[Delmar]

Originally Posted by Steve Wetzel

I think the bigger question is - is any political solution the way to end abortion? Personally, I do not think so. Still I am not willing to discard the possibility.

I agree we should let the political candidates know that we will only support them if they work for a constitutional amendment declaring the personhood of the unborn! Even though this is not likely to happen.

The sad fact is we are still one judge short on the Supreme Court - and all it takes is one liberal president to undo any gains that have been made. In 1991 - pro lifers were proclaiming victory because "We now had the Supreme Court."

Fast forward 16 years, and we can now see that didn't quite work out so well. Doubt it will in the future. This is a Church issue, and once the Church gets off its blessed assurance, child killing will end.

Steve
mttu.com

One judge short?
We don't have a single Supreme Court Justice who is willing to declare that an unborn baby is a person!

[ApologeticJedi]

Originally Posted by Steve Wetzel

The sad fact is we are still one judge short on the Supreme Court...

One judge short of what? As far as I know there isn't a true pro-life judge on the Supreme Court. Only two judges would even be willing to entertain overturning Roe, and those two only for process reasons. I don't know what you mean by "one judge short" but I think you've been drinking too much of the NRTL propaganda kool-aid.

[QueenAtHome]

Steve,

It appears that I am not they only one who has noticed you dodge the question of how this Act saves babies.

To answer your latest motto....
The answer is found in Delmar's posts
Crash's posts & ApologeticJedi's post.

I have, like you, have fought on the front lines.
But unlike you, I don't get an adrenaline rush from the battle itself. I will save my dancing for the day when abortion is once again illegal.

And that day you will have a bit of sorrow because the battle is over and you have nothing to fight for any longer.

[Lighthouse]

This ruling will not save the life of one single child.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by hoosiermommy

Steve,

It appears that I am not they only one who has noticed you dodge the question of how this Act saves babies.

To answer your latest motto....
The answer is found in Delmar's posts
Crash's posts & ApologeticJedi's post.

I have, like you, have fought on the front lines.
But unlike you, I don't get an adrenaline rush from the battle itself. I will save my dancing for the day when abortion is once again illegal.

And that day you will have a bit of sorrow because the battle is over and you have nothing to fight for any longer.

You are exactly right. I approached Bob Enyart years ago and told him that some people were going to be depressed in Heaven. He asked why. I told him that it was because they enjoyed the protest and the fight so much that it became more important than the cause. In Heaven, there will be nothing to protest.

Adam

[Steve Wetzel]

Originally Posted by hoosiermommy

Steve,

It appears that I am not they only one who has noticed you dodge the question of how this Act saves babies.

To answer your latest motto....
The answer is found in Delmar's posts
Crash's posts & ApologeticJedi's post.

I have, like you, have fought on the front lines.
But unlike you, I don't get an adrenaline rush from the battle itself. I will save my dancing for the day when abortion is once again illegal.

And that day you will have a bit of sorrow because the battle is over and you have nothing to fight for any longer.

You make some assumptions here. I get no "adrenaline rush" from the battle itself. I find it extremely taxing. I will have joy in seeing an end to abortion. When that day comes, I will simply take on the next pit of sorrow that the Lord calls me to. Believe me, do think I enjoy the 5-10 daily email virus attacks from the pro-aborts???

I do know the people that you are talking about, and they drive me nuts as well. They are the 24/7 prolifers that just can't turn it off. I want to have a life outside of prolife work. I enjoy my family, and family talk and do family stuff. I refuse to be one of those who feel they need to constantly harp on prolife 24/7 - shoving LifeTalk video tapes into the VCR.

You rarely see me on these forums because I rarely do this. After a while, these threads will end, and I will be gone as well.

Steve
mttu.com

[Mustard Seed]

I'm kind of befuddled with Knight posting this and the likes of BEL now coming out on this.

You see the court ruling is doing no more than elaborating what was said in the initial partial birth abortion ban legislation.

Take, for example, the following post from Knight that was put up some time back--

Originally Posted by Knight

I am pulling some posts from a previous thread to get them all in one place. I want to really explore the claim that George W. Bush actually appoints pro-abortion judges.

I think most of us right wingers agree that we wish Bush was more focused on issues of biblical morality especially in regard to abortion and homosexuality issues.

However we also must be honest and look at some of the things he has done that are good things (besides freeing Afghanistan and Iraq).

Pro-aborts generally hate George Bush which is a somewhat of a good sign. Sometimes its interesting to read what your enemy is saying. Lets read some of the things that abortion rights groups are saying about Bush and abortion.

The following is taken from "The Truth about George." which is a left wing pro-abort website.So again.... I am not trying to say that Bush is perfect or even near perfect but I also feel its important to realize he isn't as "pro-choice" as some might have you believe.

[ SOURCE ]

I bring this up in hopes to point out that if Dobson is out of line THEN SO TO WERE ANY OF THE CREATORS AND SIGNERS OF THIS LETTER WHO SUPPORTED THE partial birth abortion ban WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD.


You see if it's bad to endorse something that provides outlets for other forms of abortion then the court ruling is simply the full manifestation of what's been pushed, and acquiesced to, by any and all in the religious community who either supported, or passively allowed the partial birth abortion ban to proceed.


So I'm curious as to whether or not this realization will occur.

You see if Dobson is derelict and out of line with Christ and the Gospel on this point THEN SO TO WAS EVERYONE in the Christian community who either passively allowed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban to get signed into law OR any of those who did anything to promote or show support for that measure.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You can't go off on someone for supporting a half-measure that you now see as insidious if YOU YOURSELF didn't see the long-time-coming advance to such.

So the 'egregious' occurance was simply capped at the ruling by the Supreme Court. Anyone who voted for any 'pro life' candidate who supported that measure is just as damned as Dobson is claimed to be now, provided he doesn't 'repent.'

[Mustard Seed]

Originally Posted by Lighthouse

This ruling will not save the life of one single child.

Then neither would have the partial birth abortion ban-for the one is simply the culmination of the other.

[Mustard Seed]

btw.

This is a link to the thread I quoted

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...=partial+birth

[ApologeticJedi]

Originally Posted by Mustard Seed

Then neither would have the partial birth abortion ban-for the one is simply the culmination of the other.

I agree ... it is a wasted effort. The blood of those babies is being poorly mishandled.

Originally Posted by Adambassador

You are exactly right. I approached Bob Enyart years ago and told him that some people were going to be depressed in Heaven. He asked why. I told him that it was because they enjoyed the protest and the fight so much that it became more important than the cause. In Heaven, there will be nothing to protest.

I too think some people get too carried away, but I’d rather have those people than those that do nothing.

When they were running Jews out of Germany I’m sure a few were depressed when Germany was eventually defeated because they had the same enjoyment of the fight rather than the cause. Never-the-less, by their hands Jews were saved. That danger is miniscule compared to those that have apathy. I'm sure heaven will have many things to delight all of us.

[CRASH]

Originally Posted by Mustard Seed

I'm kind of befuddled with Knight posting this and the likes of BEL now coming out on this.

You see the court ruling is doing no more than elaborating what was said in the initial partial birth abortion ban legislation.

Take, for example, the following post from Knight that was put up some time back--




I bring this up in hopes to point out that if Dobson is out of line THEN SO TO WERE ANY OF THE CREATORS AND SIGNERS OF THIS LETTER WHO SUPPORTED THE partial birth abortion ban WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD.


You see if it's bad to endorse something that provides outlets for other forms of abortion then the court ruling is simply the full manifestation of what's been pushed, and acquiesced to, by any and all in the religious community who either supported, or passively allowed the partial birth abortion ban to proceed.


So I'm curious as to whether or not this realization will occur.

You see if Dobson is derelict and out of line with Christ and the Gospel on this point THEN SO TO WAS EVERYONE in the Christian community who either passively allowed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban to get signed into law OR any of those who did anything to promote or show support for that measure.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You can't go off on someone for supporting a half-measure that you now see as insidious if YOU YOURSELF didn't see the long-time-coming advance to such.

So the 'egregious' occurance was simply capped at the ruling by the Supreme Court. Anyone who voted for any 'pro life' candidate who supported that measure is just as damned as Dobson is claimed to be now, provided he doesn't 'repent.'

BEL has been warning the ban would not save one life for many years.
The other ministries may or may not have known how worthless the ban was all along but at some point the light came on and they have obviously repented for their position so no rebuke is required. FOF and Dobson however continue to flounder in legal positivism.
Why are you trying to make this an issue anyway. Be a man and do what is right donate to have the letter published in papers in Utah!

[Knight]

Originally Posted by Mustard Seed

I'm kind of befuddled with Knight posting this and the likes of BEL now coming out on this.

You see the court ruling is doing no more than elaborating what was said in the initial partial birth abortion ban legislation.

Take, for example, the following post from Knight that was put up some time back--




I bring this up in hopes to point out that if Dobson is out of line THEN SO TO WERE ANY OF THE CREATORS AND SIGNERS OF THIS LETTER WHO SUPPORTED THE partial birth abortion ban WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD.


You see if it's bad to endorse something that provides outlets for other forms of abortion then the court ruling is simply the full manifestation of what's been pushed, and acquiesced to, by any and all in the religious community who either supported, or passively allowed the partial birth abortion ban to proceed.


So I'm curious as to whether or not this realization will occur.

You see if Dobson is derelict and out of line with Christ and the Gospel on this point THEN SO TO WAS EVERYONE in the Christian community who either passively allowed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban to get signed into law OR any of those who did anything to promote or show support for that measure.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You can't go off on someone for supporting a half-measure that you now see as insidious if YOU YOURSELF didn't see the long-time-coming advance to such.

So the 'egregious' occurance was simply capped at the ruling by the Supreme Court. Anyone who voted for any 'pro life' candidate who supported that measure is just as damned as Dobson is claimed to be now, provided he doesn't 'repent.'

Muster Seed thanks for posting that.

I like to think things through on my own.

I like to look at all sides of every issue and make up my mind based on what I see happening at every given moment in my life. And because of that, my opinions on certain topics change over time based on new and more compelling evidence. I would hope that you do the same.

I never completely form an opinion just because "so and so" said I should think a certain way.

I like to think that makes me my own person. I like to think that I am not a mindless robot regurgitating everything I am fed.

I am a hopeless optimist and I always want to think the best of someone (in this case "conservative judges"), yet clearly regarding this instance I was wrong. Does it bother me that I was wrong? No! Altering ones opinion based on the unfolding of events is not a bad thing it's a GOOD THING!

The people who do the most harm to the cause are the ones that don't alter their opinions based on the most relevant and current facts.

[GuySmiley]

Originally Posted by Knight

The people who do the most harm to the cause are the ones that don't alter their opinions based on the most relevant and current facts.

That last sentence needs to be bolded! Its really the heart of the problem with Dobson.

[rehcjam]

Originally Posted by Knight

The people who do the most harm to the cause are the ones that don't alter their opinions based on the most relevant and current facts.

I second that.

(Proverbs 9:8) Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee: rebuke a wise man, and he will love thee.

and

(Proverbs 27:5) Open rebuke is better than secret love.

and

(Leviticus 19:17) Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor, and not suffer sin upon him.

finally

(Ecclesiastes 7:5) It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise, than for a man to hear the song of fools.

[nursemaria]

Originally Posted by Mustard Seed

I'm kind of befuddled with Knight posting this and the likes of BEL now coming out on this.

You see the court ruling is doing no more than elaborating what was said in the initial partial birth abortion ban legislation.

Take, for example, the following post from Knight that was put up some time back--




I bring this up in hopes to point out that if Dobson is out of line THEN SO TO WERE ANY OF THE CREATORS AND SIGNERS OF THIS LETTER WHO SUPPORTED THE partial birth abortion ban WHEN IT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD.


You see if it's bad to endorse something that provides outlets for other forms of abortion then the court ruling is simply the full manifestation of what's been pushed, and acquiesced to, by any and all in the religious community who either supported, or passively allowed the partial birth abortion ban to proceed.


So I'm curious as to whether or not this realization will occur.

You see if Dobson is derelict and out of line with Christ and the Gospel on this point THEN SO TO WAS EVERYONE in the Christian community who either passively allowed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban to get signed into law OR any of those who did anything to promote or show support for that measure.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You can't go off on someone for supporting a half-measure that you now see as insidious if YOU YOURSELF didn't see the long-time-coming advance to such.

So the 'egregious' occurance was simply capped at the ruling by the Supreme Court. Anyone who voted for any 'pro life' candidate who supported that measure is just as damned as Dobson is claimed to be now, provided he doesn't 'repent.'

We, the signers of this letter, are sorry for supporting it back in the day but, over the last few years we have seen how destructive most pro-life laws are and we have learned. We hope Dobson will come along.