Nic's Anti-Abortion Thread

[Dr. Shane]

Moderator's note: Below is Nic's post moved from another thread.

hamilton-beach wrote:

“You want to restrict a person from making 'wrong choices'.”

Sorry, my name is neither Obama nor Sebelius. I have no power to restrict people from making wrong choices. When I am speaking about sin, I am performing my religious duty, but I have no power to make anybody else’s choice. My Ph.D. is in religion; my training is in religion. I am doing what I was trained for.

“When it comes to women who have sexual intercourse for whatever reason, they prefer to avoid pregnancy thru the keeping of sperm and egg apart/not meeting. While there are several ways of achieving that, those that choose the rhythm method are usually called "parents" in time...;-) Those women who choose to use the method that prevents the egg from implanting into the uterus, which occurs naturally in nature anyways, can also use what some call the "abortion pill", which is what that pill does anyways [avoids the implantation of the egg].”

Catholics view this issue from a different perspective. For them the human life of every human individual starts at the moment of fertilization instead of implantation, and science has always supported this view. This means for them that the morning pill which prevents implantation is equivalent to abortion. It also means that labeling the use of the morning pill as a contraceptive represents a misnomer for them.

Adventists do not necessarily share this view with the Catholic Church. In fact, Dr. Gerald Winslow, a leading LLU ethicist, has stated in public that the Adventist Church has no position regarding the beginning of human life. This view is rather puzzling in my view, because the church has stated in the past that human life is sacred and needs to be protected.

Well, how can we protect human life if we don’t know when it really starts? Would it make sense for the government to instruct the border patrol to protect our borders and then admit that we don’t really know where our U.S. borders lie?

“Now, regardless of how women came to this situation, the choice is there and available to them.”

The morning pill is available to all women without the need for Obama to force the Catholic institutions to provide the morning pill through their insurance. This represents an unconstitutional intrusion of the government into the free exercise of religion by them.

“If their morals prevent them from using the contraceptive, they can simply not choose to use it.”

Suppose one day the government were to require that all hospitals must provide a diet which includes pork. Would such a move be fair for Jews and Adventists?

Yesterday I was reading a statement by a well known media personality named Glen Beck. This is what he said regarding this issue: “Today we are all Catholics.”

This is the way I feel. I feel like standing for the rights of Catholics to their free exercise of religion. Today they need our moral support; tomorrow we may need theirs.

“I don’t want society to be blamed for forcing their women carrying to term unwanted babies. I want choices available to them”

There is a huge gap between forcing a woman to carry a baby to term and forcing Catholic institutions to be accomplices to the provision of abortion, which for them it is equivalent to murder.

[Dr. Shane]

Moderator's Note: Below is Hamilton-beach's response moved from another thread.

hamilton-beach wrote:

“You want to restrict a person from making 'wrong choices'.”

Sorry, my name is neither Obama nor Sebelius. I have no power to restrict people from making wrong choices. When I am speaking about sin, I am performing my religious duty, but I have no power to make anybody else’s choice. My Ph.D. is in religion; my training is in religion. I am doing what I was trained for.

Oh, you are worse than that, Nic...You give to those who would restrict and oppress, power....You support restricting choices and morality...I am sorry that you are actually much worse than those who you feel are trying to restrict your views.

I don't disagree with much that you have to say on a private level...It's when you mandate it for all, that I have a problem. I trust people to make the choice that they need to make...I trust that they willl learn from that choice...

And you, obviously, don't trust them...

[Nic Samojluk]

Shane wrote:

“Oh, you are worse than that, Nic...”

You have lost the right to judge between myself and hamilton-beach. You made two mistakes. You included the word “abortion” in the title of the original thread, and then punished me for referring to abortion in my response. In a court of law, I am 100 percent sure that I would prevail.

But your worse offense was to use a personal insult against me instead of responding with facts and arguments. I have forgiven you for this offense, but for your own peace of mind, you need to publicly apologize for this inappropriate behavior. It is your decision whether you want to make things right. I have no interest in dialoguing with you any longer, unless you do what is required in any civil discourse.

“You give to those who would restrict and oppress, power....”

As a citizen, I have the freedom of the press to protect me, and the right to exercise my civic duties. For this, I should not be reprimanded nor condemned. For two thousand years abortion was illegal, but when the sexual revolution took place in our country, nine unelected Justices of the Court, decided to remove the legal right to life from the unborn.

This action was morally wrong, and I have the right to speak on behalf of those who are being executed without due legal process. Killing the innocent is a violation of the most fundamental right the Creator has given us.

The unborn are human beings, and thus entitled to the the protection of the most valued asset they possess: life. Removing the right to life from a large group of human beings by the government represents a dereliction of duty.

“You support restricting choices and morality...”

Depriving innocent human beings of life is not a right. It may be legal, but it is morally wrong. If was wrong for two millennia. Depriving victims of their right to life is worse than depriving individuals of their personal property. If someone steals your car, you would call the police. How can you defend the stealing of life from an innocent victim?

“I am sorry that you are actually much worse than those who you feel are trying to restrict your views.”

You need to look yourself in the mirror. You are the one who is on the wrong side of morality.

“I don't disagree with much that you have to say on a private level...It's when you mandate it for all, that I have a problem.”

Stealing is wrong in every language and in every culture. Stealing a person’s life is the worse offense that can be imagined.

“I trust people to make the choice that they need to make...”

There is no such thing as the moral right to take the life of another human being. No one has the right to use violence against another human being, unless he/she is guilty of a crime.

“I trust that they willl learn from that choice...”

Yes, we have the right to shoot at the president of the country, but such a moral choice has serious consequences. The guilty of violating the right to life of the president may end in prison or the electric chair. The same policy should apply to those who take the life of the most vulnerable members of the human race: the unborn.

“And you, obviously, don't trust them...”

I don’t trust those who steal things from innocent victims. I don’t trust a rapist, I don’t trust the child abuser, and I don’t trust a murderer. You should not trust such individuals either.

A woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy is the least qualified to decide a question of life and death. She is usually mentally depressed and unstable. It is morally wrong to load her with such a serious decision.

Murderers are treated with more mercy than the unborn. When a person is guilty of murder and sentenced to death, he/she is granted the right to appeal, and the sentence is not implemented immediately, but rather delayed for many years.

The unborn is executed right on the spot without any legal recourse. This means that our legal system is out of whack. We show mercy towards the murderer, but no mercy towards the innocent. How can you defend such a legal anomaly?

[Dr. Shane]

Shane wrote:

“Oh, you are worse than that, Nic...”

You have lost the right to judge between myself and hamilton-beach.

You did not read the moderator's note at the beginning of the post. You are not quoting me. You are quoting Hamilton-beach. You two and anyone else are free to discuss the morality of abortion here in this thread.

[Guest]

Hear here!

[Nic Samojluk]

Shane wrote:

“You did not read the moderator's note at the beginning of the post. You are not quoting me. You are quoting Hamilton-beach.”

You’re right! I did read the moderator’s note, but I misunderstood it and concluded that the comments below the quoted material belonged to you; which means that I am as mortal and prone to err as you.

The difference is that I do acknowledge and apologize for my mistake, but you won’t. It is not below the dignity of a moderator to apologize. It would enhance your credibility and the respect due to human authority; nevertheless, no one can force you to humble yourself and do what is required in a civil discourse.

“You two and anyone else are free to discuss the morality of abortion here in this thread.”

If Hamilton-beach or anyone else is interested in prolonging this, I might choose to participate; nevertheless, the fact that you unfairly pushed my comments out of the original thread has practically killed any desire in me to do so.

My comments on the original thread were within the limits of the title you assigned to your blog and no amount of raw authority will convince me otherwise; and do not forget

that even pk, who usually disagrees with me on abortion, testified that I was right.

You should have consulted with an English teacher before taking such a drastic action. An unreasonable display of authority is a poor substitute for being right and fair.

[Dr. Shane]

I have no problem apologizing when I am wrong. It is generally considered poor etiquette to ask for an apology when apologizing. In fact, I was taught that when I apologize, I am not to mention or make any reference to anything the other person has done to harm me - even if what he or she has done is worse than what I have done.

No comments were unfairly moved. The other thread was originally posted in the Religious Liberty forum and was moved into the US Politics forum because a moderator was afraid that someone would derail the topic into a political one such as abortion. The thread was not and is not about abortion. It's subject is about Religious Liberty. This past week there were hearings in Congress regarding the matter and defendants of the President brought women in to testify about birth control and the Congressional Committee did not allow the women to testify because the issue isn't about birth control or abortion - the issue is about Religious Liberty. The other thread is discussing whether or not a civil government has the power to tell a religious organization to provide health-care benefits to their employees that violate the religion's beliefs. That seems to be a direct violation of the "free exercise" clause in the First Amendment of the US Constitution. I have now posed another situation of the Jehovah Witnesses and blood transfusions which has a very similar conflict.

[Nic Samojluk]

Shane wrote:

“I have no problem apologizing when I am wrong. It is generally considered poor etiquette to ask for an apology when apologizing. In fact, I was taught that when I apologize, I am not to mention or make any reference to anything the other person has done to harm me - even if what he or she has done is worse than what I have done.”

You do have a problem with apologizing. You did insult me,and you did pumish me for a fault of your own making. This is not acceptable in a blogger, but much less in a moderator. A moderator is expected to abide by the rules of public discourse.

How can you compare my fault, for which I promptly apologized with what you did? I am calling your attention to your own behavior for your own good. My sin was to overlook the fact that your entire posting was a quote from Hamilton-beach. I did not offend nor did I insult you. You on the other hand insulted me by using bathroom language in describing me as a blogger. Can you see the difference?

If you can’t, then there is no point in wasting my time arguing with you. That was totally out of line and crossed the line of proper decorum, yet you keep refusing to publicly acknowledge that you did wrong. I am simply one of the many bloggers, but you are a moderator, and moderators are expected to set an example by following the rules of respect for the opinion of others.

You have lost your moral authority to teach me how to apologize. How can you teach me how to apologize for a minor fault of omission when you continue to find excuses for refusing to apologize for a serious offense of commission?

“No comments were unfairly moved. The other thread was originally posted in the Religious Liberty forum and was moved into the US Politics forum because a moderator was afraid that someone would derail the topic into a political one such as abortion. The thread was not and is not about abortion.”

If the thread was not about abortion, then why in the world did you insert the world “abortion” right in the middle of your title? You made the mistake and should have suffered the natural consequences of your error. You didn’t, and instead decided to publicly humiliate and to punish me by the use of inappropriate foul language in a serious forum like this one.

I realize that we disagree about abortion, but the proper manner to confront your opponent is by the use of reason, facts, and arguments; not by the use of gut language designed to destroy the reputation of one who does not share your views. I said that I forgave you for what you did, but unless you accept said forgiveness, it will do no good to you and sooner or later you will likely repeat your inappropriate behavior.

If you will not admit that you did wrong, I suggest that we drop this. There is no point in leading a horse to water when the animal does not recognize its need.

[Dr. Shane]

If the thread was not about abortion, then why in the world did you insert the world “abortion” right in the middle of your title?

This question has already been asked and answered.

[Dr. Shane]

You didn’t, and instead decided to publicly humiliate and to punish me by the use of inappropriate foul language in a serious forum like this one.

Just a note of clarification: I did not use foul language. I believe if the posts are re-read, it will become apparent that Nic is attributing what another member of the forum posted to me. Foul language is not acceptable as far as I am concerned. I do not read every post or every thread here so when it is used I rely on others to bring it to my attention so I can edit it.

[Nic Samojluk]

Shane wrote:

“Just a note of clarification: I did not use foul language. I believe if the posts are re-read, it will become apparent that Nic is attributing what another member of the forum posted to me. Foul language is not acceptable as far as I am concerned.”

I did go back and located the posting where the foul language was located, and you are right. I did attribute to you what was evidently written by hamilton-beach. Therefore, I do admit my error and apologize for my mistake. I thank you for helping me discover this. I am greatly relieved that the foul language was not written by you, the moderator. I am at peace now. Thank you for helping me figure this out!

Now, regarding the moving of my comment about abortion, I do stand on what I stated. You had no valid reason for moving the postings, since you did include the term “abortion” right in the middle of the title of your thread.

Here is a copy of the blog where the foul language was located:

Shane

Administrator of Foro Adventista

Registered: 02/02/02

Posts: 26237

Loc: Rio Grande Valley, Texas

Moderator's Note: Below is Hamilton-beach's response moved from another thread.

Originally Posted By: Nic Samojluk

hamilton-beach wrote:

“You want to restrict a person from making 'wrong choices'.”

Sorry, my name is neither Obama nor Sebelius. I have no power to restrict people from making wrong choices. When I am speaking about sin, I am performing my religious duty, but I have no power to make anybody else’s choice. My Ph.D. is in religion; my training is in religion. I am doing what I was trained for.

[What follows evidently belongs to hamilton beach, but I erroneusly atributed it to Shane, since the posting bore Shane name. A little bit confusing, isn't it?]

Oh, you are worse than that, Nic... [The foul language was right here and someone deleted it] You give to those who would restrict and oppress, power....You support restricting choices and morality...I am sorry that you are actually much worse than those who you feel are trying to restrict your views.

I don't disagree with much that you have to say on a private level...It's when you mandate it for all, that I have a problem. I trust people to make the choice that they need to make...I trust that they willl learn from that choice...

And you, obviously, don't trust them...

I will not respond to the false arguments hamilton-beach presented here, since I have already done that before.