Vatican:Democrats are 'party of death'

[JuBru]

The Catholic church has a few more important things to worry about right now than the details of their employee insurance. They are very proficient at playing the victim.

True, but part of that whole battle was because of it.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

What will our PC libs say about this one. We'll get crickets I bet.

SHOCK VIDEO: Abortionist says ridding 'ugly black babies' service to taxpayers...

[philgarris]

What will our PC libs say about this one. We'll get crickets I bet.

SHOCK VIDEO: Abortionist says ridding 'ugly black babies' service to taxpayers...

He should lose his license, he is a complete idiot to say something like that. WOW, complete idiot.
I have said this before and I will say it again "I am embarrassed for him"

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Chicago won't show public records in abortion death

Legal team steps into fight over details of Planned Parenthood fatality

Published: 21 hours ago

After 24-year-old Tonya Reaves reportedly bled to death following an abortion at a Planned Parenthood facility, a legal group is charging that Chicago authorities are violating their state’s public records procedures by refusing to release documentation about the incident.

Rest of article
http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/chicago-w...bortion-death/

[TYLERTECHSAS]

This alone would be reason enough for me to vote against Obama. Even though there are 100's of more excuses, I need no other. And I might add, IMHO, a Christian needs no other reason as well.

Barack Obama the abortion extremist

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80013.html

[TYLERTECHSAS]

This alone would be reason enough for me to vote against Obama. Even though there are 100's of more excuses, I need no other. And I might add, IMHO, a Christian needs no other reason as well.

Barack Obama the abortion extremist

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/80013.html

Hear Obama defend infanticide in

Hear Obama defend infanticide in Illinois legislature

Only member of state body to not support bill to give medical care for abortion survivors

Published: 14 hours ago (LifeNews) That President Barack Obama was the only member of the Illinois legislature to not support a bill to provide medical care for newborns who survived failed late-term abortions is one of the key reasons pro-life voters will never support him.
Now, Weekly Standard reporter John McCormack has uncovered new audio of Obama, as a state legislator in Illinois in 2003, defending his position. Obama essentially argues that there is no need for the law because he trusts abortion practitioners to provide medical care for the baby they unsuccessfully tried to kill in an abortion.
The transcript of the video McCormack unearthed follows …
Read the full story

[dawg80]

CNN has been trying in recent months to be "fair." Candy Crowly grilled Axelrod pretty good about a month back.

The whole abortion issue comes down to a simple question, when does life begin? If you think life does not begin until a baby is physically separated from its mother, then of course it's easy to see this as a woman's right to choose. I suppose one could also say, a woman has a right to cut off her hand, if she so chooses.

But, if you believe that life begins at conception, then NO abortion can be morally defended. You might say, ah, just a minute there, what about in the case that a woman's life is in danger? If the doctors perform the abortion, kill the baby, to save the mother's life that's one choice. Versus, don't do the abortion, and perhaps BOTH the mother and the baby die! The doctors are now "guilty" of two kills, not one. What about that? Well, if you believe in "Thou Shalt Not Kill" then I propose it's the doctors' duty to try to save BOTH the mother and the baby. This one case is a thornier issue, to be sure. And this separates those with a pristine moral standing, from the rest of we sinners.

[philgarris]

CNN has been trying in recent months to be "fair." Candy Crowly grilled Axelrod pretty good about a month back.

The whole abortion issue comes down to a simple question, when does life begin? If you think life does not begin until a baby is physically separated from its mother, then of course it's easy to see this as a woman's right to choose. I suppose one could also say, a woman has a right to cut off her hand, if she so chooses.

But, if you believe that life begins at conception, then NO abortion can be morally defended. You might say, ah, just a minute there, what about in the case that a woman's life is in danger? If the doctors perform the abortion, kill the baby, to save the mother's life that's one choice. Versus, don't do the abortion, and perhaps BOTH the mother and the baby die! The doctors are now "guilty" of two kills, not one. What about that? Well, if you believe in "Thou Shalt Not Kill" then I propose it's the doctors' duty to try to save BOTH the mother and the baby. This one case is a thornier issue, to be sure. And this separates those with a pristine moral standing, from the rest of we sinners.

While I am not in favor of Abortion, I am also not in favor or government trying to take a persons right away from her body. This is a decision between the woman and God and that is none of my business. It isn't for me to have a say in.

Remember if we are keeping church and state apart the religious should have nothing to do with what happens within government.

[LookingForResults]

CNN has been trying in recent months to be "fair." Candy Crowly grilled Axelrod pretty good about a month back.

The whole abortion issue comes down to a simple question, when does life begin? If you think life does not begin until a baby is physically separated from its mother, then of course it's easy to see this as a woman's right to choose. I suppose one could also say, a woman has a right to cut off her hand, if she so chooses.

But, if you believe that life begins at conception, then NO abortion can be morally defended. You might say, ah, just a minute there, what about in the case that a woman's life is in danger? If the doctors perform the abortion, kill the baby, to save the mother's life that's one choice. Versus, don't do the abortion, and perhaps BOTH the mother and the baby die! The doctors are now "guilty" of two kills, not one. What about that? Well, if you believe in "Thou Shalt Not Kill" then I propose it's the doctors' duty to try to save BOTH the mother and the baby. This one case is a thornier issue, to be sure. And this separates those with a pristine moral standing, from the rest of we sinners.

I don't view the case you described as a litmus test that separates the "moral" from the "less moral." Rather, your scenario is a judgment call akin to a hostage situation when one must decide whether to pay a ransom with the hope of preventing the execution of the hostage.

The abortion issue does not center on when life begins. Life begins at conception. It's an inescapable fact that a cell, multiplying and diversifying unassisted, is alive and therefore is "life." The fault-line disagreement is when we choose to declare that cell to be alive; when we choose to call it life. Abortion advocates have been unsuccessful in their attempts to pick a point in time when life begins other than at conception. At one time "viability of the fetus" was the cry until natural viability proved to be a moving target, and until viability began, and continues to be, pushed by technology ever closer to conception.

So, like man-made global warming advocates, abortion advocates have had to change their position. Today the mantra is "a mother's right to have control over her own body." However, this position is likewise unsupportable because it is in opposition to the body of law of all historical and current civilized societies, which, simply stated, is that your rights can only extend to that point at which they begin to infringe on the rights of others. Consequently, a person has the right to have control of their own body, but that right is limited if, in exercising that right, it begins to hinder the rights of another. As a practical example, it is a criminal offense to engage in sex if one knows they are infected with HIV and fails to tell their partner prior to having sex. In this case, the person had the right to "control their body" and engage in activity resulting in contracting HIV, and they had the right to engage in sex thereafter. But the right to "control one's body" became restricted when that right became a threat to the health of another.

So abortion advocates are, at an accelerating pace, being forced to drop their shields of pretense and simply demand societal sanction of their desire to ignore the concept of the sanctity of life with regard to the unborn. That is a very slippery slope that could easily next extend to ignoring the sanctity of life of the elderly "for cost reasons," justified because of lack of "quality of life" considerations.

[philgarris]

I don't view the case you described as a litmus test that separates the "moral" from the "less moral." Rather, your scenario is a judgment call akin to a hostage situation when one must decide whether to pay a ransom with the hope of preventing the execution of the hostage.

The abortion issue does not center on when life begins. Life begins at conception. It's an inescapable fact that a cell, multiplying and diversifying unassisted, is alive and therefore is "life." The fault-line disagreement is when we choose to declare that cell to be alive; when we choose to call it life. Abortion advocates have been unsuccessful in their attempts to pick a point in time when life begins other than at conception. At one time "viability of the fetus" was the cry until natural viability proved to be a moving target, and until viability began, and continues to be, pushed by technology ever closer to conception.

So, like man-made global warming advocates, abortion advocates have had to change their position. Today the mantra is "a mother's right to have control over her own body." However, this position is likewise unsupportable because it is in opposition to the body of law of all historical and current civilized societies, which, simply stated, is that your rights can only extend to that point at which they begin to infringe on the rights of others. Consequently, a person has the right to have control of their own body, but that right is limited if, in exercising that right, it begins to hinder the rights of another. As a practical example, it is a criminal offense to engage in sex if one knows they are infected with HIV and fails to tell their partner prior to having sex. In this case, the person had the right to "control their body" and engage in activity resulting in contracting HIV, and they had the right to engage in sex thereafter. But the right to "control one's body" became restricted when that right became a threat to the health of another.

So abortion advocates are, at an accelerating pace, being forced to drop their shields of pretense and simply demand societal sanction of their desire to ignore the concept of the sanctity of life with regard to the unborn. That is a very slippery slope that could easily next extend to ignoring the sanctity of life of the elderly "for cost reasons," justified because of lack of "quality of life" considerations.

I have to say that your response is very good, I agree with everything that you are saying and all that I would like to add is that I think abortion is an issue that should go to the voters to be decided. I don't think that a court should decide that fate it should be the voters that decides that if it ever comes to that.

I would also suggest that if a person votes in objection to abortion that is automatically enrolls them to adopt a child so that they can be a solution the growing need of children that will be put up for adoption.

I would be one of those that would vote against it but would be more than happy to be enrolled to adopt one of those children that would have been aborted.

[dawg80]

If you agree that life begins at conception (and it does), then you must also hold the position that all abortions are wrong.

[philgarris]

If you agree that life begins at conception (and it does), then you must also hold the position that all abortions are wrong.

I think that the natural abortion is a miscarriage but that is just and it isn't for me to judge a person.
That is between her and God.

[LookingForResults]

I think that the natural abortion is a miscarriage but that is just and it isn't for me to judge a person.
That is between her and God.

That's a cop-out. You, and everyone, rightfully judge people every day. You judge honesty, sincerity, integrity, prejudice, and truthfulness just to name a very few. The laws we live by are judgements regarding what is "right" and what is "wrong" regarding various actions and even intentions. Abortion, the extinguishing of life, is certainly subject to being "judged."

[philgarris]

That's a cop-out. You, and everyone, rightfully judge people every day. You judge honesty, sincerity, integrity, prejudice, and truthfulness just to name a very few. The laws we live by are judgements regarding what is "right" and what is "wrong" regarding various actions and even intentions. Abortion, the extinguishing of life, is certainly subject to being "judged."

Again it isn't for me but I am not gonna try and tell a woman what SHE can do with her body that is for her to answer for with God.
I again suggest if it is voted on it should be voted on by the people and a vote to overturn Abortion puts that person on the list to adopt a child. I think at that time we will see how many want to step up to the plate and how many want to sit on the side line and talk about it.

[LookingForResults]

Again it isn't for me but I am not gonna try and tell a woman what SHE can do with her body that is for her to answer for with God.
I again suggest if it is voted on it should be voted on by the people and a vote to overturn Abortion puts that person on the list to adopt a child. I think at that time we will see how many want to step up to the plate and how many want to sit on the side line and talk about it.

First, you must recognize don't you that your 'vote against abortion, sign-up for adoption' plan is hopelessly unworkable. You can't expect a 70 year old person to adopt. You can't examine ballots to see how a person voted (unless you intend to end the right to a private vote). So don't hide behind an unrealistic hypothetical.

More importantly, surely you can't justify (can you?) the killing of human life and the serious ancillary issues that arise when we ignore the concept of the sanctity of life, just because a child MIGHT not be adopted? Do you think it's appropriate to kill a fetus because it MIGHT not have a good life?!! If so, then we're all in jeopardy.

No, in a quiet moment of honesty, there is no place to hide, no place of solace, no way to justify "common" abortion. Look at the hypocrisy in the law that currently exists. A woman can abort a baby without consequence, but should she punched in the stomach by another and the baby died, that person can be charged with murder!