Posted on 08/13/2004 9:36:00 AM PDT by IdaBriggs
Hello. I am hoping you can help me.
I am trying to "reach out" to your side of the world in an effort to help each side understand the other. I apologize in advance if I offend or upset any of you, because that is NOT my intention. I hope by putting my "real name" on this post, you will view what I am about to say in the sincere way I mean it.
I am somewhat frightened of you.
Again, I apologize if I am offending, but I thought you should know about it. I also know I am not alone in my feelings about you because I have talked with other people who feel the same way. We think you are trying to impose your religion and way of life on the rest of us.
I know most of you are good people. You are kind and generous with your friends, family and neighbors. You help strangers change tires, work as teachers, risk your lives in the service of others -- all things everyone admires, respects and honors. Those of us on "the other side" do the same thing.
But sometimes you talk in painful ways about “evil” as if to associate us with "demons" and "satan" because we don't agree with your path. That is very hurtful, and it makes us feel like you don't really see us as fellow human beings with different understandings of God. I am a gardener by hobby, and not always a very good one. My husband likes to tease me about "killing plants" instead of growing them because sometimes I over water or put too much fertilizer on them, yet every year I keep trying, and gradually, my garden is starting to become beautiful. I love roses in particular, and am reminded every day how wonderful God is because He made so many different kinds – I have three different red roses alone, and each one is perfect! I have seven different colors of Petunias, and use them to explain how God loves people of all colors to my neighbor's children. I guess that is why I believe you, who scare me so, really do have love in your hearts for all of us, even though sometimes it doesn't seem that way.
The worst times are when the topics of Abortion and Gay Sex come up. No one would ever force you to have an Abortion or indulge in Gay Sex in America EVER, yet you persist in making these topics of conversation as if they trump all other considerations. The only way I can reconcile this with a rational viewpoint is if I think you believe you are trying to SAVE those who don't believe the way you do from Hell. This seems to be a very loving action on your part, but feels rude and controlling in a not-positive way to the rest of us. Many of us do not believe these things will result in eternal damnation, but are simply part of God’s plan for each individual.
If you are truly horrified by the thought of these things, I don’t know what to say to make it easier for you to understand, but I will still try. I guess it would be like making everyone not wear jewelry or make up because some churches believe adornment is demonstrating vanity; it may end up being something we are all judged by, but it may also simply be a misreading or misinterpretation of the text. I am not saying your adherence to the tenets of your faith is wrong; I am saying other people have a right to love God in their own ways, and our civil laws should not be about defining “sin” but crime.
I say again, I am not meaning to offend. I have a very strong faith in God, and trust him to do the right thing. I don't like hearing people say that God is judging all of America based on who is President; both men have qualities worthy of admiration at some level, and both are interviewing for the job of enforcing our constitution. It demands we keep church and state as separate institutions so that we don't have wars in this country over religion (like they do in Ireland with Catholics and Protestants or in Iraq with Sunni's and Shiites). It demands I respect your right NOT to have an abortion if you don't want one, and NOT to indulge in gay sex if you don't want to, and to follow the teachings of your faith in the way you best understand them. It demands we all work "for the common defense, promote the general welfare and ensure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity" and on behalf of that, I am reaching out to you to find out how we can frame the debates on these things without heaping scorn and shame upon each other. No matter what the results of the November 2, 2004, election, I personally want all Americans to be proud of our country, and the way we run it.
I know I am already.
In Humble Sincerity, Ida M. Briggs
Homosexuality: There are two flaws in that arguement: Hate crimes laws and gay marriage.
Being homosexual is a protected legal status, and that status costs us money to promote and defend. The courts aren't run as a charity; they cost real money. The more laws we pass that codify homosexuality as accepted behaviour, the more money we have to spend to support it.
I personally don't have any problems with people being gay. Everyone should have their own fun. I just don't want to subsidize it. I don't ask the government for discounts on porn or for free beer, and I don't think homosexual couples should ask the government for marriage licenses.
You choose the lifestyle, you pay your own way. Sound fair?
Abortion: I'm sure that taxpayer money can or has been used to fund abortions. I'm even more sure that if Democrats have their way, taxpayer money would be used to fund abortions at every turn. I don't have any references on me, but I'm sure our fellow FReepers have more than enough, if you are interested. I do think that if we care more about endangered species of animals than we do human life, we're a pretty sorry society.
At any rate, I really don't care what people do or think until they start hitting me up for money. Being free to be stupid or wrong doesn't mean that being stupid or wrong should be free.
I'll take orders from you when you have any importance whatsoever. Don't tell me what to do you newbie numbskull.
Thank you very much Gail. I am going to send this out to several people in my email tonight.
I really think it will make an impact on them.
I recommend you superglue you tush to the chair in front of your computer and do not leave this forum for the next seven days. We'll cure you of this, by God, we will!
Half-jesting, of course. Arguing the pro-life side of the coin is what I do.
Except grellis.
If this country is being run by John F. Kerry on January 21, 2005, then I for one will not be proud. I will be disgusted, impatiently awaiting our next civil war.
I'm pro-choice, and you make a valid argument. If I were pro life (which I used to be), I'd probably be saying the same thing. The problem with the issue of abortion is that there's such an incredibly grey area in between sides, but people tend to act as if it were a black and white issue. One guy's going "There's no grey area when it comes to killing childen!!!", and another's going "There's no grey area in forcing women to have kids!!!".
The issue is decided by how it's framed. No one thinks killing kids should be legal and very few think that, say, condoms kill babies. The question that no one knows the answer to is "When does a sperm and an egg become a child?" One's answer to that question determines whether they're pro-life or pro-choice.
After much thought, in my head I've drawn that line as "at or near birth". I can see the logic of saying that when a fetus can live outside the womb freely, it could be considered a child... so I could understand someone drawing that line at a month or two before birth. However, most pro-lifers draw the line at conception, and they're certainly entitled to draw it wherever they want seeing as it is an opinion, but it doesn't pass the test of reason for me.
And since I don't accept the reasoning, I don't accept abortion as murder. If we were talking about, say, abortion 2 days before expected delivery, then I most likely would. And so does the government.
Now, how do we use the slavery/"inferior human beings with fewer rights" argument to argue against abortion, but keep that argument from being used in regards to homosexuality? Thoughts?
if we're taking this verse literally, then it would seem that this argument only applies to boys though...
I saw Ida's "I'm going over there [to FR]" DU post early today and not only vouch, but suggest Ms. Briggs will be more quickly booted from DU rather than from FR.
yes, i see you chose not to take my original advice...
You arrogant prat. You do notice your warm and fuzzy electric grandmother has been banned. Your a fool.
You have to remember that it was written at a time when people were guided by common sense and there was no such thing as political correctness. "Men" was a generic term that referred collectively to men AND women, as in "members of the human race," as well as a gender specific term. But then, you probably knew that. 
You're a fool.
absolutely. i think we are of the same mind then. the only thing i would potentially question is... "The courts aren't run as a charity; they cost real money. The more laws we pass that codify homosexuality as accepted behaviour, the more money we have to spend to support it."
i don't think there should be any "special laws" passed to make homosexuality more accepted either. i think there is one american citizen and we all should have the same rights. so, if there are laws previously passed that take away rights from homosexuals or any other citizens, then i have no problem with the court costs to throw them out. that's what the courts are for, after all. But then again, I may have just said exactly what you were trying to say.
I believe you meant to say "You're a fool". Have a great weekend = )
NOONE has "a right" to love God in their own way AND BE A CHRISTIAN...NO, we must love God his way, that means repenting of our sins and embracing his word...The Bible.
WE do not go to heaven by continuing in sins that GOD calls an abomination, that includes homosexuality, adultery, witchcraft, and other sins SPECIFICALLY declared unacceptably by God. WE don't make God acceptable to us, we make ourselves acceptable to God.
TRY to remember who it is that is going to let you into heaven, it isn't me or any of the other FREEPERS...it is GOD, and it is his BIBLE, his authority and his RULES. NOW, with that said... please understand GRACE in that you cannot keep his rules without his son living in your life and through you, God does not expect you to be able to do it on your own....but a homosexual or other sinner must renounce the sin, depart from it in order to continue with Christ in their life, by allowing Jesus Christ to do the work of keeping those sins out of the persons life.
Abortion is murder, plain and simple and should need no explanation. You plant tomatoes..you get tomatoes, you plant corn...you get corn. If you really are a gardner this should be a no brainer. The seed is dormant, not dead, it produces what it is....so does the seed of man (sperm and egg), so therefore it must be a BABY HUMAN, not something else that magically changes after three months...it was, is and shall be a human being, and we should not kill it at any stage of development.
Christianity is not a live and let live philosophy...Jesus said 'GO YE INTO ALL THE WORLD AND PREACH THE GOSPEL'...WE must obey if we are christians, or we are disobeying our Lord. Why is that so hard to understand. We know Jesus personally, and we commune with him daily, our desire is to share that with everyone and our command from Jesus is to share that with everyone. If they don't want it, fine, we move on but do not ever expect us to change over to accepting sin as being perfectly fine with God, it isn't.
I've seen her thread too. I'm talking about vouching for her as opposed to her thread.
I know I would too, but that is not the general concensus with the legislators. Give the baby up for adoption is better.
In a heartbeat.
------------------------------------------------------------
Why the drop after 1960? (in deaths of women from illegal abortions)
The reasons were new and better antibiotics, better surgery and the establishment of intensive care units in hospitals. This was in the face of a rising population. Between 1967 and 1970 sixteen states legalized abortion. In most it was limited, only for rape, incest and severe fetal handicap (life of mother was legal in all states). There were two big exceptions — California in 1967, and New York in 1970 allowed abortion on demand. Now look at the chart carefully.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abortion Statistics - Decision to Have an Abortion (U.S.)
· 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing
· 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby
· 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child
· 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy)
· 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career
· 7.9% of women want no (more) children
· 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So how many women’s lives have been saved by abortion?
Only about 3% of abortions since 1972 were reported to be “due to a risk to maternal health.” A reasonable person would recognize that not all of those cases represent a lethal risk. But let’s say they did. That means that nearly 45 million fetuses were butchered to save the lives of about 1.3 million women. Or put another way; 35 babies are killed to save each woman.
Abortion was legal in all 50 states prior to Roe v. Wade in cases of danger to the life of the woman.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.