Does anyone care about abortion anymore?

[WaDE'05 8]

I don't post much at all in this section. I honestly believe that our fore fathers created sucha great governmental system that even politicians could run it. As far as political allegiance goes I consider myself a distributist. I'd be shocked if anyone actually knows what that is. In most elections and debates, I subscribe to G.K. Chesterton's maxim: ""The Party System was founded on one national notion of fair play. It was the notion that folly and futility should be fairly divided between both sides." However, I find it very hard to believe that anyone within thier right minds would support a pro-choice candidate. I am not voting for George W. Bush. I am, however, voting against John Kerry, and I am not planning on wasitng my vote. (you figure it out) My question to all those who are in favor of a Kerry presidency is....Have you ever seen a 24 week old aborted "fetus"? If that site does not bother you in the least, then by all means vote for Kerry. To me this is an election between two candidates:

1. A man that supports state sponsored homicide.

2. Anyone else.

Why can we overlook such an obvious lapse in judgement?

Why does this not seem to be and issue in this election?

National Right to Life Council

Pictures of Aborted "Fetal Tissue" for any democrat brave enough to face the truth.

[LegalEagle 22]

I don't think it is any of my business or the government's business what you do with your body and your fetus. I would want you to make that decision based on health, religious and moral considerations. Should you decide to preserve or abort the pregnancy is the concern of the pregnant woman and her sperm donor.

Should the pregnant woman choose to abort the pregnancy, she should be able to get proper medical care and be free of criminal prosecution. Otherwise she will obtain an abortion in a back room in a procedure performed by a non-licensed practioner with surgical tools such as a clothes hanger. There is a great chance that both the fetus and the mother will be lost.

You don't hear much about this in the campaign because more voters are pro-choice than pro-life, and the Republicans are so close to having enough support to win re-election that they don't want to lose undecided voters over this issue.

G. W. has allowed numerous executions which he had the authority to stop. I'd guess that Kerry has never performed an abortion. Kerry may have killed someone in Viet Nam. G. W. started some wars knowing that Americans and many others including innocent civilians would be killed. Although I disagree with the Iraq War, I support the Afganistan War.

People live, people die. Some die old, some young. Some suffer, some pass quickly. Death is a part of life. We tend to place a great importance on life, but Christians should be uncomfortable in life and obtain rewards in heaven. An unborn child is free of sin. Although technically the fetus has not accepted salvation, if it has a soul, my money would say the soul goes right to heaven. From a religious viewpoint it is a shortcut to heaven. No harm, no foul. Let those who make the decision as to pregnancy weigh and live with the consequences of their decisions. Don't let a federal government criminalize them.

[jaydubb121 22]

My guess is that unless the aforementioned fetuses served their country during the Vietnam war, you won't hear about them during this campaign.

[WaDE'05 8]

Legal, my first question is did you have the guts to look at the pictures of aborted "fetuses"? If so how do you rationalize these.

I have also found some grave fallacies and misconceptions in your argument.

I don't think it is any of my business or the government's business what you do with your body

This is exactly my point. The government has no right to sanction the termination of a body....i.e. a fetus which at 11 weeks has a heartbeat, head, shoulders, knees, and toes, and is a emitting brainwaves.

I would want you to make that decision based on health, religious and moral considerations

95% of women who have had abortions indicate "social reasons" as opposed to health reasons or even rape or incest for their abortion.

Otherwise she will obtain an abortion in a back room in a procedure performed by a non-licensed practioner with surgical tools such as a clothes hanger. There is a great chance that both the fetus and the mother will be lost.

This is a common misconception. The truth is that the year before Roe v. Wade only 37 women and their babies died as a result of "back alley abortions"

You don't hear much about this in the campaign because more voters are pro-choice than pro-life, and the Republicans are so close to having enough support to win re-election that they don't want to lose undecided voters over this issue.

Actually, surveys indicate that more than 65% of american voters support abortion for 3 or less reasons: Rape, Incest, physical harm to the mother, which as aforementioned only accoutns for 5% of all abortions in America.

G. W. has allowed numerous executions which he had the authority to stop.

This is a perfect example of the logical fallacy known as the fallacy of relevance. I asked nothing about the death penalty, which is a matter of states rights. Abortion is legally practiced nationwide. I do not know how many people have been executed for crimes they have committed since Roe v. Wade, but I'd bet the farm that the number is less than 40million (which is the number of truly innocent lives that have been lost since RvW).

By the way, I am also opposed to the death penalty, but see abortion as a far greater atrocity.

I'd guess that Kerry has never performed an abortion.

I'd agree with you. He has also said that he does not agree with abortion, himself (being Catholic) but defends the right of a woman to chose. To this I respond with a quote from the Talmud, "The deepest spots in Hell are reserved for those, who in times of great moral conflict choose niether one side nor the other."

G. W. started some wars knowing that Americans and many others including innocent civilians would be killed. Although I disagree with the Iraq War, I support the Afganistan War.

Once again, you have resorted to the fallacy of relevance. Comparing abortion and war is like comparing apples and volkswagens.

We tend to place a great importance on life, but Christians should be uncomfortable in life and obtain rewards in heaven.

Though Christ Himself was a "man of sorrows" he still lead a life that would lead us to believe that He deeply enjoyed the world and people around him (after all it is His creation). The Pslams say that "the Lord delights in the welfare of his servant." and the Apostle Paul reminds us to "rejoice always, in all things with a thankful heart." Do yu really think that God's plan for humanity is to be "uncomfortable" in the world while we toil away for the spoils of heaven?

An unborn child is free of sin.

Bad theology aside, this is ridiculous. So you mean to say that is alright to kill someone as long as they are completely innocent?

Although technically the fetus has not accepted salvation, if it has a soul, my money would say the soul goes right to heaven. From a religious viewpoint it is a shortcut to heaven. No harm, no foul.

Your theological profundity amazes me once again. Thank you, Mr. Thomas Aquinas. Now that I know all unborn babies go to heaven, I'll just have to crack all their little skulls like egg shells as they start to come out of the womb. After all I would love to ensure them the quickest, safest path to Heaven possible. And hey even if they don't go to heaven they'll still get that money you owe them from losing that bet, right?

Let those who make the decision as to pregnancy weigh and live with the consequences of their decisions.

This is another misconception. We believe that the only victim in abortion is the unborn child. In fact, it is very well documented that the mother suffers immensly as well. This is a phenomena known as PAS (post abortion sydrome). Those who suffer from it deal with symptoms such as depression, anxiety, insomnia, self mutilation, and in some cases, attempted suicide. Statistics show that women who have had abortions are 36 times more likely to committ suicide than women who haven't.

I assume, you are a lawyer, Legal. If so, I would expect a much better argument from you.

And I ask you once more.........do you have the guts to look at those pictures?

[Jenny AU-92 0]

G. W. has allowed numerous executions which he had the authority to stop.

109106[/snapback]

A common fallacy. The Governor in the State of Texas does not have the power to stop executions. He can only delay them for 30 days. The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles has the power to grant everything from a 120-day reprieve, to a commuted sentence, to a full, unconditional pardon.

As for abortion, it does matter for me, but I see it as a state by state matter, not as one over which the President has much sway. A Presidential candidate's opinion on abortion has no bearing on my support for or against him or her. Now a Governor - that is a different matter.

[WaDE'05 8]

As for abortion, it does matter for me, but I see it as a state by state matter, not as one over which the President has much sway. A Presidential candidate's opinion on abortion has no bearing on my support for or against him or her. Now a Governor - that is a different matter.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the next president will be able to apppoint the next Supreme Court Justice. Kerry will obviously try to appoint a pro choice justice, while Bush will attempt to appoint a pro life justice. The Supreme Court is the only body capable of overturning the Roe v. Wade decision. So, to me it seems that abortion should be a key issue in this election.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

As for abortion, it does matter for me, but I see it as a state by state matter, not as one over which the President has much sway. A Presidential candidate's opinion on abortion has no bearing on my support for or against him or her. Now a Governor - that is a different matter.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the next president will be able to apppoint the next Supreme Court Justice. Kerry will obviously try to appoint a pro choice justice, while Bush will attempt to appoint a pro life justice. The Supreme Court is the only body capable of overturning the Roe v. Wade decision. So, to me it seems that abortion should be a key issue in this election.

109220[/snapback]

I know that the Pres will be appointing at least one of not more justices, but here is why I still do not see this being as big an issue in a Pres election:

- The Pres may appoint justices, but they still have to get thru the Senate with enough votes to be approved. There is no way the Republicans are going to pick up enough seats to have that kind of a majority in the Senate, esp considering that not all Republicans are also pro-life. SO no nominee who was ADAMANTLY pro-life would ever make it thru confirmation. That is one obstacle.

- In order for a case to actually be brought before the Court, they have to make their way through a very slow state and lower level appellate level. It takes years to run this gauntlet. And a case to overturn RVW would have to be some kind of direct challenge to the constitutionality of the RVW decision, and that would take a specific set of circumstances. Yes, the Court gets final say, but who knows who would be president and who would actually be sitting on the court by the time a case finally made it up there.

- The President himself has very little control other than appointing justices and vetoing any bill that might actually manage to get its way thru Congress. Even with a majority in both Houses, neither party is going to be willing to try and overturn the apple cart on an issue that is so divisive even within the rank and file of each party - there are pro-life Democrats and pro-choice Repubs, and the vast majority of the citizenry of this country are also split down the middle. And what about people like me who are pro-life except for compelling medical reasons - we are an exception to BOTH those rules. Who do we vote for?

So I don't see this as a national issue that should affect a Presidential campaign.

[WaDE'05 8]

I'll agree no one wants to touch this issue with a ten foot pole. I think that's what bothers me so much about it. I understand what you are saying about the house and senate both allowing a pro life justice. That was my missuse of terms. If Bush is elected, he will TRY to appoint a "strict construcionist" justice. There was a ruling in 1992 that upheld Roe v. Wade. I am just waiting for a similar set of circumstances to appear again. Who ever is appointed will be there for a long time. The average retiring Justice serves 28 years before resigning. If Kerry is elected, the only candidates he will try to appoint will be loose constructionist. If Bush is elected the only candidates he will try to appoint will be strict costructionist. It seems to me that given the fact that 1-3 justices will retire during the term of the next president, abortion would be a hot topic. But, considering its the only issue I really vote on I would assume as much.

[AURaptor 1,125]

Abortion is a non issue for me.

[LegalEagle 22]

It's a non-issue with me. Send me your pics. It's kind of disgusting that you would gather and keep such photos.

As to St. Thomas Aquinas, in philosophy class I proved his most touted thesis to be nothing more than a convoluted tautology. Hey, I got an "A"! *grin*

I stand on my earlier statements and the logic that supports it. I do not have the time to pry open a closed mind.

I follow the "judge not" line.

We are all sinners. Only one sin is greater than any other. Killing is not it.

[LegalEagle 22]

G. W. has allowed numerous executions which he had the authority to stop.

109106[/snapback]

A common fallacy. The Governor in the State of Texas does not have the power to stop executions. He can only delay them for 30 days. The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles has the power to grant everything from a 120-day reprieve, to a commuted sentence, to a full, unconditional pardon.

Well, here's what I found Jenny:

TEXAS CLEMENCY PROCEDURES

1) A death warrant is signed by a state court judge setting the

execution date.

2) A clemency petition is filed with the Texas Board of Pardons

and Paroles by the defence on behalf of the prisoner.

3) Members of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles review the

petition and cast a vote on whether to recommend a commutation,

conditional pardon or reprieve. They also decide whether or not a

hearing will be convened on the clemency petition to hear

testimony from witnesses.

4) If a majority of the Board votes for a commutation, the Board

recommends to the Governor that clemency be granted.

5) The Governor has full discretion to either accept or reject

the Board's recommendation on clemency.

6) The Board has no independent power to grant relief, but can

only make recommendations to the Governor.

Powers of the Governor

** If the Board votes against clemency, the Governor has no

independent power to commute the sentence. The Governor can only

commute a death sentence upon the recommendation of the Board of

Pardons and Paroles.

** Under Texas law, the Governor has the power to grant a

condemned prisoner one 30-day stay of execution. No

recommendation from the Board is necessary for the Governor to

take this action. Any further executive reprieves require

approval by the majority of the Board, who then make the

recommendation to the Governor.

** The Governor may formally request that the Board consider

convening a full clemency hearing to review the petition of a

condemned prisoner.

Other Sources of a Stay of Execution

** Aside from the one-time stay that the Governor may grant,

both the Board and a court of law can issue a stay of execution

at any time and for any duration.

As political reality is, my guess is that if the Governor sent word to the Board that he wanted them to recommend clemency, they would certainly do so. The Governor's wink which results in the Board's nod would free the Gov. to grant clemency.

[WaDE'05 8]

The pics are in the link of my original post. I can't look at them. But, I believe that they need to be seen. And, my Thomas Aquinas remark was a joke. I was referring to you as Thomas (because of your amazing theological effort). However, I am sure you tore his theology apart in your undergrad work. Congrats.

[WaDE'05 8]

I stand on my earlier statements and the logic that supports it. I do not have the time to pry open a closed mind.

The logic that supports your statements is nothing more than a house of cards. Good luck standing on it.

And as for my closed mind.....I am quite proud of it.

"[some men believe] that the object of opening the mind is simply opening the mind. Whereas I am incurably convinced that the object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid."

--GK Chesterton

[DKW 86 7,433]

It's a non-issue with me.  Send me your pics.  It's kind of disgusting that you would gather and keep such photos. 

Red Herring 101, Are you a for real lawyer? So let me get this straight, your side is so disgusting that anyone that calls you on it must be by definition even more disgusting than you? Man, is that a Freudian-Neitzschean Slip or what?

As to St. Thomas Aquinas, in philosophy class I proved his most touted thesis to be nothing more than a convoluted tautology.  Hey, I got an "A"!  *grin*

Ah, the old "Someone Somewhere in Liberal-most Academia approves of my thesis that is basically rim job of their own twisted logic" ploy. Heck LE, I got an 'A' on my thesis on Feminism at AU. I wrote the most over the top Tripe and Schlock imaginable out of shear frustration with a Prof. and what do you know....It worked.

I stand on my earlier statements and the logic that supports it.  I do not have the time to pry open a closed mind.

So anyone anywhere has the right to end the existence of another living being with different DNA? If I choose to remove my tonsils, they are my tonsils. They have my DNA and therefore they are indisputably mine. If a woman ends the life of a baby, a child with different DNA than hers, that is okay?

Let's speak of partial birth abortion as well, I have never gotten the whole head out the vaginal tract idiocy of the Left anyway. Our two kids were both C-Sections. It must follow that they are not really human in the eyes of the Left. Actually the total lack of Logic just baffles anyone with an Open Mind.

I follow the "judge not" line.

Sir, there are 66 books in the Scriptures. Following one line makes even less sense then studying a recipe for cake, chossing an egg and then callng that egg a cake by itself. You have chosen to "follow" only part of one verse out of 31,101 verses which is itself taken out of context?

We are all sinners.  Only one sin is greater than any other.  Killing is not it.

109293[/snapback]

The attorney got one right. What was that ole saying about a stopped watch? Even a stopped watch was right twice a day.....

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

WaDE'05......abortion is a tough issue but I generally agree with you and I am essentially pro-life.

Legal......if the gov't shouldn't regulate what a woman does with her body, then why are there laws against using drugs, etc. Why shouldn't a person be allowed to use/swallow whatever they want without gov't interference. In the case of drugs, no one is killed. In an abortion, someone is killed and that's murder. I don't believe a woman has the right to murder anyone. I'm not suggesting legalizing drugs, just using them to make a point.

[AUBURNTIGERFAN 0]

Just let the woman decide what she wants to do!!!!

[WaDE'05 8]

  Just let the woman decide what she wants to do!!!! 

I believe I've made my stance clear that there is atleast one other person that should be involved in that decision, however, it will be 3 or 4 years before he/she is able to voice their opinion on the matter.

Regardlessof the fact that the "supreme" court has ruled it a "woman's choice" for the time being, that doesn't mean that I should have to pay for a woman's decision with my tax dollars as Kerry is asking me to do.

[DKW 86 7,433]

Just let the woman decide what she wants to do!!!!

110069[/snapback]

Why cant she be allowed to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR HER SEXUALITY AND NOT GET PREGNANT?

Some versions of the pill are now 99.3% effective. Why do woman choose not to use them?

Why do idiot men refuse to wear condoms?

What about diaphragms, IUDs, etc. What about just keeping your pants zipped.

What about engaging in some other act that cannot lead to pregnancy, choose from a long list.

Why is it that any decrease in the numbers of Abortions is never looked at as a good thing, but only the loss of women's rights?

50% of those killed in the womb are women, why dont they get their rights?

[SLAG-91 1,483]

I wouldn't go so far as to say that abortion is a non-issue for me, but it is not the one thing that is going to make or break someone as far as who I vote for. I would hope people would make the choice to keep the child, but if not, they'll get to answer for it at a later date.

[CShine 0]

Abortion is about sex. One side wants wide open sexual freedom and the other side wants to use an abortion ban to dictate sexual morality in your bedroom. I find both viewpoints disgusting.

[tiger88 934]

Just let the woman decide what she wants to do!!!!

110069[/snapback]

Why cant she be allowed to TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR HER SEXUALITY AND NOT GET PREGNANT?

Some versions of the pill are now 99.3% effective. Why do woman choose not to use them?

Why do idiot men refuse to wear condoms?

What about diaphragms, IUDs, etc. What about just keeping your pants zipped.

What about engaging in some other act that cannot lead to pregnancy, choose from a long list.

110092[/snapback]

Unfortunately irresponsible people get horny too.

[BustemBigBlue 177]

Life begins at conception, abortion is murder. Period. Thats how I see it. Either your pro life or pro baby muder.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

His words:

How can they "morally justify" all the above while claiming to represent God? They simply repackage and "sell Christianity" as a "personal savior insurance policy for the soul" while using the "elegant extra features" of Christianity to divert attention AWAY from following God's commandment of love our neighbors as ourselves. Their "gospel" is essentially a gospel of selfishness, and as Jesus pointed out, we can "recognize them by their fruits."

http://www.onesalt.com/p0000582.htm

Never Underestimate the Willingness of a Republican to Lie (Aug 04)

A lot of lies have been circulating though our nation's news media lately, but in this article we'll primarily examine the impact of religious lies. On both sides (Democrat and Republican) there are many who claim (and perhaps even believe) that "God is our side" and that those on the other side are "evil". One right-wing columnist, Ann Coulter, even referred to the Democratic Convention in Boston as "the Spawn of Satan." How do we sort all this out? Jesus Christ answered that in Matt 22:35-40 (NKJ)

Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" Jesus said to him," 'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' "This is the first and great commandment. "And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' "On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."

My words:

It doesn't matter what the state does that truly affects our relationship with God. God looks at the heart of the person and no what someone else does. I find it really amusing to see so many pseudo-christians worried about what someone else does with their own bodies and fetus. It's going to be a shocker when they go before the God, not Jesus, and hear God say, "Depart from me, ye workers of iniquity. I never knew you." :huh: What really matters is not how much control (which BTW is not love) christian have over others, but the influence they have on them. Don't you get it? Control is control, not love. And, you can claim all day long that the reason our country is in the shape it's in because of our sins against God's Law, when in fact the reason we are in this shape is because satan controls the world and these things must pass. "On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets."

His words:

2. Also, for the past three decades, America's so-called "Christian Right" organizations (a.k.a. "evangelicals", "fundamentalists", etc.) has been drumming up donations by inspiring fear and falsely claiming to represent God while teaching violations of God's commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. As I have shown in earlier articles on this web site (www.onesalt.com), "Christian Right" preachers have also been using God's name in vain by claiming to represent Him while teaching instead various doctrines of the ideology of "national sovereignty." Furthermore, they have promoted wars (the war in Iraq) and international anarchy by opposing the rule of law as embodied in the United Nations and the International Criminal Court. Then they have the nerve to promise their followers that they will be scooped up to "meet Christ in the air" (a.k.a. the "Rapture") just before the consequences of the international anarchy that they have been promoting finally hits home and wipes out the rest of us. Some of them even seem to be looking forward with glee to the "destruction of most of mankind followed by the Second Coming of Christ." God's commandment to love our neighbor as ourselves is conspicuously missing from such teachings. But that doesn't seem to bother them, and they have gotten away with it by teaching their followers to put their faith in the authority of "religious experts" rather than relating God's guiding principles of truth and love to what they can see and hear with their own eyes and their own ears. Millions of American voters have been conditioned by their right-wing religious leaders to "blindly" put their faith in the opinions of "religious experts" and symbols of authority (like the President) no matter how dishonest they may be. That's why so many of them still support Bush. The "Religious Right" leaders themselves have been supporting Bush because he promises to send tax dollars in their direction, and because he CLAIMS (perhaps dishonestly) to side with their anti-abortion and anti-gay "shield issues."

http://www.preteristarchive.com/Preterism/...-todd_p_03.html

"Christ was authorized to declare the change of this contractual relationship, because "to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ" (Gal. 3:16). Christ is the heir of the promises, and the only way to become a 'joint-heir with Christ' (Rom. 8:17) of this same promise, Jew or Gentile, is by being "born of the Spirit". Romans 9:8 clarifies this by declaring that "they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." In other words, there is no kingdom for the Israelites after the flesh post-AD70. To put it another way, all promises to the nation of Israel after the flesh were fulfilled (cf. Josh. 21:43-45; I Ki. 8:56), and all others were only redeemable in Jesus Christ, the "heir of all things" (Heb. 1:2)."

"Therefore, when we see any promises given to O.T. Israel, in this case the promise of an everlasting possession of land (Gen. 15:7; 17:8), we know that they were either completely fulfilled, or they were initially promised to Jesus Christ (Gal. 3:8,16), therefore, they are only redeemable in Jesus Christ, and specifically through the body thereof (Eph 2:16-22, 2 Cor. 1:20)."

http://www.onesalt.com/p0000576.htm

The "slippery slope" that inevitably leads to mass killings and totalitarianism starts with a willingness to tolerate lies that violate God's commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves (without placing restrictions on our definition of "neighbor"). In spite of the blood that Jesus would visualize on George W. Bush's hands, unlike Bush, Jesus would never advocate killing anybody to solve the problem. Instead, Jesus would solve the problem by exposing his misconduct to "the Light of Day" (i.e. God's guiding principles of truth and love as summarized in Matt 22:37-40). This is God's way to accomplish peace and democracy. Bush's "might makes right" beliefs and practices not only follow the teachings of Satan rather than God, they have also proven (ultimately) throughout history to be self-defeating (as happened for the Germans and Japanese in World War II and the US in Vietnam, for example).

http://www.onesalt.com/p0000198.htm

You may be saying to yourself, "Telling the truth is easy, so what's the big deal about that?" Remember Dr. Charles Stanley above pacing back in forth in front of an American flag while misleading his listeners regarding what it means to be a true Christian? He was in fact using God's name in vain by falsely implying that flag worshipping is compatible with the teachings of Jesus Christ. Jesus would NEVER have taught his followers to worship flags (or the nation states that they represent), because that would violate the first two of the Ten Commandments as well as BOTH of God's two most fundamental commandments as summarized in Matthew 22:37-40. Many early Christians chose to die rather than to worship such things. Flag worshipping is a form of Satanism that has been used over the centuries to "morally justify" just about every sin you can possibly image! But have you ever seen ANY of our nation's TV Evangelists point that out? To the contrary, many of them (Pat Robertson and Van Impes for example) have been among our nation's leading "apostles" of flag worshipping [promoting loyalty to "national sovereignty" while claiming to represent God]. Those who claim to represent Jesus Christ while teaching the OPPOSITE of what Jesus would teach are in effect "antichrists", are they NOT?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Unfortunately irresponsible people get horny too.

110483[/snapback]

True but they still have to accept the consequences that may result. Cocaine addicts get a craving too (as in horny in the case of sex) but if they get caught they get busted. Yet a woman who won't take responsibility for her baby and commits murder goes off free.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Unfortunately irresponsible people get horny too.

True but they still have to accept the consequences that may result. Cocaine addicts get a craving too (as in horny in the case of sex) but if they get caught they get busted. Yet a woman who won't take responsibility for her baby and commits murder goes off free.

110652[/snapback]

Maybe she'll get away with it here, but that is only as long as her flesh lasts, after that the judgement. Control is not love. As long as it doesn't affect you directly you have no rights. I know I went through that crap. A father, in or out of wedlock, has no rights to an unborn fetus. And, neither does government, as the fetus is still in the possession of the mother, therefore it is considered private property. She, literally, owns that fetus, regardless of what government tries to do, it cannot, even in that stupid case in Florida, control the property of the mother. They can incarcerate her and take the child after birth, but that's it, and only applies if the mother is jeopardizing the life of the fetus (such as drug use, etc.).

If the abortion issue is the only reason one votes Republican, then they have bigger problems than they are willing to admit. And, they are delusional. If a leader lies, that makes he, or she, a LIAR. And, "liars shall not enter into the Kingdom of God." PERIOD.

http://www.oregonlive.com/weblogs/print.ss...rint021248.html

Colin Elliott

Tuesday, April 27, 2004

Christians and Bush

It is finally time to write this blog.

Preface: I would ask those in the Christian and non-christian community to read this with an open mind. E-mail me with any questions or concerns.

George W. Bush is well known for his frequent use of biblical passages as well as Christian-esque language. This has led his detractors to suggest that he is a fundamentalist Christian bible-pounder, hell-bent on evangelizing the world and waging crusade-like wars on any who would not conform to his view. By the same token, there is now a base of support for the President that cites the same spiritual rhetoric, except they see him as a light bearer of all that is pure and good, a moral man, with godly convictions, fighting for "one nation under God." However, both of these views make one assumption that I believe is quite provably wrong -- that George W. Bush is a Christian.

First of all, Christians should know that there will be those who would use the name of Jesus to deceive and destroy:

Matthew 7:21-23 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. (See also Luke 6:46, Matthew 7:16-20)

However, many christians refuse to accept that someone they feel is "anointed" by God can be questioned. Yet there are plenty of examples of bad leaders, ungodly men, that were appointed by God who later showed their true selves. Saul, king David's predecessor who reigned in Israel over 3000 years ago is an example of this. He was appointed by God to lead Israel (1 Samuel 9:17) but was later rejected because he did not obey God (1 Samuel 15:26). Yet even after he was rejected, he refused to give up power, though God rejected him. He even asked the prophet Samuel to appear in a charade to make the people still believe that he was anointed by God (1 Samuel 5:30-31). Saul later became so power-hungry that he pursued David (whom God anointed after him) in order to kill him. Saul died a pitiful death on his own sword, rejecting God even until the end.

I am not arguing that Bush has done these things, I am merely trying to open my reader's minds to see that it is quite possible for those appearing as "God's anointed" to actually be liars, deceivers, manipulators and lust-driven men. George Bush is not exempt from this reality, nor are pastors, teachers, leaders or lay people. Even Satan used scripture to tempt Jesus in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1-11).

http://www.oregonlive.com/weblogs/print.ss...rint021248.html