. . . and The RestDiscuss just about anything besides Politics and Religion! Discuss sports, pop culture, computers, videogames, welcome new members, wish someone a happy birthday. Or just chit chat!
There were only like three guys in the country willing to vacum the brains out of a full term baby, now there are only two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fool
I thought Dr. Carhart's clinic was still shut down for repair after the fire.
So yes, women looking to kill their baby in the third trimester will be having trouble finding someone to do the job.
But those women who wanted to kill their kids still want to; it's not like since Tiller's dead, that will radically help these people or change any minds.
That's why I like personhood and stuff like it, because we're working to end abortion, but we're also educating people. The whole point about not being able to legislate morality is actually partly true, and the same stands for forcing morality. It can't be done, and killing an abortionist may postpone abortion or even prevent it, but the people seeking out abortions won't be any better people.
People should be educated, and laws should be passed ending abortion. Abortionists should not be killed outside of the law. That only damages pro-life people and probably doesn't save lives.
If we can outlaw late term abortions, it is a good step. I realize it is emotionally satisfying to outlaw it altogether, but as a past policy maker. I know the policy moves slowly, step by step. The best thing would be to get it to move. We have to consider, if we were able to curtail late term abortions with our current political system, it would be far more likely to push it further when we swing back a bit on the political spectrum. The thing we all need to realize is under Bush and the Republicans, we did not move it! I think that movement by states would be a good start
Slogan/motto:
“Theist and atheist: The fight between them is as to whether God shall be called God or shall have some other name” S.B.
Reputation:
June 9th, 2009, 09:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ktoyou
The thing we all need to realize is under Bush and the Republicans, we did not move it! I think that movement by states would be a good start
Great post overall, especially the end.
God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job. ~John Bertram Phillips
Slogan/motto:
“Theist and atheist: The fight between them is as to whether God shall be called God or shall have some other name” S.B.
Reputation:
June 10th, 2009, 12:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by WizardofOz
I was and am a very strong supporter of Ron Paul.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick M
Somebody in action that is very much pro abortion.
You're an idiot. Ron Paul is pro-abortion? That is a lie. You can spin it any way you'd like, that is an absolutely idiotic statement to make. If you'd like ample evidence to the contrary, you just let me know, kay?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick M
He favors states rights. So if California wants to murder, that is California's choice.
Washington was right, and Jefferson was wrong.
First of all, Paul is a strict Constitutionalist. Putting all kinds of decisions like this into state hands is simply retuning them to the arena they were intended to be, and were. Have you ever heard the phrase Constitutional Republic? It is very important that you understand what that means.
Second, because Roe v Wade was a national ruling, it overturned state laws against abortion which the states themselves were fine with keeping. States like Texas you moron. Texas, the state ruled against Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe). The SCOTUS overturned the state. You support the pro-abortion system. The original granddaddy pro-abortion system.
Third, and most importantly, I guess you've never heard of Paul's Sanctity of Life act. It's part of his 1-2 combination which could end abortion nationwide, and a lot quicker than the Supreme Court will (assuming they ever would, which I doubt).
I was even going to link you to a bunch of literature on his stance, but I don't want to bother you with thinking too much.
I would very much appreciate answering any sincere questions you may have.
You're a Keyes supporter right? What is his plan to outlaw abortion again? Oh yeah, being elected president.
Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade or Alan Keyes being elected president. Hmm. Those are some great prospects.
Instead of fighting Paul you should get behind him. He could actually accomplish something.
God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job. ~John Bertram Phillips
God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job. ~John Bertram Phillips
That's Carhart, we already knew about him, he would bring his third trimesters to Kansas for the kill because you can't abort a viable fetus in Nebraska.
Slogan/motto:
Isaiah 33:14 The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites. Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?
Reputation:
June 10th, 2009, 09:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight
There could be more in play here than just the murder of "Dr" Tiller. Keep the Tiller's family in your prayers. It's very possible they could be reconsidering the value of the clinic from a moral perspective.
I get the mindset that it's better to have Tiller killed than to have those late term babies aborted day in day out. It's a cold person who doesn't grieve at the thought of it. But vigilantism isn't controlled nor controllable.
Support for this kind of behaviour, particularly if the courts decided to show leniency, is only going to engender courage in those who may follow the same path.
And not all of those individuals are going to hold to your same belief system.
Pro-Life Group Operation Rescue May Attempt to Buy George Tiller's Abortion Center
...
"We would love to see that place established as a center for life, one that nurtures and cares for babies, rather than taking their lives," Newman added. More...
I'd like to believe in Knight's hunch about a moral consideration from the family, but I don't think it's very realistic. The human reaction to the sudden death of a family member is grief, fear...maybe even uncontrollable anger. Unless, there was some real friction and disdain from the family over Tiller's disgusting baby killings in the first place, the more realistic reaction is fear of their own safety.
Does Ron Paul believe you deserve your own human rights under the U.S Constitution, or should that be left up to the states, too?
If Ron Paul views abortion as murder, then I would expect his stances against murder should be consistent for both the born and unborn.
If not, then Ron Paul is in fact pro-choice for not believing unborn babies deserve equal protection under the United States Constitution.
Maybe you should ask that question of Paul.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WizardofOz
You're an idiot. Ron Paul is pro-abortion? That is a lie. You can spin it any way you'd like, that is an absolutely idiotic statement to make. If you'd like ample evidence to the contrary, you just let me know, kay?
First of all, Paul is a strict Constitutionalist. Putting all kinds of decisions like this into state hands is simply retuning them to the arena they were intended to be, and were. Have you ever heard the phrase Constitutional Republic? It is very important that you understand what that means.
Second, because Roe v Wade was a national ruling, it overturned state laws against abortion which the states themselves were fine with keeping. States like Texas you moron. Texas, the state ruled against Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe). The SCOTUS overturned the state. You support the pro-abortion system. The original granddaddy pro-abortion system.
Third, and most importantly, I guess you've never heard of Paul's Sanctity of Life act. It's part of his 1-2 combination which could end abortion nationwide, and a lot quicker than the Supreme Court will (assuming they ever would, which I doubt).
I was even going to link you to a bunch of literature on his stance, but I don't want to bother you with thinking too much.
I would very much appreciate answering any sincere questions you may have.
You're a Keyes supporter right? What is his plan to outlaw abortion again? Oh yeah, being elected president.
Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade or Alan Keyes being elected president. Hmm. Those are some great prospects.
Instead of fighting Paul you should get behind him. He could actually accomplish something.
Slogan/motto:
“Theist and atheist: The fight between them is as to whether God shall be called God or shall have some other name” S.B.
Reputation:
June 11th, 2009, 12:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbdeli
Wizard,
Does Ron Paul believe you deserve your own human rights under the U.S Constitution, or should that be left up to the states, too?
If Ron Paul views abortion as murder, then I would expect his stances against murder should be consistent for both the born and unborn.
If not, then Ron Paul is in fact pro-choice for not believing unborn babies deserve equal protection under the United States Constitution.
Maybe you should ask that question of Paul.
What do you mean deserve human rights under the constitution OR should that be left up to the states? Are these mutually exclusive somehow? States are bound by the constitution.
Paul believes you deserve (already have) your own human rights under the constitution and the punishment for depriving this right would be governed and enforced by the states, not the federal government, just like it is now for crimes like murder. He believes this right should be defined equally for the born and the unborn by defining life as beginning at conception rather than at birth.
I am guessing you did not watch the video or follow the links. This idea is the whole point behind the Sanctity of life act
- The Sanctity of Life Act would have defined human life and legal personhood as beginning at conception
- The Sanctity of Life Act further would have recognized that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state.
- The Act would have amended the federal judicial code to remove Supreme Court and district court jurisdiction to review cases arising out of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or practice, or any act interpreting such a measure, on the grounds that such measure: protects the rights of human persons between conception and birth; or prohibits, limits, or regulates the performance of abortions or the provision of public funds, facilities, personnel, or other assistance for abortions.
God is not discoverable or demonstrable by purely scientific means, unfortunately for the scientifically minded. But that really proves nothing. It simply means that the wrong instruments are being used for the job. ~John Bertram Phillips
believe it!
Violent intimidation has won over compassion.
It's very possible they could be reconsidering the value of the clinic from a moral perspective.
Linear Mode
