PDA

View Full Version : Papers expose Obama's "infanticide".



Dolphin39
08-26-2008, 08:23 AM
Judgement day is coming!

American how low we have fallen.

http://www.baptistpress.com/BPnews.asp?ID=28732

milldog
08-26-2008, 09:06 AM
Judgement day is coming!

American how low we have fallen.

http://www.baptistpress.com/BPnews.asp?ID=28732



More Spin!!!
http://www.cbn.com/images5/cbnnews/PDF/FromBarackObamaCampaign.pdfn!!! Get a life!

Dolphin39
08-26-2008, 02:59 PM
More Spin!!!
http://www.cbn.com/images5/cbnnews/PDF/FromBarackObamaCampaign.pdfn!!! Get a life!

The ugly truth...not spin.

Dolphan7
08-26-2008, 09:02 PM
Obama definitely supports abortion, which is one of the reasons I disagree with him.

WSE
08-27-2008, 11:24 AM
Obama definitely supports abortion, which is one of the reasons I disagree with him.

I know to you it wont make a huge difference, but to me it does

he does not support abortion, he supports a woman's choice

Dolphan7
08-27-2008, 12:53 PM
I know to you it wont make a huge difference, but to me it does

he does not support abortion, he supports a woman's choiceActually he thinks abortion is wrong, but doesn't have the spine to stand for what he believes in, so he plays both sides of the issue.

He supports Roe v Wade = Supports abortion on demand.


But point number two, I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade, and I come to that conclusion not because I'm pro-abortion, but because, ultimately, I don't think women make these decisions casually. I think they -- they wrestle with these things in profound ways, in consultation with their pastors or their spouses or their doctors or their family members. And so, for me, the goal right now should be -- and this is where I think we can find common ground. And by the way, I've now inserted this into the Democratic party platform, is how do we reduce the number of abortions? The fact is that although we have had a president who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down and that is something we have to address.

I like the idea of tackling the cause of abortions to try to reduce them, but.......I think it falls way short.

Reducing is not eliminating.

Tetragrammaton
08-27-2008, 01:01 PM
Actually he thinks abortion is wrong, but doesn't have the spine to stand for what he believes in, so he plays both sides of the issue.

I don't support abortion, but I also don't support imposing my belief on others. I also have never had to go through what a mother of an unexpected pregnancy has gone through.

Dolphan7
08-27-2008, 01:23 PM
I don't support abortion, but I also don't support imposing my belief on others. I also have never had to go through what a mother of an unexpected pregnancy has gone through.Well if you support any law in this country you are supporting the imposition of someones belief system on others. Laws stem from someones interpretation of right and wrong.

But abortion isn't really a belief imposition.

It is about the rights of unborn American citizens. It is a Constitutional issue.
If you are alive and breathing, thank your mother for NOT aborting YOU! So if you were given the opportunity to pursue life liberty and happiness, why not the next one?

Tetragrammaton
08-27-2008, 01:33 PM
Well if you support any law in this country you are supporting the imposition of someones belief system on others. Laws stem from someones interpretation of right and wrong.

But abortion isn't really a belief imposition.

It is about the rights of unborn American citizens. It is a Constitutional issue.
If you are alive and breathing, thank your mother for NOT aborting YOU! So if you were given the opportunity to pursue life liberty and happiness, why not the next one?

Abortion isn't a law, it is a lack of a law. The Supreme Court didn't make abortion legal, but rather struck down abortion laws in the name of privacy. Just like striking down laws against gay marriage wouldn't be imposing a belief on others.

And it isn't about the rights of any American citizen. You have to be born to be a citizen. Before that, you are not. A fetus couldn't run for President, most likely. And you are right, it is a constitutional issue. The Supreme Court found it to be in 1973.

Obama is likely trying to please both sides, but that isn't inherent with his stance. I have that stance and I have no desire to please those who wish to impose on others. I am simply allowing people to make the choice for themselves. I don't feel that abortion is the best outcome, but life isn't always about best outcomes.

ohall
08-27-2008, 01:48 PM
Can you imagine if this was a REP candidate caught in a similar lie what the mainstream media would do to that REP candidate?

It must be GREAT to have hundreds or even thousands of press secretaries covering your back side day in day out.

And some ppl still think the mainstream media is not biased towards Obama and LIB's in general.

Dolphan7
08-27-2008, 02:11 PM
Abortion isn't a law, it is a lack of a law. The Supreme Court didn't make abortion legal, but rather struck down abortion laws in the name of privacy. Just like striking down laws against gay marriage wouldn't be imposing a belief on others.

And it isn't about the rights of any American citizen. You have to be born to be a citizen. Before that, you are not. A fetus couldn't run for President, most likely. And you are right, it is a constitutional issue. The Supreme Court found it to be in 1973.

Obama is likely trying to please both sides, but that isn't inherent with his stance. I have that stance and I have no desire to please those who wish to impose on others. I am simply allowing people to make the choice for themselves. I don't feel that abortion is the best outcome, but life isn't always about best outcomes.I think this is what is still confusing. What determines citizenship?

If one has to be born first in order to be considered a citizen, than all those people who have been convicted of killing unborn children as part of another crime should be appealing right and left.

There is a contradiction, and I think this country needs to define what constitutes life and citizenship once and for all.

Just like I think we need to define what marriage is once and for all.

Regardless - Obama supports abortion on demand, and that is one reason I dislike him.

emeraldfin
08-28-2008, 08:08 AM
As an outsider looking in, I think Obama has take a very smart position on abortion. Its pretty much a laissez faire attitude. Basically he's saying I personally dont like the idea of abortion, but women can make their own choices.

Abortion is one of these issues that has a murky cloud over it similar to euthanasia. In a country dubbed "The Land of The Free" should'nt people be allowed to make up their own minds when it comes to life and death?

LouPhinFan
08-28-2008, 09:14 AM
As an outsider looking in, I think Obama has take a very smart position on abortion. Its pretty much a laissez faire attitude. Basically he's saying I personally dont like the idea of abortion, but women can make their own choices.

Abortion is one of these issues that has a murky cloud over it similar to euthanasia. In a country dubbed "The Land of The Free" should'nt people be allowed to make up their own minds when it comes to life and death?

But that's the real issue at hand with "choice". A mother makes up her mind and makes a "choice" for an unborn child. She is basically not giving that child a "choice". To bring it back to religion, the Bible says one of the functions of government should be the protection of the innocent. It doesn't get more innocent than an unborn, defenseless child.

Marino613
08-28-2008, 07:28 PM
There is a contradiction, and I think this country needs to define what constitutes life and citizenship once and for all.

Just like I think we need to define what marriage is once and for all.



I agree with the first statement in that I don't agree that a woman should have the right to abort her fetus IF (and only if) abortion is in fact murder. This country does need to decide the parameters of murder and the definition of life in this matter. I have no idea myself.

I disagree with your second statement (although it is a off topic I suppose). I could care less if the country has a definition of marriage. In fact, I think it would probably be even better if the country had no definition of marriage and empowered private institutions, religious and
secular, to define it for themselves. Unlike abortion, where a woman's choice at least allegedly is effecting another human being, what two consenting adults do to commit to each other really does not violate anyone else's rights.

ih8brady
08-28-2008, 08:01 PM
But that's the real issue at hand with "choice". A mother makes up her mind and makes a "choice" for an unborn child. She is basically not giving that child a "choice". To bring it back to religion, the Bible says one of the functions of govthe Bible says one of the functions of government should be the protection of the innocent.ernment should be the protection of the innocent. It doesn't get more innocent than an unborn, defenseless child.


Luckily, the Bible isn't what dictates legality in this country.


EDIT: sorry I jumbled it up a bit...refer to orig. post.

Dolphan7
08-28-2008, 08:22 PM
I agree with the first statement in that I don't agree that a woman should have the right to abort her fetus IF (and only if) abortion is in fact murder. This country does need to decide the parameters of murder and the definition of life in this matter. I have no idea myself.

I disagree with your second statement (although it is a off topic I suppose). I could care less if the country has a definition of marriage. In fact, I think it would probably be even better if the country had no definition of marriage and empowered private institutions, religious and
secular, to define it for themselves. Unlike abortion, where a woman's choice at least allegedly is effecting another human being, what two consenting adults do to commit to each other really does not violate anyone else's rights.My only reason for bringing up a definition of marriage is because if we don't define it now, there will be all sorts of marriages that our government will have to manage and honor.... and dissolve.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/938xpsxy.asp

http://www.beyondmarriage.org/



I do care what marriage is. I think the traditional marriage of one man and one woman should be preserved and respected.

People can civil union themselves into oblivion if they so choose, but please keep that as a separate and distinctly different entity.

Bumpus
08-29-2008, 11:49 AM
Could somebody help me out? I can't for the life of me remember how to add people to my ignore list.

Marino613
08-30-2008, 01:16 AM
My only reason for bringing up a definition of marriage is because if we don't define it now, there will be all sorts of marriages that our government will have to manage and honor.... and dissolve.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/938xpsxy.asp

http://www.beyondmarriage.org/



I do care what marriage is. I think the traditional marriage of one man and one woman should be preserved and respected.

People can civil union themselves into oblivion if they so choose, but please keep that as a separate and distinctly different entity.

I could give a flying (expletive) about what people want to call marriage. No disrespect intended by any means, but neither you, your religious community or the the Bible owns the definition of the word marriage in this country, so it doesn't move me all that much whether someone thinks that traditional marriage should be "preserved and respected". In my vernacular use of the term, when I see two people committed to sharing the rest of their lives together, building families in some cases, I call it marriage because it is the best term for describing what is going on. If that doesn't work for you, fine. It doesn't have to. Don't call them married. Who really cares if the government does?

Personally, the simplest solution IMO would be if civil unions are ok then the problem would simply be solved if that's all the government did. That leaves your church able to define for itself what marriage is without having to hand over that power to a government that may disagree with you (and it looks more and more like it will).

As to dissolution of marriage, so long as two people are living closely together and sharing assets, there will be messy divorces even if it is in the civil court and not divorce court, so I really don't see the difference. If anything, in an ideal world, divorce court would at least be better practiced and equipped to handle the case as it is most similar to what you would call marriage, largely for the very reasons I choose to call it marriage. The same goes if it is 3 people or 4 people.

That is very different from abortion where whether I call it a "living human being" or "potential life, but nothing more" makes all the difference in the world.

Dolphan7
09-01-2008, 08:05 PM
I could give a flying (expletive) about what people want to call marriage. No disrespect intended by any means, but neither you, your religious community or the the Bible owns the definition of the word marriage in this country, so it doesn't move me all that much whether someone thinks that traditional marriage should be "preserved and respected". In my vernacular use of the term, when I see two people committed to sharing the rest of their lives together, building families in some cases, I call it marriage because it is the best term for describing what is going on. If that doesn't work for you, fine. It doesn't have to. Don't call them married. Who really cares if the government does?

Personally, the simplest solution IMO would be if civil unions are ok then the problem would simply be solved if that's all the government did. That leaves your church able to define for itself what marriage is without having to hand over that power to a government that may disagree with you (and it looks more and more like it will).

As to dissolution of marriage, so long as two people are living closely together and sharing assets, there will be messy divorces even if it is in the civil court and not divorce court, so I really don't see the difference. If anything, in an ideal world, divorce court would at least be better practiced and equipped to handle the case as it is most similar to what you would call marriage, largely for the very reasons I choose to call it marriage. The same goes if it is 3 people or 4 people.

That is very different from abortion where whether I call it a "living human being" or "potential life, but nothing more" makes all the difference in the world.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

I respond to the bolded part as follows:

Marriage isn't an institution practiced by just those who believe in the bible. Marriage between one man and one woman has been the norm for thousands of years all over the world. The family nucleus of father, mother, children... has been the foundation of societies since the beginning of time. It is the glue that holds societies together. It is a time honored commitment to family and family values that deserves all the respect. It should be preserved and protected. It should be considered higher than any other form of marriage a morally bankrupt society creates to satisfy it's needs. Equating traditional marriage to the whims of societies desires for more broad definition, actually lowers the whole concept of marriage to it's lowest common denominator. If society chooses to allow for non-traditional marriages, then at least do so without taking away from the traditional role and view of marriage. Don't try to blend them all together and call them all normal.

That is my opinion.

Marino613
09-02-2008, 08:07 AM
You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

I respond to the bolded part as follows:

Marriage isn't an institution practiced by just those who believe in the bible. Marriage between one man and one woman has been the norm for thousands of years all over the world. The family nucleus of father, mother, children... has been the foundation of societies since the beginning of time. It is the glue that holds societies together. It is a time honored commitment to family and family values that deserves all the respect. It should be preserved and protected. It should be considered higher than any other form of marriage a morally bankrupt society creates to satisfy it's needs. Equating traditional marriage to the whims of societies desires for more broad definition, actually lowers the whole concept of marriage to it's lowest common denominator. If society chooses to allow for non-traditional marriages, then at least do so without taking away from the traditional role and view of marriage. Don't try to blend them all together and call them all normal.

That is my opinion.

YOu are certainly entitled to your opinion as well. You can disrespect what others want to call marriage, think it morally bankrupt, or whatever you want. But it won't stop people from calling it marriage. I have no problem blending these non-traditional views of marriage, and as a married man (to a woman), and a father, in no way do I feel that my relationship has been diminished by calling same sex couples married. Just because it isn't traditional, doesn't mean it is wrong. Indeed, I think it is a good positive expansion of the concept, just as we have relegated less savory elements of marriage to the past. Traditional marriage in western society also indicated (in a very legal sense) that marital rape wasn't rape, despite the horror and real suffering that caused. Traditional marriage also meant that wives were subservient to husbands. I personally am glad those very traditional aspects of marriage are generally not accepted anymore. Still, I would never impose a definition of marriage onto you, just as I would deny any impositions you would make on me. [Edit: Although, if someone were to rape their wife, I would support arresting the guy...]

Just fyi - the nuclear family as it exists in America is really not very traditional at all. The idea of a husband/wife set moving to another coast, or even a town away is quite new. Traditionally, families are extended units of brothers, sisters, cousins, and kin jointly raising children, defending each other. So our societal needs have already radically changed the family structure.

I still don't see the parallel to abortion. If we can find an agreement about what life actually means, other societal factors should never play into it as we are talking (potentially and allegedly) about murder, and if we aren't, then we are talking about a woman's right to decide what to do with her body.

Dolphan7
09-02-2008, 10:27 AM
YOu are certainly entitled to your opinion as well. You can disrespect what others want to call marriage, think it morally bankrupt, or whatever you want. But it won't stop people from calling it marriage. I have no problem blending these non-traditional views of marriage, and as a married man (to a woman), and a father, in no way do I feel that my relationship has been diminished by calling same sex couples married. Just because it isn't traditional, doesn't mean it is wrong. Indeed, I think it is a good positive expansion of the concept, just as we have relegated less savory elements of marriage to the past. Traditional marriage in western society also indicated (in a very legal sense) that marital rape wasn't rape, despite the horror and real suffering that caused. Traditional marriage also meant that wives were subservient to husbands. I personally am glad those very traditional aspects of marriage are generally not accepted anymore. Still, I would never impose a definition of marriage onto you, just as I would deny any impositions you would make on me. [Edit: Although, if someone were to rape their wife, I would support arresting the guy...]

Just fyi - the nuclear family as it exists in America is really not very traditional at all. The idea of a husband/wife set moving to another coast, or even a town away is quite new. Traditionally, families are extended units of brothers, sisters, cousins, and kin jointly raising children, defending each other. So our societal needs have already radically changed the family structure.

I still don't see the parallel to abortion. If we can find an agreement about what life actually means, other societal factors should never play into it as we are talking (potentially and allegedly) about murder, and if we aren't, then we are talking about a woman's right to decide what to do with her body.
I don't consider my view of marriage to be disrespectful to anyone else's view, it is just my position and I stand by it. I respect people's right to form their own opinions, I just may not agree with them.

Regarding the bolded part, I don't think I need to go into more detail to explain that the problems we are facing in our society today, or many of them, are because of the breakdown of the traditional family. How many kids are without fathers? How many kids don't have any parents? How many kids are being raised by relatives? How many kids are in foster are? These are nothing new, just more frequent. But here is the new twist, how many kids have multiple parents and grandparents due to divorce, being shufffled from one household to the next. It all takes it's toll on the kids and the traditional family. Values somehow get lost in the shuffle.

Yes we are a morally bankrupt society. A society that places more value on endangered animals than their own unborn children.

The only reason this subject is in this thread is becasue I made the statement that our government needs to define marriage and at what point does a baby become a citizen. Congress and the POTUS need to do that instead of relagating it to the courts to decide. If they would simply make the decision, then we wouldn't have judges feeling they need to make law. Either that or relagate it back to the States and make it a States rights issue.

Sadly, I think it is an opportunity lost.

cwsox
09-03-2008, 12:05 AM
Judgement day is coming!



yes

it seems God gives the US perfect weather when the Democrats meet

and smites the US with hurricanes when the GOP gathers

WSE
09-03-2008, 11:02 AM
Actually he thinks abortion is wrong, but doesn't have the spine to stand for what he believes in, so he plays both sides of the issue.

He supports Roe v Wade = Supports abortion on demand.



I like the idea of tackling the cause of abortions to try to reduce them, but.......I think it falls way short.

Reducing is not eliminating.

like I said, it wont matter to you

to me though, that is how I feel, and I feel like I have a spine

to me, abortion is a complicated issue.

I dont support abortion. I wouldnt want a girlfriend of mine getting one. I think it is disgusting to be honest.

However, it doesnt mean I could tell other people what they beleive to be wrong or not. I cant tell a young girl I dont know what her morals should be. I cant compare very different situations.

Abortion is a moral choice, and moral choices should be left to individual people (in this case the women), not government.

Like I said, it wont matter to you, I dont expect it to. The only thing that matters to you is what is in the bible, and honeslty, I dont care about that.

Dolphan7
09-03-2008, 12:56 PM
like I said, it wont matter to you

to me though, that is how I feel, and I feel like I have a spine

to me, abortion is a complicated issue.

I dont support abortion. I wouldnt want a girlfriend of mine getting one. I think it is disgusting to be honest.

However, it doesnt mean I could tell other people what they beleive to be wrong or not. I cant tell a young girl I dont know what her morals should be. I cant compare very different situations.

Abortion is a moral choice, and moral choices should be left to individual people (in this case the women), not government.

Like I said, it wont matter to you, I dont expect it to. The only thing that matters to you is what is in the bible, and honeslty, I dont care about that.If you feel abortion is wrong, and if you consider it murder like I do, yet you have no problem telling the thugs down the street that murdering people is wrong and you are fully supporting of the laws we have that make murder a federal offense......then why would you have a problem with a law that makes abortion a federal offense? They are both murder, they are both wrong, they are both moral decisions people make?

You would tell your girlfriend no go on an abortion, saving the life of one child, yet the girl down the street decides to kill hers, where is the justice for that unborn child as compared to yours?

I think you really need to look at this from the unborn childs point of view. They are helpless human beings that have absolutely no choice in the matter and depend on their parents and their government to protect them. Who speaks for them? Doesn't everyone have the right to life, liberty and happiness? Or only those that somehow manage to survive the abortion gauntlet?

I think people get caught up in the "telling other people what to do thing". That is what countries do. That is what laws do. That is what this country was founded on - laws that protect and promote freedoms. People have no problem with laws that punish murder and rape and assault, yet have a huge problem with abortion. There really isn't any different. They are all crimes against people. They are all moral decisions people make when committing them believe it or not.

For once I would like to see someone speak for the unborn in the court systems.

How wacky is this country when you can get an abortion legally, yet if you murder a pregnant woman you can be charged with both her and her babies death? Very inconsistent.

Hey look I didn't quote one verse from the bible. That's because this isn't just a religious issue, it is a constitutional issue. It is a rights issue.

ABrownLamp
09-03-2008, 01:03 PM
If you feel abortion is wrong, and if you consider it murder like I do, yet you have no problem telling the thugs down the street that murdering people is wrong and you are fully supporting of the laws we have that make murder a federal offense......then why would you have a problem with a law that makes abortion a federal offense? They are both murder, they are both wrong, they are both moral decisions people make?

You would tell your girlfriend no go on an abortion, saving the life of one child, yet the girl down the street decides to kill hers, where is the justice for that unborn child as compared to yours?

I think you really need to look at this from the unborn childs point of view. They are helpless human beings that have absolutely no choice in the matter and depend on their parents and their government to protect them. Who speaks for them? Doesn't everyone have the right to life, liberty and happiness? Or only those that somehow manage to survive the abortion gauntlet?

I think people get caught up in the "telling other people what to do thing". That is what countries do. That is what laws do. That is what this country was founded on - laws that protect and promote freedoms. People have no problem with laws that punish murder and rape and assault, yet have a huge problem with abortion. There really isn't any different. They are all crimes against people. They are all moral decisions people make when committing them believe it or not.

For once I would like to see someone speak for the unborn in the court systems.

How wacky is this country when you can get an abortion legally, yet if you murder a pregnant woman you can be charged with both her and her babies death? Very inconsistent.

Hey look I didn't quote one verse from the bible. That's because this isn't just a religious issue, it is a constitutional issue. It is a rights issue.

A sperm cell that meets an egg cell does not deserve the same rights as a human being. Id like to know what kind of penalty these women who "murder" their unborn children should have since you consider it murder.

Lock them up for life? Obviously you dont. No normal person would. And you know why? Cause its not the same thing as a human being. Its a zygote.

edit- please dont take us down the you were a zygote at one point stuff. My DNA was encapsulated in a sperm once too. And before that I was a thought in my dads head. Theres no limit to how far you can take the argument

Dolphan7
09-03-2008, 01:26 PM
A sperm cell that meets an egg cell does not deserve the same rights as a human being. Id like to know what kind of penalty these women who "murder" their unborn children should have since you consider it murder.

Lock them up for life? Obviously you dont. No normal person would. And you know why? Cause its not the same thing as a human being. Its a zygote.

edit- please dont take us down the you were a zygote at one point stuff. My DNA was encapsulated in a sperm once too. And before that I was a thought in my dads head. Theres no limit to how far you can take the argument
This is why ABL that we need to determine exactly what constitutes a life, a human being. Until we solve that riddle (for some) we will have this debate until the end of recorded history.

WSE
09-03-2008, 01:51 PM
If you feel abortion is wrong, and if you consider it murder like I do, yet you have no problem telling the thugs down the street that murdering people is wrong and you are fully supporting of the laws we have that make murder a federal offense......then why would you have a problem with a law that makes abortion a federal offense? They are both murder, they are both wrong, they are both moral decisions people make?

You would tell your girlfriend no go on an abortion, saving the life of one child, yet the girl down the street decides to kill hers, where is the justice for that unborn child as compared to yours?

I think you really need to look at this from the unborn childs point of view. They are helpless human beings that have absolutely no choice in the matter and depend on their parents and their government to protect them. Who speaks for them? Doesn't everyone have the right to life, liberty and happiness? Or only those that somehow manage to survive the abortion gauntlet?

I think people get caught up in the "telling other people what to do thing". That is what countries do. That is what laws do. That is what this country was founded on - laws that protect and promote freedoms. People have no problem with laws that punish murder and rape and assault, yet have a huge problem with abortion. There really isn't any different. They are all crimes against people. They are all moral decisions people make when committing them believe it or not.

For once I would like to see someone speak for the unborn in the court systems.

How wacky is this country when you can get an abortion legally, yet if you murder a pregnant woman you can be charged with both her and her babies death? Very inconsistent.

Hey look I didn't quote one verse from the bible. That's because this isn't just a religious issue, it is a constitutional issue. It is a rights issue.

I never said I beleive it is murder. I said I beleive it is disgusting.

I don't beleive it is murder. Murder is the killing of another human being. A fetus to me is not an individual human- its in the mothers body and belongs to the mother.

Laws tell people what to do- stealing, raping, killing- those are universal. To me, what to do with your body is not a universal thing. Its a moral choice in my opinion, one that laws should have no bearing on.

Doctors perform an operation, and its a choice whether to get the operation.

Dolphan7
09-04-2008, 01:10 AM
I never said I beleive it is murder. I said I beleive it is disgusting.

I don't beleive it is murder. Murder is the killing of another human being. A fetus to me is not an individual human- its in the mothers body and belongs to the mother.

Laws tell people what to do- stealing, raping, killing- those are universal. To me, what to do with your body is not a universal thing. Its a moral choice in my opinion, one that laws should have no bearing on.

Doctors perform an operation, and its a choice whether to get the operation.So in your opinion a fetus isn't human, but to me, and many others, it is human from conception. Which one is it?

This is why we need to define exactly what life is in the womb. Until that question is answered, there will be no solutions to this problem.

A fetus by the way is not part of the woman's body. It is totally separated from the mother except for the embilical cord that provides food to the baby.

ohall
09-04-2008, 01:19 AM
So in your opinion a fetus isn't human, but to me, and many others, it is human from conception. Which one is it?

This is why we need to define exactly what life is in the womb. Until that question is answered, there will be no solutions to this problem.

A fetus by the way is not part of the woman's body. It is totally separated from the mother except for the embilical cord that provides food to the baby.

It's above our pay grade, so let's be safe and simply kill it. Why take the chance, just kill it!

Dolphan7
09-04-2008, 01:29 AM
It's above our pay grade, so let's be safe and simply kill it. Why take the chance, just kill it!
Ok Barrack! :lol:

cwsox
09-05-2008, 01:10 AM
^^^^^^

the cheap shots that make this forum a place only for trolls

ohall
09-05-2008, 01:38 AM
yes

it seems God gives the US perfect weather when the Democrats meet

and smites the US with hurricanes when the GOP gathers

That's because REP's can handle it. God only gives you what you can handle.

Obviously what you saw as a negative CON's saw it as an opportunity to help the ppl of need after the hurricane hit this time around.

At least this time they the ppl of NO's weren't shooting at the rescuers!

1 dol fan
09-06-2008, 07:59 PM
I admit that I am only 16 and that I haven't lived and experienced as much of life as most of you but i strongly oppose Abortion for many of the reasons already posted. I agree that it will be a never ending argument until we decide what is life and what is citizenship and even then I think people will disagree with the law. I always here people say that life is too short and also that High School goes by fast and that I have to enjoy it while a I can, but what about those kids that never get to experience High School and especially Life itself? If life is so precious then why do so many people take that away from the innocent?

Dolphan7
09-07-2008, 01:46 AM
I admit that I am only 16 and that I haven't lived and experienced as much of life as most of you but i strongly oppose Abortion for many of the reasons already posted. I agree that it will be a never ending argument until we decide what is life and what is citizenship and even then I think people will disagree with the law. I always here people say that life is too short and also that High School goes by fast and that I have to enjoy it while a I can, but what about those kids that never get to experience High School and especially Life itself? If life is so precious then why do so many people take that away from the innocent?Good post.:up:

We had the Revolutionary War to free ourselves from England and create a country that grants the most freedoms and rights than any country in the world, past or present. We fought against each other to finally grant rights to Slaves. We gave women equal rights. And we once again fought for civil rights for minorities in the 60's.

I think the rights of the unborn should be the civil and freedom rights of the 21st Century.

sdotbailey
09-10-2008, 11:53 AM
Obama definitely supports abortion, which is one of the reasons I disagree with him.


Yeah...you should really re-evaluate how you word things.

He's stated that he has his own views on it (not for it), similarly to how he personally disagrees with gay marriage, BUT, he supports the idea that is the woman's choice to keep or not have the kid just like it's the state's decision to allow gay marriage.

Someone can have a point of view or opinion but not have a need to force that opinion or view on everyone else...like the current administration or many religious factions.

The fact humans have choice allows us to make our own decisions. We don't need someone else with a limited view point or ulterior motive forcing us to live by their rules.

Dolphan7
09-10-2008, 12:40 PM
Yeah...you should really re-evaluate how you word things.

He's stated that he has his own views on it (not for it), similarly to how he personally disagrees with gay marriage, BUT, he supports the idea that is the woman's choice to keep or not have the kid just like it's the state's decision to allow gay marriage.

Someone can have a point of view or opinion but not have a need to force that opinion or view on everyone else...like the current administration or many religious factions.

The fact humans have choice allows us to make our own decisions. We don't need someone else with a limited view point or ulterior motive forcing us to live by their rules.Or just maybe he is playing both sides of the fence to win votes? Or maybe he is against abortion, but doesn't have the spine to actually stand up for what he believes in.

This is what his web site says.


REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE

Supports a Woman’s Right to Choose:

Barack Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women’s rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case.
Obama supports Abortion. Plain and simple.

Was it wrong to force southern slave owners to free their slaves?

Was it wrong to force bus drivers to allow Rosa Parks to sit anywhere they wanted?

Was it wrong to force desegregation in the 60's?

It isn't wrong to force women to either protect themselves better, or once having created that life, to carry it full term.

40 million abortions/murders since Row V Wade. That is almost 1/6 of our current population. It makes Hitler look like a common street thug.

You are posting here today because your mother did the right thing. How many of those 40 million would be here posting right along with you if their mothers hadn't thought of themselves first and given them that right to life that you and I enjoy?

Marino613
09-12-2008, 06:41 PM
I don't consider my view of marriage to be disrespectful to anyone else's view, it is just my position and I stand by it. I respect people's right to form their own opinions, I just may not agree with them.

I never claimed you disrespected anyone's right to an opinion, but I doubt you would disagree if I said that you don't respect the actual institution of same sex marriage. Please correct me if I am wrong?



Regarding the bolded part, I don't think I need to go into more detail to explain that the problems we are facing in our society today, or many of them, are because of the breakdown of the traditional family.

I agree that the breakdown of traditional family values plays a great role in many of our societies problems, but I I would point out three things in response

1) The traditional family is much more than the nuclear man, woman and a few children. The fact that grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc., are not in close proximity anymore to share the burden and joy of parenting and working together for the family is what traditional family values were for a very long time. A man from Seattle marrying a woman from virginia and settling in LA and have 3 kids is a massive departure from traditional family life.
2) Just because there is a breakdown in traditional family values, and that it is connected to many social ills, does not mean the solution is a return to traditional family values. Society abandoned them for a variety of reasons, and they aren't all necessarily bad. Fundamental changes due to technological and societal advancement in the areas of industry, communication, and travel, have allowed for a massive increase in the material quality of life around the world and it may have outpaced the needs of the family which could not adapt. That there is a problem is clear. It doesn't mean that the solution is returning to what was, but finding a way to adapt families and spiritual life to what is and what will be. 3) I don't think same sex marriage or abortion are at the root of the problem.

Anyway, it is off topic, but I think the comparison between defining marriage and defining life is tenuous. As you said before, you don't disrespect other people's views. That works for marriage, but abortion? If I believed abortion was murder, I would 100% disrespect a view that supported abortion.

ABrownLamp
09-13-2008, 05:25 PM
Or just maybe he is playing both sides of the fence to win votes? Or maybe he is against abortion, but doesn't have the spine to actually stand up for what he believes in.

This is what his web site says.

Obama supports Abortion. Plain and simple.

Was it wrong to force southern slave owners to free their slaves?

Was it wrong to force bus drivers to allow Rosa Parks to sit anywhere they wanted?

Was it wrong to force desegregation in the 60's?

It isn't wrong to force women to either protect themselves better, or once having created that life, to carry it full term.

40 million abortions/murders since Row V Wade. That is almost 1/6 of our current population. It makes Hitler look like a common street thug.

You are posting here today because your mother did the right thing. How many of those 40 million would be here posting right along with you if their mothers hadn't thought of themselves first and given them that right to life that you and I enjoy?

I never got an answer from you regarding what we should do with women who have an abortion. If you really consider it murder, shouldnt they be tried as 1st degree murder cases? If not, I'd like to hear what the distinction is.

Dolphan7
09-13-2008, 07:59 PM
I never got an answer from you regarding what we should do with women who have an abortion. If you really consider it murder, shouldnt they be tried as 1st degree murder cases? If not, I'd like to hear what the distinction is.Currenly it isn't a crime. When and if it becomes one, ask your question.

milldog
09-13-2008, 10:21 PM
So, how do you feel about a woman being impregnated by rape?

Dolphan7
09-14-2008, 12:03 AM
So, how do you feel about a woman being impregnated by rape?I know where you are trying to go with this.

Rape is a terrible and horrible thing to happen, and if it was determined and proved that it was the rapists baby, I would think any laws would be lenient enough to authorize an abortion in cases like this, I know God would be. Rape and incest are statistically less than 1% of all preganancies.

But this is a far cry from abortion on demand as a form of birth control for irresponsible people.

ABrownLamp
09-14-2008, 01:51 AM
I know where you are trying to go with this.

Rape is a terrible and horrible thing to happen, and if it was determined and proved that it was the rapists baby, I would think any laws would be lenient enough to authorize an abortion in cases like this, I know God would be. Rape and incest are statistically less than 1% of all preganancies.

But this is a far cry from abortion on demand as a form of birth control for irresponsible people.


If it was determined and proved that she was raped? So a woman comes in and says she was raped a few weeks ago and she thinks shes pregnant...and you think doctors who perform abortions are going to tell her shes lying and she has to keep the baby? I mean even if you condone such awful behavior, its an unrealistic scenario. And regardless of stats concerning rapes/incest involved in abortions, those problems do exist and you cant ignore them just because they are inconvenient to your absolute standard of morality on abortion.

ABrownLamp
09-14-2008, 01:56 AM
Currenly it isn't a crime. When and if it becomes one, ask your question.

Man, that is a total cop out and you know it. You cant even scrape together a rational response to a pretty fundamental question behind your philosophy?

Ok, I know its not a law. And I just want to understand your rationale here...

If abortion truly is murder of a human, then what should happen to the women who get abortions? And if it isnt a death sentence, I would really like to know why it wouldnt be.

I know its a tough question and very challenging considering your stance on the issue, but at least try to think about it. Ive never gotten a good answer from anyone against abortion.

Dolphan7
09-14-2008, 02:13 AM
If it was determined and proved that she was raped? So a woman comes in and says she was raped a few weeks ago and she thinks shes pregnant...and you think doctors who perform abortions are going to tell her shes lying and she has to keep the baby? I mean even if you condone such awful behavior, its an unrealistic scenario. And regardless of stats concerning rapes/incest involved in abortions, those problems do exist and you cant ignore them just because they are inconvenient to your absolute standard of morality on abortion.I knew I was going to get misquoted and my words misinterpreted.

I think there needs to be something in place to prevent abuse of a system. Saying you were raped and are pregnant from the rapist can happen, although rarely, but it also can be a way to get an abortion in an abortionless society. It can be abused.

I certainly wouldn't expect to look on a football message board and expect to find all the answers to such a complicated issue. I certainly don't have all the answers. But that doesn't exclude me from having an opinion does it? That isn't ignoring it, it is admitting it is a very complicated issue, with complicated answers, some of which aren't even known yet.

You are sidestepping the issue of abortion on demand though, which is 99% of all abortions - irresponsible people having unprotected sex and using it as a form of birth control.

Dolphan7
09-14-2008, 02:19 AM
Man, that is a total cop out and you know it. You cant even scrape together a rational response to a pretty fundamental question behind your philosophy?

Ok, I know its not a law. And I just want to understand your rationale here...

If abortion truly is murder of a human, then what should happen to the women who get abortions? And if it isnt a death sentence, I would really like to know why it wouldnt be.

I know its a tough question and very challenging considering your stance on the issue, but at least try to think about it. Ive never gotten a good answer from anyone against abortion.I would not be for the death penalty in the case of an abortion. There are many cases where murders do not result in the death penalty. I think it would probably fit into our current punishments for murder. There is 1st degree, 2nd degree, manslaughter. One of these. Manslaughter just by the title seems apporpriate.

I don't really know. It would be very interesting debate if we ever get there. I wonder what the punishment was prior to Roe v Wade?

cmax13
09-14-2008, 07:25 AM
usually the punishment before roe vs. wade was unintentional death of the mother is some back alley room, due to a coathanger in the uterus.

so, do we really want to go back to the future???

ABrownLamp
09-14-2008, 10:57 AM
I knew I was going to get misquoted and my words misinterpreted.

I think there needs to be something in place to prevent abuse of a system. Saying you were raped and are pregnant from the rapist can happen, although rarely, but it also can be a way to get an abortion in an abortionless society. It can be abused.

I certainly wouldn't expect to look on a football message board and expect to find all the answers to such a complicated issue. I certainly don't have all the answers. But that doesn't exclude me from having an opinion does it? That isn't ignoring it, it is admitting it is a very complicated issue, with complicated answers, some of which aren't even known yet.

You are sidestepping the issue of abortion on demand though, which is 99% of all abortions - irresponsible people having unprotected sex and using it as a form of birth control.

Yo are right there would be serious abuses. Fact is that accidental pregnancies happen all the time. And if a woman's only path to eliminating the preganancy is to cry rape, then obviously theres goig to be a serious abuse of that avenue. And if youre going to have a system where doctors will seriously tell women that they dont believe they were raped and they have to have the pregnancy (not goin to happen- that would be too cruel for our society) then were going to see a lot of men, one night stands and boyfriends falsely acused of rape.

Im not sidestepping the issue, Im sure abortions in rape or incest are a smll percentage, but that doest mean that smll percentage can just be ignored because its inconvenient to your cause. You cant force a woman to hve the child of the person that raped her. That is ridiculous.

ABrownLamp
09-14-2008, 11:04 AM
I would not be for the death penalty in the case of an abortion. There are many cases where murders do not result in the death penalty. I think it would probably fit into our current punishments for murder. There is 1st degree, 2nd degree, manslaughter. One of these. Manslaughter just by the title seems apporpriate.

I don't really know. It would be very interesting debate if we ever get there. I wonder what the punishment was prior to Roe v Wade?

I think only the doctor got in trouble and the punishment went on a state by state basis pre RvW.
I think its interesting that youd throw a teenage girl in jail for decades because of this. Does the punishment really fit the crime to you?

Dolphan7
09-15-2008, 12:28 PM
usually the punishment before roe vs. wade was unintentional death of the mother is some back alley room, due to a coathanger in the uterus.

so, do we really want to go back to the future???
Do you know how many of those actually happened?

And no this wont' be the future because we have the RU246 or some other morning after pill that will be available on the black market.

Dolphan7
09-15-2008, 12:32 PM
Im not sidestepping the issue, Im sure abortions in rape or incest are a smll percentage, but that doest mean that smll percentage can just be ignored because its inconvenient to your cause. You cant force a woman to have the child of the person that raped her. That is ridiculous.You are mis-interpreting my words. I think what I was saying is that if the pregnancy is determined to be as a result of the rape, that abortion would be allowed under those circumstances.

And it wouldn't be a doctor who says if the pregnancy is from the rapist or not, it would be the District Attorney or some law enforcement agency.

I know, it gets messy.

Dolphan7
09-15-2008, 12:35 PM
I think only the doctor got in trouble and the punishment went on a state by state basis pre RvW.
I think its interesting that youd throw a teenage girl in jail for decades because of this. Does the punishment really fit the crime to you?Once again not what I said. I think it should be left up to a judge who can rule along statute or have the leeway to grant probation, or community service, or something for young first time offenders. Not every ase would end up in jail.

ABrownLamp
09-15-2008, 03:39 PM
You are mis-interpreting my words. I think what I was saying is that if the pregnancy is determined to be as a result of the rape, that abortion would be allowed under those circumstances.

And it wouldn't be a doctor who says if the pregnancy is from the rapist or not, it would be the District Attorney or some law enforcement agency.

I know, it gets messy.

I dont see how a DA would be able to determine if it was in fact a rape without a physicians exam. And even if they did it would be a doctors testimony that would be the determining factor, so yes it is a doc who says it was rape. One thing that hinders rape trials is women who are ashamed and only come forward after a week or even longer. By then all evidence has been washed away. And then you have women who would falsely accuse men of rape. Not to mention how long those trials take from beginning to end. Certainly more than enough time for the second trimester.

It is a messy situation youre right, and would be impossible to ethically tell a woman that you dont believe she has been raped so you must now have this child. So practically speaking, either you allow abortions or you dont allow them even in the case of rape (which is completely unreasonable).

ABrownLamp
09-15-2008, 03:46 PM
Once again not what I said. I think it should be left up to a judge who can rule along statute or have the leeway to grant probation, or community service, or something for young first time offenders. Not every ase would end up in jail.

Community service for a murderer?

Ok. Obviously what I am suggesting here is that almost no one exespt the small group of extremeists (which i really doubt you would fall under) would agree that a woman who has an abortion should receive a sentence commensurate w a person who plans and then commits murder of another human. And I belive the reason for that is because there is a distinct difference between a human being and a fertilized egg. And I think the pro life logic behind murder crumbles when you look at this particular issue, which is important to address

Dolphan7
09-15-2008, 04:40 PM
I dont see how a DA would be able to determine if it was in fact a rape without a physicians exam. And even if they did it would be a doctors testimony that would be the determining factor, so yes it is a doc who says it was rape. One thing that hinders rape trials is women who are ashamed and only come forward after a week or even longer. By then all evidence has been washed away. And then you have women who would falsely accuse men of rape. Not to mention how long those trials take from beginning to end. Certainly more than enough time for the second trimester.

It is a messy situation youre right, and would be impossible to ethically tell a woman that you dont believe she has been raped so you must now have this child. So practically speaking, either you allow abortions or you dont allow them even in the case of rape (which is completely unreasonable).This issue isn't to determine if the woman was raped. That is a diffeent matter in and of itself. The issue would be to determine if the baby is the rapists baby. That would require simple DNA paternity tests that can be performed by a lab and handled through the DA or other LE agencies.

This doesn't make it any easier, but there are two distinct issues here; Rape and who's baby is it.

Dolphan7
09-15-2008, 04:51 PM
Community service for a murderer?

Ok. Obviously what I am suggesting here is that almost no one exespt the small group of extremeists (which i really doubt you would fall under) would agree that a woman who has an abortion should receive a sentence commensurate w a person who plans and then commits murder of another human. And I belive the reason for that is because there is a distinct difference between a human being and a fertilized egg. And I think the pro life logic behind murder crumbles when you look at this particular issue, which is important to addressWe shouldn't give up on 40 million unborn babies because we don't think we know how to handle the saving of their lives. That is a cop out if I have ever seen one.

I don't think the argument crumbles. I think we have a system to adjudicate abortions as murder already in place, and giving judges leeway will hopefully make it not so arbitrary. Remember the difference between a young teenage girl who has sex one time and gets PG and aborts, with the woman who habitually gets PG and has multiple abortions. I think the punishment should be different.

And the other side is punishment for doctors who perform abortions without approval.

I see your point, but I don't think that should stop our goal of savings millions of lives.

ABrownLamp
09-15-2008, 05:18 PM
This issue isn't to determine if the woman was raped. That is a diffeent matter in and of itself. The issue would be to determine if the baby is the rapists baby. That would require simple DNA paternity tests that can be performed by a lab and handled through the DA or other LE agencies.

This doesn't make it any easier, but there are two distinct issues here; Rape and who's baby is it.

What is the DA going to do? Call the local law enforcement, have them conduct an investigation to find out who she could be sleeping with, then get a hold of, and extract DNA from them? What if the boyfriend leaves town? Womans gonna have to wait until they find him and get him to submit DNA? What if he refuses to submit? And then it takes about 2 weeks to get a paternity test, and I find it absurd that you would have that baby grow inside a womans uterus waiting for all of that to take place.

ABrownLamp
09-15-2008, 05:25 PM
We shouldn't give up on 40 million unborn babies because we don't think we know how to handle the saving of their lives. That is a cop out if I have ever seen one.

I don't think the argument crumbles. I think we have a system to adjudicate abortions as murder already in place, and giving judges leeway will hopefully make it not so arbitrary. Remember the difference between a young teenage girl who has sex one time and gets PG and aborts, with the woman who habitually gets PG and has multiple abortions. I think the punishment should be different.

And the other side is punishment for doctors who perform abortions without approval.

I see your point, but I don't think that should stop our goal of savings millions of lives.


I think a multiple "offender" should get her tubes tied by law. I cant imagine a woman getting a sentence equivalent to a murderer. And just because you want a certain law passed doesnt mean we should go to extreme lengths for it to be passed.
Yes the doctors were the ones who were punished pre RvW, but I am speaking philosophically about what we should do with these women who have committed ostensible murder.

Would you be in favor of forcing a woman to keep a fetus if she knew it was going to be severly deformed/retarded?

Dolphan7
09-15-2008, 05:43 PM
I think a multiple "offender" should get her tubes tied by law. I cant imagine a woman getting a sentence equivalent to a murderer. And just because you want a certain law passed doesnt mean we should go to extreme lengths for it to be passed.
Yes the doctors were the ones who were punished pre RvW, but I am speaking philosophically about what we should do with these women who have committed ostensible murder.

Would you be in favor of forcing a woman to keep a fetus if she knew it was going to be severly deformed/retarded?That would fall under health of the baby. I know mothers who continue with the PG despite the known health risks (ala Gov Palin). I would leave that up to the mother.

I also wouldn't go for the mandatory tubes being tied for a repeat offender. Although I would strongly suggest it to her.

My issues isn't with these permimeter issues, but more with the core issue which is abortion on demand for convenience sake.

Dolphan7
09-15-2008, 05:50 PM
What is the DA going to do? Call the local law enforcement, have them conduct an investigation to find out who she could be sleeping with, then get a hold of, and extract DNA from them? What if the boyfriend leaves town? Womans gonna have to wait until they find him and get him to submit DNA? What if he refuses to submit? And then it takes about 2 weeks to get a paternity test, and I find it absurd that you would have that baby grow inside a womans uterus waiting for all of that to take place.Well.... it isn't an easy solution is it. It is too difficult, should we just abandon the idea then? Give up on 40 million and counting?

Should we have avoided the civil war and all those who died just for freedom for a few million slaves, simply because it will be hard to manage?

Let's start by doing what is right in the first place, and then we can work on the details later. This is how we accomplished so much in the name of freedoms in this country. Doing the right thing.

Ending slavery was the right thing, but it took over 100 years to see the full result of that in our personal freedoms and in society in general.

We need to do what is right for these unborn kids.

We are killing off our future. How do we know we haven't already killed the guy who finds the cure for cancer? The man who invents a new renewable fuel source? That could come in handy right about now.

ABrownLamp
09-15-2008, 06:04 PM
Well.... it isn't an easy solution is it. It is too difficult, should we just abandon the idea then? Give up on 40 million and counting?

Should we have avoided the civil war and all those who died just for freedom for a few million slaves, simply because it will be hard to manage?

Let's start by doing what is right in the first place, and then we can work on the details later. This is how we accomplished so much in the name of freedoms in this country. Doing the right thing.

Ending slavery was the right thing, but it took over 100 years to see the full result of that in our personal freedoms and in society in general.

We need to do what is right for these unborn kids.

We are killing off our future. How do we know we haven't already killed the guy who finds the cure for cancer? The man who invents a new renewable fuel source? That could come in handy right about now.

Ok first of all a fertilized egg is not a kid. They are two clearly distinct entities. There is no debate as to whether or not killing children is acceptable, so theres no need to push that rhetoric. Obviously you dont feel its the same since youve alluded to probation for these women murderers as potentially sufficient.

Your version of whats right doesnt constitute everyone elses obviously. So pushing "values" onto other people really isnt going to pursuade anyone. Especially when you say something like, lets just do what I want and we'll figure out how were going to do it later. Its silly if you dont address the details, obviously.

You guys just want to push away all of these important legal and philisophical points like they are meaningless. But how do you expect to enforce your views without considering the fine points? Do you just want to win without actually winning?

Dolphan7
09-15-2008, 07:55 PM
Ok first of all a fertilized egg is not a kid. They are two clearly distinct entities. There is no debate as to whether or not killing children is acceptable, so theres no need to push that rhetoric. Obviously you dont feel its the same since youve alluded to probation for these women murderers as potentially sufficient.

Your version of whats right doesnt constitute everyone elses obviously. So pushing "values" onto other people really isnt going to pursuade anyone. Especially when you say something like, lets just do what I want and we'll figure out how were going to do it later. Its silly if you dont address the details, obviously.

You guys just want to push away all of these important legal and philisophical points like they are meaningless. But how do you expect to enforce your views without considering the fine points? Do you just want to win without actually winning?Spoken like a 19th century slave owner.

This is why this country needs to determine at what point does life begin and at what point does life get constitutional rights.

I would love to have just the opportunity to debate that in our congress.

ABrownLamp
09-15-2008, 10:19 PM
Spoken like a 19th century slave owner.

This is why this country needs to determine at what point does life begin and at what point does life get constitutional rights.

I would love to have just the opportunity to debate that in our congress.

They have determined that...i dont understand what is unclear in the law about that to you.
You arent raising any new info on a football forum so i doubt youd bring anything worth mentioning to congress (congress?). Not that id do any better, just sayin its kind of appauling that you think youve made a great case for yourself here.

mantooth
09-15-2008, 10:42 PM
Go Dolphins!

Dolphan7
09-16-2008, 12:36 AM
They have determined that...i dont understand what is unclear in the law about that to you.
You arent raising any new info on a football forum so i doubt youd bring anything worth mentioning to congress (congress?). Not that id do any better, just sayin its kind of appauling that you think youve made a great case for yourself here.You get the last word.

MDFINFAN
09-27-2008, 11:06 AM
Spoken like a 19th century slave owner.

This is why this country needs to determine at what point does life begin and at what point does life get constitutional rights.

I would love to have just the opportunity to debate that in our congress.

This is where I trust God, I think He determines who lives and who doesn't.. I feel live is never destroyed under Him...just like when we die on earth, we're not really dead..Our spirit, which is what we are, lives on..

Bumpus
10-13-2008, 01:33 PM
:jt0323:

Now that was a fun read!

Good debate btw. ABrownLamp & D7




... my take: Lamp scored several hits and was able to respond well to arguments/questions. D7 seemed evasive and kept relying on the same points without being able to provide details.

Victor: ABrownLamp