Obama's Call to Renewal Address

[Emily~Anne]

Why ever would that not be a viable medical option? Yes, I know they implant 5-7 at a time. I am not suggesting they only implant one at a time. What I am saying, is rather than fertilze all 25 eggs, they can opt to fertilize a smaller number, making it more possible to be accountable to all of the embryos.

[Emily~Anne]

Ok, your number 25 is still a gross exzageration. http://www.pregnancy-info.net/infertility_...tilization.html

The total number of eggs harvested can vary depending on the clinic you are using

[georgesbluegirl]

He says all the "right" things. He pushes all the right buttons. What it all boils down to, in it's simplest terms however, which Butero has put so eloquently, much better than I will, is he talks a good talk, but where is the evidence of his walk? As a born-again, bible-believing, spirit-filled Christian, he should find abortion, any kind of abortion morally rephrehensible. But yet he openly says he is pro-choice. Abortion is murder. An unborn child, who has absolutely no say, and no choice in the matter is being killed, as if they are meaningless and they have no rights. I find it absolutely mind boggling that someone, in the commission of a crime, or through negligence in the case of an automobile accident can kill an un-born child and be tried for murder, but abortion is legal. Our country really has strayed far from it's moral roots when such things are possible.

It should not be possible for you to seperate your Christian values from your job performance. A politician who is also a Christian should have to divorce his or herself from their beliefs and convictions? Obama may be sincere in saying he is a Christian, but if he truly is one, he has a strange way of showing it, and he makes some choices, when it comes to abortion and his stance on gay marriage that would seem to indicate the opposite.

First off, if a Christian cannot be pro-choice, then they cannot be pro-IVF, and while in office must seek to outlaw it because it involves the destruction of tens of thousands of embryos a year. I certainly have not seen any politicians of either party introduce legislation to ban that though.

As to your other point. It is not a question of a Christian divorcing their beliefs while in office. Its a question of a Christian, or someone of any faith for that matter, using their office and its institutions to impose their personal faith upon others.

Finally, its insulting that the religious right implies, and sometimes just out and out says, that others that do not share their views are not Christian or less Christian. Mainline Protestants and Catholics don't go about telling Charismatics or Fundamentalist Christians that they are less Christian or not Christian because they might be young earth creationists, or because of their conservative religious beliefs, yet moderate and progressive Christians and Catholics hear that all the time from conservative and fundamentalist Christians. Just because someone has different views as to the role of government in a free society than you do does not in and of itself make them any less Christian than you are.

Nice try Forrest, but I'm not letting you get away with this. The embryos you speak of should not be destroyed. That is my position, however, they are not the same as the children killed by abortion. They have not developed to the point of having a body with a head, body, arms, legs, etc. That in itself makes it differen't. Next, the 3 democratic candidates for office not only support abortion, but they support infanticide, the killing of a child right before he or she would have been born. That is a huge difference from the embryos destroyed by IVF, so your comparison is ridiculous.

I am opposed to IVF if any embryos are destroyed, but I can clearly see the difference between them being destroyed, and the little babies killed during an abortion, and especially during a late term abortion. Again, the evidence is clear. Just check out the pictures I posted. Then if that is not enough, have a look at babies being destroyed during the first trimester and compare them to the embryos Forrest is speaking of. Anyone with a brain in their head could see that it is possible to believe no Christian could support a pro-choice candidate, yet not be opposed to IVF.

Not to take this too far from Barack Obama, but if you are saying that destroying an embryo is not the same as destroying a fetus at some stage of development, where do you draw the line? There isn't one exact moment in embryonic development when you suddenly go from a blob of cells to a body - the majority of organs/body parts aren't done developing in the sixth week.

[Guest]

Save America - Repent - Confess - Believe

Repent

I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance

Luke 15:7

Confess

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved

Romans 10:9

Believe

And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

John 11:26

-----------

God Inspired And Approved This Message

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works

2 Timothy 3:16-17

-----------

Pre, Mid Or Post Election

Obama, Hillary Or Alfred E. Neuman

We Pray With Thanksgiving And Assurance

I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting

1 Timothy 2:1-8

-----------

Get A Life Mate - Vote Neuman In '08

Alfred E. Neuman's Stance On The Land Of Freedom

"How come we choose from just two people for President, and fifty for Miss America?"

Alfred E. Neuman's Stance On World Government

"The U.N. is a place where governments opposed to free speech demand to be heard!"

Alfred E. Neuman's Stance On Welfare Funding

"Thank's to the new welfare bill, the question "Paper or plastic?" now refers to many American's sleeping arrangements!"

http://www.leedberg.com/mad/quotes/quotes.html

Sorry Brother Yod

I Needed A Bake From Election Mad-ness

-----------

Be Blessed Beloved Of The KING

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27

Love, Your Brother Joe

[nebula]

Thanks, Joe!

[georgesbluegirl]

He says all the "right" things. He pushes all the right buttons. What it all boils down to, in it's simplest terms however, which Butero has put so eloquently, much better than I will, is he talks a good talk, but where is the evidence of his walk? As a born-again, bible-believing, spirit-filled Christian, he should find abortion, any kind of abortion morally rephrehensible. But yet he openly says he is pro-choice. Abortion is murder. An unborn child, who has absolutely no say, and no choice in the matter is being killed, as if they are meaningless and they have no rights. I find it absolutely mind boggling that someone, in the commission of a crime, or through negligence in the case of an automobile accident can kill an un-born child and be tried for murder, but abortion is legal. Our country really has strayed far from it's moral roots when such things are possible.

It should not be possible for you to seperate your Christian values from your job performance. A politician who is also a Christian should have to divorce his or herself from their beliefs and convictions? Obama may be sincere in saying he is a Christian, but if he truly is one, he has a strange way of showing it, and he makes some choices, when it comes to abortion and his stance on gay marriage that would seem to indicate the opposite.

First off, if a Christian cannot be pro-choice, then they cannot be pro-IVF, and while in office must seek to outlaw it because it involves the destruction of tens of thousands of embryos a year. I certainly have not seen any politicians of either party introduce legislation to ban that though.

As to your other point. It is not a question of a Christian divorcing their beliefs while in office. Its a question of a Christian, or someone of any faith for that matter, using their office and its institutions to impose their personal faith upon others.

Finally, its insulting that the religious right implies, and sometimes just out and out says, that others that do not share their views are not Christian or less Christian. Mainline Protestants and Catholics don't go about telling Charismatics or Fundamentalist Christians that they are less Christian or not Christian because they might be young earth creationists, or because of their conservative religious beliefs, yet moderate and progressive Christians and Catholics hear that all the time from conservative and fundamentalist Christians. Just because someone has different views as to the role of government in a free society than you do does not in and of itself make them any less Christian than you are.

Nice try Forrest, but I'm not letting you get away with this. The embryos you speak of should not be destroyed. That is my position, however, they are not the same as the children killed by abortion. They have not developed to the point of having a body with a head, body, arms, legs, etc. That in itself makes it differen't. Next, the 3 democratic candidates for office not only support abortion, but they support infanticide, the killing of a child right before he or she would have been born. That is a huge difference from the embryos destroyed by IVF, so your comparison is ridiculous.

I am opposed to IVF if any embryos are destroyed, but I can clearly see the difference between them being destroyed, and the little babies killed during an abortion, and especially during a late term abortion. Again, the evidence is clear. Just check out the pictures I posted. Then if that is not enough, have a look at babies being destroyed during the first trimester and compare them to the embryos Forrest is speaking of. Anyone with a brain in their head could see that it is possible to believe no Christian could support a pro-choice candidate, yet not be opposed to IVF.

Not to take this too far from Barack Obama, but if you are saying that destroying an embryo is not the same as destroying a fetus at some stage of development, where do you draw the line? There isn't one exact moment in embryonic development when you suddenly go from a blob of cells to a body - the majority of organs/body parts aren't done developing in the sixth week.

Your post doesn't make any sense. First you claim there is no exact moment in embryonic development when you suddenly go from a blob of cells to a body, and then you make the argument that the majority of organs/ body parts aren't done developing in the sixth week. By your own statement, major changes take place. By your own statement, you must believe there is a difference between an embryo that hasn't been implanted, and a fully formed baby in the 9th month of pregnancy.

Even so, I agree with you that all human life is sacred, and therefore I am opposed to all abortions as well as the destruction of embryos. Since you feel like you do, you should be 100 percent pro-life, and not the personally opposed kind that most liberals claim to be. A civilized society shouldn't be allowing the murder of children.

The problem with people like Obama and Hillary is that they would allow a child who is fully developed to be murdered. There is no question with regard to their ability to live outside the womb. There is no question they have the ability to feel pain. When you slap a child on the bottom after he or she is born, they cry. How do you think a child feels having a needle incerted into the back of it's skull and then having it's brains sucked out? I don't believe an embryo before implantation can feel that, so that is a distinction. It doesn't mean I am in favor of the destruction of any human life, because I am not, but there is still a difference between what takes place with regard to IVF and late term abortions.

My phrasing was a little weird. What I was trying to get at was the question of when you would say abortion becomes, as you seem to imply it would be, more wrong. I think that it's a really complicated issue and I do see a difference between an embryo and a fully formed fetus. I was just confused about where you were drawing the line, and my "six weeks" statement was trying to get at the fact that the baby isn't recognizable as such, necessarily, for at least a significant part of the first trimester. I wasn't really opining either way.

[CellShade]

I love this speech. I think he brilliantly explores the nuances of being a person of faith working in the political realm of a pluralistic nation. Awesome.

Re: "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" - really? Jonathan Edwards? Really?

The key is the phrase, "person of faith." This is what liberals substitude Christianity for. True Christians actually believe we are supposed to allow our faith to change our attitudes and behavior. True Christians look at themselves as ambassadors for Christ in this world, and not just people taking up space. True Christians believe it is their responsibility to have a preserving effect on the nation's morals. "People of faith" don't.

They try to make the claim that their religion shouldn't interfere with how they govern. As such, they will support things completely anti-Christ in nature such as partial birth abortion and homosexual unions. They will claim personal opposition but refuse to do anything about it. They will put more emphasis on things like love of Mother Earth than concern for the life of a child. In other words, their faith is of no value. In some cases, they actually serve the devil rather than God. You can claim to trust in God, but when you vote for infanticide, you are serving your real master satan.

"But what I am suggesting is this - secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition."

And also:

"This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing."

In the case of partial birth abortion, I think that it should be obvious to all it is wrong, even secularists. What you have is a fully formed baby being delivered prematurely and then killed as it is being born. If things have gotten so bad in this country we can't see the wrong in that, we likewise shouldn't see the wrong in killing anyone. In other words, why have a law saying I can't kill a new born? Why have a law saying I can't kill a 2 year old? Why have a law saying I couldn't kill a grown up that is causing me problems? Based on your reasoning, I would have to say that all laws that are on the books that make murder illegal need to go, because they are based on my Biblical belief that we should not murder. If you don't think that is the case, then you should be able to see what is wrong with partial birth abortion, and why it is more than just a religious belief, but it should be morally reprehensible in any civilized society.

If you haven't done so Georgesbluegirl, check out this link. Look at the procedure taking place, and then tell me if you don't agree that this procedure is barbarick, and that no Christian could support it being legal. If you don't agree that is the case, then explain the difference between killing this child, and one who just came out of the womb entirely, or any other human being. Keep in mind that Obama, this "person of faith" supports this procedure being legal. Also keep in mind that it is never medically necessary to save the life of the Mother.

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA_Image...thers_Place.htm

When and where do we draw the line?

I agree with you.

Even an atheist friend of mine says that the Bible is worthy to follow it's ethics and rules. Because after all, we are still alive, only by God's grace, and by what He set as laws in the Bible.

God Bless