Skip to comments.Would You Vote for Someone Just Because They're Mormon?
Posted on 01/12/2011 11:32:22 AM PST by Colofornian
click here to read article
What did Clinton and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument do for you?
That was before we got here. We did get lots of tree huggers here in Kane County. Now they’re trying to get in the way of the coal processors.
Jim Guthrie is a very good friend. We hope and pray he can accomplish this.
No, I don’t talk politics much except with my wife.
Are you going to give yourself a trophy too or just limit the self-congratulations to patting yourself on the back?
I noticed in your response that you liked to take what Colofornian said and twist it a bit and then respond to your own restatement of the position. There's a name for that tactic...what's it called? Oh yeah, a straw man.
BTW I noticed that you've been a member now for a whole day. Have you posted before under a different screen name? Your attitude and styles of writing and argumentation put me in mind of another poster whom I have not seen for a month or so.
“Adultery involves sexual intercourse between a married spouse and someone other than their husband or wife.”
Fail. You sound like a secularist.
New International Version (©1984)
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
New Living Translation (©2007)
But I say, anyone who even looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
English Standard Version (©2001)
But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
International Standard Version (©2008)
But I say to you, anyone who stares at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
But I can guarantee that whoever looks with lust at a woman has already committed adultery in his heart.
King James Bible
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
American King James Version
But I say to you, That whoever looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.
American Standard Version
but I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Bible in Basic English
But I say to you that everyone whose eyes are turned on a woman with desire has had connection with her in his heart.
But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Darby Bible Translation
But I say unto you, that every one who looks upon a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
English Revised Version
but I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Webster’s Bible Translation
But I say to you, That whoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Weymouth New Testament
But I tell you that whoever looks at a woman and cherishes lustful thoughts has already in his heart become guilty with regard to her.
World English Bible
but I tell you that everyone who gazes at a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Young’s Literal Translation
but I — I say to you, that every one who is looking on a woman to desire her, did already commit adultery with her in his heart.
I generally agree with what you said. I have voted for Mormons in the past but I don't think that I would vote for a committed one as POTUS or for a ticket with a committed Mormon as VP. I have seen first-hand the influence that the "church" has on its committed members and it could be too easily exploited by unelected men with a different agenda. A jack Mormon who lives a respectable life might be a different story.
The thinking of our candidates on spiritual matters provides good information to us about their character and thought processes. I think that it is perfectly okay for an individual to include this in the evaluation of a candidate.
I was dismayed by a graduate student in the 2008 election. When a comment was made about how many might not vote for Romney because of his Mormonism, the student responded with the statement: "That's unconstitutional", apparently unaware the religious test doesn't apply to the individual voter's decision process.
We’ve got them NO COAL GAS HERE! whiners in Indiana, too.
My wife is more of a “why do you waste all your time like that?” kinda discussion.
Yesterday's Beetle Bailey cartoon nailed it!
Ahhh, the classic, if not overused, tactic of the ad hominem. Color me unimpressed. I've been called or compared to worse by folks better than you.
Also, since the discussion was revolving around the Christian position on adultery, why are you surprised that the NT stance was used as supporting or substantiating information?
I'll continue to use whatever sources I choose in support or defense of my position. That's what debating is about.
#1...Did you even see me address "what is legal" and "what is illegal" in my post to you? (I didn't) Too many so-called "conservatives" let the law guide them on what is "immoral" & what is "moral." If United States law or Canadian law established by politicos, enforced or not enforced by black-robed rogues, & oft' engineered by bureaucrats -- if they have become your moral compass, God help you!
[I'm sure many of the residents living in Sodom & Gomorrah were within all citizenry boundaries. "legal" & otherwise!]
Explain yourself. Adultery involves sexual intercourse between a married spouse and someone other than their husband or wife. How exactly does watching pornography fit into that?
I am a Christian -- and I try to see the world through Christ's eyes. One of the most famous messages He gave is called "The Sermon on the Mount" (Matthew 5). In that message, he said:
You have heard that it was said, You shall not commit adultery. 28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
You see murder doesn't begin with an outward act; it begins in the heart...sometimes it's hate...sometimes it's exploitation & the exploiter needs to get rid of the evidence (rape-murder)...sometimes it's jealousy...sometimes it's envy...but all of that began somewhere in the heart.
The same is true with adultery. Now not all lust leads to physical adultery, just as not all jealousy & envy & hate leads to violence. But God sees our hearts; therefore He judges on both motive/purpose as well as action/inaction.
What if the viewer of the Marriott-provided film is a single male? Is he cheating on himself?
He is cheating God of offering Him a purer heart. He is cheating a potential future wife if he thinks "screen women" can satisfy. He is cheating himself if he thinks porn is a replacement for living relationships...no different than what Ebenezer Scrooge did -- only Scrooge eschewed relationships & opted for $. Many single men eschew long-term relationships in favor of both $ & false replacements.
What if it's a couple that enjoy watching porn together, for whatever reason? Are they cheating on each other by watching it?
Again...what's the difference between that couple heading to a local orgy & being voyeurs @ such an event? In that case, they sanction ("bless") the orgy; and the couple watching porn is helping to pay the salary of the porn industry. If they think the porn industry is more worthy of their $ than the poor & needy, well, there ya have part of our nation & world's troubles in a nutshell.
No it doesn't run along the same pro-choice roots. People who have abortions are killing their baby. I support that "choice", if you can even call it that, in cases of rape, incest involving a minor, and to protect the mother's life. That's it.
Sure it does. Every non-chemical abortion stops a beating heart & stops brain waves. There's nothing that increases the "personhood" of that child by further growth. Therefore, dismembering the pre-born via a suction aspirator is no different morally than chopping up a newborn.
If you support abortion in the case of incest, you are effectively in favor of helping the incest perpetrator cover up his crime in cases involving a father/stepfather/family member, etc.
Numerous women have gone public & said they were the "product" of their mother's rape, including Ethel Waters. I'd like to see you go face-to-face with any of them, & tell them, "I supported dismembering the likes of you in the womb because of what your father did."
Pro-aborts talk "pro-choice" language so that they don't have to describe what a suction aspirator does; you used pro-choice, pro-option, & pro-selection verbiage so that you didn't have to describe prostitution-on-film meant to "satisfy" a long-distance voyeur.
The majority of feminists that were behind the abortion movement actually oppose pornography because they feel it's degrading to women.
Initially, yes. Not true as we moved into the 90s. Many pro-abort feminists lean more toward an ACLU worldview of free expression. They take the attitude of "Well, I wouldn't watch a porn flick myself, but I wouldn't oppose anybody else doing that."
A lot of them would like to see it banned, so it is actually you that is in good company with the abortionists...what would you like to have see happen to the porn industry? Would you like to see pornography banned? If so, the First Amendment apparently means nothing to you.
Well, let's see. Porn theaters came around in the 70s...and corporations making $ off of hotel porn came around the 80s. So "the First Amendment" wasn't in operation prior to the 70s or 80s???
Actually, since organizations like the ACLU argues for the production of more porn under the guise of the First Amendment, your position makes you in good company with the ACLU. And if you're into promoting the ACLU, what are you doing on a conservative Web site?
What would I like to see happen to the porn industry? (It'd be great if many became saved in Christ...a few have come out of that industry). Beyond that, 'twas great that Winona County in MN banned all hotel porn last year!
When DID I ever compare Marriott adult movie offerings to children's cartoons? Of course the adult movies are different from children's cartoons. Children's cartoons are meant for children and adult movies are meant for adults.
You referenced prostitution-on-tape-for-purchase as "customer...option" and "customer...service" as if catering to voyeur-johns wasn't distinct from offering a Disney flick to kids! (And obviously, to much of Corporate America, it's not).
"It is completely distinguishable from watching a movie involving PAID ACTORS...ADULT movies..."
"Adult?" You buy into the porn industry's labeling of its products? Wanna explain what is so "mature" about watching something primarily geared to prompting a male hand to touch a male organ? And you call filmed prostitution "acting?"
Listen, Hollywood's professionals have A LOT to be slammed about, but to compare what the porn industry does to at least what Hollywood did for decades before it, too, went completely South shows a completely uncouth lack of cultural appreciation of the visual arts.
If you don't want to see it banned, then your advocacy on this thread amounts to nothing more than a leftist-type screed against a public corporation that has done far more good for this country than you ever could dream of doing.
Of course, you seem to assume that simply removing the porn from Marriott's business plan (whether it was self- removed or elsewise) would somehow make any good that Marriott has done evaporate. If that's your argument, how foolish!
How many workers do you employ?Does your anti-pornography company employ a few dozen? I assume you give them wages and a 401k and health insurance like Marriott does?
Well, let's see...I heard that cleanhotels.com refers potential customers to more hotels & motels that don't carry in-room porn than the # of facilities Marriott has.
Add that to the Omni chain, which also doesn't carry in-room porn (since 1999). How many employees do these anti-porn hotels & motels employ? (More than Marriott!!!)
Tell you what...why don't buy shares in Omni instead vs. being an investor in the porn industry!
Did the baby who was the product of a rape ask to be concieved?
Which is a more horrendous crime: requiring a mother to (potentially, it’s not even guaranteed this would be the case) relive her rape for the next nine months (and indeed, I’d think a woman who was raped would probably relive the event in her mind for quite some time no matter if she was pregnant or not), or, is it a greater crime to kill a baby?
Kill a baby or cause mental anguish? Which is worse?
Would You Vote for against Someone Just Because Theyre Mormon?
Ayup. Intellectual dishonesty will spill over into public affairs.
I think I counted 11 responses to 11 excerpts of yours...only two of which addressed "God." A third response section you just responded to dealt with abortion. That leaves about eight responses I gave dealing with porn -- that doesn't cover "God"; are you going to respond to those?
(Also, just because you don't subscribe to what I believe, doesn't mean you have to avoid exposure to the words of Jesus, does it? IOW, can't you separate what Jesus says from "doctrines" of believers in evaluating worldviews?)
If you support abortion in the case of incest, you are effectively in favor of helping the incest perpetrator cover up his crime in cases involving a father/stepfather/family member, etc.[Me]
That's simply your opinion. [You]
Come now. Imagine you're 18. Your young sister has been orphaned & placed into a home. The adopted family has a perpetrator in the midst who gets her pregnant & figures the easiest way to cover it up is abortion. What's so much of a "stretch" about that? Are you trying to lecture us that sex offenders don't cover up the evidence of their crimes? Whoa, what kind of a naive world do you live in?
What's your alternative? Make the girl have the baby that's the product of incest?
There ya go with that "pro-choice" language again...as if what happens after a pregnancy is where all the life-and-death decisions take place. May I remind you that biology teaches that what "makes" a baby is the act of intercourse -- forced or unforced. (It's not some after-decision that does that...and if you believe in this magic "after-decision" then the abortion industry has been your mentors throughout your youth & adult years!)
What you seem to be suggesting is that you want the victim to be violated yet again! The first violation was incest-rape; the second violation is a suction aspirator forced into her. And there she becomes re-victimized all over again -- betrayed yet again!
I assume you'd be opposed to letting the father/grandfather have visitation later on, but maybe he can repent and raise his baby.
Well, ya know, if the incest-perp is incarcerated -- where he needs to be -- any "visitations" that we're talking about are people who go to see him...behind bars!
Turning it around, I'd like to see you go face-to-face with a pregnant rape victim and tell them, "I support forcing you, against your will, to have that child."
Sorry. You can't transfer the guilt of the rapist to those who would protect a rapist's child. On what grounds then, doesn't your argument likewise apply to a 1-day-old newborn?
What do I mean? Let's say a rape victim didn't find out til it was "too late" that she indeed became pregnant from that rape. Let's say she was in denial that she was pregnant; and let's say she lived in a state where late-term abortions were disallowed -- or no late-term abortionist operated; and she lacked resources to travel. So she has the baby, after all.
I'd like to see you go face-to-face to that young mom of a 1-day old and say, "I want you to know that I don't 'support forcing you, against your will, to' allow 'that child' to live...Oh, and I've brought the knife."
If we're in favor of protecting 1-day-old babies whose fathers are rapists, what's so terrible about that? You know as well as I do, that biology tells us that each of us had a gestational age before a "birthday." That 1-day-old baby is the same baby -- simply a "resident" further up the birth canal.
So, are you telling us -- that were the law changed -- if the Supreme Court said that 1-day-old babies of rape victims can have their children killed, you'd be in favor of it? (All because you -- and to quote you with just a few added bold-faced words -- don't "support forcing you, against your will, to have" [to deal with] "that child" [remaining alive]?)
Somehow I think that will be more offensive to most Americans than what you would have me say. I don't support FORCED dismembering of the child, and if a woman who is a victim of rape wants to carry the baby to term, then that's her prerogative. But if she doesn't, I won't fault her for that.
Hmmm...you "don't support FORCED dismembering of the child," eh? Well, then, please Nut Flush -- just please let me know when you see the pre-born lining up and volunteering to be dismembered...then we'll know there's nothin' "forced" goin' on!
(You mean like baptizing dead Jews by proxy to make them Mormons in the afterlife...that kind of "strong respect"???)
“Im a Righteous Gentile”
Not so much...
“The LORD has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men
To see if there are any who understand,
Who seek after God.
“They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt; There is no one who does good, not even one.”
“God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God.
“Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
No Law makes man righteous - not the Noachide Laws, not the Jewish Law.
Still love ya!
“I sustain the prophet because he is the Lords chosen.”
I would LOVE to see ANY
That would confirm or support that WILD claim...
What do you have PD?
Your opinions and comments are being rebutted, how does that equate to being "savaged"? Hyperbole doesn't work around here.
No one here has said they "dislike mormons" as people. Red herring. Are you drawing inferences that because folks disagree with mormon doctrine that we aren't capable of "liking mormons"? If so, epic fail on your part.
I note also this comment of yours; "I think it's actually flattering. They're only baptizing them because they think they need saving or whatever. If they didn't care about them, would they be doing that?"
You give mormons a pass on the necro-baptizing of Jews, in fact, you endorse it by your use of the word "flattering". Baptising the dead is in clear violation of NT Christian teachings, yet you condemn us for using NT Christian principles and teachings in defense of our positions to you.
"to deal with...remaining alive" really changes the meaning? Really?
Why, if bracketed words bother so much, let's leave your quote intact, then:
If the Supreme Court said that 1-day-old babies of rape victims can have their children killed, you'd be in favor of it? (All because you -- and to quote you -- don't "support forcing you, against your will, to have that child"???
Of course, you NEVER really finished that sentence, did you? To finish the sentence, you really needed to have said: "support forcing you, against your will, to have that child..." remain alive?)
It's only because you never really finished the sentence to begin with that I addressed it...that's hardly "going off the deep end."
But that's typical of "Pro-choicers." To be "pro-choice" grammar-wise is a free-floating intransitive verb. Pro-choicers don't finish the sentence..."choose what?" Flavor of ice cream? What color of ice cream cone?
What's being "chosen?"
BTW, how do you deal with an alive baby who becomes dismembered & feels pain in the process? All A-OK because the baby had the "wrong genes" -- like the genes of a rapist-father? (I mean what? Pre-borns aren't created w/nerves or something?)
The following was making the thread “about” another Freeper:
Your obsession is so deep it is truly sad.
ok thanks for clearing that up for me. I’ll try to remember to make my statements more general.
I sustain the prophet because he is the Lords chosen.
I would LOVE to see ANY
That would confirm or support that WILD claim...
What do you have PD?
You have been given all you need, numerous times, to find out this truth for yourself. The rest is up to you. Don’t be lazy. Don’t be hard headed or hard hearted. You would LOVE to know the truth in all things right?
Really? What did I miss here?
I realize that’s not how you frame the issue, but that’s my point.
Again, which is worse, forcing mental anguish on a woman, or killing a baby?
Perhaps I should ask, “Why are you against abortion”? Do you believe it’s murder or not?
As for your other, pragmatic point to me in your next post to me, make no mistake, I do not object to the notion that, for now, we should be pushing for the outlawing of abortion except in the case of rape and incest, for the pragmatic reason that it would save more babies than what we have now. But that doesn’t mean I support the notion for moral reasons; I support it for pragmatic reasons. That is, after such a law was firmly and unquestionably the law of the land, I would say the next step would be to convince the populace that it is just a horrendous an act in those rare circumstances. Why? Because I believe it’s murder.
The way I see it, you seem to be the same kind of “pro-lifer” I was about 10 years ago. I told myself, “I think it’s bad to abort a baby, and it should be outlawed if a woman was just being a tramp, but if she was raped, who am I to tell her to get an abortion?” You see my FRiend, that’s just a mental compromise many “pro-lifers” are telling themselves to make themselves feel good, feel as if they “aren’t offending anyone, at least no one who doesn’t deserve to be offended”, yet still somehow being “morally right”. You aren’t. You are, just as Colofornian said, being a pro-choicer using pro life language.
You must decide, why are you opposed to abortion? If you are opposed to it because you believe it’s murder, than you cannot support its notion in any circumstance, ultimately (not pragmatically, do not confuse the two issues as you did above) but ULTIMATELY, you must oppose it in every instance. If not, then there is essentially no difference between your position and the pro-choicer, because the pro-choicer says, “A woman shouldn’t be forced to have a baby in any circumstance, if she doesn’t want to, because if she decides it’s too much of a burden, then it’s unjust for us to force her to have the baby”.
It’s no different than the example of rape. You see, that’s the insidious nature of the “abortion in the case of rape” question: It forces you to take the pro-choice stance, a stance with a slippery slope leading one to the only rational conclusion in that case: ANY time it’s “inconvenient” or a “burden” for a woman to have a baby, it’s perfectly fine for her to terminate the baby.
After all, if it’s ok to let a woman abort her baby when she was raped, because it may cause her mental anguish to force her to have the baby in that case, then why isn’t ok to let her abort a baby if she slept around and her promiscuity eventually caught up with her? In both instances, it’s causing her “anguish” to force her to carry the baby to term.
So really, it’s a question only you can answer for yourself: Why are you opposed to abortion? Answer that publicly or for yourself if you wish, but it seems to me it’s something you need to face, for yourself.
Make no mistake though, I’m not advocating an “all or nothing” approach to the evil of abortion. Please do not equate my intent for posting to you with that again. I fully support the plan to outlaw abortion except for the case of rape or incest NOW, because that has a better shot of becoming any kind of law, NOW, but that is certainly not where I will “rest”. One is a question of pragmatism, the other, a question of morality. I’m addressing the moral issue here, not a pragmatic strategy.
You know UCLA did this interesting study a while back. They did this just prior to the Internet take-off (before seemingly almost everybody in America got Internet porn exposure) -- so they were able to pinpoint three groups of people...those with massive levels of exposure to porn; moderate level; and little-to-none exposure.
Sure 'nough...the correlation was there...they found the greater exposure to porn, the more likely they were to recommend jail time in rape cases.
Tell me something, have you ever been at a party where a woman became vulnerable to exploitation because she consumed too much alcohol? Even if such a woman technically "consented" -- and even if it wasn't technically rape -- does that lessen the immoral exploitation that has/could occur(ed)?
Well, replace the alcohol with drug addictions -- and there you have many prostitutes & filmed prostitutes. Yes, they "consented"; yes, it's not "rape." But, also, "yes" -- these women aren't much different, fix-wise, than a woman abusing alcohol at a party. But, you seem all satisfied and "all knowing" that nobody's being "harmed" or exploited in all of these "transactions"...so hey, why bother with having to deal with how we've indirectly exploited others, right?
...considering we're the largest consumers of pornography in the world, I don't think your message has much resonance.
So now we move to establishing a moral compass based upon how popular the regional sewage pool has become? All I can say is, hey, just because some have become accustomed to sewage water in their well -- and they think it tastes great -- I hardly think that these people are the "cultural connoisseurs" we have to cater to as to establishing our moral tastes!
Now look at you, defending Hollywood.
You must have skipped over my words too fast...read again the qualifier I gave in that excerpt: ...for decades before it, too, went completely South... [If you want to accuse me of elevating Hollywood at some juncture of the past, fine, fire away...but you're off-target here].
...I do assume is that it's none of your business what Marriott chooses to do with its in-room programming.
How ironic! Of course, what Marriott-the-porn-industry does is "none of my business!" (As in Marriott gets none of my business over these past 20 years because of it!!!)
And cleanhotels.com proves I'm not alone.
If you don't like the way they do business, avoid them.
No, I'm not limited to that at all. I can also use that First Amendment you touted & advise others to avoid them! If you have corrupted water coming in thru your pipes, is the answer to simply turn off the faucets & go buy bottled water? I mean have you forgotten about this little concept of "neighborhood" -- and potential implications to our neighbors?
I mean, do I want rapists being judged by jurors from my neighborhood whose exposure to porn has deepened the myth that some women want to be raped?
I mean, were you aware that even pro-porn people boycotted Marriott in 2009? Why? Because the porn movies Marriott was showing didn't tend to "protect" its filmed porn prostitutes in action by having them wear condoms, which the boycotting organizations thought subjected these filmed prostitutes to greater risks of getting AIDS!
Here -- go to the link itself and see! Marriott Boycotted Over Porn -- or, you can just read this excerpt: AIDS Healthcare and Pink Cross foundations have organized a boycott of Marriott hotels over porn. The protest is not about the Mormon-founded chain's in-room, X-rated offerings. No, that's just fine. The problem, according to the groups, is the hotel company's palette of on-demand smut that features actors who do not use condoms.
I'm a Marriott rewards member and I love their Courtyard hotels. I'm not going to stop patronizing them simply because some busy-body has an objection to their in-room programming. [NF]
(Yeah, I know...even more irony!!! The pro-porn groups I linked to above -- AIDS Healthcare and Pink Cross foundations -- were seemingly a LOT MORE provoked by Marriott's porn than so-called "conservatives" like you!!!! Hilarious...and revealing to where you stand on the immorality totem poll!!!)
I'll be darned if someone like you has any business telling me what to do. You don't.
OK. (don't watch child porn...oops...sorry...can't help myself...but that's OK. I know. The govt has already told you that's a "no-no"...so you don't...and you won't...well, at least not until they legalize it...since your moral code doesn't seem to transcend much beyond "what is illegal is immoral.")
Colo, I’d watch this noob. It seems he’s been sent over from the COB in order to play with the nasty anti’s.
Look at his screen name.
(Oh, I get it...you watched porn flicks -- some which probably had just-turned-18 porn prostitutes...but if I even hint that if the govt ever legalizes watching a 17 yo engaged in a porn act... --yes, Virginia, a 17 yo in such a thing is "child porn" -- since the govt seems to define many of your moral boundaries -- that becomes "offensive" to you? Nice try.)
Well, good for you. There's moral hope for you in this violent culture, after all.
If you cant see the difference between a rape victim aborting the baby in the first trimester and a woman snuffing out a 1-day old baby then I cant help you.
Wanna explain, oh, medically-wise one, oh biological guru, what a short simple trip down the birth canal does to expand the life or personhood of a pre-born?
What? Do they pick up an extra leg down the canal? Arm? Facial portals? Maybe the birth canal has a factory-line locale where they add some of the organs, maybe?
What is your obsession with the rape exception? Its less than .05% of all abortions.
It's real simple: If you cannot defend "the least of these, my brethren" -- as Jesus said we should do -- then what does He say is the end-result of that?
He [Jesus] will reply, Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me. 46 Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life. (Matthew 25)
You see, Nut Flush...'tis easy for EVERYBODY to "hate" the life of a pre-born who carries the genes of a rapist!
* Society hates the rapist & his family!
* Feminists especially hate any living personal reminder of what happened!
* The abortion industry loves to hate him or her -- because they know by doing so that converts into more $ long-run.
* Family members think they are "well meaning" by supposedly "helping" their family female victim "get over" the rape...as if they had a giant eraser and just erasing a chalkboard erases what happens.
* The woman herself "hates" the compounded nature of the crime -- and will project her bitterness onto the baby. (But perhaps less often than we project onto her!)
If we can't love the most vulnerable, most hated, most innocent of beings such as a little baby who has harmed no one...
...and protect him or her from the vented-hatred of painful dismemberment, then who are we as a people but ones to be deeply pitied for yet another reason than what you said in another post: considering we're the largest consumers of pornography in the world...