Legitimate Rape

JDH:
"...just because one is in government and attends a religious institution does not mean that they are forcing you to join that religion. ..."

When elected officials begin to promote the codifying of religious dogma into legislation that will be imposed on all citizens, they are attempting to force me to practice their religion. If they are successful in their legislative agenda, they they ARE forcing me to practice their religion.

that is true. not all legislators will do so, or attempt to do so. remember that JFK was viewed in this light as well. people were worried that since he was catholic he would "take orders" from the pope. he did not do that. so i stand by the statement that just because one is in government and attends a religious institution does not mean that they are forcing you to join that religion.

if they are forcing you to join a religion then they are forcing you to join a religion.

and as i have said before in this very thread that i agree with Roe v. Wade. we cannot pinpoint where life begins so we must err on the side of the rights of the known life, in this case the mother.

and it still leaves a giant question:

at what point do we take the rights of the baby into account?

like i said before: i dont know.

"...and we are talking about abortion. not contraception. ..."

Unfortunately, too many in the GOP see no difference between the two. The implication that a woman" can shut down that whole process" (of conception in the instance of rape) is just one more argument to prevent the use of abortion in the instance of rape. Paul Ryan (and a lot of Republicans) agreee that no abortion should be allowed in the instance of rape. I am convinced that he holds this view because of his Catholic religious beliefs, therefore, he would impose his religion on all of us if he could.

JDH:
"...and we are talking about abortion. not contraception. ..."

Unfortunately, too many in the GOP see no difference between the two. The implication that a woman" can shut down that whole process" (of conception in the instance of rape) is just one more argument to prevent the use of abortion in the instance of rape. Paul Ryan (and a lot of Republicans) agreee that no abortion should be allowed in the instance of rape. I am convinced that he holds this view because of his Catholic religious beliefs, therefore, he would impose his religion on all of us if he could.

there may be a large group in the GOP that believes that, however, the people of this country have a very different opinion.

if there was a motion to outlaw contraception there would be a huge outcry from the people. those proposing that legislation would lose their spots very quickly.
outlawing condoms/contraception is about as likely as bringing back slavery.

JDH:
"...just because one is in government and attends a religious institution does not mean that they are forcing you to join that religion. ..."

When elected officials begin to promote the codifying of religious dogma into legislation that will be imposed on all citizens, they are attempting to force me to practice their religion. If they are successful in their legislative agenda, they they ARE forcing me to practice their religion.

So vote your morals, unless your faith influences them in some way? My beliefs are an integral part of who I am, of my moral compass. If I am voting it is based on my morals and I would never sacrifice them for the sake of easier government. Nor do I think you should compromise yours JDH, even if you believe differently than me. I guess, the hard part for me is when does something stop being 'religious dogma' and start being a generally accepted moral?

At the end of the day, the main issue is as I put it in my first post in this thread. Both sides come at this issue from a different starting point, whether life begins at conception. This will of course color how people view this debate, whether it is a right to life issue or a right to liberty issue. It is a mess with no easy answer, and I most sincerly pray for the day science can definitivly show the start of life. My main point on all of this is I would never ask you to vote contrary to your values, don't ask me to vote contrary to mine.

kuzi16:
JDH:
"...and we are talking about abortion. not contraception. ..."

Unfortunately, too many in the GOP see no difference between the two. The implication that a woman" can shut down that whole process" (of conception in the instance of rape) is just one more argument to prevent the use of abortion in the instance of rape. Paul Ryan (and a lot of Republicans) agreee that no abortion should be allowed in the instance of rape. I am convinced that he holds this view because of his Catholic religious beliefs, therefore, he would impose his religion on all of us if he could.
there may be a large group in the GOP that believes that, however, the people of this country have a very different opinion.

if there was a motion to outlaw contraception there would be a huge outcry from the people. those proposing that legislation would lose their spots very quickly.
outlawing condoms/contraception is about as likely as bringing back slavery.

I would argue that we HAVE BROUGHT BACK SLAVERY. Just a few moths ago in Louisiana, over 100 immigrants were found to be working in slavery processing seafood for a vendor contracted to Walmart. If you don't consider the slave wages and conditions (including children working for 16 hours a day 7 days a week chained to their workstations) that most workers labor under in third world countries isn't slavery, or in violation of every single labor law we have in this country, you only decieve yourself.

As long as the GOP continues to push an extreme agenda that could impose any religious doctrine on the country as a whole, I will be in opposition.

jthanatos:
JDH:
"...just because one is in government and attends a religious institution does not mean that they are forcing you to join that religion. ..."

When elected officials begin to promote the codifying of religious dogma into legislation that will be imposed on all citizens, they are attempting to force me to practice their religion. If they are successful in their legislative agenda, they they ARE forcing me to practice their religion.
So vote your morals, unless your faith influences them in some way? My beliefs are an integral part of who I am, of my moral compass. If I am voting it is based on my morals and I would never sacrifice them for the sake of easier government. Nor do I think you should compromise yours JDH, even if you believe differently than me. I guess, the hard part for me is when does something stop being 'religious dogma' and start being a generally accepted moral?

At the end of the day, the main issue is as I put it in my first post in this thread. Both sides come at this issue from a different starting point, whether life begins at conception. This will of course color how people view this debate, whether it is a right to life issue or a right to liberty issue. It is a mess with no easy answer, and I most sincerly pray for the day science can definitivly show the start of life. My main point on all of this is I would never ask you to vote contrary to your values, don't ask me to vote contrary to mine.

If life begins at conception, then every mother who has a misscarriage is a murderer.

JDH:
kuzi16:
JDH:
"...and we are talking about abortion. not contraception. ..."

Unfortunately, too many in the GOP see no difference between the two. The implication that a woman" can shut down that whole process" (of conception in the instance of rape) is just one more argument to prevent the use of abortion in the instance of rape. Paul Ryan (and a lot of Republicans) agreee that no abortion should be allowed in the instance of rape. I am convinced that he holds this view because of his Catholic religious beliefs, therefore, he would impose his religion on all of us if he could.
there may be a large group in the GOP that believes that, however, the people of this country have a very different opinion.

if there was a motion to outlaw contraception there would be a huge outcry from the people. those proposing that legislation would lose their spots very quickly.
outlawing condoms/contraception is about as likely as bringing back slavery.
I would argue that we HAVE BROUGHT BACK SLAVERY. Just a few moths ago in Louisiana, over 100 immigrants were found to be working in slavery processing seafood for a vendor contracted to Walmart. If you don't consider the slave wages and conditions (including children working for 16 hours a day 7 days a week chained to their workstations) that most workers labor under in third world countries isn't slavery, or in violation of every single labor law we have in this country, you only decieve yourself.

As long as the GOP continues to push an extreme agenda that could impose any religious doctrine on the country as a whole, I will be in opposition.

That line of logic doesn't track... a company does something illegal and immoral, therefor the government wants to bring back slavery?

JDH:
jthanatos:
JDH:
"...just because one is in government and attends a religious institution does not mean that they are forcing you to join that religion. ..."

When elected officials begin to promote the codifying of religious dogma into legislation that will be imposed on all citizens, they are attempting to force me to practice their religion. If they are successful in their legislative agenda, they they ARE forcing me to practice their religion.
So vote your morals, unless your faith influences them in some way? My beliefs are an integral part of who I am, of my moral compass. If I am voting it is based on my morals and I would never sacrifice them for the sake of easier government. Nor do I think you should compromise yours JDH, even if you believe differently than me. I guess, the hard part for me is when does something stop being 'religious dogma' and start being a generally accepted moral?

At the end of the day, the main issue is as I put it in my first post in this thread. Both sides come at this issue from a different starting point, whether life begins at conception. This will of course color how people view this debate, whether it is a right to life issue or a right to liberty issue. It is a mess with no easy answer, and I most sincerly pray for the day science can definitivly show the start of life. My main point on all of this is I would never ask you to vote contrary to your values, don't ask me to vote contrary to mine.
If life begins at conception, then every mother who has a misscarriage is a murderer.

What? You don't choose to misscarry. This is equivolent of saying a man who catches a cold from his son and died was murdered by his son. Murder is based on intent.

laker1963

kuzi16:
JDH:
Personally, I am glad Mr. Akins is staying in the Senate race, and I hope every woman in Missouri asks themselves just how well she will be represented by him, if he's elected.

Wasn't the GOP supposed to be about jobs, jobs, jobs? I think not, that's just another smoke screen for their "social agenda" for getting government offen your back and into your bedroom, & makin sure the little woman stays in her place, with her mouth shut - at home in front of the stove with as many kids as possible ('cause there won't be no contraception avaliable for her, 'cause that would be against God, & iffen she gits raped & there's a pregnancy, then it's her fault, ' cause she didn't "shut that whole thing down"). Yessireee Bob, You betcha!
you say that like the left doesnt have an agenda that gets twisted the way you are twisting the right's.
Good thing you are NOT a republican... as you have told us so many times before. You would probably be offended at those remarks. LOL
i mean there are plenty of people (that you usually blow off) that make an interesting argument that welfare creates dependency. that dependency translates to votes for more entitlements.

your concept that the GOP wants women "at home in front of the stove with as many kids as possible" is so far from the truth that i cant even begin to respond. In fact, i could see how this could be seen as downright offensive.

your ignorance of what the GOP wants is nothing shy of amazing.

JDH, i do agree with you for the most part on the abortion aspect but what you believe is the motivation i just cant even come close to agreeing with you.

Good thing you a NOT a republican... as you have told us here so many times. Otherwise you may have been offended huh?

jthanatos:
JDH:
kuzi16:
JDH:
"...and we are talking about abortion. not contraception. ..."

Unfortunately, too many in the GOP see no difference between the two. The implication that a woman" can shut down that whole process" (of conception in the instance of rape) is just one more argument to prevent the use of abortion in the instance of rape. Paul Ryan (and a lot of Republicans) agreee that no abortion should be allowed in the instance of rape. I am convinced that he holds this view because of his Catholic religious beliefs, therefore, he would impose his religion on all of us if he could.
there may be a large group in the GOP that believes that, however, the people of this country have a very different opinion.

if there was a motion to outlaw contraception there would be a huge outcry from the people. those proposing that legislation would lose their spots very quickly.
outlawing condoms/contraception is about as likely as bringing back slavery.
I would argue that we HAVE BROUGHT BACK SLAVERY. Just a few moths ago in Louisiana, over 100 immigrants were found to be working in slavery processing seafood for a vendor contracted to Walmart. If you don't consider the slave wages and conditions (including children working for 16 hours a day 7 days a week chained to their workstations) that most workers labor under in third world countries isn't slavery, or in violation of every single labor law we have in this country, you only decieve yourself.

As long as the GOP continues to push an extreme agenda that could impose any religious doctrine on the country as a whole, I will be in opposition.
That line of logic doesn't track... a company does something illegal and immoral, therefor the government wants to bring back slavery?

I never said the government wants to or has brought back slavery. However, the reality is that supply -side economics, and the rush to ship manufacturing overseas in order to avoid labor and environmental regulations and to take advantage of the enslavement of workers for profit is being driven by corporate greed, and their influence over government de-regulation of business.

Vulchor

kuzi16:
JDH:
"...and we are talking about abortion. not contraception. ..."

there may be a large group in the GOP that believes that, however, the people of this country have a very different opinion.

Trouble is alot of those people still vote GOP, and while it may not be a huge issue for them personally-----it does seem that interfering in the rights of citizens, especially a womens reproductive rights, it is a huge issue to those elcted politicans. While they cannot seem to agree with dems on anything for the economy (not to say the dems are bettter), they sure seem hell bent on social issues like this one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgrcotUpbww

JDH:
kuzi16:
JDH:
"...and we are talking about abortion. not contraception. ..."

Unfortunately, too many in the GOP see no difference between the two. The implication that a woman" can shut down that whole process" (of conception in the instance of rape) is just one more argument to prevent the use of abortion in the instance of rape. Paul Ryan (and a lot of Republicans) agreee that no abortion should be allowed in the instance of rape. I am convinced that he holds this view because of his Catholic religious beliefs, therefore, he would impose his religion on all of us if he could.
there may be a large group in the GOP that believes that, however, the people of this country have a very different opinion.

if there was a motion to outlaw contraception there would be a huge outcry from the people. those proposing that legislation would lose their spots very quickly.
outlawing condoms/contraception is about as likely as bringing back slavery.
I would argue that we HAVE BROUGHT BACK SLAVERY. Just a few moths ago in Louisiana, over 100 immigrants were found to be working in slavery processing seafood for a vendor contracted to Walmart. If you don't consider the slave wages and conditions (including children working for 16 hours a day 7 days a week chained to their workstations) that most workers labor under in third world countries isn't slavery, or in violation of every single labor law we have in this country, you only decieve yourself.

As long as the GOP continues to push an extreme agenda that could impose any religious doctrine on the country as a whole, I will be in opposition.

but it wasnt legal. i mean seriously, they were breaking the law. the US didnt bring back slavery. the person or persons that enslaved those people did. it isnt legal. making condoms/contraception illegal is about as likely as slavery being legalized in the US.
again, i feel that you are trying to twist some words here. i dont see how you canrt see what i was saying there. if a poloticial ran on outlawing all contraception he would lose just as fast as a politician running on bringing slavery back. if a politician introduces legislation to outlaw all contraception he will be voted out just as fast as a politician introducing legislation to bring back legal slavery.

y2pascoe

Vulchor

JDH:
jthanatos:
JDH:
kuzi16:
JDH:
"...and we are talking about abortion. not contraception. ..."

Unfortunately, too many in the GOP see no difference between the two. The implication that a woman" can shut down that whole process" (of conception in the instance of rape) is just one more argument to prevent the use of abortion in the instance of rape. Paul Ryan (and a lot of Republicans) agreee that no abortion should be allowed in the instance of rape. I am convinced that he holds this view because of his Catholic religious beliefs, therefore, he would impose his religion on all of us if he could.
there may be a large group in the GOP that believes that, however, the people of this country have a very different opinion.

if there was a motion to outlaw contraception there would be a huge outcry from the people. those proposing that legislation would lose their spots very quickly.
outlawing condoms/contraception is about as likely as bringing back slavery.
I would argue that we HAVE BROUGHT BACK SLAVERY. Just a few moths ago in Louisiana, over 100 immigrants were found to be working in slavery processing seafood for a vendor contracted to Walmart. If you don't consider the slave wages and conditions (including children working for 16 hours a day 7 days a week chained to their workstations) that most workers labor under in third world countries isn't slavery, or in violation of every single labor law we have in this country, you only decieve yourself.

As long as the GOP continues to push an extreme agenda that could impose any religious doctrine on the country as a whole, I will be in opposition.
That line of logic doesn't track... a company does something illegal and immoral, therefor the government wants to bring back slavery?
I never said the government wants to or has brought back slavery. However, the reality is that supply -side economics, and the rush to ship manufacturing overseas in order to avoid labor and environmental regulations and to take advantage of the enslavement of workers for profit is being driven by corporate greed, and their influence over government de-regulation of business.

Well said JDH. Please, lets also be honest with ourselves here. If we are doing business with China, Taiwan, India, and the like. Where we know there are human right violations, child labor abuses, ect. Are we not giving the defacto thumbs up to these behaviors?

Vulchor:
kuzi16:
JDH:
"...and we are talking about abortion. not contraception. ..."

there may be a large group in the GOP that believes that, however, the people of this country have a very different opinion.
Trouble is alot of those people still vote GOP, and while it may not be a huge issue for them personally-----it does seem that interfering in the rights of citizens, especially a womens reproductive rights, it is a huge issue to those elcted politicans. While they cannot seem to agree with dems on anything for the economy (not to say the dems are bettter), they sure seem hell bent on social issues like this one.

but we still have legal contraception AND abortions.
so they are still in the minority.

Vulchor:
JDH:
jthanatos:
JDH:
kuzi16:
JDH:
"...and we are talking about abortion. not contraception. ..."

Unfortunately, too many in the GOP see no difference between the two. The implication that a woman" can shut down that whole process" (of conception in the instance of rape) is just one more argument to prevent the use of abortion in the instance of rape. Paul Ryan (and a lot of Republicans) agreee that no abortion should be allowed in the instance of rape. I am convinced that he holds this view because of his Catholic religious beliefs, therefore, he would impose his religion on all of us if he could.
there may be a large group in the GOP that believes that, however, the people of this country have a very different opinion.

if there was a motion to outlaw contraception there would be a huge outcry from the people. those proposing that legislation would lose their spots very quickly.
outlawing condoms/contraception is about as likely as bringing back slavery.
I would argue that we HAVE BROUGHT BACK SLAVERY. Just a few moths ago in Louisiana, over 100 immigrants were found to be working in slavery processing seafood for a vendor contracted to Walmart. If you don't consider the slave wages and conditions (including children working for 16 hours a day 7 days a week chained to their workstations) that most workers labor under in third world countries isn't slavery, or in violation of every single labor law we have in this country, you only decieve yourself.

As long as the GOP continues to push an extreme agenda that could impose any religious doctrine on the country as a whole, I will be in opposition.
That line of logic doesn't track... a company does something illegal and immoral, therefor the government wants to bring back slavery?
I never said the government wants to or has brought back slavery. However, the reality is that supply -side economics, and the rush to ship manufacturing overseas in order to avoid labor and environmental regulations and to take advantage of the enslavement of workers for profit is being driven by corporate greed, and their influence over government de-regulation of business.
Well said JDH. Please, lets also be honest with ourselves here. If we are doing business with China, Taiwan, India, and the like. Where we know there are human right violations, child labor abuses, ect. Are we not giving the defacto thumbs up to these behaviors?

Absolutely,and without question. The race to the bottom of the wage scale is encouraging the use of the lowest possible cost for labor that you can get away with.

laker1963

kuzi16:
JDH:
With all due repsect, we will just have to agree to disagree. Mr. Santorum and Mr. Huckabee, and Mr. Aikins, and so many others in the GOP, have lead me to the conclusions I have illustrated. Hopefully we can disagree and still remain civil, and I encourage you in your efforts to remain so.
you encourage me to remain civil while inferring anyone that believes abortion is murder is a back-woods-sexist-hillbilly.

i mean, heres your quote:
JDH:
... makin sure the little woman stays in her place, with her mouth shut - at home in front of the stove with as many kids as possible ('cause there won't be no contraception avaliable for her, 'cause that would be against God, & iffen she gits raped & there's a pregnancy, then it's her fault, ' cause she didn't "shut that whole thing down"). Yessireee Bob, You betcha!

and you "encourage" me in my "efforts to remain civil."

and about that quote... there is no candidate that is trying to stop contraception. there are candidates that dont like abortion. frankly, abortion is VERY different than contraception.

i will remain civil because i think this is a very interesting topic.
i request that you do the same and leave the name calling out of it.

Is it murder when you are in another country and you shhot and kill people on the orders of your government? I mean does the government of any country actually have the ability to make killing someone not murder?

While this comment may seem off topic I would suggest it is not. If abortion is murder and you disagree with it fine. Someone please explain to me how or why it is NOT murder when you kill someone as a member of the military just because you are doing it on the orders of your government. Does the gorvernment actually have the power to remove the act of murder? Are they and anyone who acts for them really free of the moral constraints that many would put on a woman and her unborn baby?

laker1963:
kuzi16:
JDH:
With all due repsect, we will just have to agree to disagree. Mr. Santorum and Mr. Huckabee, and Mr. Aikins, and so many others in the GOP, have lead me to the conclusions I have illustrated. Hopefully we can disagree and still remain civil, and I encourage you in your efforts to remain so.
you encourage me to remain civil while inferring anyone that believes abortion is murder is a back-woods-sexist-hillbilly.

i mean, heres your quote:
JDH:
... makin sure the little woman stays in her place, with her mouth shut - at home in front of the stove with as many kids as possible ('cause there won't be no contraception avaliable for her, 'cause that would be against God, & iffen she gits raped & there's a pregnancy, then it's her fault, ' cause she didn't "shut that whole thing down"). Yessireee Bob, You betcha!

and you "encourage" me in my "efforts to remain civil."

and about that quote... there is no candidate that is trying to stop contraception. there are candidates that dont like abortion. frankly, abortion is VERY different than contraception.

i will remain civil because i think this is a very interesting topic.
i request that you do the same and leave the name calling out of it.
Is it murder when you are in another country and you shhot and kill people on the orders of your government? I mean does the government of any country actually have the ability to make killing someone not murder?

While this comment may seem off topic I would suggest it is not. If abortion is murder and you disagree with it fine. Someone please explain to me how or why it is NOT murder when you kill someone as a member of the military just because you are doing it on the orders of your government. Does the gorvernment actually have the power to remove the act of murder? Are they and anyone who acts for them really free of the moral constraints that many would put on a woman and her unborn baby?

"War is murder, sheer, bloody murder."

Michael Collins

However, many will argue that wartime allows men to kill each other without committing murder because it is "self defense".

phobicsquirrel

laker1963:
kuzi16:
JDH:
With all due repsect, we will just have to agree to disagree. Mr. Santorum and Mr. Huckabee, and Mr. Aikins, and so many others in the GOP, have lead me to the conclusions I have illustrated. Hopefully we can disagree and still remain civil, and I encourage you in your efforts to remain so.
you encourage me to remain civil while inferring anyone that believes abortion is murder is a back-woods-sexist-hillbilly.

i mean, heres your quote:
JDH:
... makin sure the little woman stays in her place, with her mouth shut - at home in front of the stove with as many kids as possible ('cause there won't be no contraception avaliable for her, 'cause that would be against God, & iffen she gits raped & there's a pregnancy, then it's her fault, ' cause she didn't "shut that whole thing down"). Yessireee Bob, You betcha!

and you "encourage" me in my "efforts to remain civil."

and about that quote... there is no candidate that is trying to stop contraception. there are candidates that dont like abortion. frankly, abortion is VERY different than contraception.

i will remain civil because i think this is a very interesting topic.
i request that you do the same and leave the name calling out of it.
Is it murder when you are in another country and you shhot and kill people on the orders of your government? I mean does the government of any country actually have the ability to make killing someone not murder?

While this comment may seem off topic I would suggest it is not. If abortion is murder and you disagree with it fine. Someone please explain to me how or why it is NOT murder when you kill someone as a member of the military just because you are doing it on the orders of your government. Does the gorvernment actually have the power to remove the act of murder? Are they and anyone who acts for them really free of the moral constraints that many would put on a woman and her unborn baby?

well there you have the double standard. WAR is fine and so is letting people have babies they can't afford which eat away at our tax dollars even if the person wants an abortion. It's fine to kill people after they are born, just not when they are being stewed together with cells and stuff. Last time I looked the GOP are fine with WAR and even Lying a country into a WAR, they are also fine with letting people die since they are trying to repeal any health care reform.

laker1963

kuzi16:
JDH:
Witrh all due respect, your conclusions are not accurate. I have refrained from getting personal, and I have not impilcated or personally insulted anyone on this forum. With all due respect, there are many people in the GOP who see no difference between abortion and contraception, and who view contraception as something that should not be encouraged, and who oppose it's use, and who would remove it from public access if they could. There is no statement that I have made that is aimed at anyone personally on this forum. I do, however, have deep oppositions to much of the social agenda of the GOP, and those who suppor the Evangelical agenda of the GOP. If you find my views offensive, I appologize, but I will not refrain from stating them.
if i make a racial slur, even if it is not about a specific person on the board it is still uncivil. just saying.

the group of people that want no contraception is so incredibly small (and shrinking) that the argument is hardly worth bringing up. i mean, i went to a catholic high school and they went at it with the attitude of "abstinence is the best way to stay safe and prevent unexpected children, but if you are gunna do it, use protection"

thats a religious institution.
if there was a legit concern about a "war on contraception" then the trojan man would be waging war on the government.

Kuzi, sounds like you went to the only Catholic High School that advocated the use of condoms if you were not practicing abstinence. Never have I heard that sentiment from s Catholic School. This school was located in what state?

I've never understood how someone could be for the death penalty, but anti-abortion.

laker1963:
kuzi16:
JDH:
With all due repsect, we will just have to agree to disagree. Mr. Santorum and Mr. Huckabee, and Mr. Aikins, and so many others in the GOP, have lead me to the conclusions I have illustrated. Hopefully we can disagree and still remain civil, and I encourage you in your efforts to remain so.
you encourage me to remain civil while inferring anyone that believes abortion is murder is a back-woods-sexist-hillbilly.

i mean, heres your quote:
JDH:
... makin sure the little woman stays in her place, with her mouth shut - at home in front of the stove with as many kids as possible ('cause there won't be no contraception avaliable for her, 'cause that would be against God, & iffen she gits raped & there's a pregnancy, then it's her fault, ' cause she didn't "shut that whole thing down"). Yessireee Bob, You betcha!

and you "encourage" me in my "efforts to remain civil."

and about that quote... there is no candidate that is trying to stop contraception. there are candidates that dont like abortion. frankly, abortion is VERY different than contraception.

i will remain civil because i think this is a very interesting topic.
i request that you do the same and leave the name calling out of it.
Is it murder when you are in another country and you shhot and kill people on the orders of your government? I mean does the government of any country actually have the ability to make killing someone not murder?

While this comment may seem off topic I would suggest it is not. If abortion is murder and you disagree with it fine. Someone please explain to me how or why it is NOT murder when you kill someone as a member of the military just because you are doing it on the orders of your government. Does the gorvernment actually have the power to remove the act of murder? Are they and anyone who acts for them really free of the moral constraints that many would put on a woman and her unborn baby?

very interesting point there.
are you saying that abortion is murder and the government is taking away the label?
or are you saying that war is murder and the government is taking away the label?
i mean, in either case there is very compelling argument.

as far as war goes, i feel that the only truely justifiable war is a defensive one.
as far as abortion goes, ive stated my view. im not sure were that mass of cells becomes a person. therefore im not 100% sure when to take the rights of the baby into account. i mean, is the morning after pill murder? i have a hard time saying yes. is that a human when it is a dozen cells? iduno.

laker1963:
kuzi16:
JDH:
With all due repsect, we will just have to agree to disagree. Mr. Santorum and Mr. Huckabee, and Mr. Aikins, and so many others in the GOP, have lead me to the conclusions I have illustrated. Hopefully we can disagree and still remain civil, and I encourage you in your efforts to remain so.
you encourage me to remain civil while inferring anyone that believes abortion is murder is a back-woods-sexist-hillbilly.

i mean, heres your quote:
JDH:
... makin sure the little woman stays in her place, with her mouth shut - at home in front of the stove with as many kids as possible ('cause there won't be no contraception avaliable for her, 'cause that would be against God, & iffen she gits raped & there's a pregnancy, then it's her fault, ' cause she didn't "shut that whole thing down"). Yessireee Bob, You betcha!

and you "encourage" me in my "efforts to remain civil."

and about that quote... there is no candidate that is trying to stop contraception. there are candidates that dont like abortion. frankly, abortion is VERY different than contraception.

i will remain civil because i think this is a very interesting topic.
i request that you do the same and leave the name calling out of it.
Is it murder when you are in another country and you shhot and kill people on the orders of your government? I mean does the government of any country actually have the ability to make killing someone not murder?

While this comment may seem off topic I would suggest it is not. If abortion is murder and you disagree with it fine. Someone please explain to me how or why it is NOT murder when you kill someone as a member of the military just because you are doing it on the orders of your government. Does the gorvernment actually have the power to remove the act of murder? Are they and anyone who acts for them really free of the moral constraints that many would put on a woman and her unborn baby?

Long story short, yes... the government can go to war without "murdering" people. The biblical definition of murder in this instance boils down to premeditated killing of innocents or those not deemed deserving of capital punishment by other biblical law or those that are not engaged in a just war. Now, we can argue whether this war is just (or if any war has been for that matter), but from a biblical point of view, fighting in a war does not make you a murderer.

laker1963:
kuzi16:
JDH:
Witrh all due respect, your conclusions are not accurate. I have refrained from getting personal, and I have not impilcated or personally insulted anyone on this forum. With all due respect, there are many people in the GOP who see no difference between abortion and contraception, and who view contraception as something that should not be encouraged, and who oppose it's use, and who would remove it from public access if they could. There is no statement that I have made that is aimed at anyone personally on this forum. I do, however, have deep oppositions to much of the social agenda of the GOP, and those who suppor the Evangelical agenda of the GOP. If you find my views offensive, I appologize, but I will not refrain from stating them.
if i make a racial slur, even if it is not about a specific person on the board it is still uncivil. just saying.

the group of people that want no contraception is so incredibly small (and shrinking) that the argument is hardly worth bringing up. i mean, i went to a catholic high school and they went at it with the attitude of "abstinence is the best way to stay safe and prevent unexpected children, but if you are gunna do it, use protection"

thats a religious institution.
if there was a legit concern about a "war on contraception" then the trojan man would be waging war on the government.

Kuzi, sounds like you went to the only Catholic High School that advocated the use of condoms if you were not practicing abstinence. Never have I heard that sentiment from s Catholic School. This school was located in what state?

ohio.

JDH:
I've never understood how someone could be for the death penalty, but anti-abortion.

Because criminals aren't innocents? Apples and oranges.

jthanatos:
laker1963:
kuzi16:
JDH:
With all due repsect, we will just have to agree to disagree. Mr. Santorum and Mr. Huckabee, and Mr. Aikins, and so many others in the GOP, have lead me to the conclusions I have illustrated. Hopefully we can disagree and still remain civil, and I encourage you in your efforts to remain so.
you encourage me to remain civil while inferring anyone that believes abortion is murder is a back-woods-sexist-hillbilly.

i mean, heres your quote:
JDH:
... makin sure the little woman stays in her place, with her mouth shut - at home in front of the stove with as many kids as possible ('cause there won't be no contraception avaliable for her, 'cause that would be against God, & iffen she gits raped & there's a pregnancy, then it's her fault, ' cause she didn't "shut that whole thing down"). Yessireee Bob, You betcha!

and you "encourage" me in my "efforts to remain civil."

and about that quote... there is no candidate that is trying to stop contraception. there are candidates that dont like abortion. frankly, abortion is VERY different than contraception.

i will remain civil because i think this is a very interesting topic.
i request that you do the same and leave the name calling out of it.
Is it murder when you are in another country and you shhot and kill people on the orders of your government? I mean does the government of any country actually have the ability to make killing someone not murder?

While this comment may seem off topic I would suggest it is not. If abortion is murder and you disagree with it fine. Someone please explain to me how or why it is NOT murder when you kill someone as a member of the military just because you are doing it on the orders of your government. Does the gorvernment actually have the power to remove the act of murder? Are they and anyone who acts for them really free of the moral constraints that many would put on a woman and her unborn baby?
Long story short, yes... the government can go to war without "murdering" people. The biblical definition of murder in this instance boils down to premeditated killing of innocents or those not deemed deserving of capital punishment by other biblical law or those that are not engaged in a just war. Now, we can argue whether this war is just (or if any war has been for that matter), but from a biblical point of view, fighting in a war does not make you a murderer.

Then the firebombing of every major city in Japan or Germany, or London during WWII, often burning to death over 100,000 people (men women & children) in every single attack was not murder?

JDH:
I've never understood how someone could be for the death penalty, but anti-abortion.

im not in favor of the death penalty. i know you were not saying i was. just wanna put my view out there.

at the theory goes, the death penalty is used to put a price on human life.
if you take money from me, that money can be replaced. if you take my life, my life cannot be replaced. what is the value of my life? if that person takes my life what can we take from them of equal value?

again, im not for the death penalty but i undertsand the concept and can see why people are for it.

kuzi16:
JDH:
I've never understood how someone could be for the death penalty, but anti-abortion.
im not in favor of the death penalty. i know you were not saying i was. just wanna put my view out there.

at the theory goes, the death penalty is used to put a price on human life.
if you take money from me, that money can be replaced. if you take my life, my life cannot be replaced. what is the value of my life? if that person takes my life what can we take from them of equal value?

again, im not for the death penalty but i undertsand the concept and can see why people are for it.

I was not implicating anyone. I was asking a general question aimed at a general audience. I had no specific person in mind when I asked the question, because I have known so many conservatives who are for the death penalty in all cases, but who are also anti-abortion in all cases. I have never understood the conflict, and the hypocritical viewpoint.

beatnic

My raw-vegan friend claims that eating a steak is the same as murdering your mother.