I don't feel a political party...should have any say...over what a woman does with her body.That is just soooo outta wack.

Hard for me to believe the women are laying down for this one.

They (women) soooo have the power.

When a baby is concieved, that baby is not the womans body. It is a separate human being that the woman has the great privilige of caring for, but who deserves respect and protection under the law.

do the women subscribe to that?

Who cares if the women subscribe to that?

Just simply another example of politicians and government telling citizens what they can/can't do and how "they" (gov't) thinks that "we" citizens ought to live, think, act because "they" say so.

Ditto to that

Who gets to support these unwanted children? I personally
am very tired of paying for "entitlement(?) programs. I
think I should have some say about that, don't you?

I get it. The woman has the say...but the guy gets the
bill. Horse puckey at its finest!

This is usually a woman's issue, Jed. You in da closet?

280, an excellent point, but it will fall on deaf ears...

I'd like for to put together a large audience of females,and ask the question again to Master B....and let the lynching begin...(grin)

Get real guys,

I'm with Master B.

"First we gave them shoes, then we let them vote, now look were where at"

The woman has the choice over her on body. No question there.

She has the choice to keep her legs closed.
She has the choice of contriception.

She should not have the choice to kill the baby living inside her. No more than killing the baby living outside her.


280 Don. You may be unwanted some day. Maybe because of your political beliefs, or religious beliefs, or maybe because you are injured and cannot work, you're not a vegatable or terminally ill, you just require money to make ends meet. No reason to burden society, right?

This too will probably fall on deaf ears.


GB

I think ol' Jed is trying to score some points with DrunkenHotChic............

Have you ever heard a pregnant woman refer to her baby as a fetus?

Liberals were able to frame this issue in such a way that the baby's life is NOT factored into the equation. As soon as you grant that being in the womb the status of LIFE, the woman's right to dominion over her own body is superseded by the baby's right to life. The right to life supersedes the right to liberty, and the rights to life and liberty supersede the right to property. They are ordered as they are for a reason. Simple.

That's why the House of Cards called viability was utilized in Roe v. Wade. It says, if the fetus is not viable, it's not really a life, so the woman's right to dominion over her own body allows her to "terminate" the pregnancy.

But have you ever heard a pregnant woman refer to her baby as a fetus?
Have you ever seen an ultrasound at, say, 8 weeks? At 8 weeks my daughter could clearly be seen sucking her thumb. She was clearly alive.

ALIVE.

Rick

Rick, great post.....

Why is it (and I read this a coupla weeks ago - I couldn't find it again)

A Man stomped on his girlfriends stomach to "abort" their baby. He gets charged for murder as he killed this child but she is free to go because she has the "right" to an abortion? What's the difference really that child is dead.

This "its a womans body to do with as she pleases" crap gets me - given that rational drugs should be legal and there should be no need for a prescription for anything -- after all its my body to do with as I please right?

Well, yeah, a lot of them do. Bush ran even with Kerry among women. Do liberal pro-abortion women subscribe to that? No, but they aren't even close to a majority.

Do media women subscribe to that? Absolutely not, and they can't believe everybody isn't just like them.

Also the people that scream "there isn't enuff people to take care of all these kids" are the same ones that yell holy terror when "faith based" groups run or set up adoption services and aspouse their faith. The very groups trying to get started and help these women, families and children.

They yell about both the problem and solution.

This could get ugly

Yep, and quickly... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

good input.All good reads.

And congrats Daddy.

Especially when sound logic and truth is introduced into the equation.

Excellent post Rick.

GB

I gotta say...that post of RB's may have swayed me.

"The government has no right to control my body"

Tell that to any guy who was drafted and sent to war, as in "They sent my azz to Vietnam".

Paul

He ought to be a lawyer...

Naw...he'd have to stop making sense... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

Nice job Rick.

BTW- GB, since when did logic and truth ever make a hill of beans difference when the debate involved politics OR religions, much less both...?

Jed,

Rick's logic will sway a lot of people with open minds.

Dehumanizing a population, in this case the unborn, has always been the preanvle to slavery and mass murder.

GB

VA

Religion, logic, and truth made all the differance in Politics when Thomas Jefferson made the statement that you quote with your every post.

GB

Point taken, but now ain't then, regrettably...

However, truth and logic were a bit lacking even then when the debate turned to another hot-button, big money "life, liberty, property" debate: slavery.

They want it both ways realy irritates me as well. Abortion's cool and so is charging someone with 2 murders when a pregnant women is murdered or 1 murder when she is injured and the baby dies. They want to be able to say when a baby is a life. It just happens to be when it benefits them.

Good post Rick

This arguement has been going on for years and I doubt will ever be resolved, sadly.

VANimrod,

Do you really think we as society should allow a mother to kill her unborn baby, the most innocent of all victims, just so she won't be inconvenienced?

Do you suuport a woman's right to kill her unborn baby because s/he is afflicted with a malady such as Down's Syndrome?


Take care,

Leon

280Don,

Are you implying that those who cannot support themselves surrender their right to life? Is this selectively applied to just to unborn babies or would it apply to you if you were to lose your means of support?


Take care,

Leon

Jeb1899,
It's sad that this is even become a question.
That baby is not "her body".
The libs have twisted this issue so much that
the child has been taken out of the mix.
Abortion is INFANTICIDE!
Too bad that this is even an issue,sad.
Bart

VANimrod,

Let there be no mistake here: ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF ABORTION ARE INTELLECTUALLY, LOGICALLY, AND SCIENTIFICALLY BANKRUPT!!! We allow women to kill their babies based upon nothing more than opinion, a woman's right to choose! Can you think of any other instance in which such tenuous justification is the only support for killing a completely innocent person?

You might want to examine this issue more closely before opining on it.


Good luck,

Leon

Is it possible to be Pro-Choice, and Anti-Abortion? That sums up my opinion. I am against abortion. However, being of a Bill of Rights frame of mind, I have a hard time with the government dictating things to us. I look at "pro-choice" as covering a much broader spectrum than abortion "rights". This is typical partisan tunnel vision. Pro-choice, I, and you as well, should have the choice of owning an m-60 if I so desire. Do I want one? Not particularly. Do I have a use for one? Definitely not. Would I stand for your right to own one? Absolutely. This is at the core of the Second Ammenment.It was not drafted into law to give us the right to hunt, but protect ourselves, with military arms, against the tyranny of our own government. I don't mean to hijack the thread here, but am only using this as an example of my view of "choice". I see the abortion issue as peripheral to the many more important issues facing us today. Personally I believe this decision should be left to the states. This is, after all, supposed to be a republic of united SOVEREIGN states. Not of a federal dictatorship. If we continue to let our freedom be dissoved by increments, because one or another suits our ideology, or is deemed to keep us safe, or for any other reason, we are soon to become a nation of subjects rather than citizens. Personally, I think this is one of the least important issues of the day. But it makes good noise for media blather, and serves to distract us from the real decisions being made FOR us, instead of by us. My $.02, which if adjusted for inflation, leaves me with a negative balance.

Did I say so?

Nope. I said that I thought that 280 had made an excellent point, and that I firmly believe that the whole political debate over abortion is simply another manifestation of the gov't telling the rest of us how we ought to live 'cause "they" think/say so.

I also said that RB had done a great job summing things up very well, and that truth and logic don't ever really make much of a difference in political or religious, much less political AND religious debates.

Personally, I've got a child, a little girl, and what happens to HER is of my utmost concern. I do everything in my power to protect her life, liberty, and happiness (correct order, right?). If anything threatens or harms her, then I will take care of it, however is necessary and appropriate.

What someone else might do to their child is secondary to my concern for my own. Does it sicken me when "parents" do certain things to their children? Yes, and much of that ought to be stopped or punished. Do I want to impose my beliefs or will against anyone else? No, not really. They have to live with themselves; I don't, nor do I want to.

Moreover, where would I draw the line if I started having to care about someone else's child? Just to those that might be aborted? Well, what about those that are up for adoption? How about those that are homeless, poorly cared for, malnurished, starving, diseased, disabled? Just inside my community? State? Country? Continent? Planet? I'm sure that you're beginning to see the point.

So, where does this leave me on abortion? To be honest, I really don't care. Unless the kid is mine (in which case, I'll raise it), or one of my relatives (in which case, I'll offer whatever support I can and offer to raise it with them, if they want), I just really don't care. And I damn sure don't want politicians or the government telling me what I OUGHT to think or care about the subject.

If this is cruel and unfeeling, well, so be it.

RickBin,

You are absolutely right, m'man. And it is the simple scientific fact that life exists inside a womb, that causes women of no character to kill their babies. If there were no life inside the womb there would be no need for abortion. So using the abortionists "logic," there is life present and they do intentionally want to kill it!


Take care,

Leon

VA

"We hold these truths to be self evident. That ALL men are created equal. And that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certian inailable rights. That among these are LIFE, LIBERTY, and the persute of happiness."

Logic, truth, and religion were there. And it made all the difference in Politics. Unfortunantly, as in the case you mention, slavery, it took us 100 years to begin to overcome greed, and convienence.

But now doubt without that logic and truth, institutionalized slavery would have never ended.

As in the case of "infantiside" (the correct term for abortion), there have been more than 60,000,000 lives lost (thats 60 MILLION). How many more must be lost until we get the other part, "LIFE?"

GB

sdm,VAnimrod...great posts.

Hmmmm, Partagas, seems like you've been looking at PRK laws again, haven't you?

GB,

Hate to bring it up, but while the words expressed the correct sentiment, the actions and motives were not there.

The "ALL men" referenced in that document was interpreted, by the same fellas who wrote and signed it, to mean only white men who owned property. Non-whites, women, and non-property owning white men were not equal; at least in their eyes and in their interpretation of "equal".

Just another point, GB, no flame intended.

BTW - it's done got ugly... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

VANimrod,


Bud, not only is your rant completely devoid of logic and reason, it exemplifies the fact that the killing of an unborn baby is based upon nothing more than mere opinion.

Remember this, m'man, government's primary responsibility is to protect its citizens, all of them and w/o preference! John Locke said that if government can't/won't do this then we have a right, an obligation in fact, to overthrow it!

Now if you really don't care about what others do to their kids, then it is entirely reasonable that you would turn away form incest. Further, upon what logic would you deny such a family in your neighborhood? The fact of the matter is we all care about laws and protecting society.

Your post indicates infantile reasoning desinged to comfort yourself while innocent babies die!


Good day,

Leon

LP,

Buddy, did I recently piss in your Corn Flakes, or something?

sdm,

So acording to your logic, should the States have the right to allow your next door neighbor the right to kill their 3 year old daughter under the statute of "Pro-Choice?"

GB

Leon,

No. The point I'm trying to make is that people consider
it their RIGHT to have children, and I agree.....but it is
a violation of MY RIGHTS if I have no say in the matter
and am FORCED to support the children!

Seems very much like a lop sided view! I believe anyone's
RIGHTS stop when it must take something from me! This
point, I believe, is what is causing all the friction between
the varous points of view in this country! That's how and why
politicians pander.

It's called FORCING your view on others! And the tax
system is the ENSLAVING process used to make it work!

An example of what irritates the crap out of me can be found
in my dining out experience yesterday.

Nice restaurant, only seats available in the non-smoking
section was 5 feet from the smoking section. Pretty nice
old guy in smoking section was puffing away on his cancer
stick. No problem...except....he was hooked up to an
oxygen tank. Now that's safe for me 5 feet away, right?

And since this ole geezer was about 70 years old....I suppose
medicare was paying for the tank, and his care. Now do
you think his taxes alone covered this? The rest of us were
forced into his VICE via taxation!

Now I won't debate the RIGHT for this old guy to smoke
himself to death. If that's what he decided to do, fine. But I will debate his right to my money (from taxes) to keep him alive when he at a later date changes his mind and wants to
continue living!

I believe this is socialistic rather than democratic, and thus
WRONG!!!!!!!! There are no entitlement programs in the
american constitution! And no, darn it, I'm not obligated
to support it just because many others believe it's the right
thing to do! That would be facism! Keep the government
out of it. If bleeding hearts want to keep this guy alive,
that's democratic.....just let them use their own money to
do it!

That's it in a nutshell. I strongly object to anyone forcing me
into participating in something that I oppose. Anything less
than that is called SLAVERY!!!

VANimrod,



You have a weak stomach, m'man, for one who turns his back to a child being yanked out by a suction device. If you want to see ugly, take a look at a first term child ripped apart by a vacuum. "Physicians" often have to put the baby together, tiny arms and legs along with a head in order to ensure they left nothing inside the "mother's" womb.

Obviously this is of no concern to you because it is happening right now to other people's children!

VANimrod, you ought to read this book, so you won't be so risky with commentary.


Good luck,

Leon

VANimrod,

No, m'man, it is the stark reality of the killing business! Killing is damn serious business; therefore, one ought to have his/her ducks in a row before agreeing with it!


Good luck,

Leon

Leon,

I'm a christian, just like many members of this forum.

But.....I'm a pentecostal who believes in DIVINE healing.
Jesus direct! No doctors. No medications, etc. To me
if isn't direct...it wasn't God, and it wasn't faith.

Jesus healed my daughters broken neck without any help
from mankind! At the time she was about 8 years old.

Do you believe the government, or non pentecostal
religious people, would have had the right to FORCE me
against my beliefs to take her in for medical care?

Who's RIGHT is it to determine whether or not my beliefs
are VALID? You see, brother, that's the problem...forcing
people to do what others THINK is the right thing!

Jesus wan't political. He didn't FORCE His will or belief on
others. Instead he PREACHED against wrongdoing.

Go ahead, brother, PREACH against anything you think is
wrong....but start imposing your views on others and I
believe you have crossed the line!

Both Jesus and our constitution calls it FREE WILL!

That's my point....period!

280don,

I completely agree with you on "entitlement" programs. And as such are Socialist principles.

But would you agree that this is more a result of "Class", or more to do with distribution of wealth then "infantiside?"

Though there may be some effect. These are seperate issues.

GB

GB,

YES!

sdm,

You have confused and obfuscated this issue. M'man, the essence of government is to govern. This cannot be accomplished without laws. What you defended is anarchy, and I can flatly convey your disdain for an environment where law is absent. Your life wouldn't be worth [bleep]! So y'see, m'man, you need government to do the things against which you rail.

The essence of your post is that you're willing to let the most innocet among us be sacrificed in order to not inconvenience their mothers. I think your opinion amounts to nothing more than selfishness. I know damn well you wouldn't have wanted your mother to kill you using your logic as support!

Your opinion here supports our Founding Fathers' concerns that people really can't govern themselves. Have you ever wondered why our Founding Fathers took such great pains to mitigate the deleterious effects of democracy? Our Founding Fathers' greatest fear is that we will destroy ourselves. This was a well-founded fear!


Good luck,

Leon

sdm:

The conservative position IS about choice. It is EXACTLY that. If you're in favor of choice, you and I agree, and here's why.

The Constitution lays out the rights to life, liberty, and property, in that order. You cannot have liberty without life, and so on down the line, so when forced to choose between these two, the right to life of one supersedes the right to liberty of another.

The issue here is that while a woman certainly has the right to choose, her right to "privacy" (which was held to be "implied in the Constitution") is certainly superseded by the baby's clearly explicit right to choose the preeminent right, LIFE. In that struggle between choices, the baby's right wins out.

And so, what Roe does is negate that the child is even alive in order to DENY THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE TO LIVE.

The conservative position is about giving the baby a choice too.

Rick

LP,

Didn't agree with it. Don't disagree with it either. And yeah, I fully understand that killing is a very serious business; former USMC grunt. Kinda goes with the profession, as it does with being a hunter. I've seen enough stuff to turn more than my stomach, which by the way, is pretty darn tough. Dead is dead, my friend, whether it's in one piece or many, it's still dead - and that is never pretty.

Look, you, nor any book, politician, gov't, church, etc., is going to tell me what I OUGHT to think or believe. Name calling and insinuating that I am somehow devoid of morality, intelligence, or knowledge is certainly not going to help in your efforts either.

Seems you've, for some reason, decided to skip over any parts of my posts that you don't find inflammatory or (in your eyes, wrong) and key in on those that you can attempt to demean. I've debated with you here before; I respect your opinions and your views, and I know that you're better than that.

As I have said, it sickens me what some "parents" do to or with their children, and much of it ought to be stopped and/or punished. I also said that I was not going to impose MY will or beliefs upon anyone else, and that my MAIN concern was for the life, liberty, and happiness of MY daughter. It seems that if more folks took that approach to their own kids then we'd all have a helluva lot less problems.

My mind and my thoughts are my own; as yours are your own. I find my position neither risky nor cavalier, nor do I find it indefensible. I find no fault with your position either, even though it differs from mine. What you think of my position is your choice; as what I think of yours is mine.

You, me, and a host of other people can just disagree on this one...

VAnimrod, I am coming up short ya wanna clue me in on what the PRK law is? I can't think very well this morning, just got back from the dentist.

VA,

It's not only cruel or unfeeling, it's cowardness.

It is that same withdrawl for civic responcibility that will allow a child molester to server a prison sentecne, be latter let lose on bond, then kidnap and kill a young boy, and molest a young girl.

The government, "the people," have the resopncibility to see that that does not happen.

I'm sure the petifile who commits these crimes feels as you do: the "Government" has not right to dictate his actions or decide right or wrong for him as well.

GB

RB,

Again, your argument is very clear and well made. Well done. Regardless of what might be implied elsewhere, I agree with your libertarian approach to the issue; too damn bad that politics and religion have muddied what ought to be a Constitutional argument (made along the lines, at least from one side, as your argument is).

GB,

I'm in basic agreement with you, brother.

It's just I don't believe it is the role of government!

I believe it is the responsibility of the CHURCH! That was
the original intent of the "tax free" status. Not to build
large, wealthy ORGANIZATIONS run by pedophiles.

Don't you think that by givng up our responsiblities as
THE CHURCH (there is only one) to government just might
be why no one will listen to our message?

Most of the unsaved I come agross see the organizational
church as a "religious enron"!

GB,

Cowardice? Hmmmm...

Since when did I say that I was withdrawing from civic duties? Where, exactly, did I say that what you describe didn't concern me?

Let me re-iterate: somethings that happen to other people (be they kids or adults) ought to be stopped and punished. Seems I said almost EXACTLY that before; but maybe it was missed.

What probably ruffled your tail-feathers is that I said that my daughter's life, liberty, and happiness was FAR superior on my priorities to any other concern. Oh, and that on the grand scale of things in my life, abortion wasn't one that I really cared that much about.

Now, if that is cowardice for at least admitting that to me there are more important things than that, well, so be it.

Partagas, PRK passed a law along those lines after the Lacy Peterson murder. I think they called it Lacy and Colin's Law or something media-catchy like that. Basically, it says that if you kill a pregnant woman, then you get charged with 2 counts of murder, or if you assault a pregnant woman and the fetus/baby dies, then it is a single count of murder, but that the latter does not apply to abortions - abortion is exempted from that law.

280Don,



I am not sure where you're going with this post. Abortion is unlike any other issue in social science. In Abortion, a completely innocent child is intentionally killed solely for the benefit of its immoral mother. As Dr. Theresa Burke pointed out in her thoroughtly researched book Forbidden Grief, building a society on a culture of death can have serious consequences for all of us; therefore, abortion can have the impact of abridging your rights.

Moreover, denying the right to life based upon pecuniary interests implicates an absence of God. In short, we are doing the devil's work. But in a pragmatic sense and completely consistent with your logic, you must be in complete opposition to Social Security since it is a classic transfer payment system in which money is taken from workers today and transferred to those retired, the primary difference being no one is killed. But using your logic, if a retiree cannot support him/herself then we should... I don't think our senior citizens in retirement homes who are existing nearly completely on governmental monies would like your opinion!

Do you really want to live in a society in which mothers are afforded option of killing their unborn babies so that the rest of us won't be burdened with supporting them?

BTW, Garrett Anderson, a legitimate 10 mil plus a year baseball player, was born when his mom was 15. Do you think his mother should have killed him?


Good luck,

Leon

Dixie Freedom,

Just as information. my friend, letting the WORLD
(non-believers) police and deal with those who do violent
things, etc. is the real message of Romans 13. That's
how believers stay unspotted of such things. Many of our
fellow believers haven't found that out yet, it seems.

As a believer, I do not participate in government. I do.
to the best of my ability, render unto Caeser that which is
his....and I obey all his laws which do not put me at odds
with God's laws.

Therefore, as an american....I separate church and state.
I PREACH (debate?) for the positions I believe are moral,
not try to enforce my religious views on others under the
pretext of citizenship and participation in government.

We just need to ask ourselves....how would Jesus respond
to the situation?

Don

Don,

We are talking about legalized infantiside. The killing of unborn children.

The Church as citizens are to be involved in Government. And as part of "We the people" insure that "Government be not a threat to them who do well, but them that do evil."

In this case not allow the murder of innocent unborn children.

GB

If you don't know the answer to this one then you have problems. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

I got a great idea. Instead of leaving Roe vs Wade up to ANY court and let the people of the IUnited States vote on this issue! Lawdog
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

What political party did Jesus or the early believers belong to?

I strongly disagere, brother!

We need to go back to being preachers, not politicians!

VA,

If you not killing your daughter is good enough for your daugher, then your next door neighbor NOT killing his daughter is good enough for his daughter as well.

That is the cowardness and withdrawl from civic duty of which I speak.

We are not talking about EVERY issue, we are talking about the killing of children, in or out of the woumb.

GB

Lawdog,

Now that position I wholeheartedly support. Of course, what the feds and politicians have done is essentially make sure that those votes can't take place. Some states have already tried to outlaw abortion. If they want to do that, fine, if others want to make it legal, then fine; kinda like the death penalty. IMHO, those powers were reserved to the states 'cause I don't see them explicitly delegated to the feds in the Constitution.

But, sorry, Caesar wants all the power in Rome, errr, Washington. So, no vote is gonna happen. What will happen is more politics as usual, 'cause this issue is the hottest-hot-button there is and major, major $$$$$$ is made off of it both ways.

Come on, think about it...does anyone think that the Republicans REALLY want to render abortion illegal for good and once and for all? Or that the Democrats want to render it legal permanently? No way...both sides would lose one of their biggest and best flags to rally support during election cycles and court nomination battles.

VANimrod,



This is myopic and selfish. Y'see, at the essence of Democracy is the right of the winner to enact policy to the detriment of the loser. Hence, you are willing to impose your Second Amendment beliefs on those who hold a contrary opinion because it benefits you, but you're willing to turn away from an innocent life lost to an immoral mother.

There were plethora political debates during the thirtieth anniversary of Roe v. Wade. The abortionists refused to engage their opposition in debate of the issue using science, logic, and reason. The prolife side tried to goad them into such a debate knowing full well abortion cannot stand under these criteria. The abortionists, obviously advised by the best minds immoral money can buy, knew to avoid venturing into such risky and untenable territory and confined their position only to opinion, that killing a baby was a woman's right to choose.

Don't you find it alarming that we built a culture of death based solely upon the opinions of the immoral?


Good luck,

Leon

LP,

That idea has merit and could probably solve a host of today's problems...

Of course, it would create others, but at least they would be new and different ones.

My wife told me a story from her medical school days. She was terrified that she was going to be assigned to a rotation that involved assisting with an abortion. Somehow, she was able to switch out of that assignment with a medical student who reported he had no qualms about assisting.

She later saw this fellow and he was still white as a sheet. He reported that during the abortion the baby's army was literally ripped from its body and yet child was still clearly very much alive when the "Dr." got the rest of the baby out. The next part of the procedure involved jamming a sharp object inside the baby's skull and scrambling the brains.

In high school biology class we had to do the same thing to a frog before dissecting it... they called it pithing the frog. The pro abortion camp calls it terminating a pregnancy.

This will be my one and only post on this thread, as I have no other words that might remotely serve any good purpose here.
John

280Don,



I can flatly convey to you that our Founding Fathers were resolutly Christian. Make no mistake here, the founding of this country was based upon Christian doctrine and principles.


Good luck,

Leon

2ndwind,

Your only words were very poignant. Thanks for posting them.


Take care,

Leon

VANimrod,



Abortion is absolutely nothing like the death penalty except that in abortion an innocent baby is given the death penalty by an immoral mother and physician. But that, m'man, is where any similarity ends.


Good lcuk,

Leon

LP;

You assume, of course, that the death penalty is always given only to people who committed the crime; i.e. that there are never mistakes.

Look, LP and GB, like I said, y'all ain't changing my mind and you obviously can't understand my position (which is neither for or against abortion as far as it's legality - I personally find it abhorrent, but then again, I find a lot of legal/moral things abhorrent and a lot of illegal/immoral things accceptable). You, I, and others will just disagree on this one and leave it at that.

I hold no animosity toward anyone for their opinion on this or other issues, and hope that none is held against me for my views. Judging your caliber from your posts, I doubt I have any reason for concern and it is clear that you are a fine men.

So we disagree; and I'll leave it at that.

Don,

We are to live and function in both worlds my friend.

Unlike Christ, and the early belivers we live in a time and place where we can do both.

In the Old Testiment you see a people living in Cannan in "freedom" with the opertunity to Govern themselves. And clearly they were to take an active part in it.

In the New Testiment you see a people unable to govern themselves, living under Roman rule. There is a big difference.

This issue, the killing of children goes back the the very beginning. And is a basic principle. It is the first question asked from an infidale. "Am I my brothers keeper." Clearly God's example through the laws directed between man to man was yes.

Christ never negated the responciliby of man to man, or man to govern man. He fullfilled the laws demand in making a way for man to be reconciled to God, through himself and not through the law.

GB

VAnimrod
That is what I was thinking of, I just didn't get PRK but now I think you are abrievating Peoples Repbulik of Kalifornia.

Lawdog,
This is the worst idea possible. This nation was established as a republic, not a democracy, and as such we empower our representatives to enact legislation for us IN ACCORDANCE WITH the Constitution. If we allow a vote on abortion we must then begin to allow votes on all the other hot button topics and accept the decisions of the majority. Those responsible for Roe v. Wade are the Congress of the day for not barring the Supreme Court from hearing the case.

Regardless of if you agree or disagree with a law bringing it to referdum is a path wrought with peril for the future. The best example I can give you is to look at the current situation regarding legislative action in California. That is where the nation is already headed due to the constant reiteration of the word "democracy" in our schools and by our government.

We do not want a democracy, the founders argued against it vehemently in The Federalist Papers. Our nation must return to it's roots as a republic or we will assuredly go the way of Rome.

Bob

Are you really trying to justify abortion with this reasoning??? What in God's name does this have to do with a mother intentionally killing her baby for selfish reasons?

Let's assume for the sake of this argument that 100 million innocent people are unjustly executed every day: would it justify the the execution of one more innocent person?


Good luck,

Leon

VA

As do I.
And as will I.
I understand your position, I simply disagree with it.
GB

GeorgiaBoy,
Obiously not. As I stated early in my post. I am against abortion, vehemently so. I am also however, against dictatorship, and politicians using emotional issues such as this to further their own ends.
While I am sure that many are truly concerned with the sanctity of life, I am absolutely certain that many are not, and use the issue to put Christians in their camp.
It is my belief that an evil man, or a negligent one, cannot be made otherwise by any law or legislation. They will remain true to their nature. I agree with you on this issue's merits, however I don't think that the federal government is qualified to make these decisions for the people. Every man or woman must search their heart and ask themselves if a given action is right or just. No amount of legislation will give them that insight, or make them know God.

It amazes me that anybody who's seen an ultrsound of a two month old baby (not fetus) in the womb can make the "It's my body" argument.

get' em, rick.

Steve, I've got to agree with you on that one.

From conception it is a "BABY" IMHO.

I still do not have the right to FORCE my views on another person, neither does the government have the right to legislate morality. Morality needs to be TAUGHT by the Parents, Family and Church of your choice.

sdm,



This is the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. He believed that man is inherently evil therefore necessating a monarchy to prevent man from destroying himself. Our Founding Fathers were well aware of Hobbes, and they believed in his philosophy to some extent, hence their not completely trusting citizens to govern themselves. The fact that abortion exists today in our country is a clear indication that man is evil and is motivated by selfish desires.



I do not subscribe to this opinion. We have laws because some people are immoral. We know that we cannot make immoral people otherwise, but that does not imply we have no authority to prevent them from contaminating our society. If immoral people want to steal, we will put them in jail.

All we have to do is decide that unborn have rights to life, which they certainly do, and legislate accordingly. If women want to kill their babies, let them go to some country that has a culture of death. Such legislation will be consistent with any other law such as murder. But if you're correct, that the federal government lacks qualification to protect the unborn, why is it qualified to protect your life against a murderer?

The fact of the matter is the federal government is extremely qualified to protect the unborn, it just lacks character to do so. This is why phony liberal politicians are so damn afraid of a reversal of Roe v. Wade. Most legal scholars know it to be bad law. But liberal politicians will die to protect it because it insulates them from PASSING LEGISLATION LEGALIZING ABORTION. But they don't want to do this because their names will be attached to law that allows the most innocent among us to be intentionally killed. The best scenario is to defer their obligation to pass legislation to the Court, which is classic judicial activism.

If liberals are really so desirous of a culture of death, why don't they pass federal law making abortion legal??? Why are they hiding behind the Court and its abomination of a decision???

Do you really believe we can do nothing other than to accept our culture of death wrought for us by the immoral who lurk among us??? Remember that all it takes for evil to exist is for good people to do nothing.


Take care,

Leon

TLEE,
Here is the problem I have with that reasoning.

Under that reasoning, then I cannot sit on a jury and convict any parent who brutally and sadisticly murders and dismembers their child requardless off age. Because to do so would force MY views on another person.

And if that be the case there is no president for any laws whatsoever.

GB

The Ten Commandments are all the law we need, and if instilled in children from birth no enforcement is needed.

T LEE,



Many of our laws come straight from Christian morality. In fact, the Bible was the guide for many of our earliest laws. Moraliy has been legislated for us since day one of this country, prostitution, adultry, drugs, incest, and murder being just a few. If we can proscribe prostitution, why do you suppose we can't outlaw the killing of innocent babies???

TLee, if every man has to decide for himself what is right, if morality is left to individual decision, how would you act against Scott Peterson or Charles Manson? As for me, I could give a [bleep] about what is/was in their hearts: they murdered innocent people so they should die! Further, we can and have legislated to take care of such monsters. Finally, I don't care what some idiot finds in his heart to be right or wrong. If they violate laws of society based upon their interpretation of morality, I have no qualms about letting them examine their existentialist beliefs in prison, even in an execution chamber as their last thoughts!



Good luck,

Leon

Well said,
I must agree with you. I should rephrase, the federal government we have is lacking in character, honesty, integrity, AND morals, thus making the current version, IMHO, unqualified to make decisions for the people.
However, I guess if the people were any MORE qualified, we wouldn't HAVE the current government, would we? What a quandry we have gotten ourselves into.
From what I can see, the quality in greatest abundance is greed.

TLEE,



This is imposing your view of morality onto others, is it not???


Good luck,


Leon

Oh, and by the way, when I say "current" I am not referring to which party is in power, but the way things are done in general.

IF is a well that has no bottom. As is a retreat into fantasy. Adam and Eve living in a "perfect world" could not keep ONE commandment, let alone TEN.

It is the sad truth not everyone obeys the Ten Commandments. Even those that are taught them. And it is the undeniable nature of man to obey only the laws that are enforced not the laws that are given.

Even God himself set forth consequences. The laws of nature attesting to the principle. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

GB

NO, it is TEACHING!

sdm,

I cannot disagree with anything your wrote in your last post. The fact that Hobbes was right requires our having a leader to deliver us from our own destruction. The last leader we had like that was Ronald Reagan. I am of the opinion that the man now occupying the 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is of the same character.

In contrast, Bill Clinton, the abortion president who gave us legalized infanticide, said that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare, implying he knew it to be immoral. He lacked chacracter, not to mention ability, to lead us away from immorality. Ronald Reagan did everythng possible to eliminate abortion. If he had the congress Bush 43 has, he would have done so!

One of the many physicians who have examined me told me he used to be liberal. He said he subscribed to liberal ideology until about a decade ago, the abortion issue being catalyst of change. He told me that he agreed with Hobbes, that man should be governed by a strong monarch to protect him from himself. While I don't think I'd like a monarchy, I'd give substantial body parts for another Ronald Reagan!


Take care,

Leon

TLEE,



Why is your imposing the Ten Commandments a teaching while the imposition of other laws imposition?

The fact of the matter is there is no difference, your just being better suited by a philosophy that suits you. Further, using your logic, you would be forbidded from rejecting the teaching of others, would you not??? I mean, why would you reject the teachings of Islam?

Take care,

Leon

Quote:

Well said,
I must agree with you. I should rephrase, the federal government we have is lacking in character, honesty, integrity, AND morals, thus making the current version, IMHO, unqualified to make decisions for the people.
However, I guess if the people were any MORE qualified, we wouldn't HAVE the current government, would we? What a quandry we have gotten ourselves into.
From what I can see, the quality in greatest abundance is greed.


sdm,

On that much we can agree.

Respectively,
GB

Did you not see whom I charged with such teaching?

I am done with this circle jerk!

GeorgiaBoy,

Your logic is impeccable. You stick to the gist of the argument and adroitly and cogently expose fallacy. You keep postin' & I'll keep readin'.


Stay safe,

Leon

Are all you proponents of abortion also against the death penalty? I've found that usually is the case, a logic that I can't quiet figure. Kill and innocent baby and save a killer. Wait a minute, I see the logic now. Its OK to kill!!!! You guys are whack.....

Roads

ok... late to this thread

I like to apply logic to other scenarios to see if it holds water. If a woman who has an accident can make the accident disappear by killing it , then to follow this thru I am getting body armor for driving........ want to make it through a fender bender alive.


brian

sdm, I don't know, man. You said:



I must agree with you. I should rephrase, the federal government we have is lacking in character, honesty, integrity, AND morals, thus making the current version, IMHO, unqualified to make decisions for the people.


But, IMHO....Character, honesty, integrity and morals are traits of humans, not organizations or institutions. Things don't have character , or honesty, or any of the others. And no government should be making decisions FOR its people. It's supposed to work the other way around.


Otherwise, I completely agree. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Sound logic Steve.

GB

Wait for me T, I've had enough of this nonsense too!

First of all, Clinton was NOT "the abortion president who gave us legalized infanticide." The Supreme Court decision in Roe vs Wade has been the law of the land since 1973, long before Clinton came on the scene. Moreover, Clinton happened to be correct when he said that he wanted abortion to be "safe, legal, and rare." That is why the abortion rates went DOWN during the Clinton years. However, those rates of abortion have been on the upswing again since Bush has been in office. (And you're dreaming if you believe Ronald Reagan would have ended abortion had he had a willing Congress.)

Conservatives seem to have a single knee-jerk response to just about every question: It's Clintons' fault. Frankly, that tired mantra is getting just a little old.

I remember when we were expecting our first. It was always my dream, my hope to have a family and be a good father. When I saw the ultrasound, I was in awe. There are really are no words to describe it.

The tech started focusing on areas around little mac's brain. I never took notice because all I saw was my little baby. My wife saw what was happening. She asked the tech if there was a problem and the tech just kinda shrugged her off. She was moving the mouse around and measuring spots on his brain.

Well a few minutes later the ultrasound was done and the doc comes in to see us. She says the test showed cysts developing. Specifically they were coroid plexus cysts. Doc said she wanted to do the amnio to determine if our baby had Downs. She explained that the test itself is risky and could do harm to the baby. Doc further explained that the presence of the cysts does not necessarily mean our child had Downs but she wanted to check to give us options.

My wife asked what I thought and I told the doc it didn't matter what any test showed, that child was ours and was a blessing no matter what. We didn't have any option other than loving and raising our child. Doc looked at my wife because being the father, I had no say in the matter, and the wonderful missus said no tests. We were on the same page to begin with but it was a stressful situation.

To make a long story short, little mac came out just fine as did the other 3. Nothing on this earth could have made me abort or give up one of my children. I guess that about sums up how I fell about abortion.

I know I'm off topic about which party is crap. Frankly, they all are. I'm not for anarchy either. I believe in the Constitution and I fell if we actually took it to heart, this country would be much better off.




Mac

MAC 84

That about says it all. God bless you and your Family

I fall with the majority here: abortion has all the hallmarks of a classic evil: a) It is done primarily for selfish reasons, b) it can seem like a good idea at the time c) you can rationalize your way into it, and d) if you go that route you will get outspoken and shrill support from those who perpetrate it (misery loves company).

Abortion is an abomination and my #1 issue at voting time.

The real reason I'm jumping in here though is just to highlight a common misconception posted here and left unchallenged. 280don writes...


Quite beyond the issue (as others pointed out) of basing morality on percuniary grounds, in actual fact the majority of women getting abortions are a) White and b) educated.

We have lost close to 50 million Americans through abortion in the last thirty years. Never before has such mass infanticide had such a profound effect on the demographics and politics of a nation.

Unless were talking China, or Russia...

In Russia, abortions outnumber births, with corresponding catastrophic effects on the demographics and economy of that country.

One of the major threats to continuing world stability is the emerging gender gap in China, a huge surplus of young men with no prospect of marriage due to the selective abortion of female infants. History does show that men in the absence of women are always violent, never in history has there been a whole nation without enough women.

No surprise really that an inherently evil act should have such unfortunate outcomes.

Birdwatcher

Rooselk,

How much more wrong can you be???

In 1993 or 4, I came home from my law enforcement job and repaired to my channel surfing room where, in repose on my sporting apparatus, I commenced to physical activity, surfing the TV. I passed by CNN where they were explaining an arcane procedure of medicine. After a few seconds into a show that caught my masculine attention, I thought about the second of material I caught on CNN. Something compelled me to go back.

The CNN show was graphically explaining a newly legalized abortion technique recently made available by Das Fuhrer Clinton. At first, I thought it was nothing short of premeditated first degree murder with special circumstances placing the criminals involved in jeopardy of the death penalty. Here's how the procedure works.

A full-term baby, that is a baby that could easily survive if born, is manipulated within its mother's womb so that a breech birth is induced. I recalled at the time first aid training I received that indicated a breech birth poses significant imminent life threatening risks to both mother and child; therefore, this procedure actually places the mother in harm's way and negating the allegation it is done to preserve the life of the mother.

Once the full-term baby is breech, the performing "physician" reaches up the birth canal and yanks the little baby out until only its head is still within the birth canal. With the baby desperately fighting for its life, the perpetrating criminals, including the physician, prepare it for execution. A needle that is attached to a suction device in jammed into the base of its skull. Once the needle reaches its mark, the suction device is activated and sucks out the baby's brain!

Clinton legalized partial-birth abortion; in contrast, no legal scholar has ever been able to prove Hitler authorized the Final Solution. The fact of the matter is that Clinton is every bit as bad as Hitler. What in God's name he could have promised anyone in exchange for his/her vote is beyond me, but those that did vote for him are every bit as culpable as Germans living under the Nazi regime.

After Clinton created death camps where little, innocent babies had their brains sucked out of them in accordance to Clinton's law, Senator Bill Frist, a physician (cardiologist) and who will be elected president of the United States in 2008, said in a TV interview that there is absolutely no known medical justification for partial-birth abortion; therefore, it is legal infanticide! Thankfully, one of the very first things Predident Geroge W. Bush did when he took office was to outlaw partial-birth abortion!

Rooselk, I do know Roe v. Wade was a 1973 case. I also know that many legal scholars know it to be bad law as was discussed last night on TV duing the Roberts nomination. However, Bill Clinton campaigned on abortion, promising to keep it legal. But he also knew it to be immoral which makes him a truly terrible leader on par with the first fuhrer. A true leader in the mold of Ronald Reagan will prevent us from falling into an abyss of immorality. There are consequences of our building a society based upon the intentional killing of innocent babies. One such consequence is the destruction of the greatest civilization Earth has ever known. Are you willing to pay that price just so women will not be inconvenienced by having to fulfill the miracle of granting life?

Hillary is running in 2008. What could she promise voters so that they'll be willing accomplices in infanticide?


Good luck,

Leon

Birdwatcher,

The fact that we cannot repopulate our nation is one of the causes of our acquiescing to illegal immigration, along with the fact that politicians recognize the necessity of propping up Social Security lest they have to find a real job!

The irony here is that in our having to turn to immigrants because we can't repopulate our nation will result in a population boom of those coming from Third World nations. Hence, the laborers we're importing will repopulate America for us! You might want to do a 'net seach of Daneen G. Peterson, Ph.D and read her analyses of the illegal immigration issue. It might just shock the hell out of you. Her articles will certainly dispell myths you might have about the topic!


Good luck,

Leon

Leon, I don't think it is really accurate to say that Bill Clinton "legalized' partial birth abortion. What he did was twice veto bans that had passed both houses of Congress.

More accurate to say that he prevented it from being outlawed, as demanded by his NOW allies in return for their support during his Monica problems.

Steve NO,

On what planet are you? And what is in it for you to deny Clinton's legalization of partial-birth abortion? Are you so damn naive to think this was a Republican agenda item? Just do even a cursory 'net search and see what you find.

Now, what is motivating you to lie for Das Fuhrern Clinton? Were you party to his legalizing infanticide?

Sport, I distinctly remember Clinton legalizing partial-birth abortion. And I distinctly remember his defending it. And now I remember you trying to cover for him. This was Clinton's gig all the way, m'man!


Wise up,

Leon

Steve NO,

BTW, partial birth abortion came way before Monica.


Good luck,

Leon

Abortion is costing you a lot more than raising the kids.

The "cost savings" of killing American kids has helped create the current economic advantage and future necessity of immigration inflow, to offset the age demographic problem of workers. It is and will cost all of us a whole lot more for the immigrants than the homegrown method.

Concerning entitlement programs--they exist to support the sponsoring political parties hold on voting power from election to election, and have precious little to do with the individual citizen apart from gaining the vote. The longer they are successfully in place, the less money is available to the competing party to put their programs in place.

BTW, try adopting a kid sometime--it is easier to kill them under the guise of women rights--that is twisted.

OK, Leon, if that's how you want it. I was trying not to highlight your apparent ignorance, but you just wouldn't listen or can't read. Try this, real slow, OK:

1)Leon, presidents don't make laws. Congress does. Bill Clinton couldn't pass laws if he wanted to.

2)Bill Clinton didn't "legalize" partial birth abortion. If you "remember" otherwise, you misremember. He vetoed the Congressional attempts to outlaw it. Read you own freaking link---that's what it says.

3)If you remember that I supported Clinton, you're delusional. In the first place I wasn't on this board while Clinton was president, and neither were you. D'uh.

If you'd read many of my posts, you would never, ever suspect me of being a Clinton supporter or an abortion advocate.

Tom, buddy.

I'm not FOR abortion! Every moral fiber of my being
is against abortion! Yes, it is infanticide! The intent of
my posts were not to condone abortion, but to seek a
solution OTHER than me footing the bill for these "unwanted children". It was the holier-than-thou pharisees that put
my comments into a pro-abortion camp!

I am against being taxed to support these UNPLANNED children. My stance has been against people who keep
having children without a means of support, and usualy for the purpose of increasing the dole.

My arguement, is that people call REPRODUCING a RIGHT.
It is, but not at my expense! How about sterilizing these
immoral sluts who have all these "unwanted" children? How
about making GELDINGS out of deadbeat dads? I'm
not pro abortion....I'm pro-prevention! Jeez. that's a subject
that doesn't get much discussion, right?

That's been my point of view all along.....but everytime
someone wants to ask a question on this forum, it irritates
someone else and the flaming begins before any real, calm intellegent discussion can begin!

I don't want to hold these innocent babes responsible! It's
their immoral parents I want to address. The members of this
forum are far too quick to judge and rant for my tastes.

Except for 4-5 guys on here I find most to be arrogant,
opinionated [bleep]. Many are part of the political system
I detest, ie. cops, lawyers,etc. Others are so far the
religious right republicans they make me want to puke.
Self righteous pharisees of the highest order!

On the other hand, I'd rather be dead and gone than live in
a country filled with liberals and liberal thinking!

I just find myself, like Noah, in a sea of ignorant, immoral
people. I can't wait until the rain begins! For this reason,
I've asked Rick Bin to remove me from the forum membership. It's quite evident to me I don't belong here,
and neither do I want to belong here.

P.S. Tom, My lovely grand daughter is adopted. I
avoided the post covering this in the religious section
on purpose. My son is jewish, my daughter-in-law
is protestant and the child came from a catholic
orphanage!

You'll need a different arguement to discredit me!

Rabbi Donald K. Slater

Steve, Leon,

From what the two of you have written it appears to me that you both are on the same sheet of music...just a little off timing from each other.

Step back for just a moment. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

GB

http://www.newswithviews.com/Brownlow/david1.htm

Ain't no sense in complainin about Repub's being anti baby killin........

Cuz they ain't.

Grandma Bush- pro baby killer
George Senior- pro baby killer
Current Mrs B- pro baby killer
Condoleeeeeza - pro baby killing
Arlen Spectre- pro-baby killing

On and on we could go.

SteveNO,

I know quite thoroughly how the three branches of government work, thank you very much! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

Your:



is factually incorrect. Executive orders give the executive branch de facto legislative authority. Affirmative action was the result of an LBJ executive order. See how that works, now???

I know that Clinton refused to sign legislation outlawing partial birt abortion. The genesis of the legislation was question over its legality; in short, it was uncertain whether the "procedure" was legal. It was originally believed that abortion was limited to the first trimester of pregnancy, a quite arbitrary limitation! Hence his not signing legislation outlawing PBA in fact made infanticide legal. I am not sure of why you would resort to parsing words, though.



The fact of the matter is your blatant attempt to mitigate Clinton's culpability in making infanticide legal is tacit support of him. Remember, Steve, his signature would have made it illegal and removed all doubt of its status! The fact that he chose not to sign off on legislation preventing infanticide was his de facto making it legal! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />



Really? Where can I read your condemnation of Clinton's preserving the status of partial birth abortion?

As my previous link exposes, Clinton was the abortion president! He left no doubt about the legality of partial birth abortion by refusing to sign legislation outlawing it!


Good luck,

Leon

No argument here.

The only thing I have found is that in this part of the country Rep., for the most part realize that their voting record on Infantiside can determine the outcome of a tight race.

The old adage "The sweaky wheel gets the oil."

I am not so nieave to think that in more liberal states that Rep. would respond in like manner.

As for me, the aboriton issue is the first of my NON NEGOTIONAL issues. I will not vote for any one who does not consistantly vote PRO LIFE reguardless of what he calls himself.

GB

Rabbi,

Your excuse for denying life to unplanned children of dirtbags is nothing less than one of the arguments used by Nazis to exterminate millions who had become what the Nazis termed a financial drain on the Third Reich! Remember, it is your opinion that taxpayers should not support children of dirtbags, and it was Hitler's opinion that Nazis should not have had the obligation to support what he considered to be what your opinion is of innocent children of dirtbags! What your posts boils down to is nothing more than rationalizing bad behavior!

Further your:




is proof of the lack of logic in your argument. Unless you would deny funding for stem cell research, aid to foreign nations, and a host of other programs, your choice to single out unborn babies is nothing but your opinion. For you see there, good Rabbi, your tax dollars are used to fund zillions of programs. Which ones do you favor? As for me, there is nothing more important than sustaining life. Finally, the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney for murderers like Charles Manson and others is supported by tax dollars collected from you. To me, it is far more important to keep an innocent kid alive that to defend killers. Where do you stand on this issue?

Let me ask you something. Some time ago I watched a religious debate on TV about the avbortion issue. On camera were reglious leaders from various beliefs. The Rabbi was nothing short of alarming, saying his faith denies an unborn baby human being status therefore allowing for its destruction without God's condemnation! If we accept this as true, then what is the intellecutal basis for denying Hitler's claim the Jews were of the same categotry therefore not worthy of human rights? The fact of the matter is that the Rabbi was using Hitler's logic to kill even more innocent victims than were the victims of the Holocaust!

I just can't figure out why many of the Jewish faith defend abortion using essentially the same arguments used by Hitler to kill Jews and many millions of others. How can they in good conscience revile Hitler while on the other hand do Hitler's dirty work to the unborn.

I am all eyes, please educate me!


Thanks,

Leon

Leon---Clinton did not issue executive orders on PBA, so that part of your "argument" is irrelevant. You also obviously don't understand the scope of executive orders and I don't have the time or inclination to teach you. Suffice to say, PBA is not an issue that could have been subject to an executive order other than a directive to government run hospitals.

Clinton didn't legalize anything, his veto preserved the status quo, whatever that was. If you don't understand the difference, there's not much point in discussing it.

You won't find a post on it from me because, d'uh, it happened a long time before I was on this board, and thus a very long time before you were.

Believing that Clinton is a slime doesn't require twisting the record---his real record is bad enough.

Wow. And I thought people (myself included) got riled up in the thread on the Kelo decision. Oh well, against my better judgment, I am going to pop in here. First, I do not intend to express any opinion on the legality, morality, or practical implications of abortion one way or the other. My purpose here is to make an observation about something I have kind of wondered about for a while.

If I recall correctly, the line that was drawn in Roe v. Wade and its progeny for when a fetus essentially goes from being a "clump of cells" (a term that was used to describe an embryo in a college level philosophy class I once took) and becomes a "life" for purposes of protection under the Constitution was "viability." That is to say, if the fetus was capable of "living" outside the womb, then it was "alive," otherwise it was not. Again, these are not my beliefs, just what I recall of the reasoning adopted in Roe v. Wade. In Roe the court basically adopted a "bright line" test for viability at the first trimester, i.e. a fetus is not viable until after the first trimester, and may therefore be aborted within that time. Again, I am going on my hazy memory of Roe and the cases that followed it from my law school days, which are getting to be farther and farther behind me. If anything I have related is incorrect, please don't anyone be bashful about jumping in to correct me.

Anyway, I always found viability to be a somewhat shaky foundation for determining the existence of "life." I mean, just how "viable" is a new born baby or even a two year old? If you abandoned a two year old, how long do you think it would survive on its own? Just how "viable" is a two year old? Aren't there laws against abandoning two year olds for the very reason that they are not equipped to care for themselves at that age? Just how "viable" is a two year old, really?

I guess I just don't see that "viability" provides a meaningful distinction, at least from a practical point of view, and it seems like an awfully shaky foundation upon which to determine something as important as when life begins.

As to whether abortion should be legal, what role the government should have in telling me or anyone else what I can or can't do, how I vote, what actions I take to express my views or to convert others to my way of thinking, etc., sorry, the prior posts indicate that it would be more or less pointless. People have their opinions on this issue, as they are certainly entitled, and I would not presume to think that mine is more valid than anyone elses or that anything I have to say would change anyone elses considered opinion. I just wanted to throw something out that had kind of been nagging at me for awhile that had not already been raised.

JP out.

you breed it, you feed it.... sounds simple and just to me..... john w

johnw, you ain't a Democrat, are you?

"my law school days"

Hey guys look! We have a new attorney on the board. I'm drawing a complete blank on lawyer jokes at the moment, but I was wondering.... could we just turn this thread into a lawyer joke thread? I'm real tired of the way this thread has unfolded.

JP, just (mostly) kidding about the lawyer jokes thing. That is unless you happen to have a few you'd like to share?<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
John

JP,
thought provoking post...ty...JP.

no, i'm not...

bill clinton was no democrat... george bush is no republican......

T.R. ..... now there was a republican....
F.D.R. ....... a true democrat.....

Yes Leon, I would deny stem cell research monies, and yes,
Leon I would terminate foreign aid.

I believe, Leon that you sound quite like a liberal socilaist!
If you could actually read with understanding, Leon, you could see I have not said I would deny these children anything....what I have said is that these responsibilities belong to the CHURCH! And not to government!

I don't favor any of the programs....they are all unconstitutional!

The Manson arguement....my goodness....we agree!

My post, good sir, was about conception preventions,
not ending lives of the unborn. Hath the devil blinded you
so grossly to what I have said, or do you simply dislike jews?

If I follow your logic and misguided understanding of what
I have said, to its' conclusion....then you must believe using
a condom is MURDER?

My belief is in pregnancy prevention, rather than abortion
which I believe to be infanticide?

If these statements are beyond your comprehension, then it
would be my belief that your hatred of jews is caused by
a devil. And I suggest to find a competant exorcist!

Ah, yes. I get it now. You are old school Roman Catholic,
which believes that birth prevention is sin and jews are Christ
killers! I'll give you a hint, bud, even Peter was a jew.
Just like all the other Apostles!

What you are overlooking is that I believe Jesus was the
prophecied Messiah, therefore, just as in the first century,
I can also call myself a CHRISTIAN! Jew? Christian?
Christian? Jew? If I believe Jesus is messiah can't I be
both? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

You need to deal with your anger management. And seriously, you should consult with an exorcist! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

In the last days, some will call light darkness and darkness light! These are either deluded or hath a devil!

Too simple John! Your statement is not PC. And not..
uh....spiritual enough? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" />

But I do agree. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

You breed it....you feed it.....yes sir, that is JUST!

SteveNO,



You were wrong here and you got some weasel clause going on that is designed to insulate you from exposure. The fact of the matter is since the Civil War the executive branch has accumulated increasing power. Moreover, it can certainly influence legislation therefore laws. Now I know that your admitting Clinton's culpability would destroy the legitimacy you're desperatly trying to convince whomever you have. But in the off chance you're open to enlightening, read what others of note have to say about Clinton's culpability in infanticide! I know, I know guys like Steve Forbes are nowhere near as smart as you, but maybe, just maybe you might be able to learn something from he and other social leaders.


Good reading,

Leon

Me neither <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Oh, and ditto on your interpretations of the aforementioned Presidents.

280Don, You expose the fallacy that is your argument when write such moronic things as:



Don, if you were exposed to the facts of right to life, you'd know that it is a conservative Republican issue, a major component of President Bush's campaign platform. On the other hand, m'man, the reality is your position is wholly consistent with the Democratic aganda and in perfect conformity with one William Jefferson Clinton: justify abortion any way possible!

So, now that we know you are the true Lenin solialist, that you're quite adept at slinging projection, when can we expect an authentic intellectual argument from your barrel?


Good luck,

Leon

FDR was a true solialist and many believe, probably correctly, Elenore was a communist. FDR did more to harm this country than he did to help it, if there is anything in the latter category at all!


Good luck,

Leon

Leon,

Let's bury the hatchet here for a moment, OK? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I'm trying with all my might to see how my position on
pregnacy prevention, NOT ABORTION, always comes back
to me being pro-abortion and anti-right to life?

I'm trying to address what happens PRIOR to conception!

Now be honest, man. Do you or do you not see birth
control the same as abortion? Simple question. Simple
answer? You are not suggesting that preventing a sperm
from reaching an egg is abortion, are you? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

My goodness, man. If that IS your position, why not just
have the intestinal fortitude to simply say so? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />
At least that would help me understand your rath towards my
side of this debate?

For what it is worth...from CONCEPTION on..I don't think
we are in disagreement on anything other than how to
solve the problem? I consider myself right-to-life, but for me
life begins at CONCEPTION...not before!

LP,

I said I'd stay out of this, and I want no more to do with the abortion debate. This post is on a separate topic.

Sir, you have respectable intellect. That is obvious from your ability to write well and make cogent arguments. You also seem like a man of character and of high moral conviction. All of those things are to be commended.

However, you seem to have a serious problem accepting that other people may have differing opinions, or even phrase the same position in a manner inconsistent with your own thoughts on the matter.

Example: your replies to Steve_NO. Steve is an attorney, and a damn good one from what I know of him. He probably knows more about the law and legal theory than I could ever hope to learn. Trust me, he is dead-on right with his interpretation of the law and Clinton's actions/inactions. Telling him that he's wrong on this is like denying that the ocean is saline or that rain comes from clouds. You're just wrong.

You go on to question his political affiliation. Ttrust me again, he is a died-in-the-wool Republican with a long history and lots of ties and connections.

Finally, you accuse him of being pro-abortion, even closet pro-abortion. He ain't in any way, shape, or form. If you took the time to ask the man his views, or even read what he's said on the subject, you'd know that he's adamantly opposed to abortion. Actively so, I suspect.

Look, Steve can (and will) defend himself - admirably so - he doesn't need or want me to do it for him, and that's not what I'm attempting to do. I am simply using this example to illustrate a flaw in your approach, and to offer a little advice.

A little well-intended advice, take it if you choose to:

Step back for a minute from this thread and debate. Cool off. Then, come back and start reading from the beginning. I suspect that you'll find a lot of allies that you're currently mis-identifying as enemies.

280Don,

This part of your post deserves special attention for it is the classic bait-and-switch, the smoke-and-mirrors that is clear proof your argument is nothing but emotional hogwash:



No one but you brought this up, and you did so to try to make me look extreme. The only ones who pull bullshit such as this are those who are wholly incapable of arguing intellectually; therefore, in order to avoid exposing the fallacies that are their arguments they resort to cheap attempts at making their opponents appear extreme. Again, this is a stunt used only by those who cannot support intellectual arguments! You are one such person!

Dude, this post has nothing to do with birth control. This post is an examination of the choices women lacking character make when they become pregnant! Your idiotic attempt at slandering Catholics is just plain stupid as is your argument in its entirity!

Now let me clear up one more of your moronic assumptions. I am a titular Christian. Other than weddings and funerals, I do not go to church. I do believe in God, and I believe that Jesus is the son of God. With that established, I do not preach my beliefs! What I do know for an absolute fact is that the intent of our Founding Fathers was that the country they founded was to be a Christian nation sans divine ruler (The Federalist No. 2)!

Ralph Reed wrote that if Christian ideals continue to be viciously attacked by immoral people, if evangelicals continue to be persecuted and ridiculed by those desiring to remove Christian law from society, Christians will react by taking back this country. Make no mistake here, Don, all groups in this country are encouraged to vote their concerns; i.e., gun owners, union workers, gays, teachers, etc. Christians are easily the largest single block of voters, and religiosity is on a upward trend since 9/11. If people continue to piss off Christains, they had better be prepared to experience one hell of a backlash!

My oppositon to abortion is twofold: firstly and most importanly, I know it to be immoral; secondly, I know that building a culture of death will have severe consequences for the survival of our civilization. If the Allies could force Germans to tour death and concentration camps, why couldn't a liberating force compel Americans to tour our infrastructure of death? How the hell are we any different than Germans who lived in Nazi Germany, except our target is the most innocent of all people? At least the Jews, gypsies, Catholics, Germans, et al in Nazi Germany could have fought back!

Don, please try to confine your rejoinder to the topic and hand and respond with intellectual argument. Argumentum ad hominem such as your last post to me is the hallmark of one devoid of intellectual merit!



Good luck,

Leon

VANimrod,



To me, this is the essence of character! In fact, it was the basis of JFK's Profiles in Courage. People of character try to correct wrong; they do not acquiesce to it!

Finally, you're right; let Steve defend himself. Believe me, m'man, I know the foundation of his argument; but it is one hell of a tenuous extrapolation from the role of congress to insulating Clinton from reproach. Read what others have said about Clinton from the link I provided!

VANimrod, as I wrote above, the essence of character is doing the right thing. The right think for Clinton to have done was to outlaw PBA. Instead he chose not to thereby protecting infanticide. Regardless of any nuance upon which Steve is relying to prop up his argument, incorrectly at that, Clinton was the abortion president. And because of his loyalty to those immoral, he chose to condemn full-term babies to death. Remember, all he had to do was sign legislation outlawing PBA.

Why Steve would pick this battle thereby defending Clinton is beyond me. Maybe you know Steve to be Republican, but his action in a weasel defense of Clinton exposes him otherwise! I know of no other Republican that insulates Clinton's culpability in his role in infanticide; however, I do know many a liberal Democrat who has attempted to defend him thusly.

Lemme write this one more time: Clinton's actions in PBA allowed infanticide! In contrast, President George Bush actions were quite different, thank God!



Good luck,


Leon

Leon, you are FAST becoming another WETIBBE.

By that I mean you have ONE issue on which you focus your entire attention, you refuse to even listen to what someone else has to say on the issue, even those that AGREE with your principles, and your take on the whole thing is that YOU and YOU ALONE have all the answers; anyone else is just wrong unless they agree with you entirely.

If you took the time to look back over this whole sorted thread, you'd find that not ONE single person has said that they support abortion. Not one. Not me ('cause I don't). Not 280don. Not Steve_NO. No one. Not one single abortion supporter.

You seemed to have missed that because you're too busy trying to be right about everything. You're spending your time trying to back up points on which you are wrong; trying to prove points that are irrelevant, and trying to demonize or demean anyone that disagrees with you on any small subpoint. You're picking fights and fighting battles that don't need to be fought against folks who have no fight with you on the big issue.

You're missing the forest for the trees, Leon, and you're becoming something that you aren't. Along the way, you're alienating potential friends, allies, and supporters, both of you and your cause.

Stop for a second, take a step back, look at the situation. Do it as a favor - to whom, you decide. Just do it, please.

Thanks, and good luck.

VANimrod,



I have no idea who/what the hell WETIBBE is, but if he/it refutes drivel, then I am him/it.




If you mean that I have the character to argue my convictions, then I am him! Remember, VA, that there were many who argued vociferously with our Founding Fathers over independence!



Lemme explian for you how things work in social science. When proposing controversial topics for public policy, rerely does one expose his/her true agenda. In order to determine true agenda, those of an astute bent have to search for key words. Often those who are too afraid to state what they truly want will take a circuitous route to their desired destination sort of like that described by Charles Lindbloom in his The Science of Muddling Through. For instance, let's examine Don refrain about not wanting taxpayers to support children of dirtbags. To accept this, one has to know the consequences. His position intimates support for abortion, but it is proffered in such a way to mask true intention. If we refuse to support the lives of such at-risk children, what happens to then? Well, y'see, m'man, this is where abortion is introduced as an attractive alternative, the true intention of such specious argument. What ya gotta ask yerself is if we accept Don's premise, what alternatives exist for unborn babies whose mothers cannot support them? I know you're wise enough to know the answer.

Now let's take a look at your not caring what other parents do to their children. You wrote this, and you took considereable heat for it because it really is another specious argument that is really tacit approval for abortion. What you're really doing is acquiescing to abortion while constructing an extremely feeble defense should your agenda be exposed. Remember, we have condemned Germans under the identical scenario for not doing enought to prevent the Holocaust! The fact of the matter is the logical extension of your argument is that you support a women's right to kill her unborn child if you protect her ability to do so under some specious ideal of her right to privacy with which you refuse to interfere. "Gee," said the weary Berliner to the Allied commander, "I had no right to interfere with the rights of the Nazis!"

Bud, critical reading and analysis takes patience and critical thinking skills. What separates us from animals is that we can predict the consequences of our actions and the actions of others. Further, we can also predict what said consequences will have on apparently unconnected areas; in this case, scoiety.

So, VA, what I can reasonably deduce here is your attempt to redefine your support for a mother to do what she wants with her unborn child. The comments in your earlier posts indicate a subtle, tacit support for abortion. In contrast, if you were to peruse my posts you'll find unequivocal condemnation for the killing of babies. And on the position I do have character to vehemently disagree with my oppisition because the very lives of the most innocent among us are at stake.

Tell me, VA, how did we get to this point in the history of our nation where this debate actually consumes so much of our time? Do you really believe our Founding Fathers would have allowed abortion? If they could have predicted the pandemic immorality slowly yet inexorably destroying the nation they created, what actions would they have taken? How did we get to the point where it was assumed that the deleterious effects of Roe v. Wade would be limited to the first trimester to where we now turn our backs on infanticide? Bud, the latter is a classic slippery slope in operation in which we allowed an apparently acceptable transgression supported by the most specious of logic to fester into an authentic travesty. And that, m'man, is the essence of character, or lack of it! You've condemned me because I dared to analyze arguments for authentic intentions and predicable consequences. Further, you have attacked me because I dared to challenge support for the abortion president. Are you so naive to believe that intellectuals such as Robert Bork have not lain blame at Clinton's feet? Do you want me to believe your pal Steve's legal mind surpasses Bork's who has legitimately been heralded as possessing the greatest legal mind of our era?

Lemme attempt to get you oriented here: this debate is not about the best cartridge for deer or the ultimate handgun for trail carry. This argument is about the lives of the most innocent among us and the very real consequences abortion has for the survial of this nation. Am if it pisses you off that I will not budge one iota on this issue, that I have the character to stick to my convictions, so be it! And believe me, I have the character to defend my position and to expose those who have allowed infanticde to occur. And yes, m'man, contrary to Steve's opinion, Clinton did protect infanticide.


Good luck,

Leon

<sigh>

Good bye, Leon.

Leon...let's try this one more time before you earn your way onto my "ignore" list.

Your initial statement and your premise is "Bill Clinton legalized partial birth abortion."

That is simply not true. Period. Not subject to debate.

If you want to talk about what a flaming ass he was and is, or how bad abortion is, fine....I'll agree with you. I spent a lot of my time and money on both causes.

But he didn't legalize PBA. And it's just kind of silly to keep saying so. You've got your panties in a huge knot arguing with people who philosophically agree with your positions.

VANimrod,

<sigh>

Adios, VA.

Leon

OK, Leon, i'll buy that, sorta..... still a better man than most living today, by my lights..... he was handed a tremendous burden, and did not try to dodge it.....

SteveNO,

Do you really think I give a [bleep] if you run from this debate?



Are you denying that Clinton had the ability to make illegal infanticide but didn't?



M'man, do always protect your inability to debate by defing that which is suitable for it?

Robert Bork wrote, "His [Clinton's] veto and feminist demand for what is, in truth, infanticide underscore the causal brutality born of nihilism that is an ever more prominent feature of our culture." (i) You ought to analyze other things he wrote about Clinton's role in PBA. Clinton was the personification of evil that was needed to bring to fruition the true intention of Roe v. Wade, that being unfettered access to abortion at any point during pregnancy.



This is the tenuous thread upon which you hold out your argumnet, a more authentic parsing of words might not exist.

Let me ask you a question: If Clinton had signed legislation outlawing PBA when it was presented to him, would infanticide be legal?

I know full well the basis of your argument, but unlike you, I do not hold it to be a defense for Clinton's culpability in PBA. If you're conscience is tight with it, we're of a very different cloth!

At the time PBA was examined by congress, its legality was in question. As far as I recall, no law existed that specifically allowed it to be practiced. Congress took the initiative by proscribing PBA and sent it to Clinton for signature. His refusal was tantamount to making legal a procedure of undefined status. But we can never forget that he had the ability to remove all doubt and make it illegal but he lacked character to do so.

Good luck,

Leon

(i) Bork, Robert H Slouching Towards Gomorrah. 1996 ReganBooks: NY, NY pp 182-83

You mean the finest state in the Peoples Repbulik of Amerika? Lawdog
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

No, Leon, I don't run from debates, but this isn't one. It's just you repeating the same BS over and over.

Your quote from Judge Bork is accurate, but irrelevant to your mistaken point. He doesn't agree with you, and wouldn't. He can grasp distinctions that make differences. You obviously can't.

And BTW, I know Robert Bork from his work on Republican senatorial campaigns. The pocket constitution on my desk as I write this is inscribed: "Support, protect and defend this document...as originally intended.
Best wishes, Robert Bork".

Hasta la vista, Leon. You just got upgraded from dumb a$$ to "ignore".

As we hear taps softly played in the in the background, Leon slowly rides into the sunset! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Buh Bye Leon....

... "this debate is not about the best cartridge for deer "...

And we all saw how well Leon coped with those who did share his passion for the .308 Winchester in that conversation also.

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Gunny Bob,

I should have known that the flies would come out after the intellectual work is done!

And you've done what...???


Leon

Steve,



If you do know Robert Bork you'd know the essence of his most excellent tome of from which I cited for you. If you read his book, you'd know the basis of his intellectual arguments, something lacking fromyour corner.

My m'man, I, too, have a pocket Constitution book. Your having one does not implicate intelligence. In fact, it ain't so much the Constitutin but the interpretation of same that is critical, something of which I am sure a sharp guy like you already knows, right?

And adios to you, omniscient one. Just like Gunny Bob, you're always right, facts be damned. Is this reflected in your vita??

TLee,

Other than your duplicitous comments here, what of intellectual significance have you contributed?


Adios,

Leon

Leon peers through his sights, he thinks sight alignment, sight picture, breathe, relax, aim, stop, squeeze.... suddenly the rifle bucks and....

a few seconds later his target drops....

waiting on the line he gets impatient, when the target finally comes back up he is disked....




































Maggie's Drawers! High and to the right!

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Steve,

BTW, if your:

"No, Leon, I don't run from debates, but this isn't one. It's just you repeating the same BS over and over."

ain't projection, what the hell is it? This is all you've done, stick to parsing in support of Clinton and then rail against me for exposing your gimmick!


Leon

The funny thing is that but for the sycophants who came a snoopin' of late, the only one who have attacked me are those who have either tacitly supported abortion or Clinton. Is that coincidental???

Leon

Gunny Bob,

Are you for real or merely a soldier of fortune? I mean anyone can play any role on the 'net. I think I have learned yours.


Leon

Click on my username....

Click on "Show all users posts"....

Read and enjoy.

Come back and tell me who you think I am.

I'll do my best as soon as you start Sir.

i was thinking of the "great depression" when i wrote that.... WWII added on makes him the head of state upon which the two greatest blows to our capitalist republic, in the twentieth century, landed..... he died in the traces while pulling us out....
i'll agree that in retrospect, some of what he did was shortsighted..... America and western civilization still owe him a lot..... john w

Gunny,

You don't owe captain dunzel any answers!

Keep safe, buddy!

Don

Hmmmmm intersting topic...As a woman I don't buy the idea that any one should tell me what i can and can not do with my own body. Though I feel the ladies(umm i use that term loosly for some) that choose to continue to conceive and then want society to help take care of their offspring add to ire that taxpayers feel. What to do when you find yourself pregnant should be your choice...i.e..victim of a rape should be allowed the choice..one with a major medical problem should have a choice..frickin spready freddies should have their tubes tied!