Everything I need to know about Obama

[BigDrawMan]

This piece tells me everything I need to know about the disgusting, amoral Barack Obama. That he is willing to kill babies who are living and breathing outside of their mother's womb in order to protect a court decision that never should have been made just shows what kind of monster he really is.

http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/WhitePap ... 82008.html

That you are unwilling to expend any time,effort or money to prevent abortions says much about you.Along with voting for the most incompetent president since 1856.Twice

He has, btw been responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians thru his unnecessary and idiotic war.Which you support.
shed a few tears for them

[Jeemie]

That you are unwilling to expend any time,effort or money to prevent abortions says much about you.Along with voting for the most incompetent president since 1856.Twice

He has, btw been responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians thru his unnecessary and idiotic war.Which you support.
shed a few tears for them

This is a complete red herring argument.

People are unwilling to help poor pregnant women/poor single mothers, so therefore we should allow abortions?

[BigDrawMan]

That you are unwilling to expend any time,effort or money to prevent abortions says much about you.Along with voting for the most incompetent president since 1856.Twice

He has, btw been responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians thru his unnecessary and idiotic war.Which you support.
shed a few tears for them

This is a complete red herring argument.

People are unwilling to help poor pregnant women/poor single mothers, so therefore we should allow abortions?

it is a valid argument
making abortion illegal wont stop them,obviously.
People unwilling to help, are allowing abortions to continue.
danny aint helping, though it is important to him that they stop.

i cant make it any plainer than that.

[danielh41]

This piece tells me everything I need to know about the disgusting, amoral Barack Obama. That he is willing to kill babies who are living and breathing outside of their mother's womb in order to protect a court decision that never should have been made just shows what kind of monster he really is.

http://www.nrlc.org/ObamaBAIPA/WhitePap ... 82008.html

That you are unwilling to expend any time,effort or money to prevent abortions says much about you.Along with voting for the most incompetent president since 1856.Twice

He has, btw been responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians thru his unnecessary and idiotic war.Which you support.
shed a few tears for them

Or perhaps President Bush has saved the lives of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, Kuwaitis, Isrealis, and Americans by removing Saddam Hussein.

And as for incompetent presidents, you seem to be leaving out a few. Four years of Jimmy Carter was a disaster, both domestically and on foreign policy. Clinton did incalcuable damage to our military and to our intelligence gathering capabilities. Al Qaeda was allowed to grow unchecked for 8 years under Clinton's watch, even after the 1993 WTC bombing, attacks on our embassies, etc. He was too busy getting BJs from interns and trying to cover up his lies rather than perform the job of keeping our country safe.

I have my own criticisms of Bush, and he is most certainly not the best President we've ever had. But the fact remains that we have not suffered a terrorist attack on our soil since 9-11. He hasn't followed public opinion polls and let politics dictate his decisions. He has followed his own convictions about keeping this country safe, even amid all kinds of criticism and attacks from liberals.

[Tocqueville3]

That you are unwilling to expend any time,effort or money to prevent abortions says much about you.Along with voting for the most incompetent president since 1856.Twice

He has, btw been responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians thru his unnecessary and idiotic war.Which you support.
shed a few tears for them

This is a complete red herring argument.

People are unwilling to help poor pregnant women/poor single mothers, so therefore we should allow abortions?

it is a valid argument
making abortion illegal wont stop them,obviously.
People unwilling to help, are allowing abortions to continue.
danny aint helping, though it is important to him that they stop.

i cant make it any plainer than that.

How do you know for sure that he isn't willing to help? How do you know anything about him?

[Jeemie]

it is a valid argument
making abortion illegal wont stop them,obviously.
People unwilling to help, are allowing abortions to continue.
danny aint helping, though it is important to him that they stop.

i cant make it any plainer than that.

No- it's a stupid argument, because it lets people off the hook.

Laws for the sake of convenience cheapen all of us...as I said in my earlier post.

[ne1410s]

jeemie:

Laws for the sake of convenience cheapen all of us...

This is why I never turn right on a red light.

[Jeemie]

jeemie:

Laws for the sake of convenience cheapen all of us...

This is why I never turn right on a red light.

The board is flowing with non sequiturs and bad analogies today, isn't it?

[lv42day]

Please forgive me if someone made this point on another thread. I am a pastor, and I believe that life begins at conception, although I know many of my colleagues do not or are not sure.
I think most people would fall under the category of not being sure. I think much more people are unsure as to whether a fetus is a viable human life with a right not to be killed over let's say ova or sperm or corn or sunlight. I understand the point the author of the ova, sunlight argument is making, but there seems to be some "truthiness" to the point that the fetus raises more doubt as to whether the fetus is a life, as opposed to ova being considered lives. And if you are not sure if a fetus is a life with a right not to be killed, then wouldn't it make it a bit reckless to kill the fetus without knowing for sure.
I don't claim credit for this argument, but I have yet to hear a good rebuttal for it.

[ne1410s]

kinda duplicate post

[ne1410s]

jeemie:

The board is flowing with non sequiturs and bad analogies today, isn't it?

And totally ignorant sweeping generalizations from you.

Some fun, ain't it?

[Jeemie]

jeemie:

The board is flowing with non sequiturs and bad analogies today, isn't it?

And totally ignorant sweeping generalizations from you.

Some fun, ain't it?

There is nothing sweeping nor ignorant nor general about it.

Perhaps I should word it better and specify "Laws governing human life made for convenience sake cheapen us all".

Didn't think I needed to do that since I referenced a previous post, but...

[Bob Juch]

jeemie:

The board is flowing with non sequiturs and bad analogies today, isn't it?

And totally ignorant sweeping generalizations from you.

Some fun, ain't it?

There is nothing sweeping nor ignorant nor general about it.

Perhaps I should word it better and specify "Laws governing human life made for convenience sake cheapen us all".

Didn't think I needed to do that since I referenced a previous post, but...

What laws might those be?

[Jeemie]

jeemie: And totally ignorant sweeping generalizations from you.

Some fun, ain't it?

There is nothing sweeping nor ignorant nor general about it.

Perhaps I should word it better and specify "Laws governing human life made for convenience sake cheapen us all".

Didn't think I needed to do that since I referenced a previous post, but...

What laws might those be?

Abortion laws, for one.

There are others.

[Bob Juch]

There is nothing sweeping nor ignorant nor general about it.

Perhaps I should word it better and specify "Laws governing human life made for convenience sake cheapen us all".

Didn't think I needed to do that since I referenced a previous post, but...

What laws might those be?

Abortion laws, for one.

There are others.

What laws regulating abortion should be repealed?

[danielh41]

What laws might those be?

Abortion laws, for one.

There are others.

What laws regulating abortion should be repealed?

That's part of the problem. It's not a law that needs to be repealed but a court decision. One of the tenants of conservatism is that judges should not legislate from the bench but only interpret the law. Roe v. Wade is a bad decision from that standpoint. The Supreme Court basically tried to put something in the Constitution that wasn't there.

[Bob Juch]

Abortion laws, for one.

There are others.

What laws regulating abortion should be repealed?

That's part of the problem. It's not a law that needs to be repealed but a court decision. One of the tenants of conservatism is that judges should not legislate from the bench but only interpret the law. Roe v. Wade is a bad decision from that standpoint. The Supreme Court basically tried to put something in the Constitution that wasn't there.

The majority obviously disagreed with you.

[VAdame]

One of the tenants of conservatism is that judges should not legislate from the bench but only interpret the law

Daniel, that's a "tenet" of conservatism, not a tenant.

Tenet = Belief or doctrine considered true

Tenant = A renter, leaseholder, or occupant

Hope this helps!

[peacock2121]

Made me laugh.

I have no idea why.

It just did.

[mrkelley23]

Please forgive me if someone made this point on another thread. I am a pastor, and I believe that life begins at conception, although I know many of my colleagues do not or are not sure.
I think most people would fall under the category of not being sure. I think much more people are unsure as to whether a fetus is a viable human life with a right not to be killed over let's say ova or sperm or corn or sunlight. I understand the point the author of the ova, sunlight argument is making, but there seems to be some "truthiness" to the point that the fetus raises more doubt as to whether the fetus is a life, as opposed to ova being considered lives. And if you are not sure if a fetus is a life with a right not to be killed, then wouldn't it make it a bit reckless to kill the fetus without knowing for sure.
I don't claim credit for this argument, but I have yet to hear a good rebuttal for it.

I don't have much more to say on this issue, but I will respond to this thoughtful post, if only to help clarify my own thinking on abortion. First, let me say that my mind is far from made up on any portion of the controversy. Being male, I have no direct experience with childbirth, other than being in the room with my wife when it happened. The only thing I know for sure is that this is a decision that should be deeply felt, honestly arrived at, and not without some measure of pain for all involved.

My own problem is with the government being involved in a decision that ought to be made jointly by an expectant mother, her medical professional, and any spiritual advisors she may have. If there is an active father involved, then he, too, should have a say, and I believe we should err on the side of caution, that is to say, life, as you say.

The tragedy of Roe v. Wade is not that the Court overreached, or that millions of "unborn babies" are killed, or any of the other emotional arguments that can be made, but that a decision that should be first medical, then personal, has been made political. 65-year-old white men have no business making this decision. Period. In my humble opinion, of course.

So, in some measure, I agree wholeheartedly with your argument. I have never been against notification laws, counseling laws, or any of the other roadblocks that have been set by the right-to-lifers in their attempts to get Roe v. Wade overturned. I think it SHOULD be a difficult decision. But that decision, ultimately, should rest with the mother and the family and the doctors and no one else. I could not and would not support a return to the bad old days, which I can dimly remember, of the option not being available to any but the wealthy and privileged.

This is my opinion, arrived at through much thought and soul-searching, and not a snarky post intended to put anyone down or devalue their opinion.

[Jeemie]

What laws regulating abortion should be repealed?

The court decision finding that it was a right to privacy issue, protected by the Constitution.

There is no right to privacy in the Constitution. It was a horrible decision, made for convenience sake.

[Jeemie]

I don't have much more to say on this issue, but I will respond to this thoughtful post, if only to help clarify my own thinking on abortion. First, let me say that my mind is far from made up on any portion of the controversy. Being male, I have no direct experience with childbirth, other than being in the room with my wife when it happened. The only thing I know for sure is that this is a decision that should be deeply felt, honestly arrived at, and not without some measure of pain for all involved.

My own problem is with the government being involved in a decision that ought to be made jointly by an expectant mother, her medical professional, and any spiritual advisors she may have. If there is an active father involved, then he, too, should have a say, and I believe we should err on the side of caution, that is to say, life, as you say.

The tragedy of Roe v. Wade is not that the Court overreached, or that millions of "unborn babies" are killed, or any of the other emotional arguments that can be made, but that a decision that should be first medical, then personal, has been made political. 65-year-old white men have no business making this decision. Period. In my humble opinion, of course.

So, in some measure, I agree wholeheartedly with your argument. I have never been against notification laws, counseling laws, or any of the other roadblocks that have been set by the right-to-lifers in their attempts to get Roe v. Wade overturned. I think it SHOULD be a difficult decision. But that decision, ultimately, should rest with the mother and the family and the doctors and no one else. I could not and would not support a return to the bad old days, which I can dimly remember, of the option not being available to any but the wealthy and privileged.

This is my opinion, arrived at through much thought and soul-searching, and not a snarky post intended to put anyone down or devalue their opinion.

It was indeed a very thoughtful post.

It informs my own thinking, although I'm probably more a stickler in favor of life than you are.

And it was my thinking that making it political helped to cheapen the debate.

[Bob Juch]

What laws regulating abortion should be repealed?

The court decision finding that it was a right to privacy issue, protected by the Constitution.

There is no right to privacy in the Constitution. It was a horrible decision, made for convenience sake.

That's not a law.

Why do you feel you don't have a right to privacy?

[Jeemie]

What laws regulating abortion should be repealed?

The court decision finding that it was a right to privacy issue, protected by the Constitution.

There is no right to privacy in the Constitution. It was a horrible decision, made for convenience sake.

That's not a law.

Why do you feel you don't have a right to privacy?

Because I don't...not any enumerated in the Constitution, at any rate.

Not even one of the "inalienable rights" listed in the Declaration of Independence.

Certainly not one that gives me the power to decide when a human life starts and when it does not.

[lv42day]

I just want to thank MrKelly for his thoughtful response to my observations. One last reservation though I have with the fetus - ova, sperm, corn, light analogy, is that a fetus can develop into a baby more or less, on its own. (Granted I realize the fetus still needs the mother for nourishment, protection, etc) But what are the chances of ova, sperm, corn or light developing into a baby if similarly left, more or less, on its own. I would say 0%. I, too, am just wondering about the validity of the argument, and I am no way trying to be snarky or disparaging of you. In fact, I wish you well.