I've been debating abortion you brought religion into and I as a religious person will defend my beliefs, plain and simple. If you're anti-CHrist and I'm pro-CHrist then when you spout your religious hatred I will respond.

You're not being bullied into anything, you don't acknowledge then it makes you racist and sexist the way not acknowledging the Holocaust occured would make you an anti-semite. Thats how it works. That's life. You don't acknowledge a woman's rights you're labled anti-woman and many other things. You don't acknowledge people of color who did extraordinary things or dismiss their contributions as *few* or *little* nice things then yeah you're labeled racist and in this instance with a woman being part of the group, sexist.

If we are to talk about who commits atrocities against whom all of the groups you named were predominantly white males- which I am sure you are one so what does that say about you? We can start with Hitler, KKK, the religious right, and work our way down to the big wig conservatives and liberal but exploitative (see Girls Gone WIld founder, most of the owners of strip clubs and *adult entertainment*) are white males. Had I said that white males are *insert negative label here* I would of course be labeled a racist, especially if afterwards when asked about my thoughts on white males who did great and wonderful things I returned with how I'm not going to acknowledge them because I stand by what I said.

I am debating abortion currently I began a topic about abortion on the basis bassi of gender. THAT is debateable THAT is about abortion. There are plenty of aethist who are against abortion, most women who HAVE abortions are RELIGIOUS themselves!!!! Are they too part of the whole religion sucks/religious people are awful quandry?

If standing up for Mother Theresa, MLK Jr. and Ghandi is supposed ot be me humiliating myself you're just proving my point of you being raicst and sexist. This was a no one situation that YOU put yourself into that could have easily been avoided by realizing, hey yeah you did a huge debate no-no and generalized an entire group of people, specifically a group that many many people you propose to protect, WOMEN. The pro-abortion extremist and the more common pro-choice woman are two very different people. One harbors a lot of hate for what she sees as a threat to a right to an abortion for any reason at any time under any and all circumstances preferably for free while the other just wants the option to an abortion to be there for women and may even donate to such groups as planned parenthood to help a woman afford her choice to abort. She's usually a woman who has a religious belief and if she's had an abortion reported an affiliation with that religion.

You can have whatever beliefs you want, but I am more than entitled to disagree.



This is a prime example of bullying. Two can play at this game:

"Oh yea?! Well, uh... You didn't acknowledge the Armenian genocide, so uh, ur a racist and a sexist!!!!! And uh, you didn't even mention Guru Nanak, who was one of the first males to fight for women's rights! So you're a sexist even more! And also you didn't mention Shirin Ebadi who won the Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts fighting for women's rights! So now you're even more of a sexist! And did I see you mention Luisa Capetillo anywhere? She was jailed for being a Puerto Rican labor union suffragette! See how much of a sexist you are?"

I hope you now realize how stupid the game you are playing is.



No. Trying to label me a racist is humiliating yourself.

There wa sno game you made a comment specific to religious people being bad because religion didnt kill anyone the people who murdered in the name of religion did. You can dress this up however you want it but IMO you're no better than Hitler. You can disagree you can not like it, it doesn't make you right. When called a sexist by a female and you're male no male on earth can defend that claim with any real validity, includiong yourself without doing it on the accuser's terms.

When labeled a racist as a white person by a non-white person there is nothing anyone who isn't a person of color can say on your behalf including you to dispute those claims. You either are, aren't or think that little of the group as a whole to not mind being called a racist/sexist.

The NAACP would lash out at you big time for claiming I am humiliating myself as would many feminists groups, they'd be interested in why, aside from your joke of an excuse that you weren't giving in to bullying, that you would not acknowledge Mother Theresa.

Men like you were just torn a new one over at several feminists blogs for downplaying the significance of Judge Sotomayer's nomination as a matter of affirmative action. That's exactly where you fit, with that group of men on that side of the line.

I am not trying to label you a racist, you ARE a racist.

For the third time, NO I DID NOT. Get it through your thick skull that its not OK to make strawman arguments.



This however, is racist. If I were no better than Hitler (me being a good person that does NOT commit mass homicide), then you're essentially saying that Hitler is a good person.



Saying that only women have the right to play the sexist card is in itself sexist. Telling me that I have no right to defend myself because I'm a guy is even more sexist.

You were just proven to be a racist and a sexist. We could honestly go back and fourth about this. I am sure the Jewish population is going to lash out at your little Hitler comment.

You can stop pulling the race card. I don't respond to name calling. Come back when you've grown up.

If my parent who is Jewish lashes out at my Hitler comment I will let you know

You're no better than Hitler because you are just as racist as he is just not as violent, Hitler was a horrible human being long before his plans and thoughts became viral and then reality with his following behind him.


I said that as a male you have no grounds to proclaim with validity that you are not sexist afer being accused as being sexist. The terms of clearing your name, redemption or simply clarifying your intentions is on the accuser/offended person or group. Male could be switched for white in this instance as I have accused you of being racist as well as sexist.

A person accused of being an anti-semite has a higher chance of clearing his or her name with the backing of a Jew than they do with the backing of another gentile.

A person accused of being anti/prejudiced against any group has a higher chance of clearing his or her name when a member of the offended group backs them.


You are racist and you're also sexist. You've proven it after given chance after chance to clear yourself you stood your prejudiced ground. That was to be expected of a bigot, but the following insistence to deny it was not.

Okay, to Nick157, I have a feeling I know who you are debating with. I read all of your posts and I don't think you are sexist or racist. I am a white/Native American FEMALE, so I guess you CAN defend your claim with validity. I am unsure of what you said to ruffle someone's feathers, I read your posts and found nothing to be racist or sexist. Anyway, we can stop with the religion debate lol. Wrong forum

And if my parent, who is a femenist, lashes out at my comment I'll let you know.



You lost me here. How exactly am I a racist here? Just like motherofhighspirits said, I've read over all of my post multiple times and still cannot find anything that is even remotely racist or sexist. Care to elaborate?



This is true sexism. Not something dreamed up by an irate woman on a health board in a futile attempt to discredit me. What if I turned your statement around?

"You, as a woman, have no grounds to proclaim with validity that you are not sexist afer being accused as being sexist."

Saying something like that is no better than what you said.



May I direct your attention to the post above mine? Oh look! A woman's support.



I again, expected no more of you. If you cannot control your wild and childish accusations without proof, then I no longer wish to debate with you. Either get proof or get out.



That's exactly what I have been thinking this whole time. I'm thinking that this whole racist/sexist thing is an act of desperation on Phenicks part. Since she cannot validly discredit my arguments, she wildly throws insults hoping one of them will stick.

I am getting sick of this. For the last time, DO NOT MISREPRESENT MY ARGUMENTS! I have NEVER attacked religious people. And as for your statistics, they were proven bogus.



You have either lied or misrepresented me in nearly every post. You passed up your chance to take the high road long ago.



Oh, so now you're changing the rules. Sometimes I feel like I'm playing checkers with a 3 year old. You specifically said that I needed a woman to back me up. When one happens to show up to back me up, you change the rules. I again expected no more of you.

You still have yet to prove to me how I am a racist or a sexist.

I specifically stated that the atrocities committed in the name of religion far outweigh the respectable acts.



For the last time, IT DOSNT MATTER WHEN AN ATROCITY WAS COMMITTED! Just because it was committed a few hundred years ago does not make it any less of an atrocity. You're essentially telling me you would rather be tortured and burned alive rather than have your vagina cut. Speak for yourself.



So you're saying that people of color are more important than whites, and that white males commit atrocities? You are sounding more racist and sexist than I ever have.

And I still don't understand how I'm a supposed racist and or sexist. It is both my right and my duty to stand up to the atrocities committed in the name of religion. Please quote me specifically where I mentioned race or sex. This is the fourth or so time I've asked you, and you continue to provide false examples or dance around the question like an unskilled politician. Your argument are becoming more flimsy by the minute.

You still haven't addressed being against the abortinos Dr. Tiller performed Nick.

You specifically dismissed the examples I gave even though they have helped SAVE lives and did it in the names of their respective religions (including the Buddahist Gandhi) .


So you'd rather spend time waxing poetic on the atrocities committed in the name of religion (nt religions fault anymore than the anti-semite who shot and killed a guard at the Holocaust museum in the name of being white is the faut of all white people) over a century ago than actually speaking up to help do something about the atrocities committed against women NOW in the name of male dominance? You do this becase the burning and torturing that occured over a century ago that is no longer occuring is worse (as if mutilating some CHILD'S genitals isn't torture) and more deserving of your attention in this debate about women's rights. That makes NO sense to me.

So now I have to address only what you tell me to address? Since when? I already told you I'm against late term abortions unless they're necessary.



It would be pointless to debate FGM. Everyone already knows that its wrong. What more do you want from me?



Like I said, you conveniently ignore the atrocities committed in religions name by trying to change the subject of the conversation and give a few examples of good religious people. An atrocity is an atrocity, whether committed now or 100 years ago. The people 100 years ago felt the same pain we do today.

Go tell the souls of the tortured that religion is now a good thing because there are a few good religious people.

I could easily use the quote below to answer your insistence that I am not addressing or seeing mroe issue with the atrocities of old. Those atrocities had nothing to do with women's reproductive rights (though one did have much more to do with women being singled out to be tortured than others) but FGM does. You said religion did this ( in response to Catholicism's opposition to abortion) and I replied other religions NOT Catholicism are mutilating and torturing little girls elsewhere.

I am not telling you what to address but if we are going to debate like adults-and we have gotten to that point on the other thread where we disagree but are civilly discussing real issues- we need to address rebuttal arguments thrown at us, else it isnt a debate its just mud slinging. When called out I address what I'm called out on for argument's sake not because it just makes the day that much brighter to respond to it.

[quote="Nick157"]









I doubt they would belittle the efforts, achievements or contributions of those religious people today who fought - some at pain of assasination, risk to their family- to ensure such atrocities don't ever legally happen to another person and try hard to bring those who do commit those illegal acts to justice. That's not something to scouf at because others who claim to share the same belief were worthless inhumane violent people. It's like saying everybody in a criminal's family is bad because they are related to that criminal even if they are Dr.'s in a free clinic or surgeons who has done pro bono work they dont deserve to be recognized as ther ebeing an aexception to the rule because of the bad apple long before them. That's neither fair or accurate in my opinion and I'm trying to understand why it is both in yours. An extremist in ANY belief, cult, ideal or society is a threat, period so if you're ONLY talkng about extremists let's specify. I ask this because there HAVE been blatant generalizations and attacks against religion as a whole and that's very divisive in a group wher emany are religious or have religious beliefs. Most women who have gotten abortions are relgious.

I dunno why we are still debating religion and historical crimes/events in this forum, but since FGM was brought up, I would like to add that circumcision, which is NOT a necessary procedure, could ALSO be considered mutilation of a child's sexual organs. And its been done since the beginning. I understand and resepct the religious aspect of it, but I still feel it to be unnecessary and a type of mutilation. I am against both types (FGM/Circumcision), with the exception of a circumcision being medically necessary, which is RARE. (And for those of you who assume that I am being against religion or sexist or racist about this, once again, I do NOT have ANY qualms about religion, as long as you don't try to shove yours down my throat. Of course, there is NOTHING racist about this. But I am evening the playing ground a bit by playing the sex card. Someone pointed out FGM as an atrocity, which indeed it is, but to others, myself included, circumcision is just as much an atrocity as FGM. Both, in my opinion are mutilation of natural body parts, unnecessary, and can be detrimental to both the male or female as far as physiology go, and as far as emotional trauma goes)

Now, I need to address that inflammatory comments and name-calling are against the rules of ehealth, so those who are calling others sexist, racist, and whoever was quoted calling me a brown-nosing hypocrite, you need to STOP. Your posts can be reported. I have not seen any sexist or racist remarks myself, and I find it childish for someone to consider any posts so far made on this thread as racist/sexist.

On the other hand, there is a PLACE to debate religion and historical events. It can be found here: http://ehealthforum.com/health/debate.html

Please keep debates that are irrelevant to abortion out of the abortion debate forum. Thanks

We are having a religion debate, are we not?



Not Catholicism?



If you had a family of 5, two parents and three kids. Everyone in the family except one kid goes on to be sadistic, torturous, serial killers except one. Is this a good family? According to your logic, you would think so.

I havent clicked on the link but looking at your example has me interested in what it has to say. Do you know how to move this post over the general debate forum?

I don't. Maybe ask the admin?

One of my other posts were recently moved I'll try to have this one moved if not I'll just copy and paste into the religion forum.

*This is only my opinion take it for what it is. Also, please stop saying that I come here to disrespect your views. Rather, I come here to state mine (isn't the point of a forum).*

First of all in the very first post on this topic, it is stated that zygote/embryo/fetus (human) is alive. However, it is also stated that abortion is permissible beyond the point of birth complications that risk the life of the mother. Also it says that abortion is a way to end a pregnancy. Why would you end a pregnancy outside of the serious risk of the mother's life. Maybe because the child is deformed. Now I do realize that the child could die almost immediately after birth, during birth, or even be a miscarriage, but I have been told a personal story of birth complications, in which the child died in his parents arms only hours after being born. The person who shared this experience told me that it was an extremely painful moment in his and his spouse's life, but they knew that they made the right decision: not to abort the child. He said that it actually brought him closer to God because he was in so much pain that he had nowhere else to turn. He had done God's will, which will always eventually lead to happiness. Another reason I can think of for aborting a child who has birth defects is to create a race of only the biggest, strongest, and smartest humans (remind you of Hitler's dream for an aryan race), but we are all equal in the eyes of God, and all worthy of life. The last reason I can think of is for convenience, but this strikes me as unethical and unreasonable. I'll explain. For example, you are driving down the street in your car, and you realize a bird(a living thing, but small in the eyes of God when compared to a human; Matthew 6:26 "Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?")is in the middle of your lane. You realize that you are about to hit, and most likely kill the bird, so you slam on the brakes and swerve out of its way, simply because you know in your heart of hearts that it is the right thing to do, but, hey, wouldn't the convenient thing to do would have been to keep your speed the same as before you realized the bird was there, and just drive right through it. Convenient, but wrong, just like abortion.

Okay, there is my opinion, sorry if it's offensive, but I feel strongly about this topic.

I don't think abortion is right, and I'm tired of the terrible excuses that pro-choicers dish out. My example is this simple video of parents that chose to carry their child to term despite that he had trisomy 18, also known as Edward's Syndrome. They knew that their child might not even have a birthday, but they cherished him every day he survived. This is a great example of real love; abortion is the exact opposite-- selfishness.

Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th6Njr-qkq0

I get so tired of religious people thinking that anyone cares what their imaginary being says.