Runner: "None of the posts you linked have me claiming to be a 'victim'."

They weren't meant to. They show how much you dislike others claiming victim status.

Runner: "You totally misread me if you think I am claiming victim status."

Really? Because you certainly claim others say your politics and beliefs are despised, evil, bigoted, and hated. Hated is your favourite - you use that word more than anybody else on OLO, by a huge margin. You use it so much it makes me wonder if you have to hated into order to be a Christian.

Here is a small sample from you posts, small because it has to fit into 350 words:

It amazes me that so many ... imply that Christians ... are the cause of every evil on this planet.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4812&page=0#52895

u would have to at least pretend to be a Howard hater to get where u are
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4896&page=0#55367

as far as the god haters are concerned that everyone has free speech except the Christians.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5362#67236

The reason why Christians opinions are so depised ...
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5422&page=0#69659

so many locals who hate everything Australia stands for and has achieved over the last 200 years.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5510&page=0#71050

Certainly brought out plenty of god haters and earth worshippers.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5441&page=0#71195

Brain I suggest at best is a church hater and at worst a god hater.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5986#83784

The Christian faith is demonized and mocked daily.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6221&page=0#90850

It amazes me that we have so many god haters on these posts.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6287&page=0#91680

I have no idea except to allow the usual god haters to vent their spleen.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6117&page=0#88372

I wonder who really are those who 'hate' the family unit.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6402&page=0#94637

Another hate filled bit of drivel
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6507&page=0#96655

the usual fundamental atheist who are happy to demonize everyone who disagrees
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1208&page=0#21446

the overwhelming amount of violence ... seems to come from the atheist
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1234#21954

law abiding bible believing Christians as evil
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1234&page=0#22140

hate of Christ and what He stands for is nothing new.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1244&page=0#22386

these people detest ... the biblical principles
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6632&page=0#99570

label anyone who oppose them as bigots.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1300&page=0#23062

rstuart

The fact that people hate truth and I point that out does not make me or any other Christian a victim. It is clear that many do hate light and truth while a Christian will love truth and light and hate darkness. Anything that somehow paints God or His ways as the bad guy and us humans as the good guys is darkness. I will point out that it is never the person holding the perverse view that is hated unlike many from the secular side. Many of them seem to love to demonise those who oppose their views.

The point you are trying to make is very obscure. Part of the price of attempting to live in Christ is persecution. Does this make us victims? Certainly not.

Turnrightthenleft, Sams
Contraception is 100% reliable, depending on how it is used.

Woman in particular have a choice of many forms of contraception, and a woman can use a number of forms of contraception at once (eg. Long term contraceptive implantation + using a condom, whether it be the male or female condom).

If 2 or more forms of contraception are used at once, a woman’s chances of becoming pregnant would possibly be about 0.000000 %, or less. However I have never heard this mentioned by feminists or pro-abortion lobbyists.

All shame on aware and loving feminists for not mentioning it.
All shame on pro-abortion lobbyists for not mentioning it.
All shame on the author for not mentioning it.

With about 1 in 4 pregnancies now resulting in abortion, there doesn’t need to be a debate about abortion. As a part of risk management, there needs to be a public education campaign to use more than one form of contraception.

Stop smoking, don’t over eat, get some exercise, and use more than one form of contraception.

Lititia,
In your research on abortion, you are possibly aware of a Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who belonged to the National Association for the Repeal of the Abortion Laws (NARAL) in the U.S.

This organization carried out a number of actions to change the abortion laws, most of which amounted to lying to the government and the public.

One of the actions carried out was as follows: -

“We systematically vilified the Catholic Church and its "socially backward ideas" and picked on the Catholic hierarchy as the villain in opposing abortion. This theme was played endlessly.”

http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html

This seems very similar to what you are doing, so double shame on you.

In his “Confessions of an Abortionist” he gives the reasons why he supported abortion: -

“at $300 a time, 1.55 million abortions means an industry generating $500,000,000 annually, of which most goes into the pocket of the physician doing the abortion.”

Maybe abortion was not mentioned in the Bible, because abortion as a money making industry was not around when the Bible was written.

Runner, I didn't think my point was obscure. You seem to have no trouble understanding it.

I guess what perplexes me is at Sunday school, I recall being taught Christianity was a religion of peace and acceptance. Yet here you are, a Christian who loudly proclaims his faith, posting the most hateful messages we see here on OLO. And I mean that in the most literal sense - they are full of the word hate. You don't actually go as far as claiming you hate others, but you regularly call anyone who disagrees with your views stupid, perverted, intolerant, feral, evil, haters, villains, daemonisers, violent ... the list goes on and on but I only have 350 words.

The reality runner is the vast majority of the people here are at worst indifferent to your views - although possibly not to how you express them. They do not judge you by whether you chose to worship God - or the Devil, or on whether you think evolution is a fraud or not, or whether your political views are from the right or the left. They do not hate you or your religion, they are not violent towards you, and they do not expect you to accept their arguments without question - but instead to take them on their merits.

Rather it is you, runner, who apparently judges others on this basis. And then you accuse of others of judging you the same way. I guess that's understandable. You think others view you through the same prism you view them. But your wrong - they don't.

So you say you aren't a victim. Well none of the articles you said were claiming victim status did so directly. It was you who judged them to be victims, and then accused them of claiming victim status. I don't actually think you are a victim, runner, but then I didn't think they were claiming victim status either. I was just pointing out the pot was calling the kettle black.

"If 2 or more forms of contraception are used at once, a woman’s chances of becoming pregnant would possibly be about 0.000000 %, or less. However I have never heard this mentioned by feminists or pro-abortion lobbyists."

That's because firstly it is wrong, and secondly it is a red herring.

Typical use combined oral contraceptive efficacy is 97% and condoms 85%. At best you still have more than 1 in 250 chance when using both methods at once, although it is not clear that these probabilities simply multiply (in fact, I doubt they do). Its true that this could improve with education, and that is to be encouraged by all means. Yet perfect used scenarios would still never be achieved (unless you are perfect).

In any case, you can quibble over the numbers all you want, but all of this is just a matter of degree as there would still be unwanted pregnancies (albeit less, which would be great) and thus the issue still needs to be addressed.

Anne "This total obsession with abortion and controlling other people's fertility is purely an invention of the religious right in modern times"

Can I just say that, as a lawyer, I am absolutely astounded to see this statement from another lawyer? Its loaded language, illustration of an evidently entrenched position, vindictiveness, lack of any objectivity, attack ad hominem, etc etc - how do they warrant any place in what is meant to be a constructive, intellectual, logic-based debate?

I personally feel religion is a red herring - views based on religion are only applicable to those of that faith. I try to argue on the basis of biology and human rights. I certainly have no interest in controlling anyone's fertility, any more than those opposing slavery, say, really just wanted to reduce the amount of cotton about. Vilification such as the statement above takes us nowhere and completely undermines the author's credibility in my eyes.