetical. My daughter is 6 months old.
but the point holds: it has GREATLY affected all of our lives, but it has not ENDED our lives. and to put it in terms of women's rights: i would not want my daughter to grow up & be able to murder my granddaughters.
Colonel Sander/xerxes/troll, why does it bother you so much that I'm posting here? What is griping your poor little azz? Is someone holding a gun to your head and forcing you to come here and read my comments? Go blow if you so dislike what I write.
Do you know that the crime rate in this country has steadily dropped since R v W? There are a number of researchers who think that it's quite likely that the legalization of abortion was one of the causes of the drop.
Well I have two daughters and I would want them to have the option to abort an embryo, which is not a human in any way shape or form in my opinion. And my opinion counts. I've been through three complex pregnancies to your....how many????? Oh that's right....zero!!!
What are you going to do, Russ? Chain her up until she gives birth to your satisfaction? Look, you can raise your kids as best you can, you can teach them right from wrong, you can offer advice and counsel and answer questions, after that, it is her choice.
Has anyone else here come to the conclusion that Tom Tom is easily the dumbest fvcking idiot of all time? Every time I see one of his horrible comments it literally hurts my eyes. For shame.
Gosh, dearie, does it hurt when you ram a screwdriver into your ear, too? Why do you do it, then?
That distinction likely belongs to Chad or Topher.
@ TomTom: you repeatedly take that same self-refuting line.
1) it's not what the govt says – so there! i go with what's legal.
2) I don't care about your philosophy
1) if the govt changes (which historically, every govt has & does), what do you do? are your morals based on the govt or do they inform the govt?
2) you have your own philosophical underpinnings, but are simply refusing to divulge them. why?
per our repeated conversations on this, i understand this is personal for you – probably because you had an abortion. as frequently & as heatedly as you engage in this, it obviously occupies a lot of your thoughts.
to be clear: my faith tells me I'm as messed up as anyone on the planet, but there is a Love that died to save me from things I've done. i want that for everyone else. no matter what they've done. if he can save an egotistical punk like me...
@ TomTom: per your Freakonomics tidbit (crime rate dropped due to abortion)...
which is better, the life of a criminal or NO LIFE AT ALL. and who has the right to make such a decision? this begs for a metaphysical discussion.
even Faulkner said: "between grief & nothing, I would take grief."
@ Damocles: yes, you are right. I cannot ensure my daughter won't get an abortion. but that misses the point.
I'm not talking about robotically running her life. I'm talking about building a better society – one in which I'd want my kids to have HEALTHY freedoms, not self-destrucive ones.
it's the same reason we outlaw things we think are incredibly destructive. you may want the freedom to text & drive, but you certainly don't want your teen to have it – nor for another teen who has it to ruin your family's life by crashing into you b/c s/he was texting while driving.
If the law changes what you are going to end up with is more pregnancies kept hidden and back alley abortions that are likely to end both the fetus and the mother. You are going to end up with scared teenagers who are unable or unwilling to go to their parents for fear that they will be condemned and they may end up doing something foolish.
@ Jen: feminists who take your line are incredibly hypocritical.
on the one hand, the (rightfully) say: a father who does not engage in his child's life is failing father. one who doesn't even pay child support is a "deadbeat." and even a husband who doesn't support his wife financially, emotionally, physically, intellectually as she carries their child fails to faithfully be a part of the marriage & home they are creating. it is the pinnacle of COMMUNITY.
but then on the other, the feminist claims absolute INDIVIDUALISM. the man has no rights, no involvement, no concerns, no burdens. back off, males.
that's flatly self-contradictory. you don't want the latter in your own marriage. why makes such claims in the abstract?
So now you are arguing that because abortions are legal it's going to somehow entice your daughter to have one? Yes, I want a nice, fairly happy society as well, but that is not achieved by making abortion illegal.
Russ, rather than trying to convert pro-choice folks, perhaps you would have greater success by asking believers to follow their own cult's rules against abortion. If believers merely did this, 70+% of abortions in the USA would not have been performed. When believers get their abortion problem under control, I might listen, but until then, abortion is just another example of believer hypocrisy.
@ Damocles: put cheaply... two wrongs don't make a right.
no one says: "hey, they'll be murderers anyway. let's legalize it. maybe we can regulate it."
yes, there will always be back alley murders – but no one is trying to legalize those.
making murder legal, clinical, medically precise & socially acceptable doesn't change the heinousness of the crime.
Russ said: "if Biden believes abortion ends life (i.e., is MURDER), then "I won't intervene" is hugely flawed argument. "
Is it an argument from him or is it a position he has to take since he believes separation of church and state trumps his personal beliefs? I didn't understand your use of the word "argument" there.
@ 0G: i have never denied Christian hypocrisy here. I think we are the biggest problem this country has – in particular, our hypocrisy.
@ Damocles: I'm not making a direct correlation. But i recognize the statistical likelihood RISES if it is legalized (or more poignantly, is considered societally acceptable). to put it figuratively, the fight here is for the culture's soul.
i like the fact that – not only my daughter – but many others might take greater pause on something if it is declared illegal. it's the same reason MLK fought so ardently for civil rights. i want not just my daughter, but all of society to see the inherent dignity & value of EVERY human being.
So you want abortion to be illegal.... BAM.... it's illegal and your daughter has one. Punishment?
Any woman that thinks killing an unborn child is her fundamental right is mentally ill
I see, I see. So according to your morality, Hitler is just as dignified as a human life as Mother Theresa.
@ Mama K: I think you've put your finger directly on it.
What matters more to Biden: political ideology or religious beliefs? in this debate he has to state clearly which takes precedence. His religious beliefs (fight for life, regardless of politics: Acts 5:29) contradict his political ideology here (Jeffersonian separation of church & state). He sides with his political ideology.
to secularize a religious discussion: he gives greater metaphysical objectivity to his political philosophy than his religious faith.
to state it religiously: his faith is his politics, and his Catholicism takes a back seat to it.
Russ: Who legally defines the term abortion: a) the government or b) the church? In case that didn't sink in, who makes the laws that every citizen of a country must abide by?
Roe vs Wade has held for a very long time for a reason! For that to change would mean you have to have the majority vote and thankfully there are enough people who see the issue with that change and are able to look at the true failing of removing that right to prevent that ever being overturned.
I have to agree with Jen here, if this was my daughter I'd tell her to do what she believed to be best for her. You know how to partially prevent this, especially abortions due to an 'oops' and I exclude non-preventable pregnancies (ie, rape; incest) here, stop fighting Planned Parenthood!!! Don't let your belief shadow the reality of the issue...if a woman can't get a legal abortion she will get it one way or the other and that could be far worse. I can't comprehend how anyone doesn't see the reality. The USA has the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the modern world due to people who think like you and teach others the same. Use some common sense.
@ Damocles: if my daughter committed murder, yes there are consequences for those actions. I would never stop loving her, but love necessarily says "no" to evil.
that's where people misunderstand the cross: Jesus embraces us at great expense to himself, but the way he embraces us says directly & graphically that he does not want us to STAY like we are.
per your Hitler comment: the Bible doesn't mince words – we all need a Savior. and that was something Mother Teresa readily recognized. now, we can make quanti.tative vs. qualitative distinctions (Hitler's depravity was more pervasively evident than Mother Teresa's), they both still require the same qualitative method of salvation – the cross.
or to put it more bluntly from the Bible:
no one does good (Rom.3:10-12)
apart from Christ we can do nothing good (Jn.15:5)
Jesus even called his own disciples evil (Lk.11:13)
the cross tells us two things clearly:
1) we're worse off than we want to admit (we deserve that sort of death)
2) we're more loved than we ever dared to hope (he was willing to do that in our place)
@ TP: no, for abortion to end would not require a majority vote of america – but only a majority of the Supreme Court. just change out 2 of the 9 and guess what?
our govt is representative. in other words, we project it. it is what we make it. while that is the best form of govt we have on the planet, it is not the best way to do morality!
i dont' know about you, but considering history, i don't want "majority rule" to dictate morality. that's why I keep bringing up the Nazis, the civil rights movement, etc.
the real question here: what is the objective reality? to what metaphysical foundation are we appealing?
Ah well, you were doing fine when it seemed like you had formed your own opinions about abortion and weren't relying on passages in the bible. I doubt you will be able to stop quoting from here on out so we will just say that abortion is legal. I can only hope that you talk to your daughter in the future and not condemn her to hell should she make a choice you don't agree with.
"no one does good (Rom.3:10-12)
apart from Christ we can do nothing good (Jn.15:5)
Jesus even called his own disciples evil (Lk.11:13)"
How is that moral? How do you think it is okay to teach a child that they can never be good? That's just abusive and bat sh!t crazy...thankfully I raised my child to think more of herself than that!
Russ said: "@ Mama K: I think you've put your finger directly on it. What matters more to Biden: political ideology or religious beliefs? "
Well yes, but that is why I didn't understand why you called that differentiation a "flawed argument" from Biden. I can see why you might think it is "flawed" according to your personal beliefs. I'm sure you don't have to tell him that the position he feels he must take to meet his own priority of beliefs is conflicting to himself. To me that doesn't necessarily denote something being "flawed". There are people that are public servants of the U.S. who believe their responsibility to uphold the Const!tution and current law trumps their religious beliefs. James Madison, the 4th POTUS, the chief architect of the Const!tution was such a man. So was TJ, the 3rd POTUS. And there were plenty of others like that who were involved in the founding. So personally I am pleased that Biden takes this position, and I like the way he explained his position.
Wow, Russ. You really are desperate to prove something, aren't you? I've never had nor sought an abortion; I have children who are grown. My mother was pro-choice, too. She never had an abortion. Are you really so dense that you think one must have had an abortion or would even consider having one to be in favor of a woman's right to choose?
Yes, I guess you are.
Can you cite a country in which abortion is illegal that has a "better society" than ours? If so, go right ahead and then prove that making abortion illegal is the cause.
Ha ha. Calling me a feminist. All I know is that when I say something that distinguished me from a doormat or a prost-tute, I get called a feminist. Obviously you are intimidated that I am intelligent and educated (which obviously your wife is not or she would not be married to you), so instead of debating me, you attack me. Why? Because you have no argument against me.
My husband would support my decisions (he sees me as an equal – not the doormat you consider your wife to be). He is not the one that is enduring all the risks I have (which will shorten my lifespan), or risking his life having multiple c-sections. I AM DOING THAT. His contribution to the pregnancy was not that significant. His contributions will increase greatly once our third child has arrived. Pregnancy is all on the woman. That's just a fact. Not fair that the man doesn't have a say? No – it's not fair. But it's also not fair that they make no sacrifices during pregnancy. That's life.
You are the hypocrite. What if (god forbid) your daughter was violently r-ped at thirteen? Would you force her to have the baby? After all, life trumps all. Not the baby's fault how it was conceived. So would you? Because it would be traumatizing to her. So which is it? Are you a hypocrite or do you hate your own daughter?
As for your accusation of hypocrisy among feminists, Russ, I don't believe men should have to support children that they did not agree to father. If a man does nothing to prevent a pregnancy he doesn't want created, then he bears some responsibility. Don't like it? Don't get someone pregnant.
@ Damocles: as I said before, I'm being open about my epistemology. are you equally open?
people on this blog often claim that they don't impose beliefs, but somehow quoting the most read, more cited book in history is an immediate basis for dismissal of any & all arguments? that is illogical. why not rather engage the thought?
Russ is mistaken in believing that the SCOTUS could render abortion illegal by overturning R v W (which is extremely unlikely). He is incorrect. All such a decision would do would be to return the decision to the states which would enact laws regarding abortion.
Russ: Set aside your personal belief for one second please...look at this from another point of view.
Your 18 year old comes home beaten and bruised, she was walking down an otherwise peaceful street and some guy jumps out of the bush, drags her in, rapes her...he has left her to die but somehow she manages to drag herself home. Afraid to tell you she hides away. You later find out about what happened and hear the fear and horror in her voice as she replays those moments. By the end she is a trembling wreck beause she relived it and knows she will live with the nightmares forever. It is later found out the perp got her pregnant. Now knowing full well that this was not a pregnancy that occured due to lack of use of contraception or whatever, it was the result of a horrific event that will already haunt her for life, would you not want her to have the choice or would you rather she have to live with oe more reminder of that horrible night, knowing full well that eventually the truth will need to be told to the child?
I have no issue with a woman's right to abort regardless. I think the decision is strictly between her, her partner (if one exists) and her Doctor. There are a great many reasons outside of not using protection for a woman to have an abortion and only she can make the right decision for her.
@ TP: your strong response tells me that you are actually thinking about what I'm saying. thank you for at least granting it that much dignity. but you misunderstand the biblical view in your response. if you're going to push it away, i'd hope you at least make sure you are pushing back from what it really says.
the biblical conviction here: we were made for relationship with God. *WE* (not He) broke that relationship. we do not have the means to fix that in & of ourselves (like a lamp unplugging itself from an outlet). Jesus' point: you think you're doing good when you do "ethical" things, but if you miss the purpose for which you were made, even your ethics are broken. in the Bible's view: life is not primarily about "being good" – but about having a relationship with God. So, even "being good" can be a way of running from God (as much of fundamentalist Christianity shows). That's Jesus whole point about the Older Brother in the Prodigal Son account in Luke 15.
Jesus is telling us our true condition. What kind of doctor do you want – one who tells you how sick you really are or who tells you everything is ok when you have cancer?
@ TomTom: but according to your view, if & when the legal system shifts, so does your morality.
I don't believe in your god, Russ. I don't have to live by your religious beliefs. Neither does anyone else. You can have them if you want; you can't force them on others.
No, Russ. I will still believe that abortion should be legal even if it is not, unless and until science finds a means of removing a blastocyst, embryo, or fetus from the body of a woman who doesn't want it and incubating it artificially.
I also believe it's a fundamental right for consenting adults of the same gender to marry, regardless of its legality.
Your batting average in making assumptions about what I believe is pretty terrible. Maybe you should get a designated hitter who has a brain.
Because it does not add any truth to the argument, Russ. I can tell you that I read a book that said abortion is the best damn thing since sliced bread.
A biblical morality like the one you cling to is an utter failure.
Russ: Let me clarify...I do not support your position. I'm asking you to look at this from a slightly different perspective. To try to imagine a scenario that potentially involved your life directly and think of where you would stand on the issue if it did affect you.
This is one of those issues that shouldn't be an issue.
Explain where you believe woman's rights should be in this world and why please? Do you see your wife as your equal?
Morality can and does shift.
@ TP: per your hypothetical, 2 things...
1) you are citing the exceptional as a way to allow a majority on a different basis.
far & away, the vast majority of abortions are not due to risk of mother's health, r.a.pe or inc.est. but those exceptions still garner most of the talking points. if we agreed to simply outlaw abortion as belated birth control, we'd be talking about the vast majority.
and i do think it is a great evil that a mother would choose her preferred version of life at the expense of her child even having life – especially when in this vast majority of cases she ACTIVELY made the decision to have se.x. it's belated birth control at the expense of a life. no one likes to hear the term "convenience", but in comparison to not having life at all, what else can you call it? the mother's preferred life at the expense of her child.
2) the r.a.pe is not the child's fault.
while due to the complications here, i do not advocate legislating this – but there is something overlooked that needs to be considered here.
i have worked with the children of r.a.pe. it was not their fault that they were the product of r.a.pe – but they are living human beings. if the mother had decided to get an abortion, they wouldn't be here. let's not talk in the abstract. was it better to be alive or dead? yes, it was HUGELY taxing on the mother. but she knew it was not the child's fault – HER child's fault. so she kept the child and raised him. He is definitely thankful to be alive. would it have been MORE LOVING to have aborted him?
@ TomTom: it's not about my batting avg here on assumptions about you – i was giving you the benefit of the doubt. but now you are revealing that your position is simply inconsistent.
1) you appeal to the legal system as a refutation of other positions
2) then you claim the legal system cannot dictate truth to you, b/c you hold a higher position
3) you criticize others for "imposing their beliefs" when clearly you are doing that in this case: both to them & the legal system.
i was trying to give you the benefit that you were not being inconsistent or hypocritical. help me understand how these 3 things you've argued are not both. again, i'm being open about my convictions & their bases. what about you?
Tom Tom said: "Maybe you should get a designated hitter who has a brain. . . ."
Now Tom, I understand your points, but with the Nats game so fresh in my mind, I don't need a reminder! lol
If you'd been aborted, you wouldn't be here. You wouldn't know the difference. Neither would anyone else.
I am acquainted with someone who was given up by his mother when he was an infant. He's not "grateful" that she didn't have access to abortion and is adamantly pro-choice.
@ Damocles: yes, you are right. the mere fact that it's a famous, well known book doesn't make it right – but it does make it worthwhile to be aware of it, both historically & simply to be well informed. To put it pointedly, somehow reading the Bible has become equivalent with "uneducated" on this blog. My point was that reading the Bible is actually necessary to be well educated.
secondly, however – as a Christian I am openly declaring my metaphysical presuppositions. They necessarily inform this discussion, as I've repeatedly said. You are making assertions (which betray underlying presuppositions) without declaring yours. On what basis do you claim this is not life?
I don't care if you think they or I am inconsistent, Russ, because I don't care about your opinions on the matter. "What about you?" What about me? I'm not interested in a philosophical discussion with a fundie on morality or law.
@ TomTom: do you see how that is self-contradictory? he is adamantly for pro-choice (allowing abortions) because he doesn't want to impose "life" on people? but in so doing, a child (who can't defend itself) is losing the right to have life.
for someone who claims that they don't "impose their beliefs" on anyone else, he's doing exactly that. if he sees that others have had a different experience, INCLUDING an appreciation of life – why take that from them? it's the ultimate imposition! not even to give the right to live...
@ TomTom: "I don't care what you think" and yet here you are voraciously arguing.
mama K: I know! Sad that the Nats are done after such an incredible season.
I'm arguing because I think you're a bible-thumper who wants to force others to live by your beliefs. You imagine that I care about your philosophy. I don't.
A fetus doesn't have a "right to life."
Yes, Tom. And if the U.S. had only followed Catholic doctrine to the letter to this point – we would most likely have a population close to that of China with city slums that would look like Latin American city slums "on steriods".
Oh, but mama K! All those people would be ALIVE and GRATEFUL!!!
Biden realizes that women are the ones best qualified to decide what to do about their own reproductive lives. Not the church and not the government.
He may personally dislike abortion but he knows that he's not the one who will have to live with the consequences of having an unwanted child and is realistic enough to realize that making abortion illegal will never stop any woman from getting one if she's desperate enough.
Russ: I understand that the rape is not the childs fault but from my perspective, that child still will endure the results of being a product of that horrific event. I do firmly believe it is a woman's right to choose regardless of what the situation may be that led up to her decision. The reason I bring up the rape issue is because this is where the controversy seems to center. So you can't just say it is okay to have an abortion in certain situations and not others, at least not without violating the right to ones control over their body. Science has given some clear understandings as to when an abortion is no longer allowed and those are what should matter...those are set to try to appease everyone. This should not be an issue and until you personally have been pregnant to fully comprehend it, you really don't have a damn clue as to what you speaking of.
@ TomTom: I never said everyone here would be alive & grateful. the world is a broken place. but between life & death, why choose death?
more pointedly: you are so concerned about me imposing my beliefs with little to no awareness that you are doing the exact same thing. the real issue is not who is imposing their beliefs, but rather what is the objective reality here?
your unwillingness to divulge your own metaphysical underpinnings are an impasse for any further intelligent discussion. it's always easier to caricature those with whom you disagree than to actual engage them. so, knowing that in all likelihood we will have this discussion again (as we have in the past), here's hoping next time you'll actually be willing to take the discussion further.
Nobody can have an intelligent discussion with a fundie, Russ.
I am not "imposing" my beliefs on anyone else. I'm perfectly fine with it if you never get an abortion, dear.
A fetus doesn't have any rights until it is viable outside the body of the woman.
I don't need to "take the discussion further" by "divulging my metaphysical underpinnings", Russ, because every time we have this discussion, I achieve my main objective. If you can't figure out what that is, you'll just have to wonder.
@ TP: as i said above, science has not & cannot define life. it's a metaphysical discussion. appealing to science to answer that question is fundamentally flawed because it cannot even tell you what life is. every basic discussion of biology (literally, "the study of life") admits that.
the problem here is not what science has said. the problem here is you have a different set of metaphysical (i.e., *beyond* science) convictions. as I said to TomTom, until you are willing to engage in a discussion on those presuppositions, the conversation is at an impasse.
Until next time... I've got to call it a Saturday.
@russ: "Jane thinks Jim is blind. Jim thinks Jane is crazy. But the question remains: are there 25 people or 50?"
Which can be answered by the boundaries our shared reality, which is governed by science. Outside of these bounds lies insanity. If there are 50 people then it can be proven. Is this really so difficult?
My take is that if Jane's body is the one affected by these "people," then Jim's opinion is moot.
All this feigned concern over when life begins is in reality religious men needing to control everyone, especially women. With abortion rights, women gain control and it drives religious men even more nuts. Russ, instead of fighting, embrace the fact religion is dying.
Can you tell me how to do it? I read that you shoule use the html bold tag. It does not appear bold to me....
I have always used around one of the letters in the word. I don't know why the bold tag works, but it does.
Example if the word is sex then put the "e" inside the open and closed b tag: e
Fu""""ck – but remove all quote characters. The HTML breaks up the naughty word and beats the parer.. If you need a better explanation, you must be a dumbass believer...
Ooppps... the left and right angle brackets and slashes got consumed...
You don't have to enclose a letter within the tags, just put the two tags together within the offending letter sequence. The filter operates on the letter sequence as received rather than after the tags are removed.
How about SPLOOGE? Or am I spelling that right?
But poop is OK
but sp-ook is flagged
*sorry, wrong spot
This is just fucking great.
The "c" is bold. You don't need to do that.
Let's try that again, shall we?
My post was blocked when I tried to prepend "Let's try that again, shall we?" onto the list above! Stupid filter!
I typed asian with no tricks. It can't be on the filter list.
Maybe it's just caucasian?
Nope, not caucasian or asian. I guess that one can be removed from the list.
ism cums off the list too. it's just jism.
oic it's just PISS not pis
and it's just PRICK not rick.....though I could have sworn rickettsia got blocked before!
It's p-oon not spoo that is flagged.
You are right about POON, not spoon. Thx.
sp-ook is flagged
@G. Zeus Kreiszchte
You said, "My post was blocked when I tried to prepend "Let's try that again, shall we?" onto the list above!"
I've long suspected (but never verified) that there are subtle differences in the way the filter(s) handle the phrase "wonderful us" (and similar ones) depending on if they are in a reply or in an original post.
You said, "Stupid filter!"
for completeness, also:
I believe the 'n' word (as in Niger with the extra 'g') is filtered too*
* Neither of which should come as a surprise to anyone.
pistol, therapist, (test)
I forgot it from my earlier post.
Yeah that f a g word really gets mama k worked up because #1 I don't like people saying it as a derogatory term, but more importantly because #2 it seems to be missing as a word in the Scramble Free word game on my phone. It is a word and has other meanings after all.
and of course:
fortunately words like fage, Fagin and fagopyrism don't come up that often.
For anyone familiar with English slang (as opposed to American slang) fagged out is a fine expression, as is the reference to cigarettes.
Here is the list I have compiled:
arseassholeasianbastardcockcooncrackercumcuntdouchedumbasseffingftwfuckgoddamnhomohootershornyhumpinforms usismjackassjapjismkoochnippleorgypispornqueerrapericksexsh@tshitslutsmutsnatchspankspicspoostrippertittwatvagwhorewonderful uswtf
I've seen the F-word used without alteration here many times, so it's either filtered only occasionally or not at all.
It requires special fucking magic.
Which only fucking atheists have.
And yet, when i posted a comment in the news section that contained negative criticizm of the Taliban i got a 'your comment is awaiting moderation' window.
(They did allow it to be posted however)
Well, maybe they do monitor the comments occasionally, who knows.
test. They did it again.
and when i tried to post it i got censored.
Got censored again; you can see the space where i had to remove the mammary slang word.
You have to use html tricks to get t-it... or the others through the filter on these blogs.
The main news articles have a different system - and perhaps real moderators, I don't know.
Ohhh. Ok, thanks OTOH. I haven't learnt that one yet. I just knew the basic 'space it' or 'vertical pile it'.
What is the trick btw?
OTOH: On the other blogs, I think the Report Abuse buttons actually work. Not here though.
Oh, something with < and / and stuff. I'm too lazy to do it... just use the – and . and '
Thanks OTOH. Maybe I'll try it sometime....
Pray to your god to give you the answer. Or do a View Source ,since god isn't there to help.
Only for the new members of this blog:
Read it over slowly and carefully as it might save a life.
Proceeding to the real issues:
The reality of se-x, abortion, contraception and STD/HIV control: – from a guy who enjoys intelligent se-x-
Note: Some words hyphenated to defeat an obvious word filter. ...
The Brutal Effects of Stupidity:
The failures of the widely used birth "control" methods i.e. the Pill (8.7% ACTUAL failure rate) and male con-dom (17.4% ACTUAL failure rate) have led to the large rate of abortions and S-TDs in the USA. Men and women must either recognize their responsibilities by using the Pill or co-ndoms properly and/or use safer methods in order to reduce the epidemics of abortion and S-TDs.- Failure rate statistics provided by the Gut-tmacher Inst-itute. Unfortunately they do not give the statistics for doubling up i.e. using a combination of the Pill and a condom.
Added information before making your next move:
from the CDC-2006
"Se-xually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain S-TDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psy-ch-ological consequences of S-TDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs as-sociated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."
Consumer Reports, January, 2012
"Yes, or-al se-x is se-x, and it can boost cancer risk-
Here's a crucial message for teens (and all se-xually active "post-teeners": Or-al se-x carries many of the same risks as va-ginal se-x, including human papilloma virus, or HPV. And HPV may now be overtaking tobacco as the leading cause of or-al cancers in America in people under age 50.
"Adolescents don’t think or-al se-x is something to worry about," said Bonnie Halpern-Felsher professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco. "They view it as a way to have intimacy without having 's-ex.'" (It should be called the Bill Clinton Syndrome !!)
Obviously, political leaders in both parties, Planned Parenthood, parents, the "stupid part of the USA" and the educational system have failed miserably on many fronts.
The most effective forms of contraception, ranked by "Perfect use":
– (Abstinence, 0% failure rate)
– (Masturbation, mono or mutual, 0% failure rate)
One-month injectable and Implant (both at 0.05 percent)
Vasectomy and IUD (Mirena) (both at 0.1 percent)
The Pill, Three-month injectable, and the Patch (all at 0.3 percent)
Tubal sterilization (at 0.5 percent)
IUD (Copper-T) (0.6 percent)
Periodic abstinence (Post-ovulation) (1.0 percent)
Periodic abstinence (Symptothermal) and Male condom (both at 2.0 percent)
Periodic abstinence (Ovulation method) (3.0 percent)
Every other method ranks below these, including Withdrawal (4.0), Female condom (5.0), Diaphragm (6.0), Periodic abstinence (calendar) (9.0), the Sponge (9.0-20.0, depending on whether the woman using it has had a child in the past), Cervical cap (9.0-26.0, with the same caveat as the Sponge), and Spermicides (18.0).
See p. 8 for a discussion of "inform us" and "info-rms us". Another idiotic result of the "secret" word filter that tries to eliminate the word "ho-rny" and any other word having that might have a fragment thereof.
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.