Author Topic: Barack Obama--pro-abortion, anti-freedom (Read 4202 times)

Cabin4 · « **Reply #90 on:** March 05, 2009, 03:58:41 AM »

Quote from: SHOOTALL on March 05, 2009, 01:15:57 AM

they are called the religous right because , well they are right . If one takes the time to look the law of most free countries were from British common law which has its roots in the Bible. That said killing a human from comception until natural death is murder .
Is murder OK , Yep , as long as it is thru. a trial and conducted under law .
By the way the others are left cause its better to call um whats left and not wrong .

Are you talking about the same British law & government that was one of the key reasons why people came here from Britain, signed the declaration of independence and later formed the Bill of Rights and the Constitution?

And of course this would be the same British that we fought against to gain our independence from , correct?

Cabin4 · « **Reply #91 on:** March 05, 2009, 04:00:44 AM »

Quote from: Dixie Dude on March 05, 2009, 02:13:38 AM

Instead of the government paying for abortions, they could provide birth control pills, shields, iud's, and condoms. Second at the very least the Supreme Court and Congress should allow the states to regulate abortions, if they are against, for, limited, or otherwise. At the very very least outlaw abortion in the last two trimesters. Make the girls decide within 3 months, otherwise no abortion. As I said I am against it under all circumstances except if it endangers the mother's life. A human life is a life, at the moment of conception. Scientifically and Religiously.

Since when should the Government get the right to regulate self determination? Show me the words in the constitution that support that.

That premise is far more alarming and dangerous to everyone than any abortion.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #92 on:** March 05, 2009, 04:05:15 AM »

Quote from: powderman on March 05, 2009, 02:31:11 AM

Cabin 4. What constitution says a woman has the right to murder any baby she doesn't want?? Where is that??? POWDERMAN.

Show me the words in the constitution that says she does not? That the point and further, the constitution does not say that if there is a conflict between issues like this we look to the bible or any religion for the answer.

Look, I am not fighting for abortion here. I am fighting for the constitution and the equal application of it. If we just did this we would be fine, not perfect. Instead, we have a complete disaster on our hands in general on everything because we have moved away from this basic principal.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #93 on:** March 05, 2009, 04:07:42 AM »

Quote from: Dixie Dude on March 05, 2009, 02:13:38 AM

Instead of the government paying for abortions, they could provide birth control pills, shields, iud's, and condoms. Second at the very least the Supreme Court and Congress should allow the states to regulate abortions, if they are against, for, limited, or otherwise. At the very very least outlaw abortion in the last two trimesters. Make the girls decide within 3 months, otherwise no abortion. As I said I am against it under all circumstances except if it endangers the mother's life. A human life is a life, at the moment of conception. Scientifically and Religiously.

The government should not pay for abortions. The government should not have $$ in this issue.

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #94 on:** March 05, 2009, 04:16:31 AM »

I really don't believe the government should pay for any of that stuff. But, being what it is, instead of paying for abortions, provide birth control at the very least. I think we need to go to year round school and have the kids graduate at 16 instead of 18 from high school. Germany does this. It cuts down on the time they can get into trouble, especially summers. Teens get into a lot of trouble in the summers. Another solution is have the kids go every other day to school with lots of homework to keep them busy. Have boys go one day and girls the next. Keeps them seperated and delays their first sexual experience until they are more mature.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #95 on:** March 05, 2009, 07:27:13 AM »

Cabin 4 , YEP ! same one .
We tried to seperate church and state in an effort to allow those who wished to worship the choice to worship any religion they chose . We however did not try to change the moral values until recent times .. That said our law is still based on the Bible . The fact that religion has been used to abuse people at times does not change the fact that it is the foundation of law.
When making any law we should strive to protect the human . Abortion battle is nothing more than weighing the mothers right to free choice vs. the unborn but concived right to life . In the most simplest terms it would seem right to life would out weigh right to convience . The fact that the mother had to enter into an act that not only can causes her to become pregnant but is the intended purpose of the act only makes it absurd to even consider it moral to kill babies in the first place .
Humans have rights no matter their age .

rparsons934 · « **Reply #96 on:** March 05, 2009, 09:04:17 AM »

Quote from: Dixie Dude on March 05, 2009, 04:16:31 AM

I really don't believe the government should pay for any of that stuff. But, being what it is, instead of paying for abortions, provide birth control at the very least. I think we need to go to year round school and have the kids graduate at 16 instead of 18 from high school. Germany does this. It cuts down on the time they can get into trouble, especially summers. Teens get into a lot of trouble in the summers. Another solution is have the kids go every other day to school with lots of homework to keep them busy. Have boys go one day and girls the next. Keeps them seperated and delays their first sexual experience until they are more mature.

So you would like to see segragation in schools. Then why not seperate them black and white.......because it is wrong. There are all boy or all girl schools to send your kids to school. And going to school all year long id crazy especially if that kids is on his own and has bills to pay. I work a full time job and go to night school. Its vary hard i barley have enought time to eat. If you dont want your kids hav ing sex early educate them. Bot many parents go into depth on the subject at a young age.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #97 on:** March 05, 2009, 09:49:58 AM »

I worked 10 hour days and went to school at night . I found time fo..... well extra activity . year round school would work . Don't get out at 16 get out educated , maybe 18 more summers would help learn um something .

rparsons934 · « **Reply #98 on:** March 05, 2009, 09:53:00 AM »

Life lessons arnt taught in school. They are learned from expirence so people have to expirence life not be in school learning how to memorize. School doesnt teach you to think for your self the time off and expirence does. Kids would still get in trouble and they would still have babies (and in some cases abortions.) If school was year long. You should know the more you try to limit them the more they rebel.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #99 on:** March 05, 2009, 10:00:06 AM »

I was hoping they would use the extra time to learn to count , make change , read , read a ruler , fill out a job application . You know the little things that make them useful . If they had to pass test to get promoted it would be a real world experince now would it not ?
And you may see education as limiting them i see it as freeing them to gain more in life thru. hard and honest work .
YEP I"M OLD SCHOOL which is better than a panty waist lib. hell bent on dumbing down America even more !

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #100 on:** March 05, 2009, 10:07:11 AM »

It doesn't matter how much you educate your kids, or if you raised them in church. They will still find time to get into trouble. I am 55 and have raised 7 kids, one still got his girlfrined pg in high school, and now he is having to pay child support until they are 18 (twins). Now, male-female segregation, would eliminate distractions in school with the opposite sex, make the kids more innocent when they do get together. They would probably not have sex so early, and be more selective in their partners. Studies have been done and this has been tried and proves this. Those who wait until they are 18 or older, usually delay marriage a few years, are more careful and selective in their interaction with opposites, and are less likely to get a STD. Maturity = lower divorce rate, better health. I know of churches who have not allowed their kids to "date" until they were 18. The did a lot of group activities. Results later were hardly any divorce, and more stable marriages. Schools can't even control what goes on in bathrooms and halls. Don't have enough teachers and adult monitors to keep them out of trouble. I worked one full time job and one part time job and went to college (engineering) too. It is hard, but it can be done. The full time job was 11pm to 7am. Went to school 8-12am, slept a while, worked part time job from 3-9 two night a week and some on weekends. I finally gave up the part time job, to have some stable sleep time in the afternoon. Had to cram as much studying in on the weekend as I could with a couple of hours during the weeknights.

rparsons934 · « **Reply #101 on:** March 05, 2009, 10:12:20 AM »

Quote from: Dixie Dude on March 05, 2009, 10:07:11 AM

Now, male-female segregation, would eliminate distractions in school with the opposite sex, make the kids more innocent when they do get together. They would probably not have sex so early, and be more selective in their partners. S

Or make them more curious to the oppisote sex. Early sex has a lot more to do with television and movies than it does school. Kids on the disney channel are "Making Out" and being curious and the character is age 12. Now its the media and the advertising in the world that has a little more to do with it IMHO. Because Sex sells and its every were.

Dixie Dude · « **Reply #102 on:** March 05, 2009, 10:59:44 AM »

War is not always politics. Some countries under despotic rulers, attack and conquer others for raw materials, or living space, or to spread their religion. If they attack us or our people, we need to respond to stop them or it will never cease. If someone takes someones life, society has a right to try this person and if found guilty, take his life. As far as abortion, I know a nurse who was in on an abortion (late term), it was aborted, and came out and cried. They let it die. She is no longer a nurse. Abortion, ESPECIALLY late term, is murder. My son's twins were born premature at 5 months. They weighed about 2 lbs each. They survived. Are they not human? Most women I have known in church who had abortions as teens or early adulthood, deeply regret it. Like I said, in 6 weeks you have heartbeat and brainwaves. What is it? A human, or just a mass of cells? In order to fight abortion, direct approach is not working. First ban late term abortions, then down to 4-5 months, then down to 6 weeks. At least piecemeal approach, like the gun grabbers try to do with us. First assault weapons, then sniper rifles, then lead ammunition, then handguns, then what is left. However, guns are for self-defence, hunting, shooting, and plinking. Abortion kills innocent unborn humans. Who knows, one of the aborted could have found a cure for cancer, developed an unlimited energy resource. Abortion had alternatives (BIRTH CONTROL). Taking ones self defence away does not.

dukkillr · « **Reply #103 on:** March 05, 2009, 11:30:15 AM »

Quote from: Dixie Dude on March 05, 2009, 10:59:44 AM

Like I said, in 6 weeks you have heartbeat and brainwaves. What is it? A human, or just a mass of cells?

These three sentences come to the heart of my thoughts on the matter. What is it? I don't know. I posted above that for me the line would be 20 weeks. For some it's implantation. For others it's fertilization.

But I don't know. And, frankly, no one does. We can each have our opinions. I feel like I have a good biologic grasp on the subject when I pick 20 weeks, but religion does not play into my thought process. For others biology may have nothing to do with it but religion is very important. That isn't wrong. But forcing others to adhere to your determination is.

To me, the freedom of being an American is that I shouldn't impose my belief on anyone else, at least where we can agree that there is no consensus. I respect everyone's opinion who posted here, and I realize that they are no more right or wrong when they determine such a deeply personal, philosophical, and spiritual thing as when life begins than I am. I have no desire to legislate my beliefs on them, I just ask that they grant me the same respect. From both a freedom of/from religion standpoint, and an avoidance of massive arrogance standpoint, I simply don’t feel I should decide for others these types of questions.

I believe you can be both Pro-life and Pro-choice. You can believe abortion is wrong, but recognize that your beliefs do not constitute the final word in American morals. Frankly, I wish more people had that thought process.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #104 on:** March 05, 2009, 11:40:35 AM »

some call that thought process waffling or wishi-washshe .

dukkillr · « **Reply #105 on:** March 05, 2009, 11:45:36 AM »

Quote from: SHOOTALL on March 05, 2009, 11:40:35 AM

some call that thought process waffling or wishi-washshe .

Some call a tomato an apple. So?

I was hoping for a constructive, thoughtful response to points I raised, not half-sentence semi-insults. Can an intelligent, respectful discussion be had?

Cheesehead · « **Reply #106 on:** March 05, 2009, 11:51:54 AM »

Birth control is murder.

Cheese

Cabin4 · « **Reply #107 on:** March 05, 2009, 11:55:58 AM »

If you interpret the constitution as its written, some would call that correct.

Just because you believe abortion is wrong, does not mean you have to sacrifice your intellectual capacity to agree abortion should be legal under the constitution. These are two entirely different things.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #108 on:** March 05, 2009, 12:11:50 PM »

OK some may feel that when one tries to be on both sides of the debate they can't decide which side they really want to be on . I feel life starts at conception . I don't feel life begins with a trial period . I may not know for you or any one else but for me it is written in stone . This is not based on religion it is based on when i think life starts . As far as forcing other , not at all I see it as preventing murder plain and simple same thing i would do if the person was 90 and someone wanted to kill them . Yes it is bio. Life starts at conception . If you don't want to get pregant don't have sex . If you have have be responsible . As far as what you believe , i will defend your right to do so as long as i live no matter how much i feel you are wrong or right - it is the American way .
In our country today we are seeing churches and religous org. being replaced by Govt. that said laws are being passed to try and mold morals in our country or more often remove morals . I think this is to weaken the family and cause us to lower all moral standards and dumb down and become subjects not citizens .
Dukkillr , i do respect your post , my beliefs may not be the finial word in politics but it is my true feeling and i hope it is clear which side i stand on .

Cabin4 · « **Reply #109 on:** March 05, 2009, 12:23:25 PM »

This is no different than someone who believes guns are immoral and unethical. But yet they respect other people's right to have them based on their agreement that the constitution supersedes their own personal sense of morality & ethics.

There's nothing irrational or contradictory about a person taking this position. It's the position we are suppose to take.

billy_56081 · « **Reply #110 on:** March 05, 2009, 12:33:32 PM »

Abortion is murder, if you support it I guess you will have to explain yourself before god.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #111 on:** March 05, 2009, 12:40:26 PM »

Quote from: Cheesehead on March 05, 2009, 11:51:54 AM

Birth control is murder.

Cheese

Then therefore, preventing two people from having unprotected sex is also murder. In other words, abstinence is actually murder, if you are preventing sexual intimacy between a fertile man and woman. So therefore, we should never restrict any desire of fertile men & woman and any efforts by parents to discourage their kids from having unprotected sex makes them an accomplice to murder.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #112 on:** March 05, 2009, 12:43:15 PM »

I guess our founding fathers could have felt that freedom was moraly right but to keep being British subjects and not wishing to be accused of creating a massive arrogant standpoint could have not started a new nation .
The Consitution may be the law but it does not supersede personal morals only law . Keep in mind it is an interpitation that allows aboition and that can change .

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #113 on:** March 05, 2009, 12:45:05 PM »

then those dreams young men experince must surely be man slaughter ?

Cabin4 · « **Reply #114 on:** March 05, 2009, 01:00:07 PM »

Quote from: SHOOTALL on March 05, 2009, 12:45:05 PM

then those dreams young men experince must surely be man slaughter ?

powderman · « **Reply #115 on:** March 05, 2009, 02:31:12 PM »

CABIN 4. I guess the constitution doesn't apply to babies??? Is that about it??? It's not justice for all??? When these women and the butchers they hired to kill their child meet God It won't matter whether it was LEGAL or not, and God won't pay any attention to our constitution. These people will have sealed their own fate by their actions. POWDERMAN.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #116 on:** March 05, 2009, 02:39:54 PM »

The principals of self determination for the mother supercede the unborn which under the law is a fetus, not a baby yet. After birth, both mother & baby are of equal standing under the constitution.

Yes, life is not fair and the constituion is the law we should live by while on earth. When we leave, there are other forces that prevail.

powderman · « **Reply #117 on:** March 05, 2009, 03:45:47 PM »

Fetus is a popular word with the pro death crowd. Sounds better to say, I terminated my fetus, than to say, I murdered my baby. Same result, a baby is still dead. The Bible is very plain about when life begins. Read it, learn, believe. POWDERMAN.

Cabin4 · « **Reply #118 on:** March 05, 2009, 04:01:02 PM »

Quote from: powderman on March 05, 2009, 03:45:47 PM

Fetus is a popular word with the pro death crowd. Sounds better to say, I terminated my fetus, than to say, I murdered my baby. Same result, a baby is still dead. The Bible is very plain about when life begins. Read it, learn, believe. POWDERMAN.

What makes you think that I agree with the pro abortion crowd on that?

What information have I given you that enables you to determine when I beleive life begins?

What makes you think that I don't read or have read the bible?

squirrellluck · « **Reply #119 on:** March 05, 2009, 04:09:59 PM »

cabin, I just can't help it' I got to ask. How can you call it murder in the case of 7/11 but it isn't if it's abortion. If it is human life at 7/11 in it's mother's womb seems to me it is human life in the operating room too. Don't believe you can have it both ways. Oops, gave them dang lawyers another angle on the murder defense.