What About MY Freedom of Choice?

[Metal Minister]

Come on, you know that no professional sex ed teacher ever said that. That comment is not worthy of a mature, educated adult.

Nor was yours my friend, nor was yours. I was using hyperbole to show the silliness of your hyperbole. You went to one extreme, so I showed you the other.

The only difference between superstition and faith is the belief of the individual involved.Abstinence-only sex ed has failed, yet the Christian right wants to continue to spend millions on it.
I am not trying to 'inflame' people. When people use unprovable beliefs to try and influence public policy I have a right to speak against that.

*ahem* http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-02/...rogram-abstinence-only-education?_s=PM:HEALTH And please refrain from calling my faith a superstition. It is nothing of the sort. Superstition: An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome. Faith: Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

Do you understand the meaning of 'per'?
No they don't I am sure they will be absolutely devasted to hear that, coming from one of the most unequal societies in the developed world that does worse than the Netherlands on most well-being indicators.

Based mostly on groups that would like to see the US knocked out of the top super power position in the world. And yes, they do. That's why there are government funded pot houses all over in their country.

May God Richly Bless you!

 

[Tomk80]

*ahem* Study: Abstinence program most effective at delaying sex among youths - CNN

I have a problem with that study.

The study looked at whether 7th and 8th graders (12 and 13 year olds, right?) have had sex by the time they were 15 or 16. While the results are interesting, the differences are rather small (33% had sex in abstinence only, 40% in comprehensive sexual education and 47% in regular health classes. Also, they do not look at the relevant measures. Other studies have shown that in the age category of 15-19 year olds, teen pregnancies and abortions increase after the implementation of abstinence only education, which is what you would want to prevent, right?

Perhaps fewer kids have sex (although that is not certain, given that the study did not look at the age range under most concern), but if that comes at the cost of kids who had sex being less informed and having more pregnancies, abortions and STD's, that is a very questionable success.

 

[Metal Minister]

You didn't pay attention to the point. If fewer kids are having sex then there are fewer children getting std's and fewer teen pregnancies. Also, its not as is they sit the children in a room and say "Don't have sex! Sex is bad!"in a mantra for 8 hours, they teach them the consequences of their actions, they teach them about sex, but the emphasis is on abstinence instead of "if it feels good do it."

May God Richly Bless you!

 

[TLK Valentine]

You didn't pay attention to the point. If fewer kids are having sex then there are fewer children getting std's and fewer teen pregnancies. Also, its not as is they sit the children in a room and say "Don't have sex! Sex is bad!"in a mantra for 8 hours, they teach them the consequences of their actions, they teach them about sex, but the emphasis is on abstinence instead of "if it feels good do it."

Do you think this is the message being sent in comprehensive classes?

 

[HitchSlap]

You didn't pay attention to the point. If fewer kids are having sex then there are fewer children getting std's and fewer teen pregnancies. Also, its not as is they sit the children in a room and say "Don't have sex! Sex is bad!"in a mantra for 8 hours, they teach them the consequences of their actions, they teach them about sex, but the emphasis is on abstinence instead of "if it feels good do it."

May God Richly Bless you!

Posting blind here...

Abstinence in the US has failed. America is categorically higher in all columns (pregnancies, std's, etc.) than non-abstinence teaching first world counterparts.

 

[Tomk80]

You didn't pay attention to the point. If fewer kids are having sex then there are fewer children getting std's and fewer teen pregnancies. Also, its not as is they sit the children in a room and say "Don't have sex! Sex is bad!"in a mantra for 8 hours, they teach them the consequences of their actions, they teach them about sex, but the emphasis is on abstinence instead of "if it feels good do it."

May God Richly Bless you!

Metal Minister, you did not respond to any of the objections I made in my post. Could you please read it carefully? If you did not understand the points I made, feel free to ask for clarification.

 

[ThinkFreeDom]

*ahem* Study: Abstinence program most effective at delaying sex among youths - CNN

It delays sex, but makes them more likely to fall pregnant and get an STD. That means it is a failure. Unless you are superstitious about sex itself.

Based mostly on groups that would like to see the US knocked out of the top super power position in the world. And yes, they do. That's why there are government funded pot houses all over in their country.

With that level of paranoid delusion maybe you should check what is going into your brownies. Why on earth would the Netherlands be interested in knocking their most important ally off its 'top spot' and how would legalising marijuana achieve that?

You will spout any paranoid garbage rather than face the fact that liberal secular countries where abortion is available on demand abort far fewer foetuses than the US PER 1000 women.

 

[Dave Ellis]

You didn't pay attention to the point. If fewer kids are having sex then there are fewer children getting std's and fewer teen pregnancies. Also, its not as is they sit the children in a room and say "Don't have sex! Sex is bad!"in a mantra for 8 hours, they teach them the consequences of their actions, they teach them about sex, but the emphasis is on abstinence instead of "if it feels good do it."

May God Richly Bless you!

No, this point is incorrect, the number of kids having sex is irrelevant.

If you had 33% of the kids having unprotected sex because of abstinence only education, you're going to have very high levels of teen pregnancy and STD transmission.

If you had 40% of kids having protected sex because of a proper education, you'll have dramatically lower levels of teen pregnancy and STD transmission, despite the fact there's more people doing it. This is backed up by all kinds of studies as well.

Abstinence only education is horrendous, it's not even education. The whole point of sex ed is to prepare teens and to educate them on what to do once they become sexually active. Abstinence only denies them the information they need to properly protect themselves.

 

[IzzyPop]

You didn't pay attention to the point. If fewer kids are having sex then there are fewer children getting std's and fewer teen pregnancies. Also, its not as is they sit the children in a room and say "Don't have sex! Sex is bad!"in a mantra for 8 hours, they teach them the consequences of their actions, they teach them about sex, but the emphasis is on abstinence instead of "if it feels good do it."

May God Richly Bless you!

Wrong on both counts here. While there maybe fewer numbers of kids getting it on, if they are doing so without the benefit of protection then the incidences (and giving that the percentages were so close I would bet money that the actual numbers) of pregnancy and STD transmission will be higher than in a group that is utilizing protection.

And you do realize that with comprehensive sexual education abstinence is taught as the best way to not get pregnant and not contract an STD. Not that sex feels go, so do it.

 

[1000Flames]

Sure......makes perfect sense.....thanks for " clearing" things up.

Your sarcasm is noted. What is difficult about the conversation for you? Have you never assumed a position you don't actually hold for the sake of conversation? Is it impossible for you to view things from a different perspective, other than your own?

 

[Dieselman]

Because many people do not agree with your assertion that there is shame in unmarried sexual activity.

First of all, we're talking about MINORS with the exception of seniors and in some cases juniors. Secondly, it's called immoral for a reason. Maybe you want to see your teenage children having sex with anyone they please, but society traditionally has held a less inappropriate behavior with animals viewpoint.

They will meet other kids, hook up and possibly have sex, whether you like it or not, whether you teach them about it or not.

And you think kids hooking up is a good thing? No wonder child inappropriate contentography is so rampant. School aged CHILDREN are not old enough for sex; they are not emotionally developed, they cannot afford the children they could be creating, they are at risk of sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy fequently leads to abortion. In addition to the fact that babies are being killed, the CHILDREN have to deal with the lifetime consequences of that action.

What do you want to do. Forbid them from talking to each other in lunches? Keep them from meeting each other after school?

How about reinforcing good behavior, discouraging bad behavior and using our schools as learning institutions not government funded whorehouses? Children go to school to learn, not to have sex.

Why do you think it is the job of the teachers to sexualize kids, rather than the educating of them?

not everyone agrees with your values.

Interestingly, I'm talking about what has always been our society's values, until liberals began the campaign to sexualize our children and get them on government assistance to pay for their illegitimate children. While that works well for the Democrats creating a dependant class; it undermines the success of our children and ultimately our society.

I will tell my kids not to smoke, but I won't tell them not to have sex or not to drink.

So your daughter won't be allowed to smoke, but WILL be allowed to be a drunken tramp. I'm sure someone else's son can't waith to knock her up on your sofa. Do you plan to support the babies, will you have them killed or are they going to become taxpayer liabilities. Birth control isn't 100% effective.

I will tell them to use contraceptives when having sex and to do things they are comfortable with and not letting them be forced into things they are not.

So at what age do you think your daughter should perforn oral sex on the first date? Is it acceptable for her to pull a train if they all use condoms? What exactly sets your personal morality above that of the average tomcat or stray dog? Are you going to be providing the alcohol for her orgies? Providing the videotape? Will you dry her tears when some ex boyfriend posts nude pictures of her all over the internet? Will you pay for the counseling she has from the guilt after her abortions?

I will tell them to not get drunk and prevent them from getting drunk when I am present.

Getting drunk just comes with drinking. So it's acceptable to get drunk and have orgies when you're NOT present? Where were parents like you when I was growing up? It might have been fun to hook up with someone who had their parents' permission to do whatever felt comfortable.

Oh, wait. They were around. We called those girls, "Skanks" and a few other juicy terms. We had as little respect for them as they had for themselves. Personally I never wanted to have anything to do with a girl who was so easy anyone could bed her. I knew a few such girls who eventually ended up on streetcorners selling their bodies for cash or drugs. Yeah, good parenting advice there.

 

[Tomk80]

First of all, we're talking about MINORS with the exception of seniors and in some cases juniors. Secondly, it's called immoral for a reason. Maybe you want to see your teenage children having sex with anyone they please, but society traditionally has held a less inappropriate behavior with animals viewpoint.

Okay, so you did not mean unmarried sex as sex by teenagers. Well, you're wrong there. The idea that children shouldn't have sex before 18 is quite recent actually. In traditional societies the rule has generally been that as soon as a child shows secondary, sexual characteristics, it is an adult. Being an adult by 18 is a relatively late invention. In fact, the vatican (can't get much more archaic.. Oh sorry, traditional than that), lists 14 for girls and 16 for boys as the age they can get married and 13 as the age they reach adulthood.

And again, not everyone thinks that way. In fact, around 40% of children in America has had intercourse by age 16, and I see no reason why that is bad. Also, there is a difference between having sex at an early age and having sex with lots of partners, which I presume you mean when you say "everyone they please". I don't have kids, but while I wouldn't want my kids to have sex with a lot of kids, I wouldn't have a problem if they had sex with their boyfriend or girlfriends if they were, say, 15, and had been together for half a year.

And you think kids hooking up is a good thing? No wonder child inappropriate contentography is so rampant. School aged CHILDREN are not old enough for sex; they are not emotionally developed, they cannot afford the children they could be creating, they are at risk of sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy fequently leads to abortion. In addition to the fact that babies are being killed, the CHILDREN have to deal with the lifetime consequences of that action.

Could you start thinking before writing things down, thank you.

Yes, I think kids hooking up is a good thing. This has nothing, really nothing to do with child inappropriate contentography.

But hooking up is quite a vague term that can mean almost anything from hugging to having sex, so let's define this shall we. Do I think them having a relationship and kissing is a good thing, absolutely. Do I think them hugging is a good thing, absolutely. Do I think them having sex is a good thing? Depends on the kid, but if they are ready (which from 15 most are) and are well informed, yes. Of course, you can strongly reduce the problem of teenage pregnancy and abortion, by teaching them about contraceptives. Especially birth control and condoms. Most of my friends have been having sex from the age of 16 or 17 at the least, none of them had a kid before 26.

How about reinforcing good behavior, discouraging bad behavior and using our schools as learning institutions not government funded whorehouses? Children go to school to learn, not to have sex.

They do now, they go to school to learn. Or do you have any actual examples of the things you describe? Instead of just rant and hyperbole.

Why do you think it is the job of the teachers to sexualize kids, rather than the educating of them?

Where are teachers sexualizing kids?

Interestingly, I'm talking about what has always been our society's values, until liberals began the campaign to sexualize our children and get them on government assistance to pay for their illegitimate children. While that works well for the Democrats creating a dependant class; it undermines the success of our children and ultimately our society.

You mean marrying of your children at the age of 14 (Vatican) and then sending them of, preferably with a couple of slaves? Sorry, I prefer modern society.

So your daughter won't be allowed to smoke, but WILL be allowed to be a drunken tramp. I'm sure someone else's son can't waith to knock her up on your sofa. Do you plan to support the babies, will you have them killed or are they going to become taxpayer liabilities. Birth control isn't 100% effective.

Could you respond to what I actually write, instead of your hyperbolic phantasies?

So at what age do you think your daughter should perforn oral sex on the first date? Is it acceptable for her to pull a train if they all use condoms? What exactly sets your personal morality above that of the average tomcat or stray dog? Are you going to be providing the alcohol for her orgies? Providing the videotape? Will you dry her tears when some ex boyfriend posts nude pictures of her all over the internet? Will you pay for the counseling she has from the guilt after her abortions?

Wow, just wow.
Sorry, but you are so unhinged here that this does not warrant a response.

Getting drunk just comes with drinking. So it's acceptable to get drunk and have orgies when you're NOT present? Where were parents like you when I was growing up? It might have been fun to hook up with someone who had their parents' permission to do whatever felt comfortable.

Getting drunk does not come from drinking. You can drink a couple without getting drunk. I don't pretend to be able to know what kids are up to if they are somewhere where I am not. I can teach them to have a couple of drinks and stop, I can teach them about contraceptives, I can teach them it is better to have sex with someone you are close to and are comfortable with than with everybody. I cannot control what they are doing when I am not there.

Oh, wait. They were around. We called those girls, "Skanks" and a few other juicy terms. We had as little respect for them as they had for themselves. Personally I never wanted to have anything to do with a girl who was so easy anyone could bed her. I knew a few such girls who eventually ended up on streetcorners selling their bodies for cash or drugs. Yeah, good parenting advice there.

Your lack of respect for other people, regardless of their behavior, is your own doing, not theirs. Of course you also only had a lack of respect for the girls doing this, possibly the guys doing this were your bestest buds. Because double standards are especially easy for people like you.

There is a difference between not prohibiting certain things like having a couple of drinks or having sex with their boyfriends or girlfriends, and encouraging binge drinking and sleeping around with everyone.

 

[ThinkFreeDom]

How about reinforcing good behavior, discouraging bad behavior and using our schools as learning institutions not government funded whorehouses? Children go to school to learn, not to have sex.

Why do you think it is the job of the teachers to sexualize kids, rather than the educating of them?

Interestingly, I'm talking about what has always been our society's values, until liberals began the campaign to sexualize our children and get them on government assistance to pay for their illegitimate children. While that works well for the Democrats creating a dependant class; it undermines the success of our children and ultimately our society.

So your daughter won't be allowed to smoke, but WILL be allowed to be a drunken tramp. I'm sure someone else's son can't waith to knock her up on your sofa. Do you plan to support the babies, will you have them killed or are they going to become taxpayer liabilities. Birth control isn't 100% effective.

So at what age do you think your daughter should perforn oral sex on the first date? Is it acceptable for her to pull a train if they all use condoms? What exactly sets your personal morality above that of the average tomcat or stray dog? Are you going to be providing the alcohol for her orgies? Providing the videotape? Will you dry her tears when some ex boyfriend posts nude pictures of her all over the internet? Will you pay for the counseling she has from the guilt after her abortions?

Getting drunk just comes with drinking. So it's acceptable to get drunk and have orgies when you're NOT present? Where were parents like you when I was growing up? It might have been fun to hook up with someone who had their parents' permission to do whatever felt comfortable.

Oh, wait. They were around. We called those girls, "Skanks" and a few other juicy terms. We had as little respect for them as they had for themselves. Personally I never wanted to have anything to do with a girl who was so easy anyone could bed her. I knew a few such girls who eventually ended up on streetcorners selling their bodies for cash or drugs. Yeah, good parenting advice there.

If this paranoid, childish hyperbole is representative of what the pro-life camp has to offer then your cause is doomed.

 

[Dave Ellis]

First of all, we're talking about MINORS with the exception of seniors and in some cases juniors. Secondly, it's called immoral for a reason. Maybe you want to see your teenage children having sex with anyone they please, but society traditionally has held a less inappropriate behavior with animals viewpoint.

What you want is irrelevant, the reality is some teenagers are going to have sex.

Given that reality, we're best off preparing and educating them about what sex is, and how to be responsible about it. That's the most effective way to prevent unwanted pregnancies and STD's.

And you think kids hooking up is a good thing? No wonder child inappropriate contentography is so rampant. School aged CHILDREN are not old enough for sex; they are not emotionally developed, they cannot afford the children they could be creating, they are at risk of sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy fequently leads to abortion. In addition to the fact that babies are being killed, the CHILDREN have to deal with the lifetime consequences of that action.

Again, irrelevant. The reality is, is that some of them are going to hook up whether you want them to or not.

Clouding the issue with what you want to be reality, does not make it reality. That's why abstinence only education fails. Abstinence should be a component of sex ed, but they need to know everything else for when they inevitably become sexually active.

How about reinforcing good behavior, discouraging bad behavior and using our schools as learning institutions not government funded whorehouses? Children go to school to learn, not to have sex.

Right, so lets actually educate them when they go there.

Why do you think it is the job of the teachers to sexualize kids, rather than the educating of them?

Teachers are doing no such thing. Teaching them about sex, and how to be responsible about sex is education. Abstinence only is a denial of education.

Interestingly, I'm talking about what has always been our society's values, until liberals began the campaign to sexualize our children and get them on government assistance to pay for their illegitimate children. While that works well for the Democrats creating a dependant class; it undermines the success of our children and ultimately our society.

Oddly enough, the abstinence only states have a much higher rate of unwanted pregnancies and STD's.... If your little conspiracy theory was true, then the democrats would be pushing for abstinence only.

So your daughter won't be allowed to smoke, but WILL be allowed to be a drunken tramp. I'm sure someone else's son can't waith to knock her up on your sofa. Do you plan to support the babies, will you have them killed or are they going to become taxpayer liabilities. Birth control isn't 100% effective.

Who said anyone is going to become a drunken tramp? And birth control is far more effective than no birth control.

So at what age do you think your daughter should perforn oral sex on the first date? Is it acceptable for her to pull a train if they all use condoms? What exactly sets your personal morality above that of the average tomcat or stray dog? Are you going to be providing the alcohol for her orgies? Providing the videotape? Will you dry her tears when some ex boyfriend posts nude pictures of her all over the internet? Will you pay for the counseling she has from the guilt after her abortions?

Wow.... all I can do is shake my head at this one. Do you actually think this is going to happen in reality? Really?

Getting drunk just comes with drinking. So it's acceptable to get drunk and have orgies when you're NOT present? Where were parents like you when I was growing up? It might have been fun to hook up with someone who had their parents' permission to do whatever felt comfortable.

Where did all this orgy talk come from?

Oh, wait. They were around. We called those girls, "Skanks" and a few other juicy terms. We had as little respect for them as they had for themselves. Personally I never wanted to have anything to do with a girl who was so easy anyone could bed her. I knew a few such girls who eventually ended up on streetcorners selling their bodies for cash or drugs. Yeah, good parenting advice there.

If there's a girl sleeping around, I'm sure she'd still be known as a harlot today. But, it's better to be a harlot with no STD's and no unwanted pregnancies, then a harlot with three kids and Hepatitis.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If this paranoid, childish hyperbole is representative of what the pro-life camp has to offer then your cause is doomed.

Unfortunately no cause is doomed as long as they can substitute fanaticism for reason.

It's a sad state of affairs these days that debates are not won by the ones who argue the best, but by those who shout the loudest and longest.

 

[ThinkFreeDom]

Unfortunately no cause is doomed as long as they can substitute fanaticism for reason.

It's a sad state of affairs these days that debates are not won by the ones who argue the best, but by those who shout the loudest and longest.

It is hard to believe that people actually think that teachers are trying to 'sexualise' children; to turn schools into 'government funded whorehouses'. Are people really that paranoid and delusional?

 

[Tnmusicman]

Your sarcasm is noted. What is difficult about the conversation for you? Have you never assumed a position you don't actually hold for the sake of conversation? Is it impossible for you to view things from a different perspective, other than your own?

Geez, man give it a rest........

 

[now faith]

Okay, so you did not mean unmarried sex as sex by teenagers. Well, you're wrong there. The idea that children shouldn't have sex before 18 is quite recent actually. In traditional societies the rule has generally been that as soon as a child shows secondary, sexual characteristics, it is an adult. Being an adult by 18 is a relatively late invention. In fact, the vatican (can't get much more archaic.. Oh sorry, traditional than that), lists 14 for girls and 16 for boys as the age they can get married and 13 as the age they reach adulthood.

And again, not everyone thinks that way. In fact, around 40% of children in America has had intercourse by age 16, and I see no reason why that is bad. Also, there is a difference between having sex at an early age and having sex with lots of partners, which I presume you mean when you say "everyone they please". I don't have kids, but while I wouldn't want my kids to have sex with a lot of kids, I wouldn't have a problem if they had sex with their boyfriend or girlfriends if they were, say, 15, and had been together for half a year.


Could you start thinking before writing things down, thank you.

Yes, I think kids hooking up is a good thing. This has nothing, really nothing to do with child inappropriate contentography.

But hooking up is quite a vague term that can mean almost anything from hugging to having sex, so let's define this shall we. Do I think them having a relationship and kissing is a good thing, absolutely. Do I think them hugging is a good thing, absolutely. Do I think them having sex is a good thing? Depends on the kid, but if they are ready (which from 15 most are) and are well informed, yes. Of course, you can strongly reduce the problem of teenage pregnancy and abortion, by teaching them about contraceptives. Especially birth control and condoms. Most of my friends have been having sex from the age of 16 or 17 at the least, none of them had a kid before 26.


They do now, they go to school to learn. Or do you have any actual examples of the things you describe? Instead of just rant and hyperbole.


Where are teachers sexualizing kids?


You mean marrying of your children at the age of 14 (Vatican) and then sending them of, preferably with a couple of slaves? Sorry, I prefer modern society.


Could you respond to what I actually write, instead of your hyperbolic phantasies?


Wow, just wow.
Sorry, but you are so unhinged here that this does not warrant a response.


Getting drunk does not come from drinking. You can drink a couple without getting drunk. I don't pretend to be able to know what kids are up to if they are somewhere where I am not. I can teach them to have a couple of drinks and stop, I can teach them about contraceptives, I can teach them it is better to have sex with someone you are close to and are comfortable with than with everybody. I cannot control what they are doing when I am not there.


Your lack of respect for other people, regardless of their behavior, is your own doing, not theirs. Of course you also only had a lack of respect for the girls doing this, possibly the guys doing this were your bestest buds. Because double standards are especially easy for people like you.

There is a difference between not prohibiting certain things like having a couple of drinks or having sex with their boyfriends or girlfriends, and encouraging binge drinking and sleeping around with everyone.

I would consider a Adult whom promotes childhood sex, a pedophile .

 

[Tomk80]

I would consider a Adult whom promotes childhood sex, a pedophile .

I would consider an adult who closes his or her eyes for the reality that teenagers will have sex with each other, an idiot.

Nice abuse of the word pedophile, though. Well done. I mean, given the rise in pedophilia (due to internet by the way, according to the experts), we really need to muddy the waters there.

Also very respectful for the victims of pedophilia, by the way, to compare consensual sexual relationships between teenagers with forcing preteens to have sex with adult men and women. But hey, whatever rocks your boat.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

How does one justify the rationale behind not only sanctioning the contract killing of another human being, but demands that taxpayers pay for it?

I know! I'm glad we both wholeheartedly oppose sending soldiers to kill other people. Spending tax-payers money on a war they fundamentally disagree in, on the slaughter of adult human civilians, is deplorable. If only more hardcore Christian conservatives saw the wisdom of your views.

Democrats claim to be pro-choice,

Oh dear...

but that about the choice of those of us who oppose the killing of the unborn? Why do we not get the choice to fund or not fund things according to our moral compass? If they want to fund infanticide, they should do it with their dollars, not the community treasury.

Taxes are not an opt-in system. The government, for better or worse, gets to decide how your tax dollars are spent. You live in a democracy, so your freedom of choice is in who you vote for - if someone is elected that you don't like, you don't get to stamp your feet and stop paying taxes. You think liberals were thrilled at having to fund the asinine wars on terror and drugs? What about their right to choose not to fund a war, to not give tax-breaks to religious organisations, to not have homoeopathy on the NHS, etc?

The fact is, you don't get to decide these things. If you want that privileged, go into politics.

I understand that a people should have the right to choose. They can choose to have unprotected sex and create life, but all decisions have a consequence. Where in the Constitution is there a right to hire a contract killer to eliminate someone you don’t want to support? What, then, is the moral difference between abortion and hiring Dr. Jack to off my invalid grandmother? Is there one? Invoking a third party to commit a homicide is nothing less than a contract killing regardless whether the victim is born or unborn.

On the contrary, as you well know, it's a matter of debate whether a blastocyte constitutes a person at all. It's simply human tissue, developing into a new person, but as yet is not. You may as well protest female menstruation or male masturbation on the grounds that millions of potential humans are being lost.

Amazingly, many who call themselves Christians wholeheartedly support the wholesale slaughter of the unborn and the subsidizing of it with tax dollars. I would be interested to know just how they can justify that with their faith.

Probably very easily: abortion is only murder if it involves the destruction of another person, a creature with a soul. If they don't consider what's inside a woman's womb to be an actual person, then there's no qualm about abortion - it's no more ethically problematic than having a period.

Moreover, I would be interested to know why they don’t just support the abortion factories themselves, and not take away MY freedom to not have my tax dollars support something I find morally evil.

My advice? Emigrate.