Condoleeza Rice On Abortion

[Art Deco]

www.washtimes.com/national/20050311-115948-2015r.htm

From the article: Miss Rice said abortion should be "as rare a circumstance as possible," although without excessive government intervention. "We should not have the federal government in a position where it is forcing its views on one side or the other.
"So, for instance, I've tended to agree with those who do not favor federal funding for abortion, because I believe that those who hold a strong moral view on the other side should not be forced to fund it."
Describing pro-lifers as "the other side" is one of the ways Miss Rice articulates her position as a "mildly pro-choice" Republican. She explained that she is "in effect kind of libertarian on this issue," adding: "I have been concerned about a government role.
"I am a strong proponent of parental notification. I am a strong proponent of a ban on late-term abortion. These are all things that I think unite people and I think that that's where we should be.
"We ought to have a culture that says, 'Who wants to have an abortion? Who wants to see a daughter or a friend or a sibling go through something like that?' "
Miss Rice described abortion as an "extremely difficult moral issue" which she approaches as "a deeply religious person."
"My faith is a part of everything that I do," she said. "It's not something that I can set outside of anything that I do, because it's so integral to who I am.Let's take a second look at what she said:

1. "Abortion should be as rare a circumstance as possible..."

So far we can agree...

2. "We should not have the federal government in a position where it is forcing its views on one side or the other."

Sounds like the old mantra You can't legislate morality. I can hear the ole soft shoe...I think she wants to ride the fence on this issue, but the Christian Right will smoke her out. It's a right or wrong moral issue. There is no middle ground.

3. Miss Rice is described as Mildly pro-choice. That she is kind of libertarian on the issue.

Well, any kind of Pro-choice is still pro-choice. Or pro-death for the infant. Amoral libertarians are just as bad as Secular Humanist pro-choice thugs.


4. Miss Rice described abortion as an extremely difficult moral issue which she approaches as a deeply religious person.


Miss Rice has difficulty in condemning abortion outright? As a deeply religious person, it is very easy to condemn the killing of innocent life in the womb. Her trouble lies in the shallow religious conviction she embraces. Abortion is the litmus test for Christian spirituality.

If this is where the Republican Party is headed I will refuse to vote for anyone who is pro-choice on abortion. The Christian Right had better start forming a new political party ASAP. The 2008 election may well be between two women, both pro-choice. Pragmatism fails the smell test when it comes to abortion. It is an issue that becomes the stumbling block for half hearted Christians. Crunch time is just around the corner...:help:

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Art Deco
...If this is where the Republican Party is headed I will refuse to vote for anyone who is pro-choice on abortion. The Christian Right had better start forming a new political party ASAP...
IIRC, Jim Dobson (Focus on the Family founder) threatened the Republicans with just such a scenario a few years back.

Their response was to put plank in the platform regarding abortion, but, as many, many candidates have demonstrated over the years, they are free to ignore the "party line" when it suits them.

Those who put their trust in politicians to push a particular moral agenda are doomed to disappointment. Politicians are creatures of convenience and most change their stripes as the winds of public opinion shift.

Those politicians that don't, don't get re-elected.

It's all about survival for them.

[aikido7]

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=692608#post692608

(Post #547)

[BillyBob]

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=692569#post692569


[post #542]

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by Zakath

IIRC, Jim Dobson (Focus on the Family founder) threatened the Republicans with just such a scenario a few years back.

Their response was to put plank in the platform regarding abortion, but, as many, many candidates have demonstrated over the years, they are free to ignore the "party line" when it suits them.

Those who put their trust in politicians to push a particular moral agenda are doomed to disappointment. Politicians are creatures of convenience and most change their stripes as the winds of public opinion shift.

Those politicians that don't, don't get re-elected.

It's all about survival for them. Democrats and Republicans dividing up the pro-choice crowd leaves the Christian Right out in the cold. The only pragmatic morally upright stand is to drop both Political Parties and form a Third Political Party that is Anti-aborton, Anti-Globalism, Anti-Free Trade but Pro-Fair Trade, and dedicated to using Article III section 2 of the Constitution to reign in a morally cancerous Supreme Court.:think:

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by aikido7

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=692608#post692608

(Post #547) Where is the moral equivalence? :confused:

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Art Deco

Democrats and Republicans dividing up the pro-choice crowd leaves the Christian Right out in the cold. The only pragmatic morally upright stand is to drop both Political Parties and form a Third Political Party that is Anti-aborton, Anti-Globalism, Anti-Free Trade but Pro-Fair Trade, and dedicated to using Article III section 2 of the Constitution to reign in a morally cancerous Supreme Court.:think:
Perhaps it's a good idea.

The election results might provide concrete evidence of just how marginalized tht collection of views actually is in 21st century America.

[aikido7]

Put together the integers "two" and "two." Especially if you've got time to research it on the Net.

George loves Condi, Condi loves George (She once referred to him in public as "my husband, er, the president." He is oil-rich and a slick politician. She had an oil tanker named after her (until the GOP painted over her name on the ship's hull).

She might be a candidate for president in 2008. Before Bush cast his roving eye on higher office, his stance on abortion was clearly pro-choice.

Maybe even Laura is. You know how those quiet ones can be.













ever pay attention to Laura's skin north of her mouth and south of her nose? Are those "smoking" wrinkles? She'd better stub her butt out, hold a press conference and come clean!

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by Zakath

Perhaps it's a good idea.

The election results might provide concrete evidence of just how marginalized tht collection of views actually is in 21st century America. Agreed, it's a scary thought...that the nation has succumed to moral dry-rot to the degree that there is no one left to stand for righteousness in such numbers as to make a difference... :( ...:shocked:

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Art Deco

Agreed, it's a scary thought...that the nation has succumed to moral dry-rot to the degree that there is no one left to stand for righteousness in such numbers as to make a difference... :( ...:shocked: We live in a society with a plurality of religious and moral views.

Don't forget that one person's "stand for righteousness" may be viewed by another as "terrorism".

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by aikido7

Put together the integers "two" and "two." Especially if you've got time to research it on the Net.She might be a candidate for president in 2008. Before Bush cast his roving eye on higher office, his stance on abortion was clearly pro-choice.Maybe even Laura is. You know how those quiet ones can be.Laura is a trained Librarian. How many Librarians are anti-abortion? You can count them on one hand. W's mom is clearly pro-choice and carrys a lot of clout with the men in the family. Rice is another Hillary Clinton with a brain. Libertarians are amoral pragmatists. Pass the Rolaids...:doh:

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by Zakath

We live in a society with a plurality of religious and moral views.

Don't forget that one person's "stand for righteousness" may be viewed by another as "terrorism". Secular Humanism's moral relativism leads to these cross cultural tornados. An appeal to human logic is a complete and utter failure at this point. :(

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Art Deco

Secular Humanism's moral relativism leads to these cross cultural tornados.
From early appearances, the "great war" of the 21st century will likely be a religious one. Secular Humanists need not apply. ;)

An appeal to human logic is a complete and utter failure at this point. :( As is, apparently, any appeal to competing groups of religious fundamentalists to live together peaceably.

:(

[PureX]

Fundamentalist Christians know that if they form their own party and actually vote for their own candidates they will be completely ignored, because their numbers are far too small to win an election except in local backwater places. The only way they have any electoral pull on a national level is as spoilers. But as they are learning, the politicians only play to the spoilers when they have to. Once elected they can ignore them again - at least until the next election. And so they do.

So how are you fundis going to get Bush to tow your line? Are you going to threaten to vote democratic? The democrats will tell you to your face that they aren't going to promote your agenda. Are you going to start your own party and vote for them? Then both republicans and democrats can ignore you, and your party will never get enough votes to have any real power.

Nope. You're stuck with your 'beloved' republicans, and they can afford to ignore you for the most part, because you aren't main-stream and the main stream republicans mean more to the republican party than you do. They needed you as spoilers to win the election, but they can't really do what you want them to because most american don't want it that way.

Sorry. That's that facts.

You aren't going to get what you want by force. You're going to have to convince your fellow citizens to agree to your agenda, and I don't think you even know how to do that - or if it's even possible.

[servent101]

As always the fundies don't quite realize that they have to be amoungst the people, and as they are always tearing down the people and making mockery of their neighbours behaviour they are not very effective as Christians, and the only resort they have is to play the political game... too bad they do not just follow the Lord - but they like the rush it seems when they get all upset about when someone else does not follow the rhetoric of what a Christian is suppose to do - Fundamentalism is a private club of people who just like to throw rocks at their neighbours.

- what to do?

With Christ's Love

Servent101

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by PureX

Fundamentalist Christians know that if they form their own party and actually vote for their own candidates they will be completely ignored, because their numbers are far too small to win an election except in local backwater places.

Huh, then why do the demo-commies keep complaining that our country has been hijacked by the religious right? :doh:

[servent101]

Billybob Huh, then why do the demo-commies keep complaining that our country has been hijacked by the religious right?

Keep seeking, keep knocking and the door of knowledge will be opened unto you.

(that means beats me too)

With Christ's Love

Servent101

[servent101]

Zakath Secular Humanists need not apply.

as every developing theory of thought, the secular humanists are as dangerous as anyone else - they have their concepts and means of creating followers in their own likeness as anyone else.

NO ONE is exempt from becoming insane in their thinking and what is common to all humans is the problem, no particular field of referance that we give name to a concept nor the concept is guarenteed a sound and logical conclusion.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by Zakath

From early appearances, the "great war" of the 21st century will likely be a religious one. Secular Humanists need not apply. ;) They are making their views known through their like minded thugs in the ACLU.

Posted by Zak: As is, apparently, any appeal to competing groups of religious fundamentalists to live together peaceably. It is dishonest and short sighted not to add all groups with competing truth claims to waring religionists. :think:

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by servent101

Zakath

as every developing theory of thought, the secular humanists are as dangerous as anyone else - they have their concepts and means of creating followers in their own likeness as anyone else.

NO ONE is exempt from becoming insane in their thinking and what is common to all humans is the problem, no particular field of referance that we give name to a concept nor the concept is guarenteed a sound and logical conclusion.

With Christ's Love

Servent101 Well said. :first:

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by Art Deco

www.washtimes.com/national/20050311-115948-2015r.htm


If this is where the Republican Party is headed I will refuse to vote for anyone who is pro-choice on abortion. The Christian Right had better start forming a new political party ASAP. The 2008 election may well be between two women, both pro-choice. Pragmatism fails the smell test when it comes to abortion. It is an issue that becomes the stumbling block for half hearted Christians. Crunch time is just around the corner...:help: Listen folks if pragmatism trumps morality on the abortion issue, that's where I part company with the Republicans.

The Republicans accepted Arnold in California knowing that he was pro-choice. The Republican Party under Karl Rove may think that he can hood wink the Christian Right and get away with it over and over, but he may be too clever by half.

A third party movement simply to elect U.S. House and Senate candidates would be enough to make big changes in Washington D.C. Remember Senator "Jumpin Jim" Jeffords who switched from Republican to independent? That gave the Senate leadership back to the Democrats.
A small voting block would certainly raise hell in Congress.

[dotcom]

Originally posted by Art Deco


A third party movement simply to elect U.S. House and Senate candidates would be enough to make big changes in Washington D.C.

Well said Deco! Now supply the foundation and procedures for it's inception.

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by dotcom

Originally posted by Art Deco




Well said Deco! Now supply the foundation and procedures for it's inception. Step one: Is there a patriotic lawyer in the audience willing to do the legal spade work at the state level? :)

[dotcom]

Originally posted by Art Deco

Listen folks if pragmatism trumps morality on the abortion issue, that's where I part company with the Republicans.

I agree with you but understand the Republican Party has to go out there to seek votes from people like you and me. It is a political party. To me, Karl Rove is one of the political geniuses of the 21st century! Karl Rove knows there is no moral congress or moral senate! He knows there is a political senate and a political congress. That concept determines who is in the White House Deco.

You are being too hard on Condi. She stunned the Germans, humbled the French and impressed the British!

The 10 nation federation in the middle east has to be political first before it becomes biblical. Judging Condi on abortion only is unfair.

[dotcom]

Originally posted by Art Deco

Step one: Is there a patriotic lawyer in the audience willing to do the legal spade work at the state level? :)

I propose you to be the President of the New Party. Lawyers are ALL ambulance chasers! Is your own personal legal advisor patriotic?

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by dotcom

Originally posted by Art Deco



I propose you to be the President of the New Party. Lawyers are ALL ambulance chasers! Is your own personal legal advisor patriotic? LOL, I'll take that under advisement... :D But seriously, we have to come up with a name for the new national party. How about: The New Christian Democrat Party?

Now the party platform needs to be built plank by political plank. What do you suggest we add to the Party Platform?

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Art Deco

If this is where the Republican Party is headed I will refuse to vote for anyone who is pro-choice on abortion.

Maybe America just "isn't ready" to stop murdering babies yet?

The Christian Right had better start forming a new political party ASAP. The 2008 election may well be between two women, both pro-choice. Pragmatism fails the smell test when it comes to abortion. It is an issue that becomes the stumbling block for half hearted Christians. Crunch time is just around the corner...:help:

Next election is a toss up, especially if clinton runs :vomit: ...

Maybe the best chance ever to get a 3rd party in the White House :)

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by Nineveh

Maybe America just "isn't ready" to stop murdering babies yet? Some are, some aren't. I'm addressing those who are ready to stop the killing. It's time to take a stand.



Posted by Nineveh: Next election is a toss up, especially if clinton runs :vomit: ...

Maybe the best chance ever to get a 3rd party in the White House :) I'd settle for one Congressman from each state for starters. A block of fifty votes in Congress could wield some influence on major issues. Is it doable? :help:

[Granite]

"A third party movement simply to elect U.S. House and Senate candidates would be enough to make big changes in Washington D.C."

Yeah, till a Democratic or Republican president just ignores Congress, which presidents have a tendency to do...

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by granite1010

"A third party movement simply to elect U.S. House and Senate candidates would be enough to make big changes in Washington D.C."

Yeah, till a Democratic or Republican president just ignores Congress, which presidents have a tendency to do... Your lack of civics training is abundantly clear. Congress has the power. It can set the jurisdiction of all Federal Courts and the Supreme Court and over-ride a presidential veto. 50 members of the New Christian Democrat Party could have an impact on the work done in the House of Representatives.

[Granite]

Originally posted by Art Deco

Your lack of civics training is abundantly clear. Congress has the power. It can set the jurisdiction of all Federal Courts and the Supreme Court and over-ride a presidential veto. 50 members of the New Christian Democrat Party could have an impact on the work done in the House of Representatives.

:yawn:

Art, can you stop being so patronizing for maybe a sec?

Congress DOES have the power but has pretty much surrendered it over the years. FDR stamped a stake into congressional power and probably by LBJ any pretense that Congress held real authority went out the window. When executive orders become law and war can be declared without so much as a congressional rubberstamp, Congress has become irrelevant.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by dotcom

Originally posted by Art Deco



I agree with you but understand the Republican Party has to go out there to seek votes from people like you and me. It is a political party. To me, Karl Rove is one of the political geniuses of the 21st century! Karl Rove knows there is no moral congress or moral senate! He knows there is a political senate and a political congress. That concept determines who is in the White House Deco.

You are being too hard on Condi. She stunned the Germans, humbled the French and impressed the British!

The 10 nation federation in the middle east has to be political first before it becomes biblical. Judging Condi on abortion only is unfair.

Yeah, there are a lot of issues to consider besides abortion.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by granite1010

When executive orders become law and war can be declared without so much as a congressional rubberstamp, Congress has become irrelevant.

Congress approved this war.

[Granite]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Congress approved this war.

After the fact. I mean, really: if Congress said hell no, we won't go, do you think Dubya would have just sat on his hands and decided not to invade? For right or wrong we were going whether the sheep in Congress said yes or no.

[BillyBob]

After the fact???

Here (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=691011#post691011)

[Granite]

Ah. Thanks for the timeline. My bad.:thumb:

The point being that we have gone to war with either a congressional rubberstamp or none at all. Bottomline, the idea that Congress has any power anymore is ludicrous. The lobbyists, special interests, and POTUS do.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by Art Deco

Some are, some aren't. I'm addressing those who are ready to stop the killing. It's time to take a stand.

That semi quote was from Bush... "America just isn't ready yet".....

I'd settle for one Congressman from each state for starters. A block of fifty votes in Congress could wield some influence on major issues. Is it doable? :help:

Well, Art, there are more than just Rs and Ds out there. Pick one you agree with and throw your might behind it. Who's to say what could happen :)

[Granite]

The prez has this one right: the American public is not prepared to illegalize abortion.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by granite1010

The prez has this one right: the American public is not prepared to illegalize abortion.

I dunno about that:

WASHINGTON, March 11, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Harris Interactive Poll on abortion released March 3 shows the strongest opposition to Roe v. Wade in years. The survey of 1,012 U.S. adults conducted February 8-13, 2005, shows Americans support Roe v. Wade by just a 52 to 47 percent margin, a significant change from the 57 to 41 percent margin in 1998. This weakening support for Roe is likely even more pronounced than the poll indicates because the Harris survey question understates Roe v. Wade by declaring "the U.S. Supreme Court decision making abortions up to three months of pregnancy legal."whole article (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/mar/05031106.html)

I'm not so sure the murder of babies should rest with a consensus of the people anyway, that not how it became legalized.

[Granite]

Originally posted by Nineveh

I dunno about that:



I'm not so sure the murder of babies should rest with a consensus of the people anyway, that not how it became legalized.

Between three out of four pro-life presidents from the bunch we've had recently, the GOP had their chance and blew it. What are these guys waiting for? The pro-life movement always has an excuse. It's always right around the corner. What they refuse to admit or understand is that the American people, by and large, will not stand for it. That's not saying abortion's a good thing--it's obviously not--but this goes back to changing hearts, not passing a law.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Art Deco

LOL, I'll take that under advisement... :D But seriously, we have to come up with a name for the new national party. How about: The New Christian Democrat Party?

Now the party platform needs to be built plank by political plank. What do you suggest we add to the Party Platform?
The abolition of atheism and secularist materialism under pain of slow, agonizing death. :chuckle:

[On Fire]

Originally posted by Gerald

The abolition of atheism and secularist materialism under pain of slow, agonizing death. :chuckle:

You're making my mouth water....

[Gerald]

Originally posted by On Fire
You're making my mouth water.... Hey, if you feel froggy, then leap.

But know this: if an atheist/secularist/materialist repudiates his beliefs, you have nothing but his word that his beliefs have actually changed.

He might be lying to save his skin. That's what I would do. It isn't like anybody can look inside my head and check to see if my change of heart is sincere...

Can you think of a way?

And if you're gonna quote "by their fruits..." etc, then trot out some examples of those fruits.

[Nineveh]

Originally posted by granite1010
What are these guys waiting for?

Good question.

[BillyBob]

Condi ain't running for POTUS.



I have no desire to be president, says Rice
By Alec Russell in Washington
(Filed: 14/03/2005)

America's secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, said yesterday that she would not run for the presidency in 2008, shattering the hopes of a growing number of Republicans that she could be their dream candidate.

Since her polished debut on the world stage last month, Ms Rice has attracted plaudits across the political spectrum, fuelling excitement on a range of Republican websites that are pushing her to become the first black and first female president.

Speculation that she was considering her chances of succeeding her boss, President George W Bush, peaked at the weekend when she talked at length about her stance on abortion, a key issue for Republicans.

But yesterday, in a series of appearances on the influential morning television talk shows, she played down the speculation.

"I don't know how many ways to say no, so let me just say it. I don't have any desire to run for president. I don't intend to. I won't do it," she told ABC television.

"I won't. How's that? Is that categorical enough?"

With vice-president Dick Cheney ruling himself out of contention, there is no front-runner to take the baton from Mr Bush, and Ms Rice's supporters see her as the only person to stop Hillary Clinton, if the former First Lady decided to run.

In an interview with the Washington Times over the weekend, Ms Rice refused to rule out her standing for the presidency and gave a detailed insight into her views on abortion, a litmus for the Right-wing who are suspicious of her "mildly pro-choice" stance.

She said that Mr Bush was "in exactly the right place" on abortion, namely to "respect the culture of life" and make abortion "as rare a circumstance as possible".

Asked to give an unconditional denial about running she replied: "Oh, that's not fair."

Yesterday however her answer was more clear-cut.

I guess that leaves Jeb as the frontrunner.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Condi ain't running for POTUS.



I guess that leaves Jeb as the frontrunner. There's still the veep slot.

[tinfoil hat]

Of course, Something Really Bad could happen between now and '08. Elections might be considered passe by then... :noid:

[/tinfoil hat]

[Granite]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Condi ain't running for POTUS.



I guess that leaves Jeb as the frontrunner.

Nah, that's too many members of the dynasty for anyone to buy.

No way he'd make it to the White House.

[BillyBob]

I thought you favored Dynasty's! :chuckle:

[drbrumley]

Originally posted by granite1010

:yawn:

Art, can you stop being so patronizing for maybe a sec?

Congress DOES have the power but has pretty much surrendered it over the years. FDR stamped a stake into congressional power and probably by LBJ any pretense that Congress held real authority went out the window. When executive orders become law and war can be declared without so much as a congressional rubberstamp, Congress has become irrelevant. :up:

[drbrumley]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Yeah, there are a lot of issues to consider besides abortion.

You don't do evil so that good can come of it. Don't support a child-killing advocate don't support a pro- choice candidate. When you support child killing, you compromise EVERYTHING else.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by drbrumley

You don't do evil so that good can come of it. Don't support a child-killing advocate don't support a pro- choice candidate. When you support child killing, you compromise EVERYTHING else.

I'm not a one issue voter, Doc. You know I don't support abortion, but I don't support allowing our enemies to attack us, either. I don't support big social spending and huge inneficient bureaucracies. I don't support relinquishing our sovereignty to the UN. I don't support heavy taxation. I don't support a graduated tax rate. I don't support throwing money at our enemies. I don't support a 'Global Test'. And the list goes on.

[Imrahil]

Originally posted by BillyBob

I guess that leaves Jeb as the frontrunner.

Jeb was just as emphatic in stating that he's not running either.

[Imrahil]

Originally posted by BillyBob

I'm not a one issue voter, Doc. You know I don't support abortion, but I don't support allowing our enemies to attack us, either. I don't support big social spending and huge inneficient bureaucracies. I don't support relinquishing our sovereignty to the UN. I don't support heavy taxation. I don't support a graduated tax rate. I don't support throwing money at our enemies. I don't support a 'Global Test'. And the list goes on.
Do you support letting someone kill children so you can live in safety?

[Emo]

Originally posted by granite1010

Between three out of four pro-life presidents from the bunch we've had recently, the GOP had their chance and blew it. What are these guys waiting for? The pro-life movement always has an excuse. It's always right around the corner. What they refuse to admit or understand is that the American people, by and large, will not stand for it. That's not saying abortion's a good thing--it's obviously not--but this goes back to changing hearts, not passing a law.

Well, I'm surprised granite. :up: It's definitely about changing hearts first, then people can start to see the clearing up the road, & will gain the plain understanding that abortion is simply murder.

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by emohaslove

Well, I'm surprised granite. :up: It's definitely about changing hearts first, then people can start to see the clearing up the road, & will gain the plain understanding that abortion is simply murder. Changing hearts? Get real...Did the Supreme Court circa 1973 worry about over 70% opposition to legalized abortion? Hell no. Enough of this changing hearts clap trap. :mad:

All we need is one or two anti-abortion justices on the Supreme Court to reverse Roe vs. Wade. Or plan B Congress can pass a law that forbids the Federal Courts to hear cases on the issue of abortion. This in effect transfers the issue to the sovereign states. Republicans need to step up to the plate ASAP.

[Emo]

Originally posted by Art Deco

Changing hearts? Get real

I meant changing hearts to God-like hearts, but I think you understood that. Remember, I'm on your side here. If the majority of people in this country were Christians than this would be a non-issue. Even some unbelievers use their common sense & know that abortion is wrong.

...Did the Supreme Court circa 1973 worry about over 70% opposition to legalized abortion? Hell no. Enough of this changing hearts clap trap. :mad:

Sorry, I wasn't born yet. 70%, huh, could you elaborate on this survey/opinion poll? Do you think that today's opposition would be anywhere close to that? The truth is, that the majority of people are evil & could give a damn about the issue of abortion & that's the real tragedy!

All we need is one or two anti-abortion justices on the Supreme Court to reverse Roe vs. Wade.

Sounds great, but how likely is this possibility? SLIM

Or plan B Congress can pass a law that forbids the Federal Courts to hear cases on the issue of abortion. This in effect transfers the issue to the sovereign states.

This would be a start, but there would still be plenty of states that would allow abortion, so stupid people would simply travel to those states to have the murderous procedure done. See, the problem still exists.

Republicans need to step up to the plate ASAP.

Again, sounds wonderful, but is this really going to happen anytime soon?
Ultimately, the decision falls on the pregnant woman & this involves a need for the change of heart to change the mind.

[jeremiah]

Originally posted by Art Deco

Changing hearts? Get real...Did the Supreme Court circa 1973 worry about over 70% opposition to legalized abortion? Hell no. Enough of this changing hearts clap trap. :mad:

All we need is one or two anti-abortion justices on the Supreme Court to reverse Roe vs. Wade. Or plan B Congress can pass a law that forbids the Federal Courts to hear cases on the issue of abortion. This in effect transfers the issue to the sovereign states. Republicans need to step up to the plate ASAP.

Here's a little bit of wisdom that I have picked up over the years. The most liberal group of people in the United States are, our elected officials. They consistently and overwelmingly vote for liberal and amoral laws way beyond every poll of their constituency, that they represent.
Now let me contradict myself. There is one group that is even more liberal then elected politicians. It is the appointed political judges. They can even ram through the same sex marriages over the polite protests of our lawmakers and the angry responses of 70% of the citizenry. That is exactly how, and by whom, Roe vs. Wade was passed.
If we were a pure democracy, there would be no gay marriages. There would be legal abortion for life of the mother, rape-incest, and severe birth defects. Possibly also for severe health issues for the mother. Clearly abortion for birth control, or convenience, would be illegal.
IMHO !

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by jeremiah

Here's a little bit of wisdom that I have picked up over the years. The most liberal group of people in the United States are, our elected officials. They consistently and overwelmingly vote for liberal and amoral laws way beyond every poll of their constituency, that they represent. Why? They are trained lawyers who's training is focused on the law as opposed to any moral basis for the law. Lawyers as a group, are one of the most amoral groups in society. And they are making our laws...:doh:



Posted by Jeremiah: Now let me contradict myself. There is one group that is even more liberal then elected politicians. It is the appointed political judges. They can even ram through the same sex marriages over the polite protests of our lawmakers and the angry responses of 70% of the citizenry. That is exactly how, and by whom, Roe vs. Wade was passed.
If we were a pure democracy, there would be no gay marriages. There would be legal abortion for life of the mother, rape-incest, and severe birth defects. Possibly also for severe health issues for the mother. Clearly abortion for birth control, or convenience, would be illegal.
IMHO ! You make some strong points Jeremiah. :thumb:

[Granite]

Originally posted by Art Deco

Changing hearts? Get real...Did the Supreme Court circa 1973 worry about over 70% opposition to legalized abortion? Hell no. Enough of this changing hearts clap trap. :mad:

All we need is one or two anti-abortion justices on the Supreme Court to reverse Roe vs. Wade. Or plan B Congress can pass a law that forbids the Federal Courts to hear cases on the issue of abortion. This in effect transfers the issue to the sovereign states. Republicans need to step up to the plate ASAP.

Oh, I see. So what you want to do is legislate through coercion. Art, this is a two-edged sword, and you refuse to admit it. You just want to do to the country what the pro-choice movement did to it already: push your agenda through force. This solution is short term and has no foundation whatsoever.

Suppose you get your way. The Supremes overrule Roe. Abortion's illegal. Forget, for one thing, that federal, state, and local courts will fight this out, and at least the 9th District will muck things up (this much is inevitable). Sweep that aside and pretend, through magic, that there are zero repercussions, the overrule decision is not fought or contested, and that the clinics are closed nationwide. Also forget the inevitable backlash this will cause, and that Republicans would lose support. Remember, this issue is not on the front burner the way it used to be.

BIG FRIGGIN' WHOOP. Because ten, twenty, or thirty years from now, a new set of justices will flip the decision, and Roe will be back as the law of the land. Was there public outcry following Roe? Yes. But not enough. The hearts had already drifted and changed, Art. We didn't care enough then; we don't care enough now. Shoving a new law down our throats doesn't change a thing. It's a temporary fix. A Supreme Court ruling is a band-aid.

I hate to use them as an example, mostly because it's been overused, but the Nazis could not have implemented the Final Solution without the support of the German people. They were indifferent enough, callous enough, or supportive enough, for the camps to be built and the chambers to be filled. Likewise here. A ruling from a court is not going to change how people act, think, feel, and vote.

Moreover, you keep making excuses for the pro-life movement. It's ALWAYS just around the corner. We're ALWAYS just a couple votes short. Get real. The pro-life movement's been co-opted, they had their chance, and they blew it. Big time. Dubya owns Congress, has the king spot, and he's going to stack the court. And abortion will still be legal when his second term wraps up.

What a waste.

[aikido7]

Condi's stance has ignited the Right's "culture of victimhood" backlash again.

Oh, Condi! How COULD you?
She always DID favor the pro-choice side. Bush's smoke and mirrors dog and pony show had you thinking something different.

Well, at least BUSH is anti-choice!
Guess again. He never has been, but "adopted" the disguise so you wouldn't catch him doing it unto you.

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by granite1010

Oh, I see. So what you want to do is legislate through coercion. Art, this is a two-edged sword, and you refuse to admit it. You just want to do to the country what the pro-choice movement did to it already: push your agenda through force. This solution is short term and has no foundation whatsoever. Shall we just call it legislate through plurality? What''s wrong with the majority rules? The majority have spoken, Red State America want some changes made to the Federal Courts. The red faced Secular Humanist Democrats have decided to make their stand on the courts, since that's been the change agent for their Secular Humanist agenda over the last fifty years. Bring It On!



Posted by Granite1010: I hate to use them as an example, mostly because it's been overused, but the Nazis could not have implemented the Final Solution without the support of the German people. They were indifferent enough, callous enough, or supportive enough, for the camps to be built and the chambers to be filled. Likewise here. A ruling from a court is not going to change how people act, think, feel, and vote.You just painted a picture of Secular Humanist America. These scumbags will eventually grow old and die taking their anti-God philosophy to the grave. The younger generation, seeking spiritual renewal, will take over and shake their heads at the moral collapse of the 60's and 70's.




Posted by Granite1010: Moreover, you keep making excuses for the pro-life movement. It's ALWAYS just around the corner. We're ALWAYS just a couple votes short. Get real. The pro-life movement's been co-opted, they had their chance, and they blew it. Big time. Dubya owns Congress, has the king spot, and he's going to stack the court. And abortion will still be legal when his second term wraps up.What a waste. Success will be measured one Supreme Court justice at a time. The Dems will be livid...LOL...Deal with it...:chuckle:

[Imrahil]

Originally posted by Art Deco
What''s wrong with the majority rules?

Let's start with everything and go from there.

[Granite]

"You just painted a picture of Secular Humanist America. These scumbags will eventually grow old and die taking their anti-God philosophy to the grave. The younger generation, seeking spiritual renewal, will take over and shake their heads at the moral collapse of the 60's and 70's."

But it's not just them, Art. The church is ineffectual. The church is weak. It's not taken seriously anymore (at least not as seriously as it was in the past). Christianity is in trouble in this country. And everywhere else, for that matter. It's dead in Europe and being torn apart by division. I expect at this point you might trot out the "revival" card, but I'm not holding my breath.

"What''s wrong with the majority rules?"

Do I even need to answer this one? For crying out loud, majority votes gave us FDR, LBJ, censorship, abuse...anyone who seriously thinks a "majority rules" mindset is on track needs to take a reality check. Come on, Art. Quit playing dense here. You know full well the dangers in shrugging and letting "the majority" run things. Sooner or later, we all turn into the minority.

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by granite1010

"You just painted a picture of Secular Humanist America. These scumbags will eventually grow old and die taking their anti-God philosophy to the grave. The younger generation, seeking spiritual renewal, will take over and shake their heads at the moral collapse of the 60's and 70's."

But it's not just them, Art. The church is ineffectual. The church is weak. It's not taken seriously anymore (at least not as seriously as it was in the past). Christianity is in trouble in this country. And everywhere else, for that matter. It's dead in Europe and being torn apart by division. I expect at this point you might trot out the "revival" card, but I'm not holding my breath. I agree. Europe is lost to Secular Humanism, but millions of Americans are fighting its take over here. Could we use more church involvement here? You bet. But the Christian Remnant is holding firm.

Posted by Granite 1010: "What''s wrong with the majority rules?"

Do I even need to answer this one? For crying out loud, majority votes gave us FDR, LBJ, censorship, abuse...anyone who seriously thinks a "majority rules" mindset is on track needs to take a reality check. Come on, Art. Quit playing dense here. You know full well the dangers in shrugging and letting "the majority" run things. Sooner or later, we all turn into the minority. That's why our form of government was said to be most effective where the people were Christians. Political majorites where Secular Humanism is the guiding philosophy, is dangerous in that the "State" becomes the source of all civil rights rather that God Almighty.

Here in lies the danger of electing anti-God Secular Humanist Democrats to office. Thank God they are out of power for the moment. All they can do is obstruct the will of the Red State majority in Congress. :think:

[drbrumley]

Originally posted by Imrahil

Let's start with everything and go from there.

Answering Art, when Art says this brainless comment:

Originally posted by Art Deco

What''s wrong with the majority rules?

Good job Imrahil. Glad you caught that. Democracy sucks.

Hey Art, I understand your a by product of Publik Skools, cause it is obvious your civics class taught you that majority rules., so here your final lesson in civics.

Sorry, Mr. Franklin, “We’re All Democrats Now” (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18948)

[Granite]

Originally posted by Art Deco

I agree. Europe is lost to Secular Humanism, but millions of Americans are fighting its take over here. Could we use more church involvement here? You bet. But the Christian Remnant is holding firm.

Posted by Granite 1010: That's why our form of government was said to be most effective where the people were Christians. Political majorites where Secular Humanism is the guiding philosophy, is dangerous in that the "State" becomes the source of all civil rights rather that God Almighty.

Here in lies the danger of electing anti-God Secular Humanist Democrats to office. Thank God they are out of power for the moment. All they can do is obstruct the will of the Red State majority in Congress. :think:

But that doesn't address the danger inherent in just letting the majority rule. In this situation, you just have a mob. The tyranny of 51%.

The government we had WAS more effectual (and less corrupt) when Judeo-Christian mores were the norm. But insisting we let the majority ride now is pretty troublesome.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by drbrumley
Democracy sucks.And you would prefer what, rule by an autocrat, where you don't even have the illusion of getting a say-so in how things are done? Where talking smack about those in charge will cause you to catch a bad case of dead?

Well, I suppose that's a more honest tyranny...:rolleyes:

[drbrumley]

Originally posted by Gerald

And you would prefer what, rule by an autocrat, where you don't even have the illusion of getting a say-so in how things are done? Where talking smack about those in charge will cause you to catch a bad case of dead?

Well, I suppose that's a more honest tyranny...:rolleyes:

A republic is a good way to start.

I guess your civics was taught in Publik Skool too.

[Granite]

Originally posted by Gerald

And you would prefer what, rule by an autocrat, where you don't even have the illusion of getting a say-so in how things are done? Where talking smack about those in charge will cause you to catch a bad case of dead?

Well, I suppose that's a more honest tyranny...:rolleyes:

This is not surprising. Christianity and democracy are not natural bed fellows. Democracy happened more or less despite the church...

[drbrumley]

I would suggest your right. But it was never the intention of the founding fathers that we become a democracy.

And yes, despite the good nature of the church, they willfully looked at the cash cow and what was once a great nation, the church has let it slip to the socialist nation we have found ourselves in.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by drbrumley
A republic is a good way to start.The US already is a republic, you cheesehead!

BTW, I notice you ain't inclined to take me on in the Paranormal forum.

Not man enough, I s'pose...:chuckle:

[drbrumley]

Wake up you ninkumpoop.

We are a Republic by name only. We as a nation are wallowing in pure democracy now. And have been for some time.

As for your paranormal stuff, I pass cause I have already said, it would be of no use to speak and fall on deaf ears.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by drbrumley
We are a Republic by name only. We as a nation are wallowing in pure democracy now. And have been for some time.I don't see the problem, frankly. This "democracy" been berry berry good to me...
As for your paranormal stuff, I pass cause I have already said, it would be of no use to speak and fall on deaf ears. You misspelled "don't want to be mocked and made to look like a fool for making claims that can't be verified"... :chuckle:

[Quasar1011]

Abortion is spiritual pollution!

Numbers 35:33
Do not pollute the land where you are. Bloodshed pollutes the land, and atonement cannot be made for the land on which blood has been shed, except by the blood of the one who shed it.

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by Quasar1011

Abortion is spiritual pollution!

Numbers 35:33
Do not pollute the land where you are. Bloodshed pollutes the land, and atonement cannot be made for the land on which blood has been shed, except by the blood of the one who shed it. Excellent post Quasar1011. This nation is under God's judgement. Read Isaiah 3 for the laundry list of curses.:(

[dotcom]

Originally posted by Quasar1011

Abortion is spiritual pollution!

Numbers 35:33
Do not pollute the land where you are. Bloodshed pollutes the land, and atonement cannot be made for the land on which blood has been shed, except by the blood of the one who shed it.

Abortion is also physical pollution. If bloodshed pollutes the land, then war pollutes the land. Is war, therefore, spiritual pollution? I don't think so.

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by dotcom

Abortion is also physical pollution. If bloodshed pollutes the land, then war pollutes the land. Is war, therefore, spiritual pollution? I don't think so. Are you suggesting that there is a moral equivalence between abortion and war? :confused:

[Granite]

Originally posted by Art Deco

Excellent post Quasar1011. This nation is under God's judgement. Read Isaiah 3 for the laundry list of curses.:(

If true he's certainly taking his time wiping out the wicked...

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by granite1010

If true he's certainly taking his time wiping out the wicked...Your comment indicates you haven't read Isaiah chapter three... :down:

[Granite]

Originally posted by Art Deco

Your comment indicates you haven't read Isaiah chapter three... :down:

:yawn:

Taking an out of context prophecy from a few thousand years ago and forcing into current events isn't terribly impressive exegesis. Same trick dispensationalists use.

[Turbo]

Originally posted by granite1010

Same trick dispensationalists use. What are you alluding to?

[Granite]

Cut and paste exegesis.

[Turbo]

I thought you had something specific in mind.

[Granite]

A specific example, no, I just don't think it's sound to grab a verse, insist it "applies" today, and stick to it. Convenient, but pretty simplistic.

[Turbo]

Originally posted by granite1010

A specific example, no, I just don't think it's sound to grab a verse, insist it "applies" today, and stick to it. And I don't see how that behavior is characteristic of dispensationalists. Do you even know what a dispensationalist is?

[Poly]

Originally posted by Turbo

And I don't see how that behavior is characteristic of dispensationalists. Do you even know what a dispensationalist is?

I've been waiting for granite to respond to this but I guess google searches can take a while.

[Granite]

Originally posted by Poly

I've been waiting for granite to respond to this but I guess google searches can take a while.

:yawn:

You people can be really, really annoying. Stuffed shirts and all that...

Poly, for your information and for Turbo's, I don't have anything to prove here. You guys want to assume I don't know what I'm talking about, that's your problem.

[Poly]

Originally posted by granite1010

:yawn:

You people can be really, really annoying. Stuffed shirts and all that...

Poly, for your information and for Turbo's, I don't have anything to prove here. You guys want to assume I don't know what I'm talking about, that's your problem.

Ok, so you know what you're talking about.
In all fairness, Turbo asked an honest question. Could you please answer it?

Originally posted by Turbo

And I don't see how that behavior is characteristic of dispensationalists. Do you even know what a dispensationalist is?

[Granite]

"And I don't see how that behavior is characteristic of dispensationalists."

As far as I'm concerned dispys are guilty of this primarily in the field of eschatology. For example: claiming that Zechariah's prophecy of God's enemies having their eyes burned out refers to nuclear warfare. Or the whole locust from the bottomless pit actually being Cobra helicopters.

"Do you even know what a dispensationalist is?"

Yes, Turbo, I do have a clue. Thanks for assuming the worst.

God works in different dispensations in different times, through different covenants and different revelations to humanity. Adamic, Abrahamic, Noahic, on and on.

[dotcom]

Originally posted by Art Deco

Are you suggesting that there is a moral equivalence between abortion and war? :confused:

I am suggesting a biblical equivalence and NOT a moral equivalence. According to the Numbers scripture bloodshed pollutes the land. Both war and abortion are bloodshed, so they must pollute the land.

[Art Deco]

Originally posted by granite1010

:yawn:

Taking an out of context prophecy from a few thousand years ago and forcing into current events isn't terribly impressive exegesis. Same trick dispensationalists use. You are spiritually blind and without hope. The judgement of Jerusalem and Judah in Isaiah 3 was certainly for that time but should we not take a lesson from God's curse on His people for their sins? Not to do so would be admitting ignorance of God's nature and character. By the way, do any of the curses sound familliar? :angel:

[Granite]

Originally posted by Art Deco

You are spiritually blind and without hope. The judgement of Jerusalem and Judah in Isaiah 3 was certainly for that time but should we not take a lesson from God's curse on His people for their sins? Not to do so would be admitting ignorance of God's nature and character. By the way, do any of the curses sound familliar? :angel:

Blah, blah, blah. Art, if this is true, quit wasting your few remaining years on me. Sound good?