Multiculturalism, This Is Not Your Week.

[Jake]

Very good article on the topic, Scribblet.

[Bitsy]

"Born-again" Christians can't possibly be in your womb. It won't be a Christian inserting a suction tube into your womb so as to vacuum your nascent child out of it. Nor will it be a Christian giving you toxins or poisons intended to kill or abort the same. What you, with the assistance of a necessary third party (which will never be Christian) does to your child in your womb has nothing at all to do with Christianity, because Christians do not kill their offspring.

Nuance escapes you, Timothy. The Christians are telling telling me what can be inserted in my womb, or in my body. I hope that helps your understanding of my comment.

[Bitsy]

Such a coincident that when scribblet speaks, Jake is not far behind, and vice versa,

[Timothy17]

Nuance escapes you, Timothy. The Christians are telling telling me what can be inserted in my womb, or in my body. I hope that helps your understanding of my comment.

No, it does not help me to understand, because you re-asserted the same fiction I debunked previously ; namely, that Christians advocate anything be "inserted in [your] womb" or "in [your] body." Exactly what are Christians supposedly demanding be inserted therein ?

Pax,

Tim

Edited February 13, 2011 by Timothy17

[Timothy17]

Duplicate post. Please delete and see above.

Edited February 13, 2011 by Timothy17

[Bitsy]

No, it does not help me to understand, because you re-asserted the same fiction I debunked previously ; namely, that Christians advocate anything be "inserted in [your] womb" or "in [your] body." Exactly what are Christians supposedly demanding be inserted therein ?

Pax,

Tim

Timothy, I am a USian and abortion with many restrictions is legal but being challenged daily by many of our Christians. They want all abortion, even for rape or incest, to be illegal; the most radical of these Christians even want to see birth control illegal. That is an encapsulate overview of what is happening in the US; you can find out more if you avail yourself of the availability of US news on the internet.

[Timothy17]

Re: Multiculturalism...old vids.

and...

The denial of objective realities is a serious intellectual problem, and it has its seeds in bad philosophy and education, steming back to the early 20th century. Existentialism, nihilism, et. al., all imbibe into young minds that there is no ascertainable truth or definite rights or wrongs, corrects or incorrects, despite the student being subjected to over a decade of absolutely having to know, understand and memorize facts, rules, and laws, without which their minds could not even comprehend in any tangible way the idea that everything is necessarily equal or relative, false as that idea is. These errors are, therefore, self-destructive, because if they are followed through to their logical ends, even the ability to comprehend these fictions would be lost, and naturally with it the possibility of projecting them to future generations.

Indiscriminate tolerance is a brainchild of these errors that demands toleration of anything and everything, except those who do not tolerate such an absurd philosophy. Such persons are labeled "intolerant" and evicted from discussions, regardless of the obvious hypocrisy.

Pax,

Tim

[Timothy17]

Timothy, I am a USian

I am half-American.

and abortion with many restrictions is legal but being challenged daily by many of our Christians.

But that is not what you had earlier said. You said Christians were somehow trying to "insert" something into your womb. Even if Christians do not believe abortion is moral, and were succesful at ending abortions, in neither case could they ever be charged with inserting something into your womb. You constructed your argument so as to make it seem as if Christians wanted to violate your womb in some way. They do not.

They want all abortion, even for rape or incest, to be illegal; the most radical of these Christians even want to see birth control illegal.

For over a thousand years abortion was equivocal to murder in every Western nation. The radical change was the legalization of abortion, under the pretenses of shady, eugenics-inspired pseudo-science that asserted a human foetus is somehow not human, and cannot, therefore, be a person, and thus not under the protection of the laws of the land. The first demands for state-sanctioned or sponsored abortions, and crude and primitive forms of birth control, came from the social-engineers of the early 20th century who wanted all "undesirables" destroyed, so that such persons wouldn't pose any threat to the supposedly superior white race, and so they specifically had in mind the encouragement of sterilization and abortion in minority communities, which was indeed sanctioned by laws and practiced in some of the several States. Those suffering from natural defects were also forcibly sterilized. Under these digusting auspices did abortion and proto-birth control have their intellectual justification, cultivation and ultimate propagation. To this day, minority communities are often the largest victims of these practices.

Furthermore, Christians believe each human being is unique and endowed with personhood and an invisible soul at the moment of their conception. We do not believe that a person should be punished for the crimes another person committed, and hence, even in tragic cases of rape or incest, the child should not be punished in any way, and certainly not with death, for the crimes of their parent.

Pax,

Tim

Edited February 13, 2011 by Timothy17

[Bitsy]

But that is not what you had earlier said. You said Christians were somehow trying to "insert" something into your womb. Even if Christians do not believe abortion is moral, and were succesful at ending abortions, in neither case could they ever be charged with inserting something into your womb. You constructed your argument so as to make it seem as if Christians wanted to violate your womb in some way. They do not.

Timothy, since you are not the one who has to bear a child, raise and provide for a child, your views on my comment are misogynic at worst or ignorant at best. No one has the right to rent my womb for 9 months to satisfy their religious beliefs.

Abortions should be safe, legal and rare and the decision should be made by the woman and her doctor, not her pastor or her congressional representatives. Any continued epistles of yours on this matter will elicit no further response from me.

Edited February 13, 2011 by Bitsy

[Timothy17]

Timothy, since you are not the one who has to bear a child, raise and provide for a child, your views on abortion are misogynic at worst or ignorant at best.

False, for several reasons :

I) Hypocrisy. Seeing as I was once a child I have a logical, definite and natural interest in ensuring that nascent life is protected, lest I be found advocating my own murder. I have a right to be alive, and so does everyone else.

II) Responsibility. It wouldn't matter if every man on the planet were to abandon themselves to hedonism and perfery, they are still morally, naturally and legally responsible for the consequences of their actions and therefore have a duty to "bear," "raise," and "provide for a child."

III) Incredulity, on your part : Trying to eliminate my constitutionally guranteed right to free speech in order that you can espouse a fallacious opinion without resistance is self-serving and, ultimately, logically necessary, as it is readily evident that your justifications for those erroneous views are untenable, and therefore require a measure of censorship in order to prevent opposition to it.

No one has the right to rent my womb for 9 months to satisfy their religious beliefs.

No one is renting your womb. The only time a woman's womb can be construed as being "rented" is when a child happens to be making its habitation there, and no one has yet got it into their head to later demand the child pay compensation for the space he or she occupied during that time ; therefore, this accusation is specious (at best), and furthermore, no one has a right to kill an innocent human being, and this is absolutely certain, and universally recognized.

Abortions should be safe, legal and rare

Why should abortions be legal ? How is it you advocate to defend something but you feel compelled to insist that it also be rare ? Why should it be rare if it is perfectly moral and even a right ? No one says speech should be "rare," or property should be "rare," for example. How come, then, abortion is the only supposed "right" (it is not actually a right) that is ideally rarely exercised ?

Pax,

Tim

Edited February 13, 2011 by Timothy17

[Shady]

Satire to be effective should be cloaked in a basis of reality.

I couldn't agree more.

[betsy]

No one is renting your womb. The only time a woman's womb can be construed as being "rented" is when a child happens to be making its habitation there, and no one has yet got it into their head to later demand the child pay compensation for the space he or she occupied during that time ; therefore, this accusation is specious (at best), and furthermore, no one has a right to kill an innocent human being, and this is absolutely certain, and universally recognized.

Timothy17 has it pretty well summed up! Just some further advice - if you're concerned about a bad tenant, check out the landlord and tenant act! And if you don't want someone in your romb, keep the door closed.

[Bitsy]

Timothy17 has it pretty well summed up! Just some further advice - if you're concerned about a bad tenant, check out the landlord and tenant act! And if you don't want someone in your romb, keep the door closed.

Betsy, I know you mean well but I thought I was very clear that no one had the right to tell me what to do with my body and that includes people on forums.

[Shwa]

Why should abortions be legal?

Here's why: Dr. Henry Morgentaler, Dr. Leslie Frank Smoling and Dr. Robert Scott Appellants v. Her Majesty The Queen (Respondent) and The Attorney General of Canada (Intervener)

At the most basic, physical and emotional level, every pregnant woman is told by the section that she cannot submit to a generally safe medical procedure that might be of clear benefit to her unless she meets criteria entirely unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations. Not only does the removal of decision-making power threaten women in a physical sense; the indecision of knowing whether an abortion will be granted inflicts emotional stress. Section 251 clearly interferes with a woman's bodily integrity in both a physical and emotional sense. Forcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction, to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations, is a profound interference with a woman's body and thus a violation of security of the person. Section 251, therefore, is required by the Charter to comport with the principles of fundamental justice.

How is it you advocate to defend something but you feel compelled to insist that it also be rare ? Why should it be rare if it is perfectly moral and even a right ? No one says speech should be "rare," or property should be "rare," for example. How come, then, abortion is the only supposed "right" (it is not actually a right) that is ideally rarely exercised?

I believe Bitsy is referring to a societal circumstance where education, prevention and birth control reduce the necessity of abortion and thus making it 'rare' and, when required, it is safe and legal.

[Bitsy]

I believe Bitsy is referring to a societal circumstance where education, prevention and birth control reduce the necessity of abortion and thus making it 'rare' and, when required, it is safe and legal.

Thanks for your lucid explanation, maybe if I likened it to war, he might have understood

[betsy]

Betsy, I know you mean well but I thought I was very clear that no one had the right to tell me what to do with my body and that includes people on forums.

I know YOU think that no one has the right to tell you what to do with your body. You've defined society's justification for the murder of babies. It's a woman's right.

[Bitsy]

I know YOU think that no one has the right to tell you what to do with your body. You've defined society's justification for the murder of babies. It's a woman's right.

At last, we agree..........it's a woman's right. In the states, we refer to it as a woman's choice.

[GostHacked]

I know YOU think that no one has the right to tell you what to do with your body. You've defined society's justification for the murder of babies. It's a woman's right.

Oh the ironing.

[Black Dog]

Anti Christianity rants are simply an attempt to deflect from the actual topic.

The tone of this forum is becoming less civil lately with stupid accusations and baseless personal comments etc. how about getting back to the actual topic.

Another good piece here that speaks to the issue better than I can.

In the past four months, the leaders of Western Europe's three largest democracies -- Germany, Britain and France -- have each declared multiculturalism a failure, largely because Muslims in their countries have failed to assimilate into the mainstream culture and are now growing increasing radicalized and dangerous.

This, they have said, applies as much to native-born Muslims as to those born elsewhere who have immigrated to Europe. Multiculturalism has encouraged segregated ethnic communities to develop within which Western values such as equality of the sexes and pluralism are disparaged.

-----

In the end, this forced, unnatural, public multiculturalism leads to the segregation and radicalization European leaders are now warning against.

Just once, I'd like to see some of these lazy effing journos actually get off their ass and detail exactly what specific multicultural policies were having such a corrosive effect on European states. As I've stated over and over again, France and Germany in particular have long been anything but the open, welcoming compliant states the anti-multicultural hordes make them out to be. Germany never attempted to integrate its large Turkish Muslim population, treating them as "guest workers" and denying them citizenship. France has long pursued strict policies to force immigrants to assimilate-their flirtation with Canadian style multiculturalism was brief and ineffectual.

It goes to show that if you treat people like guests and not citizens, you cannot honestly expect them to embrace all your country and culture represents.

[Yukon Jack]

Interesting and thought-provoking article and comments:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/europe_dumps_the_multicult.html

Edited February 17, 2011 by Yukon Jack

[Black Dog]

Interesting and thought-provoking article and comments:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/europe_dumps_the_multicult.html

Two sentences in and buddy shits the bed.

Multiculturalism is the left-wing fantasy that all cultures are equal, no matter how many millions of poor people are deliberately starved, mutilated, tortured or butchered by the Sudanese fascisti.

How can you criticize something when you don't even know what it is?

Reading on, it's quickly apparent that the authour is actually attacking moral relativism, which-and this should hardly need to be pointed out-is a different animal altogether.

Edited February 17, 2011 by Black Dog

[Jake]

Interesting and thought-provoking article and comments:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/europe_dumps_the_multicult.html

Great Article. Unfortunately it will not change the minds of left wingers.

[Yukon Jack]

Great Article. Unfortunately it will not change the minds of left wingers.

I agree. The mind of a liberal/left-winger is like concrete: No, not solid, but all mixed up and permanently set.

Edited February 17, 2011 by Yukon Jack

[Michael Hardner]

I agree. The mind of a liberal/left-winger is like concrete: No, not solid, but all mixed up and permanently set.

Uh-huh. Left wingers are stupid. We should just not allow them to vote, don't you think ? Mr. Canada has an idea along these lines - bringing a Franco-type government to Canada. How glorious it sounds.

[Michael Hardner]

That article is just a rant, built upon a strawman, and a flimsy one at that.

I'm not sure why people like reading rants that just confirm their own prejudices - I sure don't. In any case, it won't convince anybody of anything.