nebula Posted January 15, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.93 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted January 15, 2006 From what I've heard on the news, it seems the Dems in Congress want to base their decision on whether or not to confirm Alito (sp?) to the Supreme Court is whether or not he intends to uphold Roe v. Wade. (They want to make sure Roe is safeguarded in the Supreme Court.) Complaining about Christians basing voting decisions on the abortion issue? Sheesh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Durnan Posted January 15, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 121 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 2,782 Content Per Day: 0.36 Reputation: 49 Days Won: 1 Joined: 06/14/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted January 15, 2006 "Pro-Choice" - really "Pro-PARTIAL-Choice" (in that fathers, babies, hospital staff, tax-paying public have no choice in the matter) is a jaundiced euphemism for the "right" to murder an INNOCENT member of the same human genre as the mother-to-be for the sake of convenience. Capital punishment deals with convicted & found GUILTY murderers. BIG difference, no? Anyone who takes the life of an innocent person should be prepared to forfeit his/her own. BTW, would you kindly take a moment to give the full name (and trial State) where an innocent person was found to have been executed. Kudos. THANX to Gov. Schwarzenegger for his excellent decisions re convicted killers! GOD BLESS AMERICA! http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 To Shiloh and Yod, How lucky you are to find a place where you are allowed to post personal attacks against someone to bolster your position. I made no such personal on either of you, I made a post on a subject and your responses were to first degrade me THEN speak to my post. You are fortunate indeed that the moderators allow you to get away with such a... oh, how was it put to me... "caustic attitude" is the term used if I remember correctly. Your attacks may pass the scrutiny of the moderators but they are not missed by the Lord. You were the one calling for "honesty." I am simply called attention to the rank hypocrisy coming from someone who so casually thinks that she can assign false values to our postion, when she has been here long enough to know better. You are the last one who needs to be tellin US to be honest. That is not a personal attack, it is just a level of HONESTY that you don't want to face up to. I personally do not advocate abortion soley on it's own merit. What I support is the right for a woman to control her own reproductive, social, biological and economic destiny. I believe that FORCING a woman (and or her family) into a position that she cannot control is against her rights to privacy and freedom. No one WANTS to have an abortion, it's not a fun thing or a pleasant experience but it should be a womans right to decide whether or not to have a baby at a certain point in her life. There are enough people on the planet, it's no longer necessary to be "fruitful and multiply". If a woman can't support a child because of economic or health reasons then forcing her from a bad position into a worse position is simply wrong. That is not the issue. This is not a debate about abortion, per se. The OP is concerned with the inability of most conservatives to reconcile all the money being spent on the Pro-Life cause, and such little in the way of results to show for it. I am not going to hijack the thread into a debate on abortion. Oh and BTW the "over-crowed planet" argument has already been debunked. Now, on to your arguments. Shiloh, I agree that the necessity of LEGITIMATE war does indeed result in the death of innocent people and this is unfortunate. The same type of argument then being that, abortion may sometimes be necessary, therefore legitimate. It's unfortunate that in that necessity an innocent life will be taken. So, it does not follow that being for war, is contradictory to a Pro-Life world view. As I demonstrated, you are trying to force together two issues that are totally dissimilar. As for the death penalty, this is a situation where we are in control of who is killed and therefore if a mistake is made then an innocent life is taken that could be prevented. The fact that humans are fallible means that we DO make mistakes. Is it your position that a few mistakes that could be prevented are a necessary evil to kill bad people when simply locking them up for life is safer and cheaper? Your position is weak. As I said, we are not perfect. The same kind of absurd argument could be made for not locking anyone up at all. Since we are fallible, should we have a criminal justice system at all?? Should we risk locking up an innocent man? Should we stop arresting people since we might make a false arrest??? If anyone's position is weak, it is yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest yod Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 To Shiloh and Yod, How lucky you are to find a place where you are allowed to post personal attacks against someone to bolster your position. I made no such personal on either of you, I made a post on a subject and your responses were to first degrade me THEN speak to my post. You are fortunate indeed that the moderators allow you to get away with such a... oh, how was it put to me... "caustic attitude" is the term used if I remember correctly. Your attacks may pass the scrutiny of the moderators but they are not missed by the Lord. I confess that I lost patience with your willingness to perpetuate lies a long ago. I personally do not advocate abortion soley on it's own merit. What I support is the right for a woman to control her own reproductive, social, biological and economic destiny. I believe that FORCING a woman (and or her family) into a position that she cannot control is against her rights to privacy and freedom. No one WANTS to have an abortion, it's not a fun thing or a pleasant experience but it should be a womans right to decide whether or not to have a baby at a certain point in her life. and this is an intellectually dishonest heap of doggy dung. I support a womans "reproductive rights" also. She has the choice to abstain from sex. If she makes a "mistake" in judgement then she is left with the consequences just like every other action has a consequence. If there wasn't a dead baby caused by an irresponsible "choice" it wouldn't be a big deal to me. If you or I decide to get drunk and then accidently run over a pedestrian resulting in a death we will be charged for that negligence. We had the "choice" not to engage in the behavior which caused this death. We will have to be responsible for our actions if we make the wrong choice. Why is it that the baby is not given a choice? How about the father? How about giving me the choice to not pay for it by means of government support using my tax money? Can you provide statistics to support that ascertion or is that simply what you believe? Has the truth ever influenced your opinion? Why would I waste time on someone who chooses to perpetrate lies when the truth is evident? Racism, lack of education, little to no economic opportunity (and yes some miniscule percentage of laziness) is what creates poverty which the welfare system then perpetuates. Get your facts straight. OK...give me some proof. I'd like to know why every other racial group can succeed in America? How is it that AFRICAN blacks can move to America and do just fine but blacks born in America (who subscribe to the liberal agenda) call each other "uncle Tom" if they start to succeed in our economic system? What about Asians? Hispanics? Why is it that they all seem to flourish...and without blaming whitey? Racism is a 2 way street that is being used by liberal politicians to keep the black community down. Environmental "whackos" produce socialism? do you know the definition of socialism? Obviously not. Get a clue and we'll discuss it. Endless flapping about a serious problem has yet to solve the problem, perhaps that's why the flapping is endless. Fix it and we can stop flapping or hearing about it. We've tried the Great Society. We've tried welfare. We've tried quota systems. You had a Democrat Congress for 50 years promising programs that would "fix" it and it only got worse. "The only charitible contributions the Dems make is to arts groups who think Jesus is jar of urine is "cool"" REALLY? Could you prove that ridiculous statement? I read in the New York Times early in December that the poor of Harlem are getting less and less from the city's liberals while "Charitable contributions" are up. The reason? Because the liberals who claim to "care" about them are raising money for the "arts" instead. It's a fact. If you want to know, the truth IS out there. You mean you went to these conventions with an open mind and this is what you walked away with? Let me look into my crystal ball... I think you saw exactly what you wanted to see - assuming of course that you even attended such conventions which seems unlikely given your position. I used to be a liberal Democrat. I know exactly what I'm talking about...and you know it too. I've been to both county and precinct level conventions for both parties. Again....open your eyes and the truth will set you free. Peace through strength? Hasn't EVER worked, The world has always been ruled by the aggresive use of force....since the very beginning. Oh yea...I forgot that liberals are all talk...and cowards in the face of evil. Don't worry...there are enough brave Americans fighting so the Kennedys and Kerrys have the freedom to publicly criticize them from their high horse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted January 16, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.93 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted January 16, 2006 From what I've heard on the news, it seems the Dems in Congress want to base their decision on whether or not to confirm Alito (sp?) to the Supreme Court is whether or not he intends to uphold Roe v. Wade. (They want to make sure Roe is safeguarded in the Supreme Court.) Complaining about Christians basing voting decisions on the abortion issue? Sheesh! But that's just the ramblings of a liberal press isn't it? Why would you believe them? I heard this on The Fox News Network. ** Speaking of welfare, I heard a presentation by a black/African American (whichever term you are supposed to use these days ) who worked herself out of the inner city life and lifestyle after having become a Christian. She gave a very good challenge. If taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor (the welfare system) is the way to fix the problem of poverty, why isn't it working? Or rather in her terms, "Is it working?" The black population has survived slavery, racism, the Depression, Jim Crow laws, etc with their families staying in tact! Now they have welfare to fend for them - and the families have fallen apart! Is this godly? In the Bible, it was the man with less who did nothing with the one talent given him who had his money given to the rich man (ten talents). And the man with the one talent who did nothing was called wicked and lazy! Calling on the government to take care of "social issues" is the wrong way to go! Biblically - and this was the greater challenge - we the Church should be taking care of the poor and needy through the Biblical principle of gleening. Gleening means a portion is set aside for the poor and needy - but the poor and needy have to wok in order to receive. Then she went on into different ways of how this could be accomplished, which would veer of the topic of this thread. But the point here, is that YES Christians should be more involved with taking care of the poor and the environment and all of that. BUT, it should be done at OUR level, not dumping money into DC to throw around. As for abortion and homosexuality, yes, we need to fight it on one-on-one grounds as well, BUT we can't keep allowing our country to make, support, and uphold anti-God rulings and law for which God will have to judge our nation for. Have you not read in the Scriptures how much God hates the slaying of ones child for selfish reasons and how much he hates homosexuality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catsmeow Posted January 16, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 439 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 7,315 Content Per Day: 0.93 Reputation: 356 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/21/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted January 16, 2006 Amazing, I think Lou Dobbs is about as liberal and biased as they get on CNN. He's definitely not pro-Christian or pro-conservative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catsmeow Posted January 16, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 439 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 7,315 Content Per Day: 0.93 Reputation: 356 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/21/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted January 16, 2006 The day will come, sooner than later, that there won't be enough working, taxpaying Americans to support the retirees and public assistant recipients--and who will be to blame when it's realized that millions upon millions of babies, who would have been taxpayers, were aborted? Hindsight's 20/20. (And this doesn't even touch on the illegal aliens coming into the U.S., taking jobs, not paying taxes, and having children which are on the welfare roles. That's a whole different, but huge, downfall.) Excellent point. For those who are Pro Abortion (let's call it what it is...abortion), let us remember that the children being aborted are the taxpayers who will fund YOUR social security. Scarey thought. If you kill off the next generation, who will support you when you're too old or sick to work? Most High: BEFORE I became a follower of Christ, I HAD an abortion. I'm ashamed beyond measure. If I could take it back, I would. I oppose abortion with everything that's in me. It's an evil that's so shameful, I can barely stand it. For those of us who've committed this evil, it's a hard burden to bear. I KNOW I'm not alone. I know other women did this when they were lost souls and didn't know better. To give women this option is tantamount to legalizing murder. For those who want to avoid murder, let them STOP having sex. Simple. Sex causes pregnancy. If people can't manage that...there's always birth control. Better that than to destroy an embyo. Pure and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted January 16, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.20 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted January 16, 2006 Most high, are you a Christian? I ask this because Biblically, Christians don't have rights to tout around. Yet, you keep saying a woman has a right over the life of her child....this is an anti-Christian stance. Thus, the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catsmeow Posted January 16, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 439 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 7,315 Content Per Day: 0.93 Reputation: 356 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/21/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted January 16, 2006 you keep saying a woman has a right over the life of her child....this is an anti-Christian stance. Thus, the question. Most Christians are opposed to the murder of the unborn. Also, Most High....it's not all that unusual to find many Christians who do oppose the death penalty. Death penalty is a controversial topic among believers but abortion isn't. We're all in agreement that the spilling of innocent blood is wicked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catsmeow Posted January 16, 2006 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 439 Topics Per Day: 0.06 Content Count: 7,315 Content Per Day: 0.93 Reputation: 356 Days Won: 0 Joined: 11/21/2002 Status: Offline Share Posted January 16, 2006 Amazing, I think Lou Dobbs is about as liberal and biased as they get on CNN. He's definitely not pro-Christian or pro-conservative. I guess that shows how wrong you are, eh? Uh, you didn't show anything. Dobbs is liberal, as are all the CNN crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts