Michelle Obama: Finally Proud of America (it only took 44 years)

[Oh Hamburgers!]

A person who doesn't support welfare may support private charities to help the poor. In addition, we don't have poor people dying in America from starvation. There would be no reason for that to occur with all the churches we have. If I saw someone starving, I would give them something to eat. Killing animals is not in the same category as people, so it is a non-issue. Not supporting universal health care will likely save as many people as will die under the program. With such a plan comes waiting lines for needed services, and people being exluded for certain conditions they might have been able to get on their own. The difference when it comes to abortion is that babies are actually being murdered.

I'm glad to see you are rationalizing your opinions. I wouldn't really consider animals being a non-issue however, considering God calls us to take care of his creations, and alternately earth's wildlife (aside from using them for food etc). But that's besides the point. The point is, you've given reasons why my earlier statements needed to be fleshed out. So, now lets do the same thing with abortion.

Why do people abort? I would pray that "because they like to kill babies" is nonexistent on that list of reasons why. I've never heard of someone who aborted a child because they enjoyed ending their babies life. So there must be other reasons. A few that I can think of are: a woman being too young to take care of a child, a woman being too poor to support a child (or more children), pressure from family or friends to get rid of an unwanted child, or many other reasons depending on where you live (example: China and overpopulation).

We've covered some of the reasons why people do it (please note I am still generally opposed to it), and now lets look at some perceived benefits of abortion. Again, I'm just doing what you did with universal health care; stating why people might believe things should stay as they are.

1) Abortions aren't cheap, but they're certainly cheaper than raising a child. If a poor couple with 2 children are barely making ends meet as is, and the woman becomes pregnant with another child, the woman has a choice to make. She could either abort the baby and feasibly have enough money to support her 2 children, or she could raise the baby and be pushed over the brink in terms of having the funds to support 3 children. Rationalizing the situation from her perspective, it might be better to let one child be aborted in order to ensure a better life for her other 2 children, instead of raising 3 and risking them all.

2) Similar to #1, suppose a 15 year old girl becomes pregnant. Now, she doesn't have the life experience, or the money, to take care of a child. The child would certainly be disadvantaged from the very beginning, and would not have a very good childhood. Not only that, but the mother would have to "grow up" very quickly, and her life choices would be sharply cut as well now that she would have to take care of a child so early. Perhaps her family would rather have her abort it, have her learn her life lesson, and continue to grow up and put herself into a situation where she would be ready to have children.

3) Our country has a pretty low crime rate. But in the late 80s, crime was only going up. People were afraid of a crime epidemic that seemed to be sweeping the country. Yet in the early 90's, crime started to fall dramatically. The exact reason has never been proven, but there are several researchers convinced that abortion was one of the reasons. Abortions happen most frequently by the underprivledged in society, and the poor in society also generate more criminals. Some have speculated that it was the right to abort that ultimately cut crime so much, because children who would have been born into these environments and would be more prone to becoming criminals no longer existed in such great numbers.

4) On a minor note, certain places in the world are overpopulated. China is a great example. If all the aborted babies in China were allowed to live, it would spell even more people, even more slums, even more pollution. Some places, out of necessity, need to pass drastic legislation in order to survive for the future. Crudely practical.

I'm not saying I necessarily support these arguments, but I am trying to show that people who support abortion aren't necessarily "evil". There are reasons that people support abortion, just as there are reasons people oppose welfare, universal health care etc.

Now, let me entertain your argument for a moment that the politicians are not the actual killers. Let's say that is the case. Let's say that a politician decides that it should be a woman's right to kill their child as long as it is under their roof? Let's suppose that the argument is that it should be their choice because they have to keep this person up. There is really no diffference here than in supporting partial birth abortion being legal. The result would be a lot of children being killed, with no law to protect them. No, the politician didn't do anything to force them to commit murder, but neither did they offer any protections.

If we are going to go down this road, I would suggest we get rid of all laws outlawing murder of anyone. Let's also do away with laws against theft. Let's do away with laws entirely, and let everyone make their own choices. If we are going to be pro-choice, let's go all the way with it. We shouldn't stop with just allowing the murder of babies. It should be extended to the elderly and mentally retarded. How about those we don't like? No, technically the politicians aren't pulling the trigger, but they are doing nothing to protect us.

I am adding this to the original post. I propose that we make it legal to kill all abortion clinic doctors and the women seeking abortions. In this area, I am pro-choice. Remember that I am not responsible for the people who actually do the shooting. I am just saying we should give them the freedom to choose whether or not to defend unborn babies or terminate the lives of the doctors and their patients. If we are going to be pro-choice, let's be pro-choice.

The problem is, if mankind was considered guilty for all the things they didn't prevent, we would all be damned to hell. Sometimes battles HAVE to be chosen, otherwise we would never get anything done. There will always be neglect in some sectors concerning certain things.

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

Hamburgers,

All your arguments are from the human perspective and negate God.

I heard this argument on the radio the other day.

A young lady and a good Christian apologist were having this discussion. The young lady was a pagan and believed that anybody's perpsective of God was just okay by her because god was this central figure that was behind all Religions and that He was basically good. Therefore any worship of Him in any form was acceptable. The Christian apologist asked her if she was morally and personally opposed to the sacrifice of children. Of course was her retort. Yet she had just said that any form of worship of this central God behind all the demi-gods was just fine because it all went to Him. The apologist went back to child sacrifice and mentioned the Myans sacrificing humans and in particular babies and virgin women to God for good harvests, etc.. She stated she was opposed to this personally but couldn't speak on the matter or Judge the Myans because she hadn't been there 2,000 years ago. The apologist went back to to her own moral opposition to sacrificing babies. She said she absolutely did not think that it was ever justified and that God as she saw Him would abhor this practice.

The apologist then asked her if she would condone it today if it were to be re-enacted as a form of worship to this central God. She stated no because she was personally abhored by it and so was God.

The apologist told her that there was then a line in the sand in what she held to be true and that she was judging those self same people now practicing this because she saw it as abhorent and that God wouldn't condone it.

He moved her to temple Prostitution to which she wouldn't take a stand because she was boxed in and knew it. She did state that she wouldn't do it and neither would she allow her children or daughter in specific.

The point was that what she thought was R-E-L-A-T-I-V-E wasn't really so relative after all and that she did hold to some Universal Truth on these matters.

We can deceive ourselves into believing that this Universal Law doesn't come from God and that it's all R-E-L-A-T-I-V-E to Him but that would be a lie. He does indeed care in whom we put our Faith and how we adhere to what is Righteous, no matter the cost.

We don't do what is Right because it costs less, see WW2, we do what is Right and Righteous and Just because it's the only thing to do and it is what God expects us to do. To overcome our own fears and even our human rationale and to seek after the heart and mind of God. He paid a precious price for us to overcome the world and we are to fear not because He has overcome it.

Peace,

Dave

[nebula]

Nebula: I understand what you mean when you say we must draw a line somewhere. It just surprises me that abortion seems to always be that line for so many people, regardless of whatever else there may be.

And it surprises us that someone who has submitted His life to the Jesus does not.

1) When a democratic candidate says they support abortion, what they are really saying is they support the choice for women to perform an abortion.

That's like saying, "I support the choice for man to beat his wife. Personally, I am against this. But if he wants to, he should be able to."

And yes, in our eyes, abortion is just as repulsive and a man beating his wife.

So what I'm trying to say is no one WANTS to have an abortion

So, how does abortion become such a money-making industry if "nobody" wants one?

2) A candidate that supports a woman's choice for an abortion isn't the one killing babies.

Yeah, and Saul had nothing to do with Stephen's death either, right?

3) It really isn't up to the president to legalize or ban abortion.

That question has been answered, so no use to repeat info.

So taking this into account, I can live with the fact that I may vote for a candidate whom I don't see eye-to-eye with on every issue,....

We are all like that. But like I said, some of us have lines that we just can't cross.

We perceive abortion as first degree murder, a child sacrifice to the god of self (that baby will ruin your life, cost money, hurt your plans, . . . . slay it, and your life will go better).

[MorningGlory]

Glory, just out of curiosity, do you think it's polite to question someone's faith?

Surely you didn't mean to offend....

No, I didn't mean to offend. I simply like to know what people believe. I am not questioning your faith. as in do you have faith; I am asking you if you're a Christian. That IS what we do here......we talk about faith, beliefs, and ....... yeah, pretty much everything. Don't take it as an affront since that was not my intent. I have been asked the same question on another forum, btw. I wasn't thrilled about it but I answered the person because I wasn't about to be regarded as anything but what I am. Don't get all sideways because of an upfront question now.

[MorningGlory]

Wrong, Forrest. Premeditated murder is covered by the ultimate blanket statements, the Ten Commandments, and number six clearly states "Thou Shalt Not Kill".

Ah, you must be against capital punishment, then. Right?

No. Capital punishment is not in the same category as murder of an unborn human being; it comes under the heading of "an eye for an eye".....there is no comparison there.

[MorningGlory]

Indeed, many of the people who support Obama are devout Christians. They just happen to have a world-view that differs from yours.

NO devout Christian could support partial birth abortion, a procedure that Obama supports, without being a total phoney.

You cant make blanket statements like that. Its like saying that no devout Christian could possibly support preemptive war, or no devout Christian could possibly support torturing detainees as both of those are completely antithetical to scripture. Yet, devout Christians can and do disagree on a variety of issues like those.

Wrong, Forrest. Premeditated murder is covered by the ultimate blanket statements, the Ten Commandments, and number six clearly states "Thou Shalt Not Kill". I don't recall any such prohibitions against waterboarding detainees or preemptive war in the Bible. Not the same thing at all. You cannot be a devout Christian and support the barbaric practice of partially delivering and murdering a child.

Your Bible would fit on the back of a business card if you think it does not prohibit torture and preemptive war. Who would Jesus torture?

Please quote passages from the Bible that prohibit these things..........

[Oh Hamburgers!]

I would like to reiterate once again that these are not necessarily my views. I'm merely trying to show that it isn't black and white.

[MorningGlory]

Michelle Obama made a major gaffe with that remark and, if she means it, it raises questions in my mind as to whether Obama (and, by association, his wife) can be a leader of all of the people or just black people. She really should ask herself if there is any other western country, that is majority white, that has a black candidate running for office. One who could very well be elected. I guess she spent the first 44 years of her life in a cocoon somewhere. Too bad; I kind of like Mrs. Obama; she's like someone you know down the block or at work. I'm not happy with this comment though.

Well, actually we are one of the only multi-ethic nations on earth that has not had a minority president / prime-minister. Even many Muslim nations have managed that. It is a blight upon us that in our over 200 year history, we have only just now moved beyond race and sexism enough to where a minority can be a serious candidate for president.

Please name these countries; I have not heard about this. Let's see...Canada, the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Russia, Germany, France, Japan, China, India.......nope, none of them. Sweden, Hungary, Poland, Kenya, Spain, the UAE, Nigeria, Venezuela, Italy....still nope! And, as for muslim countries electing a leader of a different race than the majority, this I've gotta hear!

[The Lorax]

No, I didn't mean to offend. I simply like to know what people believe. I am not questioning your faith. as in do you have faith; I am asking you if you're a Christian. That IS what we do here......we talk about faith, beliefs, and ....... yeah, pretty much everything. Don't take it as an affront since that was not my intent. I have been asked the same question on another forum, btw. I wasn't thrilled about it but I answered the person because I wasn't about to be regarded as anything but what I am. Don't get all sideways because of an upfront question now.

Don't worry about it. I'm a Christian.

[MorningGlory]

No, I didn't mean to offend. I simply like to know what people believe. I am not questioning your faith. as in do you have faith; I am asking you if you're a Christian. That IS what we do here......we talk about faith, beliefs, and ....... yeah, pretty much everything. Don't take it as an affront since that was not my intent. I have been asked the same question on another forum, btw. I wasn't thrilled about it but I answered the person because I wasn't about to be regarded as anything but what I am. Don't get all sideways because of an upfront question now.

Don't worry about it. I'm a Christian.

And I'm very happy about that! Thank you for answering what, I admit, was a cheeky question, Lorax.