Noonan,

As their grip on power slips, their cries of persecution shall grow louder,"-- Haxax Carnido, Collected Essays on Organized Racism and Marketing, Siewerk Press, 2006, p 231.

We stand on comments that The Collective has made many times in the past, "As white birth rates in the US decline the drumbeat against abortion shall grow louder; were white women to cease to have abortions this debate would die on the vine."
No racial advantage equals no political control. Loss of political control means the beginning of the end of white privilege. Low birthrate vice minorities the control of government through Congressional districts becomes browner every decade as We can see in the current Congress. This is really the immigration issue dressed up as a "respect for life" issue. We value all life and We value all the choices one must make for themselves; it is not Our power to decide for millions but to offer options to all women what they do with their bodies. This is not a religious matter unless it it engineered, or how do you say it "spun" into such.

Qu'ul cuda praedex nihil!

Don't kid yourself. You want abortion to be illegal, which means abortion will never happen in a sterile operating room by a skilled doctor.

I don't begrudge your sense of righteousness, at least in this case. But get things straight: one of the most compelling reasons for legal abortion is that it is done by licensed practitioners in a safe environment. No one defends unsafe medicine (not that your news source is unbiased, mind you).

But get things straight: one of the most compelling reasons for legal abortion is that it is done by licensed practitioners in a safe environment.

Yes; however, the most compelling reason for legal abortions is that it keeps a very large political wedge issue alive.

No one defends unsafe medicine (not that your news source is unbiased, mind you).

You know, winnow, we can go back and forth about biased reporting, but there are many issues reported in biased outlets that are more important than the agenda of that particular source. Wouldn't you agree?

No, Hombre, We would not agree. For the very reasons We stated earlier the "wedge issue" is one needed by the Right not the Left.

We agree to disagree, Pain. And what's with the capitalization of "We?" Are you of the belief that "We" are the supreme beings? What gives?

Pain,

Errr, no. You see, it was liberals and leftists who first put forward abortion as a means of population control and, especially, getting rid of "undesirable" groups of people...you know, like black Americans. This is unsurprising about the left - the willingness to consign whole classes of people to destruction because they don't fit in with leftwing ideology. Even Marx figured that the Germans would have to destroy the Slavs because the Slavs were too inferior to develope into the proletarians Marx predicted would take over. And, of course, there was things like Stalin's decree that the "Kulaks" be destroyed as a class...and so they were all killed.

My opposition to abortion stems from the fact that it is a barbaric murder of an innocent human being - and, of course, that is also the signature act of the Culture of Death which has very nearly destroyed Judeo-Christian civilisation (while, of course, destroying itself at the same time).

winnow,

Compelling case for murdering innocent children? Do tell of this "compelling case" you have...

"You see, it was liberals and leftists who first put forward abortion as a means of population control and, especially, getting rid of "undesirable" groups of people...you know, like black Americans. This is unsurprising about the left - the willingness to consign whole classes of people to destruction because they don't fit in with leftwing ideology."

Please back this claim up. What "liberals" have ever said abortion was a means of getting rid of black people? Furthermore, blacks apparently do fit into the "leftwing ideology." They overwhelmingly vote for Democrats, which by your definition are all leftists.
It is also a strain of the imagination to identify Stalin with any modern day American political movement or leader.

"My opposition to abortion stems from the fact that it is a barbaric murder of an innocent human being - and, of course, that is also the signature act of the Culture of Death which has very nearly destroyed Judeo-Christian civilisation (while, of course, destroying itself at the same time)."
I assume you agree with the death penalty which must also amount to "a signature act of the Culture of Death." It is also the antithesis of Christian virtue. You are not only not forgiving, you are killing. But I will let that inconsistency slide and address your vague statement regarding the destruction of Judeo-Christian civilization.
It is hard to say abortion is destroying Judeo-Christian civiliztion considering it has co-existed with that civilization for thousands of years. Bottomline, as long as there are people like you, I think Judeo Christian society (or at least your definition of it) will be just fine.
But your desire to live in such a religious society perplexes me. By your own words, Iran is a dangerous country of religious fanatics. Would not our society become much like Iran's if we truly embraced Judism and Christianity to the extent you and some religious leaders in the country feel we should? Christian countries in the past burned Jews and Muslims. Why would similar violence not happen again? What makes a country ruled under the Tora or the Bible not subject to radicalism?

What,

I'm opposed to the death penalty.

The people burned were not Jews and Moslems but lapsed converts from same.

No one is suggesting an American theocracy.

The person who started the abortion movement, Margaret Sanger, was a racist eugenicists who was worried that "over-breeding" by blacks and other "inferior" people would swamp the Nordic race Americans who were clearly superior.

Pain -- Butchery has no color.

Roe vs. Wade isn't going away. It happened 34 years ago. In that time Republicans have been President 22 of those years, Republicans appointed most of the Supreme Court justices, and up until last year Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Even now the Dems who are the majority are spineless wimps who let the President walk all over them.

In all that time abortion remained legal, movies and TV got raunchier and more violent, the unwed birth rate rose, bathing suits got skimpier, thong underwear sales soared, six states allowed civil unions for gays, and kids started doing something called "freak dancing".

You're being played for a chump, Mark.

Jay,

Ah, but even as of today there are only four strict constructionist Justices on the SC - this is the highest number of such we've had since Roe. Of the last five justices appointed by Republicans, four have been strict constructionists. Patience is a virtue. Once we get to 5, the game is up for the unconstitutional Roe decision.

As for the rest of societal disintegration - it has only really been in the past dozen years that we conservative Christians have started to dig in our heels and really seek to thwart it - and at no time in the past dozen years have we had the necessary confluence of a conservative majority in both houses of Congress, on the Supreme Court and in the White House (do keep in mind that a GOP majority - especially in the Senate - does not necessarily equal a conservative majority...in 2006, with our GOP Senate majority, we could only really count on 45 conservative votes in the Senate).

Mark writes
"The person who started the abortion movement, Margaret Sanger, was a racist eugenicists who was worried that "over-breeding" by blacks and other "inferior" people would swamp the Nordic race Americans who were clearly superior."

You point to one long dead individual who you loosely label a "liberal" and apply her beliefs to a whole modern-day movement. That's the equivalent of me saying all conservatives agree with segregation because Strom Thurmond advocated it. Don't build strawman arguments using one dead woman's belief.

"The people burned were not Jews and Moslems but lapsed converts from same."

Those persecuted were Jews who converted but were later discovered practicing Judism. It was still a Church led effort to persecute those who practiced another religion.

A theocracy begins when a society decides it will devote itself to one religious viewpoint to the exclusion of others. A Judeo-Christian civilzation is not an aspiration. A society that accepts all religions as equal is the ultimate goal.

What,

No society will ever survive the ravages of multiculturalism, check out--Greece, France, Europe, and a host of others--America is well on its way if you keep talking like you do.

Bilingualism is a blessing for an individual, but a curse for a nation.

Jeremiah

Jeremiah writes,
"No society will ever survive the ravages of multiculturalism, check out--Greece, France, Europe, and a host of others--America is well on its way if you keep talking like you do."

Hmm,
First, make a point. Don't list off countries and think that you have proven something or even explained something.
I am assuming you are referring to the riots in France and the ethnic fighting in Greece. As for the rest of Europe, I am guessing you are referring to the riots in Denamrk over the cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed.
You confuse the issue.Multiculturalism is not the problem but solution. The people who are causing the trouble are unwilling to except the idea that two cultures can live side by side. The problem arises when one culture fails to make accomadations for the other. A lroup of Muslims in Europe are unwilling to take this enlightened view. The problem is their viewpoint. The goal should be to alter this viewpoint, not wipe out the problem.

Second, and I am guessing here because your comment leaves me no real argument to rebutt, you sound like you would like a Christian nation. How do you suggest we go about this? Should we expel those who don't pratice Christianity?
If I take your word "multiculturalism" at its face value, you are suggesting something far more sinister. There is no one American culture so I ask you, what cultures should we eliminate first? Islamic? Mexican? Asian? Which group do you feel needs to go.

Finally,
"Bilingualism is a blessing for an individual, but a curse for a nation."
I never said anything about bilingualism. Don't create my arguments, I'll do that.
That said, I suggest you accept the fact that the world is growing smaller and that you will have to face those who may not speak English as a first language.

Mark,

I have posted 5 comments in the past 24 hours and I've only seen the one where I complained of censorship. (Ed. Note: Bingo! You win a prize! The prize:

When people accuse us of censorship, it rather gets our goat and, hey, maybe we just don't take the time to edit and approve the comments of people who make that accusation.

As for immediate posting - you'll have to register, as most commenters here do. We promise we'll only give your info to the CIA, NSA, Karl Rove and AMWAY)