Flyin145s

I just read an interesting piece on abortion and the illustrious Obama...

I thought of this thread when I read this.

Wes Mantooth on here said, "Forcing beliefs?.... a woman does not want the fetus inside her that currently does not have the ability to live outside of her body."

Be honest here...how can ANYONE be against protecting a baby born alive?

CitizenLink: Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act

"An Illinois lawmaker offered the first draft of the state’s Born Alive Infant Protection Act in 2001 after I revealed publicly that Christ Hospital left babies who survived abortion — viable babies whose delivery was induced, and whom the abortionist intended to kill but somehow survived — in a utility room to die."

Now, on to the guy who views a baby as a punishment:

"I happened to be at the Capitol that day, too, and a friend and I took the opportunity to speak to Obama, who had not yet achieved rock-star status and was still approachable.

We were in Springfield to lobby for passage of the state Born Alive Infant Protection Act, legislation that would require hospitals to care for infants who survive an abortion. Obama spoke against the legislation in 2001 and 2002 and single-handedly defeated it in committee in 2003.

My friend stood in Obama’s path and said, “Senator, we are going to pass Born Alive here in Illinois this year.”

Obama smiled smoothly and agreed, “I think you will,” adding, “I would have voted for the Born Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois had it been worded the same as the federal bill. I think that’s the position the Democrats should take.”

There’s just one thing he forgot to mention: Obama had stopped his committee from adding the federal wording.

With Obama no longer in the state Senate, the Born Alive legislation passed in 2005."

Now, doesn't this take the "viability" arguement to task?

Face it: abortion is about killing. Couple that with partial-birth abortion, where the baby is arguably "viable outside the womb". He/She is delivered deliberately feet-first, and then murdered while the head is still inside the mother's body.

Is this the legal hairsplitting the anti-life croud has taken us? If the head is inside the mother, then he/she is still not a life worth protecting and saving?

It's amazing how many far Left organizations defend planned parenthood when one of the primary purposes of that terrible group was to greatly reduce the black population.

But don't expect Reverand Wright to spout off about that before he retires to his 10,000 square foot mansion.

__________________
"The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental." -John Steinbeck

Yariv

Flyin145s,

Why should I give a rats a$s about any candidate's private opinions about abortion? why on earth is abortion a political issue? why is the candidate's religion an issue? it's extremely narrow minded to reject a candidate because he belongs to a slightly different religion. it's DUMB to reject a candidate because of what he thinks about abortion.

I'll partially answer my own question. the reason religion and abortion are a political issue is because the religious are trying to legislate their religious views, and the moderates/liberals are trying to prevent it.

these sure are DUMB times we live in.

__________________
"What if this wasn't a hypothetical question?"
http://yariv.homeip.net:81/lia
http://yariv.homeip.net:81/jake

Flyin145s

You're not serious, are you?

It's not a "private opinion" when he's legeslating in that way. He's involved with passing laws that allow (or disallow) abandoning a living baby to die after birth, so hiding behind all the abortion stuff is out of the question. The baby is out and viable at this point, so all the abortion arguements are out the window. It's now a candidate that supports legally being able to leave a baby to die, voluntarily, AFTER the baby is born, simply because an abortion was saught.

At that point, it's neither "private" nor "opinion".

Oh, but we absolutely HAD to know EXACTLY what a USSC Justice thinks about abortion, didn't we?

"why is the candidate's religion an issue?" you ask? A candidate's religion in itself is not an issue to me, either. But, of course, that's also exactly what I was saying when the religion in question was Mormonism. Remember that one all over the media?

What made his an issue is that Reverand Wright's ideology is politics that hides behind religion, not about Christianity. Also why that church should lose it's tax exempt status. (I thought churches were not allowed to endorse candidates!)

Where in the Christian Bible does it say AIDS was a government conspiracy to kill blacks? How about that we knew in advance about both 9/11 AND Pearl Harbor?

It's not his belief in Christ that made it newsworthy and relevant.

I would like to know a candidate's positions on these issues, especially since they're so radical and he's a candidate with such a short history to look at (especially considering Barak merely voted 'present' 130 times in IL (when he could have voted up or down, but he refused to use all that wonderful 'judgement' he touts)).

Why, then, ask about any candidate's position on anything? Or are you just concerned if they heard it outside church?

If a 30 year old DUI was relevant for Bush, then 20 years of this kind of "ministry" is most certainly worth combing over. I have NO problems with ANY of the Biblical part of that ministry, only the politics that were going on there. The racism, separation, conspiracy theories, etc. It was very hateful and bigoted.

If it were Trent Lott and he were at a church that was screaming "White" this and "white that", I'm SUUURE the Left would have plenty to say about it.

__________________
"The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental." -John Steinbeck

Yariv

air india declares and emergency, and when asked for souls on board his reply was "can you be more specific?" (not a true story )

I'm a passive militant atheist. passive because like Len I have no interest in converting anyone, influencing anyone, saving anyone, or defending my opinions, unless provoked. provoked means that someone is trying to force their religious views on me, such as de-legalizing abortion or teaching my kids about creationism.

I'm certainly not one of those easily offended people, who think their rights are infringed by seeing the ten commandments in a courthouse of by their kid hearing other kids voluntarily saying 'one nation under god' in school. or like reading 'god doesn't exist, prove me wrong.' these are not offensive things because they can be ignored. creationism in the classroom can't be ignored.

would you feel better if the post was 'in your opinion, does god exist? prove it.' is that less offensive? if so, you are too easily offended, and can be considered by some (based on your own definition) to be 'militant'.

now, can you prove god exist or not? so far we haven't. we know you can believe even without this proof, that's not the question.

__________________
"What if this wasn't a hypothetical question?"
http://yariv.homeip.net:81/lia
http://yariv.homeip.net:81/jake

Yariv

I'm guilty of what I"ve been blaming others on this thread - I rushed and didn't read the article! I skimmed it and thought it was the same old boring thing about abortion. my applogy, I agree 100% with what you said after reading it.

so, yes, there is a double standard.

I still stand by what I posted (which is not relevant to the article you posted) which is that religious issues and opinion on abortion are not relevant in an election. I do agree with you however, that if a candidate does subscribe to some fanatical, rediculous, baseless cult that worships things that don't exist, we have to examine their mental state in general and they may not be fit for office. unfortonately, based on my views on all religions, all candidates fall under this description because all religions do...

You certainly should ask a candidate's position on all political issues that they will deal with as president, and currently abortion is on that list. my point was that there is no logical reason why it should be a political issue, if indeed "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

__________________
"What if this wasn't a hypothetical question?"
http://yariv.homeip.net:81/lia
http://yariv.homeip.net:81/jake

Radical

ha ha ha ha ha

Yariv

what you're describing is completely natrual and in line with evolution. it's just not the best possible outcome that we would want. "we" means specifically those who believe nature is here to serve man (because god created man in his image, and nature to provide for man) as opposed to man is merely a part of nature with no special significance. nature was here before, and will be here after man is long gone.

it's true that we're perpetuating some diseases by keeping the 'victims' alive which allows them to reproduce and their offsprings keep the 'bad' genes in the gene pool. this is just a blip and will not affect the balance in the long run. human population continues to grow exponentially and will do so until things start to get too crowded. when that happens, food shortage, disease, war (africa style) artificial population control (chinese style) and other forms of natural population reductions that I can't even envision (like the antibiotic crisis you described) will reduce the rate of growth. not sure it'll be zombies but it'll be something .

every species affects the balance of nature. no doubt man has affected it more than other species. but the whole premise of evolution is that there is no predetermined outcome, goal, design, or plan. species evolve in reaction to changes in the environment, and at the same time every species affects the environment. arguably man is the only species that doesn't have a natural predator, and what you're saying is that man is becoming his own predator... that's doesn't go against evolution or 'prevent' natural selection. on the contrary.

__________________
"What if this wasn't a hypothetical question?"
http://yariv.homeip.net:81/lia
http://yariv.homeip.net:81/jake

Yariv

care to elaborate on that? what a terrible thing to say, unless it's true. if by primary purposes you're referring to the one v.p. (who was denounced and fired) accepting a racially charged donation, then at the least you're exagurrating. and you make it sound like this took place over many years and the organization no longer exists, when in fact this happened in 2007 and the organization is alive and well.

that's 4 posts in a row for me...is it page 100 yet? I must have way too much free time (thanks to FMLA )

__________________
"What if this wasn't a hypothetical question?"
http://yariv.homeip.net:81/lia
http://yariv.homeip.net:81/jake

Flyin145s

Certainly. Do some looking up on Margaret Sanger. She's the founder of Planned Parenthood. More specifically, do some looking into what she called "The Negro Project".

This isn't "Right Wing" propaganda. This is all well documented, although you may find many of the Left Wing sites don't like to talk about her or her history.

"We do not want word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population" -Margaret Sanger

That project had much to do with the founding of Planned Parenthood and their exploitation of black leaders to push their agenda under the guise of helping the black community, whom she referred to as "socially undesirable people."

Sadly, much of the black community still seems to believe that they were legitimately there to help them. But don't expect Reverand Wright to talk about that when he's going off about AIDS conspiracy theories.

". . .we prefer the policy of immediate sterilizarion, of making sure that parenthood is ' absolutely prohibited ' to the feeble-minded." -Margaret Sanger

Here's an excerpt from her "Plan for Peace"

The main objects of the Population Congress would be:

a. to raise the level and increase the general intelligence of population.

b. to increase the population slowly by keeping the birth rate at its present level of fifteen per thousand, decreasing the death rate below its present mark of 11 per thousand.

c. to keep the doors of immigration closed to the entrance of certain aliens whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race, such as feebleminded, idiots, morons, insane, syphilitic, epileptic, criminal, professional prostitutes, and others in this class barred by the immigration laws of 1924.

d. to apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.

e. to insure the country against future burdens of maintenance for numerous offspring as may be born of feebleminded parents, by pensioning all persons with transmissible disease who voluntarily consent to sterilization.

f. to give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation or sterilization.

g. to apportion farm lands and homesteads for these segregated persons where they would be taught to work under competent instructors for the period of their entire lives. (ie: make them slaves)

Sounds an awful lot like Hilter, doesn't it? It should...she idolized him.

This is the where Planned Parenthood came from. Much like today, a sinister plan hidden behind a nice sounding name.

Now, when considering how "objective" sources like Time Magazine are, consider their handing of her past: TIME 100: Margaret Sanger

It would be like a biography on Hitler that omits the death camps.

__________________
"The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental." -John Steinbeck

kidicarus5897

First off, I was alreday schooled by vortex generator about using "exponential" do describe an increase.........not sure you want to go down that road too

Second, I disagree. Our alterations of nature are not natural. And I define natural in this instance as what products of nature are able to do without technological alterations. Our ability to care for those whith bad genes and broken bones has altered natural selection completely, and this would not have happened with any other species. We have, with our intelect, made ourselves much more healthy by altering our enviornment, and now, altering our genes. Natuaral selection has been greatly reduced in our species, and we have introduced a level of selective selection for survival. Not really a theological topic, but interesting none the less

__________________
Hey, it's not lying if what I said would be true if the facts were different......