why is it that most abortion opponents are simply self-righteous morons who only offer hate and no other solutions? they want no abortion under any circumstance, but offer no support for the mother and child during pregnancy and afterwards....very easy to be objective and judgemental when its someone else's cunumdrum, huh?!??
The Silent Issue
-
Posted By: 3guerras @ 11/09/2008 10:55:29 AM
-
Posted By: Ivory88 @ 11/10/2008 3:32:00 PM
I disagree. Every pro-life activist I've come in contact with gives both of their time and resources to offer alternatives to killing babies. Most are foster parents or adoptive parents.
-
-
Posted By: reallynow? @ 11/09/2008 11:38:33 AM
None of you pro life people have ever been in the desperate place that it takes to make the decision to have an abortion. Before 12 weeks a fetus has no heartbeat or brain, they feel no pain and if they were born naturally, they would die. After 12 weeks their is a moral issue of killing a living child... People that have abortions are not any more evil than people that reproduce over and over and can not or do not take care of their kids. Having an abortion is not an easy decision and it is not one that white haired old men should be deciding for us. Until you live someone else's life you have no right to judge anyone...
-
Posted By: Ivory88 @ 11/10/2008 3:29:34 PM
You are wrong. Many in the pro-life movement are women who have gone through the trauma of having an abortion and live with the guilt, shame and regret at what they have done. They speak with a clear moral voice and add not only compassion to this issue, but research born out of broken hearts.
-
-
Posted By: Rbirosh @ 11/09/2008 11:03:58 AM
Before a person claims to be "pro-choice", they are urged to view photos of aborted babies. They can be found on the internet quite easily. As somebody else put it, "what a world we live in, where innocent babies are legally murderd on a whim and serial killers who are awaiting execution have human rights activists fighting for their survival".
-
Posted By: catjax @ 11/10/2008 2:26:50 PM
What a world that we live in that our foster homes are bursting at the seams, adoptions are minimal in the States due to fear of having the child ripped out of the home by their parents who gave them up only to change their minds after two years and want them back, homeless shelters are bursting at the seams, children are living under bridges and no where to run. Why aren't all of you placing more of your focus on these kids? Why are they so much less deserving? What aren't you doing more to preach protection, abstinence, provide birth control. All I do is hear ya'll scream about all of the babies who are being killed on a whim but yet nothing about you think should be done to prevent it. Just like someone I know who spends every minute preaching against abortion, holding his signs on a street corner, dragging his young daughter to stand with him with a sign in her hand but yet he pays her no attention and shows her no love or affection at all. She has grown up to hate God, hate her father and has lowest self asteem of anyone I know. She trusts nobody and thinks abortion activists are just a bunch of freaks. What a great example he was to her and what a great mark he left on her life, but yet he's still out there holding his signs. And you want to convert people like us who believe in Pro Choice. Practice what you preach and stop holding everyone accountable just because they don't take the same stand as you. I hear so many of you screaming murder and quoting scriptures and casting stones, but I have not read where any of you say what you're doing to come against the problem itself. What are you doing to change the circumstance where abortion may not have to be a necessary choice for someone? Please let me hear from you for once.
-
-
Posted By: Conservative-Liberal @ 11/05/2008 7:20:51 AM
Governor sarah palin: "...on Nov 5th, Americans will wake up and see that God's will has been done and the right person has been elected President."
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 11/05/2008 11:20:24 AM
Was it God's will that the ungodly rule over us or was it the people's will who rejected the fundamental principals of God? One can only wait and see what will happen to this nation and the Christian foundation it was founded upon. Benefits and consequences are in our future.... most people voted for a short term benefit and are neglecting the long term consequences of their decisions. Well that is just my opinion and as we have seen my opinion is in the minority and the majority has spoken.....Selah!
-
Posted By: Momwoman @ 11/05/2008 1:39:56 PM
This was never intended to be a Christian nation. That's why that pesky "separation of church and state" clause is in there.
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 11/05/2008 2:17:37 PM
I suggest you get a clue on what clauses are in the Constitution before you post and remove all doubt that you are clueless concerning these matters. There is no such clause and it is definately not in the Constitution as one. It goes to show you if you repeat a lie often people will eventually believe it as you have done. Maybe you should read every state constitution that has Christian written in their doctrine or maybe you should read the Supreme court decision declaring that this is a Christian Nation..... but of course you can sit here and repeat lies that have been told to you over and over again without you even checking them out for yourself......
-
Posted By: catjax @ 11/05/2008 3:32:00 PM
If we are such a Christiian nation, then why has christianity been taken out of our schools and our children no longer able to pray unless they do so in a bathroom stall. Why can't we protray the manger in our schools and why aren't we suppose to say Merry Christmas but instead Happy Holidays. Why are they speaking of taking "In God We Trust" off of our currency? I agree that our nation was once founded on Christianity but that is slowly but surely being taken away from us too.
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 11/09/2008 9:46:17 PM
Hmmmm imagine that ....could it be because of Pseudo Christians such as yourself don't stand up for what is right?
-
Posted By: catjax @ 11/10/2008 2:09:58 PM
Are you so bold as to call yourself a Christian yet come against others as you do. You need to go back and read your scriptures, I don't think they're sinking in. You are the exact reason why people turn against any form of religion because you are a total hypocrite.
-
-
-
Posted By: r2626 @ 11/09/2008 3:03:55 PM
Maybe you should read the Constitution again. I have read your comments. You think you know it all, but you are just another loudmouthed republican.
-
Posted By: Momwoman @ 11/05/2008 3:23:09 PM
Do you deny that we have separation of church and state?-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 11/05/2008 5:03:59 PM
Comment:
Do you deny that we have separation of church and state?
You indicated it was a clause in the constitution and it is not in the constitution... it is taken from a personal letter written by Jefferson in addressing a state issue and he answer in the terms of a national issue. People have used this phrase to justify the separation issue to there benefit and it is nowhere in the constitution.
If you are going to use an argument then use this one but know the history of what this clause was put there for..
The "no religious test" clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, section 3, and states that:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States
This was based off of the requirement by certain Christian churches who were making elected official adhere to doctrinal teachings of there church (thus the religious test) and swearing to uphold the teachings that they believe (the oaths)....
Now the is another item that people refute that this is not a Christian nation by quoting the Treaty of Tripoli as showing that this is not a Christian nation.... but they don't know or understand the history of this treaty and the controversy surrounding article 11 of this treaty .... here is the link to the treaty...
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html
And in my other post is the translation controversy....
If you are going to use arguments stating something you believe to hold is true at least no where it came from..... as far as debating on this site goes one must provide evidence supporting their beliefs if not it is just rhetoric....-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 11/05/2008 5:05:35 PM
Translation controversy
Miller's Investigation and Notes
The translation of the Treaty of Tripoli by Barlow has been found faulty, and there is doubt whether Article 11 in the version of the treaty ratified by Congress corresponds to anything of the same purport in the Arabic version.
In 1931 Hunter Miller completed a commission by the United States government to analyze United States's treaties and to explain how they function and what they mean in terms of the United States's legal position in relationship with the rest of the world.According to Hunter Miller's notes, "the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic" and "Article 11... does not exist at all."
After comparing the United States's version by Barlow with the Arabic and even the Italian version, Miller continues by claiming that:
The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point.
From this, Miller concludes: "A further and perhaps equal mystery is the fact that since 1797 the Barlow translation has been trustfully and universally accepted as the just equivalent of the Arabic... yet evidence of the erroneous character of the Barlow translation has been in the archives of the Department of State since perhaps 1800 or thereabouts..." It is important to note, though, that as Miller said:
It is to be remembered that the Barlow translation is that which was submitted to the Senate (American State Papers, Foreign Relations, II, 18-19) and which is printed in the Statutes at Large and in treaty collections generally; it is that English text which in the United States has always been deemed the text of the treaty.
Irrespective of any differences between the Arabic and English texts, the Barlow translation (Article 11 included) was the text presented to and ratified by Congress-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 11/05/2008 5:08:26 PM
One note the Treaty is no longer in place since the broke this with the United States and signed another treaty in its place....
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: catjax @ 11/05/2008 2:18:25 PM
Why don't you quit acting like George W. did such a wonderful job. He made a lot of promises of how he would handle your abortion issue and I didn't see him stand by one. Why aren't you holding him responsible for making promises that he didn't keep. I guess that just applies to democrats? Who voted you people perfect and the only ones who are right?
-
-
-
Posted By: Blue in AZ @ 11/04/2008 8:10:48 PM
If men could get pregnant, this would not be a debate. There is no way that men (who make up a significant portion of pro-lifers) would allow the government to control their bodies. Look at how many of the arguments posted here are men calling women who have abortions "sluts". They make women who have abortions into stereotypes, college girls who get drunk and sleep around. It's a load of BS.
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 11/05/2008 11:42:00 AM
Your argument is mute....men are men and women are women... we think and act differently... but morals are morals and right is right and wrong is wrong .... it is when we mixed these things we have difference of opinions, actions, values, beliefs and decisions. If we argue on a moral point we divide and say that it is your interpretation of what you think the bible says (even though it says it clearly that abortion is evil), if we argue scientifically we get other doctors, scientist and psychologist who support our decisions.. in the end what shall we say to these divisive issues of who is right and who is wrong? Is there a moral absolute or is everyone right in their own eyes? Who will decide these things for us? Who is the final arbitrator in such matters? Whom should we be given account of our actions while on this earth?
I say God! You might say yourself or no one...... thus begining another debate... as some would say I will find out when I die.... but why wait?..... I have a saying, " A fool dies a thousand times but a wise man only dies once, so you better figure out which number that you are on"-
Posted By: Momwoman @ 11/05/2008 1:54:38 PM
Could you quot e me chapter and verse on "abortion is evil"? I seem to have missed that one.
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 11/07/2008 12:48:19 PM
Here you go ... I wouldn't want to deprive you of your once a year of reading a scripture...
2Kgs.8
[12] And Hazael said, Why weepeth my lord? And he answered, Because I know the EVIL that thou wilt do unto the children of Israel: their strong holds wilt thou set on fire, and their young men wilt thou slay with the sword, and wilt dash their children, and rip up their women with child.-
Posted By: Kaviaq @ 11/09/2008 8:23:49 AM
Ah yes, getting your morals from a book that supports salvery, the subjugation of women and human sacrifice to god as noble! Thanks, but I'll rely on my own morality.
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 11/09/2008 9:50:08 PM
Scriptures please!... No doubt your understanding of scriptures is mute and you can stick with you won morals that are forever changing .... Would a man condemn God just to justify himself?..... yes you would........ If you would like to debate then put something with more substance to back up your mis-directed beliefs....
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: srexley @ 11/04/2008 8:35:44 PM
"allow the government to control their bodies"
Women "control their bodies". But when you advocate for abortion you are saying they can abort the life that is in their body. Call the unborn child an unborn child and proclaim your support for a women to end that life. Calling it "controlling their bodies" is an inaccurate portrayal. Note that with the exception of rape, they are "controlling their bodies" when they create the life that you are comfortable with them taking.-
Posted By: abc321123 @ 11/07/2008 6:03:32 PM
Actually "women controlling their own bodies" is an accurate portrayal.
If I don't want a man's penis inside of me, then I'll damn well make it known and have that thing removed from me. If it's not removed from me, then my will is violated.
If I don't want another "life" in me, then I'll damn well make it known and have that thing removed from inside me. Unfortunately, the consequence of removing most z/e/fs is that they can no longer live outside the womb. Abortion is termination of the state of pregnancy. The death of the Z/E/F is the consequence (in early term abortion). -
Posted By: Blue in AZ @ 11/04/2008 8:40:38 PM
Instead of arguing semantics like the 400 other people on this thread, why don't you respond to the post itself? Do you think men would give up their right to choose? And not just you, it's pretty obvious how you feel. But would it even be an issue?
-
Posted By: srexley @ 11/04/2008 9:20:20 PM
"Do you think men would give up their right to choose?"
I can't possibly know that. But my guess is the percentage who would be for it would be about the same as the percentage of women who are for abortion. You do realize there are woman who are not pro abortion, right?
And the reason I "argue semantics" is that I believe being honest about a position is important in developing a position. A previous poster I responded too said an unborn child is a "little cluster of cells in a woman's body". If that was the case (and it is not), then everybody would be for it. Sounded like she was talking about cancer, not a human life. Remove some cells, no moral delimna. Kill your baby (sorry about the grapicness) it is quite a moral delimna. The reality is closer to the second description. And there are reasons that pro abortion folks call taking the life an ubborn child a "choice" or the removal of "a little cluster of cells". It is dishonest imo.-
Posted By: Blue in AZ @ 11/04/2008 9:34:13 PM
How do you know it is not the case (being a clump of cells)? That's a philosophical argument, not a fact. It is a clump of cells. You're stating your opinion as fact and that is dishonest in my opinion. We all have opinions, but the fact that some of us try to force them on others is what sparks debate. Are you implying that I am not honest about my position? That I don't feel as strongly as you? And as a woman who has have cells in her uterus and had to have them removed (not by my choice) I feel I have a right to an opinion on what it was. It was not a baby. And you can say that I HAVE to tell myself that in order to make myself feel better, but that is not true. Some "babies" are never meant to be more than a cluster of cells.
And yeas, I realize that there are plenty of anti-choice women. My mother is one of them. We've had this discussion over and over. She doesn't understand how I could be pro-choice considering that I've had "life inside me." I don't think it was ever a life.-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 11/05/2008 11:45:16 AM
Well let us examine the evidence... I will go down to one abortion clinic and pick up the remains and you can either come with me or go to another and then we bring the remains back and examine them to see if they are a cluster of cells or body parts of a human being!
-
Posted By: catjax @ 11/05/2008 12:25:18 PM
I don't understand how ya'll can say this. My sister miscarried at 3 months and the only thing that came out was a huge blood clot and a lot of blood. She was 3 months pregnant and miscarried by no choice of her own. So are you telling me that all pregnancies are beating and viable babies at 3 months gestation? Because if you are, you are wrong, I was there to experience a miscarriage at 3 months and there was no heartbeat or formed baby. I had to help clean my sister up before taking her to the hospital. An experience I will never forget.
-
Posted By: bojack27 @ 11/07/2008 12:52:40 PM
Like I said before check out the development of children before you go on what you think you saw in the form of a child that could have died weeks before and the body could have been deteriorating within her womb.... Sorry for her lost and sorry that you had to experience this.... I have had two such incidents in my life as well.... not a good thing to see or go through....
-
Posted By: SUMU-2 @ 11/05/2008 12:46:35 PM
No beating heart @ 3 months was probably because it was already dead. A fetus's heart starts beating between 6-8 weeks -- and most women don't even know they're preganant until about 3 weeks. That means if she doesn't choose to abort 3-5 weeks after she finds out, she IS stopping a beating heart.
-
-
-
Posted By: srexley @ 11/04/2008 10:11:37 PM
"How do you know it is not the case (being a clump of cells)?"
They have heartbeats at 6 weeks. It is the beginning stages of human life. In the sense that we are all "clumps of cells", unborn children are also.
"That's a philosophical argument"
It is a seperate life from the mother. I don't think that is only opinion, I think it is a fact.
" Are you implying that I am not honest about my position?"
I think some of the arguments supporting abortion are dishonest. Not saying that you are a dishonest person.
"And you can say that I HAVE to tell myself that (that an unborn child is more than a clump of cells) in order to make myself feel better"
I don't think I said you had to do that. I think arguments on any topic should be based on facts and logic. It certainly is not a "fact" that an unborn child is a choice. And I don't think it is a fact that it is not a distinct human life.
"
Some "babies" are never meant to be more than a cluster of cells."
Certainly true. But when a human makes the choice when to end the life, it is a pretty profound decision. Removing a clump of cells is not profound at all. Like I said, to me that sounds like someone is talking about cancer. I am only speculating that the description makes the decision easier. When women consider abortions and see the heart beating and little arms and legs and stuff, they frequently come to the conclusion the unborn child really is more than a clump of cells.
"I realize that there are plenty of anti-choice women"
You mean anti abortion. I don't think they are against women making choices. That would be ridiculous.
" I don't think it was ever a life."
This does sound like an argument designed to make someone feel better. I feel for what this must have been like, and know many woman who have had abortions. I don't think of them (or you) as a killer or anything vile. People with tough choices, that in my mind make the wrong decision. In my wife's first pregnancy she mis carried. It was early (about 9 ot 10 weeks), but we had seen the ultrasound and heard the heartbeat. We both took it well, and it was not a life that was meant to be. But it was not just a clump of cells either. I think the more accurate the argument, the tougher the choice is to make. Making a choice or removing cells is an easy way to look at that. If that was all it was, then everybody would be for it. It is more than that, in my opinion. And in fact.-
Posted By: Blue in AZ @ 11/04/2008 10:32:44 PM
You and I disagree on what is FACT then. And considering that everyone has an opinion on when life begins, I don't think you have any right to state that you know when it does as fact. That is your opinion. Millions of others (including plenty of doctors) disagree.
You said you don't think of women who've had miscarriages or abortions as killers, but 2 posts ago you said that killing a baby was a moral dilemma but scraping away tissue was not. Which is it? Are they killers or are they not? And what's to stop the government from legislating how women act once they are pregnant if life does begin at conception, as you state? Would you want your wife to be questioned about her miscarriage? Because there have been societies that considered miscarriage murder. Women have been stoned to death for it. Medical texts are very clear that drinking more than 2 cups of coffee per day can cause a miscarriage. Would that constitute manslaughter?-
Posted By: srexley @ 11/04/2008 10:53:39 PM
"You and I disagree on what is FACT then."
Doesn't mean a fact is not a fact. I think most realize that an unborn child is a human life. When do you think the unborn child turns in to a human? Is it ok to abort once you feel it is human?
"I don't think you have any right to state that you know when it does as fact."
So your argument hear is that I should keep quiet. You have the right of abortion, and I don't even have a right to talk. You don't sound very open minded with this position.
"you don't think of women who've had miscarriages or abortions as killers, but 2 posts ago you said that killing a baby was a moral dilemma but scraping away tissue was not. Which is it?"
You are not sounding too rational here. I believe there is absolutely no moral issue with a miscarriage unless a woman was negligent with her health while pregnant. And that would be more than having a up of coffee. Drug use, excessive drinking, kick boxing late term, etc. And a woman who has a legal abortion is mis guided imo, but not a bad person (which I believe killers are). Just trying to say that I sympathize with folks who have abortions, and don't view them as a bad people. If you want to argue the point you can, as I believe you do have the right to say whatever you want.
"And what's to stop the government from legislating how women act once they are pregnant if life does begin at conception, as you state? Would you want your wife to be questioned about her miscarriage?"
This is kind of ridiculous.
"Because there have been societies that considered miscarriage murder."
Our is not one of them, and I have never heard of one. Doesn't mean there aren't societies like this, but I'm not worried about the U.S. going that way. Particularly with the way the election just went. Ouch.
"two cups of coffee per day can cause a miscarriage"
How could the coffee kill a clump of cells?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: Dutchman01 @ 11/04/2008 8:19:03 PM
Based on your post you seem to be saying men care more about the life of children than women do. Is that what you really mean to say?
-
Posted By: Blue in AZ @ 11/04/2008 8:28:46 PM
No. What I am saying is that it is easy to say you would make a decision if you will never actually have to make that decision. If can never get pregnant, you will never know what it is like to have to make that decision. And men can lie all they'd like and claim they'd give up freedom to choose, but it's not like they'll ever have to prove it.
-
Posted By: Dutchman01 @ 11/04/2008 9:23:11 PM
When I was born 50 years ago out of wedlock I was a liability to my mother. Now I'm just about the only person she can count on in her life. Abortion is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.
-
Posted By: Blue in AZ @ 11/04/2008 9:37:18 PM
Tell that to the woman who has to give up her body, her emotional wellbeing or her very existence in order to carry it. I'm glad your mother made the choice to carry you and didn't have to die in an alley. Women will always have abortions and some not by choice. My argument is that they should have a choice.
-
Posted By: Dutchman01 @ 11/04/2008 9:56:52 PM
Is killing children really good for a women's emotional well being? My point being the "choice" to kill me wasn't much of a choice at all.
-
Posted By: Blue in AZ @ 11/04/2008 10:34:12 PM
Believe it or not, but there are women out there who don't consider it killing. Imagine, just for a moment, that not everyone shares your opinion.
-
Posted By: Dutchman01 @ 11/04/2008 10:52:08 PM
I'm well aware of that if only because obama will be president. Inasfar as killing? things are what they are. You can justify anything but killing is still killing.
-
Posted By: catjax @ 11/05/2008 12:28:05 PM
Oh okay, so what you are saying is that Obama started all of this and is responsible for all of it. You are so stupid.
-
Posted By: Dutchman01 @ 11/06/2008 11:46:01 AM
Not stupid enough to make make a post like yours.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Posted By: WatchmansWarning @ 11/09/2008 5:34:46 PM
It always seems to amaze me how drastically the levels of decency, morality, and conscience seem to be declining in this once great nation. I often hear that a woman has the "right to choose". What I don't seem to hear from these same people is the rights of the baby. Regardless of where one's beliefs may be, the fact remains that there is an infant inside of a pregnant woman, who has a beating heart, and lungs, and has blood and tissue, etc. This child deserves its right to life, which was given by the Creator God.
Oddly, we put people in jail for disturbing or harming certain creatures in the animal kingdom, and yet, we have legalized the murder of our very own children! All I can say is that this is nothing short of WICKEDNESS and the Word of the Lord will not let this go without divine retribution. Note the following:
I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live (Deuteronomy 30:19).
You shall not murder (Exodus 20:13).
Open your mouth for the speechless, in the cause of all who are appointed to die (Proverbs 31:8).
As noted above, ALL Christians should take a firm and unmoving position against the destruction of life. This is a foremost and highly necessary rule when voting for those in authority over us. Any Christian who believes that it's ok to elect someone to the office of Presidency who thinks it's ok to murder infant children in the womb has some serious soul-searching that needs to be done (as does the President). God's Word says that it IS NOT ok, and we should take heed to His declarations.
Be it known that Obama holds this position of wickedness and I most certainly did not vote for him. But all of America should know this....
Since Roe v Wade, America has murdered appx. 50,000,0000 infant children. That's right, 50 MILLION! We America, most urgently need to repent and ask for forgiveness, which comes only through the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ.
If we fail to do so, this nation may be soon facing severe judgment, from which America may not recover.
The Lord has called me as a watchman to give people warning when necessary, and that is my purpose for writing this.
Repent, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin (Ezekiel 18:30b).
He That Has Ears To Hear, Let Him Hear??????.
WatchmansWarning
www.youtube.com/WatchmansWarning
-
Posted By: Catbuns1978 @ 11/09/2008 4:27:53 PM
Why should government be in on this decision? It is no one business what you do, just like sexual orientation? If it does not concern you why do you insist it does? Other than welfare going up because so many children do not have health insurance. Why are we so against the living children getting the help vs unborn children? Quality of life is my concern, not what anyone else determines. My children do not need to see the signs.
-
Posted By: Catbuns1978 @ 11/09/2008 4:15:32 PM
Why does every activist stand in front of Planned Parenthood? When women try to do the right thing? Prevention. Being responsible, the whole argument doesn't make any sense then. You are whores if you get pregnant, but if you try everything so this doesn't happen your still wrong? Make up your minds, or shut up about it. Make it easier for unwanted children adopted, stop screaming about and do something.
-
Posted By: joelpalmer @ 11/09/2008 3:14:22 PM
If Catholics want to ban abortion, it is relatively straightforward. Pass a law in every state that defines murder as the killing of a fetus. Then, be prepared to seek the prosecution, for first-degree premeditated murder against every woman and doctor who elect this procedure, inluding victims of rape and incest as young as 11 years old.
Be also prepared to build some very large prisons.
-
Posted By: joelpalmer @ 11/09/2008 3:09:06 PM
I would like to hear any possible justification for the policy of forcing a pregant girl of say 12 years (prognat by incest or rape) to carry a foetus to term.
There is NONE; Luntics like Sarah Palin are free to carry a defective foetus or to pressure their very immature 17 year old daughter to carry a pregancncy as a result of careless intercourse. But stay the hell out of other peoples lives for the love of whatever. Republicans are supposed to be for small government; how come they are for big government when it comes to sex, procreation, marriage and other personal matters?
-
Posted By: joelpalmer @ 11/09/2008 3:04:18 PM
This is just more obeisance to religion. All religions are fairy tales; there is no god and we waste time giving any respect whatsoever to the "positions" of religious figures. They are patent frauds to begin with. No priest/pope has anything resembling any authority or experrtise to speak of matters concerning sex, marriage, family, abortion or anything related to procreation; they don't even play the game
-
Posted By: MegaDeath @ 11/05/2008 8:50:02 AM
Osama will settle the abortion law by installing gas chambers and other torture devices to all women who want kids. This will be his way of controlling the population here in the country. Osama's version of birth control.
-
Posted By: catjax @ 11/05/2008 11:07:21 AM
What a stupid statement.
-
Posted By: r2626 @ 11/09/2008 2:58:46 PM
Don't you expect stupid statements from republicans?
-
-
Posted By: liberaldemocratwoman @ 11/05/2008 10:25:31 AM
Wow...I think you get the award for the most narrowed minded stretch of the imagination....and uneducated statement. Congratulations!
-
-
Posted By: baybay @ 11/05/2008 8:57:17 AM
CONGRATULATIONS AMERICA!
You've just elected the first black president to support BABY MURDER!-
Posted By: r2626 @ 11/09/2008 2:57:29 PM
Wacko!
-
Posted By: Yuseff @ 11/05/2008 9:09:07 AM
He's also one hell of a basketball player!
GO OBAMA!
GO OBAMA!
-
-
Posted By: sueznewz @ 11/09/2008 2:43:10 PM
As a Catholic that had an unplanned pregnancy in 1978, I knew the final decision was with me, no matter what the law was.... I could find a way to have an abortion or not. I chose not too, not because of the law or what our President thought of abortion but what I believed was the right thing for me to do. It will never be about human laws, it is between a woman and her conscience and how she will face her decisions and God. So quit worrying about the governments views... personal, moral decisions in this case are all that matter. My parents raised me to do that "right" thing, they didn't leave it up to the government to teach me how to be a moral person.
-
Posted By: bookhound-a @ 11/09/2008 8:04:21 AM
These "pro-life" politicians don't really care about ending or reducing abortion. The republicans have been in power for 8 years with a stacked supreme court and 6 years with a republican congress. Why is abortion still legal? Because what would they use to mobilize their base otherwise? John McCain wanted to choose two "pro-choice" running mates (one being Joe Lieberman) but his advisers wouldn't let him b/c it would anger his base. McCain consistently voted against bills that would reduce abortion such as healthcare for uninsured mothers and children, higher minimum wage,etc. Bush vetoed a bill that expanded health care for children. Aren't born children valuable also? It doesn't cost republicans anything to claim to be "pro-life" but when they have to fund programs that enable women to afford to keep their babies, they don't put their money where there mouths are. Hypocrites!
-
Posted By: r2626 @ 11/09/2008 2:39:15 PM
Well said.
-
-
Posted By: onlinenow @ 11/09/2008 2:15:09 PM
Here is the hard reality - nobody gets on this body, nobody gets in this body without my complete consent because my God gave me and only me rights to this body. What your God wants is of no concern to me.
Cathy
-
Posted By: onlinenow @ 11/09/2008 2:12:01 PM
Here is the hard reality - nobody gets on this body , nobody gets in this body and, other than me, nobody has rights to this body without my complete consent according to my God. My God gave me total rights to this body. What your God wants is of no concern to me.
-
Posted By: tlah @ 11/09/2008 2:05:11 PM
If you think that people who are pro-life will settle for taking care of the living, you totaslly miss the point. Its like Germans during WW2 protesting about the lack of adequate child care for Jewish children while they couldn't kill them quick enough in the death camps. This is the our holocaust. We will look back on this time like we do on Slavery. The Black community is 13% of the population and has over 70% of the abortions. Its the KKK dream child care program for black expectant mothers. Tim
-
Posted By: tlah @ 11/09/2008 2:04:05 PM
Hi,
If you think that people who are pro-life will settle for taking care of the living, you totaslly miss the point. Its like Germans during WW2 protesting about the lack of adequate child care for Jewish children while they couldn't kill them quick enough in the death camps. This is the our holocaust. We will look back on this time like we do on Slavery. The Black community is 13% of the population and has over 70% of the abortions. Its the KKK dream child care program for black expectant mothers. Tim
T
people
-
Posted By: davidkingnj @ 11/09/2008 1:39:00 PM
I absolutely agree. Although I am pro-choice, I have many negative feelings about abortion itself. I've long felt that education and assistance are key to lowering abortion rates. Condemnation and legislation are not the solution to the problem, they are just the most lazy ways to be critical of the issue. Also, as it has well been pointed out, by outlawing abortion we will only force these procedures "underground", and that poses an even far greater threat.
It has been my experience that most of these pro-life people have an unbearable air of self righteousness, and are completely incapable of any middle ground; it's perceivably why they have made no inroads on the abortion issue in years, and why they will continue to make no inroads. It seems to me that even gays and lesbians do more for the pro-life movement by providing needed adoptions for those who may not want their unborn children. Time for the religious-right to take a good hard and long look into the mirror.
Report Abuse
Enter comments if any for reporting abuse
- Black Friday should unleash pent-up demand. Analyst Bill DreherNYT
- The task is to restore our conservative bona fides James Bopp Jr. on a 10-pt GOP checklist NYT
- Twenty five years feels right in my bones and right in my spirit. Oprah on ending her showCST
- It’s going to be a holy war Orrin Hatch on debate over the Senate health billNYT
- The nation and the world will see him for the coward he is Holder, on trying KSMAP
Discuss