Molech is alive and well


Still waiting for you to provide your logical conclusion… seems like you are beating around the bush. How is @JayJay wrong?


What’s the alternative to alleviate suffering if people are not stepping up and the government should not step in?

I made my position clear…many times government steps in because people (I use the “people” term broadly) do not, and without the government stepping in, suffering would continue.

I won’t deny there are times the government steps in when it shouldn’t. I won’t deny sometimes it steps in poorly.

Other times…not.

So that’s my position. What’s yours? You have said you don’t support the government stepping in.

We know from historical evidence people will NOT, by and large, step in.

So what’s you alternative for alleviating pain and suffering?


Quit dodging the question. You dont support government intervention. The only logical alternative is to assume and have faith that people will ultimately be shamed or come together to help the poor. This has NEVER happened to the degree required for a safety net, and is precisely why government gets involved.


We did. Government involvement. Which you disagreed with. If you’re not willing to back up your claims just say so.


Obviously not


I don’t condone immorality from anyone, Donald Trump included. The things he said about groping women were disgusting. The appearance of adultry, whether done or not is deplorable. No one has the right to use the bad behavior of others to justify their own bad behavior. I wish we had truly morally decent people running for office. I believe in the current climate in DC, perhaps Mike Pence is the closest we can get. My knowledge of Joe Biden says he’s a pretty decent guy, but I can not uphold his stance, especially as I believe he is Catholic, on abortion.

Now, having stated the above, I will state again my often stated disclaimer on politicians in general. I make a choice often on the lesser of evils. Someone once said the government that governs less, governs best, or something along that line of thinking. Between multiple candidates of equal character, I will choose the smaller government candidate. I will choose the anti-murder in the womb candidate. I will choose the anti- sodomy candidate. I will choose the pro capitalism candidate. I will choose the American exceptionalism candidate. I will choose the freedom of religion and speech candidate. I will choose the right of personal protection candidate. I will choose the anti- drug candidate. I will choose the fair trade candidate. I will choose the protection from all enemies foreign and domesticate candidate. I will choose the yphold the Constitution candidate. I could go on, but basically I choose the candidate that is everything liberals aren’t.


Ahh yes. It’s not enough to just criticize Trump. There needs to be a big asterisk to rationalize how “normal” trump is.


I observe that a lot of laws liberals want and pass are substitutes for common sense. Who is imposing their values in you? What you choose to do with your body us up to you. The issue is what or how your choices affect others. An unborn baby is not simply a mass of cells that pops up spontaneously in a woman’s body without her consent like a tumor. It happens because of a choice she made. It is a distinct human being that requires the body and resources of the woman to develop for a period of months. What part of this is open for debate? It’s not human? It’s not alive? It’s innocent? No separate heartbeat? No separate blood type? Can’t feel pain? It IS NOT the woman’s body inside her, but another body entirely and as such entitled to the same protection from murder as you are.

How do we “reduce the desire for abortion?”

What do you mean “promote safe sex?” Are you saying women do not have the capacity to control their sexual desires? Why not? Could it be because you believers in evolution reduce human beings down to nothing more than lucky animals and as such render women as nothing more than barn animals going into heat? If that’s the case, I understand then that the act of procreation then becomes a biological imperative and not something women can control. They CAN control it though can’t they? How does the government, or my religious views take this control away from them?

Promote adoption? I think we Christian conservatives pretty well have this base covered…

Help parents with the cost??? Where do you get the idea it’s the governments job ( or anyone else’s for that matter) to help pay for your child’s expenses? Here’s a few thoughts- if you can’t afford them DON’T HAVE THEM! If you liberals wouldn’t steal so much if our money for BS that our government wastes, maybe you could afford your own kids… Just saying.


So much christ like attitude in this. Too bad society cant rely on Christians in this country. Also, it’s too bad that you seem to view children as commodities of parents.

Ahh the classic “taxation is theft” argument.


Everything you stated here is a moral argument.

The arguments for promoting safe sex, sex education, adoption and the like are utilitarian arguments.

Because we know abstience only coupled with outlawing abortions won’t work to reduce abortions. We know this because objective evidence shows it won’t. There’s almost as much preteen sex, divorce, etc going on in theistic homes as in non-theistic homes, so the moral arguments don’t work to reduce abortion.

However, I also happen to know that to many people whose lives are centerd on making Christian-centric moral value judgements, utilitarian arguments are meaningless…because to many of these people, a thing is not good merely because it yields good results.

To many Christians, reducing abortions via teaching safe sex, sex ed and making sure contraception is available is not acceptable because the means are deemed immoral.

Reducing abortions via abstience only and laws that restrict or outlaw abortion is the only acceptable option mix…even if these eliminate FEWER abortions than teaching safe sex, etc

To these types of people, it’s not the end, it’s means to the end.


Yeah… so all you want to do is punish the woman for having sex…

Whether evolution or gods creation the chemical drives are still there…

Again… all you want to force your religious beliefs on everyone thru government force… thats called sharia law and i oppose it no matter which religion is promoting it…


Molech is alive and well

sure is. Looking good too. Bit of a parking issue but hey.



Basically then, you just disagree for the sake of disagreeing… What person that has run for high office, and I mean a national election, had the high moral standards you value so highly? Who is of such impeccable character they would not besmirch the office they hold by the sins if their past? How about a name here? Remember your stated standard though. No liars, cheats, philanderers, narcissists etc…


Barack Obama

Married one time…obviously happy.

Two wonderful daughters…exceptional family man.


Commodities of parents??? Hello??? Who else should have primary responsibility over their children but their parents? Obviously, you believe in Hillary’s book " it takes a village idiot"

Here’s my attitude: You liberals stay away from my kids and grandkids. I don’t want you teaching them anything. If today’s kids reflect what they are getting out of public schools and liberal parents, no wonder our society is going to Hell.

No, taxation is not theft. Wasteful spending by the hundreds of billions is theft, and our government has been doing it for decades.


You still haven’t answered any questions or addressed any points. Where do you get the idea it’s anybodies but parents responsibility to raise and pay the expenses of their children?


First of all, you state “almost as much preteen sex, divorce etc.” In theistic homes. " So the moral arguments don’t work to reduce abortion." Does the word “almost” seem like a reduction in fact? It seems like a tacit admission to say the least. BTW, where did you get your statistics regarding the amount of preteen sex and divorce etc. in theistic homes compared to non-theistic homes?


So, married one time is a criteria of moral impeccability. Most presidents meet that requirement.:thinking: Obviously happy?? :thinking::thinking:That’s a little sketchy because I’m assuming you don’t know the private lives of any president, past or present, let’s just assume all presidents meet that one. Two daughters…:thinking::thinking::thinking:, family man, :thinking::thinking::thinking::thinking:Which recent president meets all
of your high moral requirements besides Obama? You sure set the bar high on that one!


Never a hint of scandal in anything he did either in private life or public office, despite all efforts of the Republican establishment to dig stuff up.

He lied about stuff like all politicans lie but when compared to most Washington denizens, he was impeccable otherwise.

Yes I did set the bar high. Thanks for noticing.

Thanks also for all the things I know you have now assumed I believe about Obama as well.


Statistically insignificant difference. Only religion that comes close to having a statistically significant effect is Islam. Hmm…wonder why? Shall we make our Christian denominations more like Islam?

As I said, we know abstinence plus works better than abstienence only. Stats provevthat as well.

But I’m making a utilitarian argument. You’d rather we prevent fewer abortions but prevent them “the morally correct” way.

Which calls into question just how much it really is about “the life of the child” as the driving force.