Wednesday, May 28, 2014

These Are Really Sweet People, Aren't They?

Disobeying an arranged marriage and marrying ‘for love’ is viewed as a sin in Pakistan. But that didn’t stop Farzana Parveen, 25, from marrying Mohammad Iqbal, a man she had been engaged to for years, according to the Belfast Telegraph.
Parveen’s father had filed an abduction case against her and, according to her lawyer, they were fighting it in court.
Around 20 members of Parveen’s family waited on her in front the high court in Lahore, reported the Belfast Telegraph, and when she arrived they fired shots in the air tried to take her away from her husband.
When she resisted her father, brothers, and other family members stoned and beat her to death with bricks from a nearby construction site.
Her husband explained that he was in love with Farzana:
Mr Iqbal, 45, said he started seeing Ms Parveen after the death of his first wife, with whom he had five children.
“We were in love,” he told the Associated Press. He alleged that the woman’s family wanted to fleece money from him before marrying her off.
“I simply took her to court and registered a marriage,” infuriating the family, he said.
The father, who surrendered himself to police, called it an honor killing.
Bona Fide members of the religion of peace.  We need this kind of thing in America, don't you think?



45 comments:

Dave Miller said...

No Joe, we don;t need this type of religion in the states, or any of the dysfunctional variants of other religions that can be just as awful.

Beyond the fringe, who is advocating for this type of thing here in the US?

Joe said...

DM: Actually, my cheek is sore from having my tongue so firmly implanted in it. My point is that although no one I know of is directly advocating for this "faith" in the US, many, many tell us how wrong we are to object to them "practicing their peaceful religion" in our country. Some have even advocated including their laws in our legal system.

Dave Miller said...

Joe, who beyond the fringe is talking about these things? Even Muslims here acknowledge the extremists in their midsts are fringe.

Duckys here said...

... in the US, many, many tell us how wrong we are to object to them "practicing their peaceful religion" in our country.

-----
First of all, this disgusting practice is cultural, NOT religious.

Second, are you insane? You have heard support for honor killings?
Stop acting like a fool, Joe.

Xavier Onassis said...

I see very little substantial difference from the type of brutality you described in Pakistan and forcing an American woman who became pregnant after being raped and wants the pregnancy terminated to be subjected to a vaginal ultrasound. Which is another form of rape.

Both cases come down to the exact same thing. A woman should always, ALWAYS have complete and total control of her body. Period.

No one else, not her father, her brothers, her cousins, her rapist, her church or her legislators should be able to force their will upon her.

That, is the issue.

Joe said...

XO: " A woman should always, ALWAYS have complete and total control of her body. Period."

I hate to enlighten you, but the unborn baby is not a part of the woman's body. He/she floats freely in his/her own special fluid connected to the mother by, and only by, an umbilical cord...like an astronaut floating outside the space station.

Killing that baby, like killing anyone for convenience, is murder.

Xavier Onassis said...

Jo Joe - "I hate to enlighten you, but the unborn baby is not a part of the woman's body."

You are incorrect sir,"...He/she floats freely in his/her own special fluid..."

No,the amniotic sac is created by and maintained by the mother, a.k.a. "the host organism", not the unborn baby.

The unborn baby is not a viable, sentient being. It is, for all intents and purposes, a parasite.

par·a·site noun \ˈper-ə-ˌsīt, ˈpa-rə-\
: an animal or plant that lives in or on another animal or plant and gets food or protection from it

: a person or thing that takes something from someone or something else and does not do anything to earn it or deserve it

That is a perfect definition of a human embryo.

Do humans have a right to rid themselves of parasites?

Joe said...

XO: It is fluid for her and her alone. Therefore it is her own special fluid, in spite of the fact that it is "manufactured" by the mother. Unless there was a baby, there would be no fluid.

"The unborn baby is not a viable, sentient being. It is, for all intents and purposes, a parasite."

Dead wrong. Try checking its DNA. It is distinctly human DNA from the moment of conception and is different from the mother's DNA. In fact, if the baby's DNA mixed with the mother's DNA, both would die.

The developing child is most decidedly NOT a part of the mother's body.

I do not expect you to have the mental acuity to be able to understand that. But that's alright. You still have your own value as an un-aborted human being. It might not be great value, but it is value, nonetheless.

Xavier Onassis said...

Joe - "Try checking its DNA. It is distinctly human DNA"

The same can be said of my skin or my hair.

That doesn't mean that one of my skin cells or one of my hairs has the full rights of a Human Being.

"The developing child is most decidedly NOT a part of the mother's body."

Yes, it is. Take the embryo out of the mother's body and it dies. It is incapable of sustaining itself. It is a parasite completely dependent on it's host organism for sustenance and survival.

It cannot be considered an individual organism until it is able to survive as an individual,

Until then, it is merely a potential individual.

Joe said...

XO: "It is a parasite..."

There is a parasite here, but it isn't the unborn child.

"It cannot be considered an individual organism until it is able to survive as an individual."

Of course it can be considered an individual. It IS an individual. Your statement is not one of science but of a warped random opinion.

"Until then, it is merely a potential individual."

Your mind seems incapable of rational thought. That is the most arbitrary argument I have ever heard. That is thinking born of depravity and seeking nothing more than a liberal agenda. It is a strong and abiding faith in an irrational thought process.

sue hanes said...

Joe - This is barbarian - putting her to death for this reason. Thank heavens we don't have this type of thing in our country.

Lisa said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lisa said...

I bet that woman would have chosen a vaginal ultrasound over being brutally slaughtered.
What a disturbing culture. Islamic extremists have perverted that religion and it seems to be spreading
Like a plague.
I wish the so called "moderates"would condemn it. But they either agree with it or they are beholden to something.

Xavier Onassis said...

Lisa - What about you? If you had just been brutally raped would you want some bureaucrat telling you that you HAVE to be subjected to a vaginal ultrasound? Would you, personally be OK with that?

Do you have daughters? How would you feel about them being subjected to that because a bunch of old, white, repressed men said so? Would you seriously be OK with that?

Lisa said...

XO You were comparing it to what happened in Pakistan.
I don't think in the case of rape that would ever become law.
Old white repressed men? Do you mean like Harry Reid?

Xavier Onassis said...

Lisa - http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/02/15/government-sanctioned-rape-in-state-virginia-and-texas/

Joe said...

XO: "Yes, it is. Take the embryo out of the mother's body and it dies."

Being dependent on the mother does not make it part of the mother.

But you, in your arrogance, will never change your narrow little mind.

Lisa said...

so what is more invasive or disturbing XO a transvaginal ultra sound or this

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Islam is more than a religion - it is an all-encompassing cultural, political, religious system. Those who are true Muslims are the ones the LEFTISTS and the IGNORANT "radical," or "extremists" etc.

This is indeed the true face of Islam.

Analogy time:
Most of those who call themselves "Christian" in the world really aren't. Not including cultists, most who call themselves Christians are what we call "cultural" Christians - or secular Christians. They have little knowledge of what the Bible teaches, but have been raised in a family which claims to be Christian (who also may be cultural/secular) or figure that if they believe in some sort of higher power they must be Christian.

The vast majority of Muslims in the world are cultural/secular Muslims. Most are that way because in the countries in which they live they either claim the Muslim religion or die. Others in more Western countries don't have a clue about the fundamental teachings of Islam but call themselves Muslim because they are from Muslim parents, etc.

The true Muslims are those who practice what the Qur'an teaches, what the Hadiths teach, and Sharia law. They are the ones who are terrorists, who abuse women, etc. THEY are the true face of Islam.

The trouble in the Western world is that Islam also teaches that you lie to your enemy about your beliefs and intentions until you are in a position of power. So your next door neighbor may be a very peaceful secular Muslim who does not approve of terrorism and violence practiced by Islam, or he is a true Muslim lying about his beliefs.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I see very little substantial difference from the type of brutality you described in Pakistan and forcing an American woman who became pregnant after being raped and wants the pregnancy terminated to be subjected to a vaginal ultrasound. Which is another form of rape.

This demonstrates the abject ignorance of the person making such a statement, and what an evil, wicked heart he has.

Joe has demonstrated that the baby is not part of the woman's body, medical science proves the baby is not part of the woman's body. Whether the pregnancy was as a result of consensual sex or rape, it is still a human life separate from the woman. There are many people living who were conceived in rape and who are wonderful people we would not have as part of our society if their mother had determined to murder them.

And the woman will always remember the murder of her child, which just adds more trauma on top of the rape experience.

Men only want abortion to remove the responsibility for taking care of that which they father.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

X.O.
That site you linked to spews the same ignorance and stupidity which your are spewing - it is a bald-faced lie to say the government is sanctioning rape.

The abortion agenda is evil incarnate.

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - "...it is a bald-faced lie to say the government is sanctioning rape."

Really?

Ask any woman if having someone shove something into her vagina against her will is rape.

I think the answers you get back will be pretty consistent.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Talk about an anti-woman teaching!! To claim that the medical use of a probe is akin to rape is to lessen the real horror of actual rape.

Xavier Onassis said...

It ceases being a medical probe when it is being forced on her against her will.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

It ceases being a medical probe when it is being forced on her against her will.

Wrong. Just like a tail still is a tail even if someone calls it a leg. It's still just a medical probe and a medical procedure. You are marginalizing real rape. You must hate women as much as you hate Christians.

Dave Miller said...

Okay Glenn, how about a personal physical violation?

Honestly, if someone does not want something shoved inside them, medical or not, believe me they are going to feel pretty violated.

How would you feel if you were forced to undergo a colonoscopy against your will?

How would you describe that?

Lisa said...

A vaginal ultrasound is not "shoved"in. It is relatively small. Minimal compared to foreceps

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dave,

Call it a physical violation, an assault on one's person. But don't call it a rape.

i don't see the purpose in the procedure. A woman is either pregnant or she isn't. It suppose to be used to provide some sort of an arbitrary cut-off point as to when abortion would be disallowed. How about abortion is ALWAYS wrong because it is always killing an unborn child. CHILD!

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - " How about abortion is ALWAYS wrong because it is always killing an unborn child. CHILD!"

Nope. Medical procedure. Legal, safe, medical procedure. And you just said no one should object to a medical procedure.

Lisa - "A vaginal ultrasound is not "shoved"in. It is relatively small."

Have you ever been forced to have a vaginal ultrasound against your will because a bunch of men decided to pass a law requiring you to submit to it?

Nevermind, none of my business.

My point is I don't care how big it is or whether it is shoved or gently inserted. It is a forced, incredibly invasive and medically unnecessary procedure whose sole purpose is to coerce a woman into forfeiting her human right to control her own body and reproduction.

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - "i don't see the purpose in the procedure. A woman is either pregnant or she isn't. It suppose to be used to provide some sort of an arbitrary cut-off point as to when abortion would be disallowed."

No,that is not the purpose of the vaginal ultrasound. It has no medical purpose.

The only purpose is a shameless and despicable attempt to force a woman seeking to end a pregnancy to endure a humiliating and invasive procedure in an effort to get her to change her mind.

Joe said...

XO: She SHOULD change her mind.

Xavier Onassis said...

Joe - That's not your call. It's not G.E.C.'s call. Or the state legislators call. Or my call. It is her call and her call alone.

Her body. Her choice. Period.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

[re abortion]
Nope. Medical procedure. Legal, safe, medical procedure. And you just said no one should object to a medical procedure.

Legal does not equal right and moral.
Safe? Certainly not for the baby, nor for many women who have died from botched abortions or else are so butchered they can never have children, as well as a strong link to breast cancer, etc.

I never said no one should object to a medical procedure. There are a lot of medical procedures people should object to. By the way, Hitler's minions practiced a lot of "medical procedures" on the Jews. Calling it a "medical procedure" doesn't make it right.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Her body.

No it is not. It is the baby's body.

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - "Safe? Certainly not for the baby, nor for many women who have died from botched abortions or else are so butchered they can never have children, as well as a strong link to breast cancer"

The women who die from botched abortions occur in back alley "clinics" where some hack with little or no medical training is performing the "procedure" because idiots like you have managed to pass laws that have driven the medical professionals who could do it safely out of business.

That blood is on YOUR hands.

"I never said no one should object to a medical procedure..."

Yes, you did. You said that a pregnant woman seeking an abortion shouldn't object to being raped by having a vaginal ultrasound probe shoved into her vagina against her will because it was "just a medical procedure".

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - "No it is not. It is the baby's body."

It is not a "baby".

It is a cluster of parasitic cells that derive nutrition from the host organism to which they are attached.

It doesn't become anything anywhere near approaching a "baby" until it can survive outside of the womb without depending on the host organism for sustenance.

Your lack of understanding of basic biological processes is astounding.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

X.O.

You said that a pregnant woman seeking an abortion shouldn't object to being raped by having a vaginal ultrasound probe shoved into her vagina against her will because it was "just a medical procedure".

Would you care to quote me saying what you just claimed or will you admit you are a liar?

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

X.O.

It doesn't become anything anywhere near approaching a "baby" until it can survive outside of the womb without depending on the host organism for sustenance.

So then any human in the hospital on any sort of life support is not really human because it has to depend on someone else for life support?

Your ignorance of what a parasite is, is astounding. A parasite is uninvited; when people have sex, they are inviting the possibility of conception of a baby. Talk about not understanding basic biological processes!

Let me educate you a wee bit:
http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/
http://www.sehlat.com/lifelink/data/baby.html
http://www.abort73.com/abortion/abortion_risks/
https://answersingenesis.org/sanctity-of-life/flesh-and-blood/
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/11/26/philosophical-arguments-destroy-pro-choice-case-on-abortion/

Safe for the woman? "Back alley" or not (few really ever were) abortion is dangerous for the woman:
http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201309020042?utm
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/08/14/study-shows-highest-abortion-breast-cancer-risk-ever-for-women/

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - "Your ignorance of what a parasite is, is astounding. A parasite is uninvited; when people have sex, they are inviting the possibility of conception of a baby. Talk about not understanding basic biological processes!"

So when a woman is raped, is she "inviting the possibility of contraception of a baby"? Are you seriously blaming the rape victim for the pregnancy?

"par·a·site noun \ˈper-ə-ˌsīt, ˈpa-rə-\
: an animal or plant that lives in or on another animal or plant and gets food or protection from it

: a person or thing that takes something from someone or something else and does not do anything to earn it or deserve it

This is an absolutely perfect definition of a fetus. Especially one that is unwanted and "uninvited".





Glenn E. Chatfield said...

X.O.

Only an ignorant anti-child, person would call a child in the womb a "parasite." This began with the pro-aborts as an excuse to kill the baby. It doesn't work.

Granted, in rape the child was not invited in, but the evidence demonstrates that it is very rare for rape to end in pregnancy. And even if it does, you don't kill the child for the crime of the man who did the raping.

Using your definition of "parasite," you could be called one. Also, anyone who doesn't want their children any more could just call them parasites and kill them. Many parents have called their teens parasites. Adult children living with their parents are often considered as parasites. SO should they all be killed because some fool calls them a parasite?

And you didn't want to see what AIG had to say because you are afraid of the truth. That proves you to be the fool that you are.

Xavier Onassis said...

G.E.C. - "...but the evidence demonstrates that it is very rare for rape to end in pregnancy."

!!!!!!!!

Are you serious? Are you taking the Tod Aiken position that in the case of "legitimate rape" that the woman's body has a way of "shutting that whole thing down."???

Are you really that incredibly stupid???

Rhetorical question.

A fetus in the womb is living in the body of a host organism from which it is taking sustenance and giving nothing in return. That,is a parasite.

That definition cannot be applied to teenagers or adult children or anything else that isn't living in or on the body of the host organism and taking direct sustenance from it.

"And you didn't want to see what AIG had to say because you are afraid of the truth."

There is no truth in the Bible in general and there is certainly not a scrap or shred of truth about anything in the book of Genesis.

It is all lies and fairy tales told to gullible bronze age sheepherders to explain concepts beyond their understanding.

But we live in the 21st century and we have the scientific method to sort truth from fiction.

And guess what...everything you believe to be true is complete and total fiction with not a scintilla of evidence to back it up.

You are living in a make believe bubble of self delusion.

Good luck with that, buddy.

Joe said...

XO: There used to be something called respect in this country. You and your kind have made certain that that concept is destroyed. You have respect only for the vile and nasty. That which is clean, wholesome and good is not worthy of your respect. Instead you choose to ridicule it. That is unbecoming for 21st century civilization and contrary to what this country was built on.

So what if its wrong (which it isn't)? So what if you're wrong about something (can you even imagine such a thing?)? Is it OK for us to ridicule you for it?

Good. You are wrong about God, about the Bible and about Jesus, Christ, Messiah. You are dead. Dead wrong. You are deluding yourself if you think they do not exist. There is not one scintilla of evidence that they do not exist.

Xavier Onassis said...

Joe - "You are wrong about God, about the Bible and about Jesus, Christ, Messiah. You are dead. Dead wrong. You are deluding yourself if you think they do not exist."

We shall see, shant we?

I am choosing to err on the side that none of that supernatural crap (for which there is no evidence whatsoever) exists so that I can experience the full spectrum of what it is to be an alive human, here and now, in this life, on this planet.

When I die it will be without any regrets because I won't be looking back on a life of missed opportunities, repressed desires and stuff I really wanted to do but didn't.

So if there is no afterlife (which there totally isn't), I won't be disappointed.

If there IS an afterlife (which there totally isn't) I will be insatiably curious to find out which, or if, any earthly human religion really did have The One True Faith.

Was it the Zoroastrians? The Jews? The Muslims? The Catholics? The Hari Krishnas? The Hindus? The Druids? The Protestants? The Unitarians?

Or will it be some completely different "god" who manifested itself to an alien civilization orbiting a neutron star in a galaxy 100 million light years from us?

What if their "god" is the "true god" and Jesus don't enter into it?

Can you truly not see and understand what an absurd world view you cling to?

It makes me sad.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

X.O.

I'm not talking about any theories about rape and pregnancy, I'm talking about the actual statistics. DUH!

So, a child in a womb is a parasite to you. You apparently have no conscience. You show that you see no special value in human life, which is to be expected from an atheist. After all, in your world view there is no difference between a pig and a child.

You again claim there is no truth in the Bible, yet it was proven to you by Joe that there are things even you would have to agree are true. I maintain everything in the Bible is true. However, the links I've given you from AIG, both about evolution and about abortion, were about the science of both and not about the Bible (although the one about abortion showed Bible passages which support the science and why life is important). But you make an assumption that people who are Christians cannot be scientists - which is an asinine assumption on your part. You are indeed afraid to learn truth because your whole worldview is based on lies. you are the one living in delusion.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

X.O.

You sure make a lot of dogmatic statements about the non-existence of God. Question for you: Since you don't have access to ALL knowledge, is it possible that God exists outside of your sphere of knowledge? Or are you so arrogant to claim you are omniscient?

If God is discovered, would that make your life better or worse? How would it change your life?

We, as Christians, maintain that denying God denies responsibility. If God does not exist, then there is no universal standard by which humanity can be judged.