This is too sickening and disgusting for words, even, and I'm just a lowly agnostic.

What sickens me is that so many people are buying it. Doing the Lord's work...right.

The Lord's Work as defined by Barack Obama:

1. Passing laws that allow the death of born children if they were targeted for abortion.
2. Solidifying the right to murder unborn children in the womb despite that God has willed their conception and planned their lives from the foundation of the earth.
3. Feeding people even if they refuse to work.
4. Redsitributing my and your wealth earned by hard work, sacrifice, risk, and saving to a "less fortunate" person as long as they vote for Obama.
5. Stealing my money so that someone who refuses to work can have free health care.
6. Legalizing homosexual marriage even though the Bible Barack reads and quotes specifically and without question describes homosexuality as an abomination in the sight of God.
7. Loving our enemies even if they want to kill our children and convert to their blasphemous religion.
8. Teaching children that conceiving children is a punishment from God and that is OK to reject and refues that punishment by abortion (if indeed yo belive it is a punishment).
9. Doesn't matter that millions will be slaughtered by cowardly pulling out of a war. It's consistent with his view of abortion, I mean, protecting the innocent at my personal expense, forget that.
10. It's OK to be friends with men that have attempted to subvert the government.

"Woe to you who say evil is good and good evil."

You know Barack, the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable sin.

"Least of these"? I'd like Obama's definition.

He would be referring to actual people, not stem cells.

How about live aborted babies left to die in hospital soiled utility rooms?

It's a shame that some pregnancies are doomed from the start, but there's really nothing a president can do about that.

How about late-term babies getting stabbed in the back of the head and their brains sucked out?

You already banned that, remember? There's nothing more for Obama to do.

How about 11-year-old girls being raped by their step-fathers?

Obama agrees with most Americans that eleven-year-old girls being raped by their step-fathers deserve the option to abort and continue their childhoods.

Jill:

I predict this will be one post that will get quite a few hits.

Excuse me Reality. A born baby targeted for execution in the soiled utility room of a hospital is the least of these.

Jesus' warning that it would better to not have been born than to have hurt one of these little one is a stern enough warning that should make even a cold hearted person like you quake.

Obama is the Anti-Christ. I think he needs to actually READ the bible.

And reality - the last thing a young girl who was raped by her step father needs is abortion. PP sends them back to their stepfathers and the abuse usually continues. By law, they are required to report the rape, but they don't.

If a girl is being abused, she doesn't have a very good childhood, too. :(

Hey everyone. This is the long lost mod Lauren. I'm sorry I've been away for so long, but I should be back in the swing of things around mid-june.

I'm just popping on real quick because I know that there are alot of believers on this site, and I have a really urgent prayer request.

My husband's cousin found out a few days ago that her baby died in-utero. She's about 6 months pregnant. They've been trying to induce her for the past 3 days, but her body just hasn't been able to let go. She's finally progressing and it looks like she'll deliver within the next hour or so.

Please pray for her and her husband. They are in unimaginable pain right now.

LAUREN!

I'm at my office at school. You can figure out the area code. 369-7080

Oh, Lauren,
I am so very sorry. Praying that she delivers soon and God hold them close as they grieve the loss of their precious baby.

Will pray, Lauren.

Lauren,

Prayers headed your cousin's way. Any known cause for the problem?

Hisman,

Excellent top ten. Thought of submitting it to your local letter to the editor? Or better yet, how about the news magazines?

On second thought, that line about blasphemous religion might not make it to print.

Otherwise, on the money.

Lauren,

That is terrible, your cousin will be in my prayers.

Thank you everyone for your prayers.

As of right now they don't know the cause. In fact, because of the positioning they're not even sure of the gender.

She stopped feeling movement so they did an ultrasound which showed that the baby had passed away. I'm not sure if they're going to do any testing after the baby's born or not.

"some pregnancies are doomed from the start "
-----------------------------------------

Reality, who are you to say that?

Yesterday's post about the miraculous healing of the "doomed" baby should have proven the point that with life, there is hope.

Lauren,

...am including your request in my prayers on my way home...we also had a miscarriage not too long ago.

They will still try to determine what happened to the baby. But we left ours in God's hands and accepted His Will.

LizfromNebraska, you wrote: "The last thing a young girl who was raped by her step father needs is abortion. "

You think girls raped by their stepfather would benefit from being forced to grow the pregnancy and bear the child???

SOMG,
Do you think young girls benefit from being raped by their fathers, forced to get an abortion and then continue on with their happy childhoods being raped??!!

In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit:

Lord, your word tells us to approach your throne of grace boldly in time of need. Lord this is one of those times.

Lauren's husband's cousin has lost a child in her womb. Lord, we don't understand why, however, we know that your will is perfect and all things happen for a reason. Lord, let her not blame herself or you for this or become bitter. Give her a heart of understanding as to why this has happened. Lord let her feel your absolute love wrapped around her.

Lord, I now ask that you heal the mom. Let her body release the baby she so desparately wants to keep. Let this wonderful and faithful and fighting mom know that her baby is in the perfect safety of your arms, being loved and comforted and being prepared to meet her parents someday, never again to face pain, or tears, or cold, never to die again.

Lord, heal the dad. Father, give him the strength to be the leader and priest in his home. Help him to give his life for his wife. Comfort him so he can comfort his wife.

And as Lauren has had the courage to come on this site and ask for prayer, I ask Lord, that you heal her sadness. Be with her husband and give him strength. Father, give him a word of knowldge that his cousin will be OK.

Father, as your follower and your child, you have given me as well as all believers power and authority over situations by the speaking of your word. Lord, I now speak the provisions of Psalm 91 be showered over this entire family.

Psalm 91
1 He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High will rest in the shadow of the Almighty.

2 I will say [b] of the LORD, "He is my refuge and my fortress, my God, in whom I trust."

3 Surely he will save you from the fowler's snare and from the deadly pestilence.

4 He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge; his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart.

5 You will not fear the terror of night, nor the arrow that flies by day,

6 nor the pestilence that stalks in the darkness, nor the plague that destroys at midday.

7 A thousand may fall at your side, ten thousand at your right hand, but it will not come near you.

8 You will only observe with your eyes
and see the punishment of the wicked.

9 If you make the Most High your dwelling—
even the LORD, who is my refuge-

10 then no harm will befall you, no disaster will come near your tent.

11 For he will command his angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways;

12 they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.

13 You will tread upon the lion and the cobra; you will trample the great lion and the serpent.

14 "Because he loves me," says the LORD, "I will rescue him; I will protect him, for he acknowledges my name.

15 He will call upon me, and I will answer him; I will be with him in trouble, I will deliver him and honor him.

16 With long life will I satisfy him and show him my salvation."

Obama looks like he's standing at the gates of hell.

SoMG:

"bear the child???"

So it is a child after all? Was it a child before the bearing or after the bearing?

Or, was that a slip of the tongue? Careful now, the pro-choice semantic and twisted sister police are moinitoring the site and you shouldn't risk your image SoMG as one of the more rabid propoents of child murder on this site.

"Obama looks like he's standing at the gates of hell."

Lol. I found that funny since there's a cross in the background. =P

Just WHERE are the separation of church and state police? Can you just imagine if instead of Obama it was John McCain, Mike Huckabee or Mit Romney standing in a pulpit with a huge cross behind them, speaking of doing the lord's work?
Come on people, where are you? Certainly you folks should be, at the very least, going ballistic. You certainly would be if it was one of the Republicans I mentioned.
Proof positive of the highly selective nature of "concern" when it come to separation of church and state.

3. Feeding people even if they refuse to work.
4. Redsitributing my and your wealth earned by hard work, sacrifice, risk, and saving to a "less fortunate" person as long as they vote for Obama.
5. Stealing my money so that someone who refuses to work can have free health care.

You don't take a positive view on social welfare programs, do you HisMan? Wouldn't you want to be helped out if you were down on your luck?

HisMan, if you had read my posts, you would know that I consider preborns to be persons (children) but favor the right to abortion anyway.

Calling a preborn a "child" does not bother me at all.

HisMan: SoMG is in favour of killing children, his preference is to do it BEFORE they are out of the womb. It's only a matter of time before he also sanctions murder of children after birth too.

I think Obama only did the 'Faith' thing for the state he's campaigning in - Kentucky IS in the Bible Belt is it not? I doubt he'd use that same thing in Montana or Arizona.

Stephanie, 4:18PM

That's because social welfare programs have been a dismal failure. The "War on Poverty" initiated by Pres. Lyndon Johnson, spent about a trillion dollars, that's with a "T", on social programs that failed to eradicate poverty and in my opinion only trapped people into lives of dependency and poverty.
I am more than willing to donate to charities I know, respect, and who do the job(you can even check their rating on line) and I am happy to help anybody legitimately in need of help.
I'm sorry to say Stephanie that there are people out there with outstretched hand, convinced the world owes them. I've encountered, and continue to encounter plenty of them.

Now be fair everyone.

Perhaps after the "fallout" with Rev. Wright, Mr. Obama is planning on opening his OWN church. You know, that way if he loses the election in the secular world, he can make a living preaching in the spiritual one. (God help us)

I don't deny that there are people looking for handouts.

I'm just saying social welfare is not a bad thing. It's not perfect, and yes, it needs to be reformed. I would call it unnecessarily harsh to say these people are refusing to work.

I live in Berkeley, and I see homeless people everyday. The majority of them are not the freeloaders you make them out to be. I met several people living in one of the parks when I was handing out food - they look out for each other and care for one another. There was a man living there with his son and pet dog; if he was offered a job, I bet he would snap it up in an instant. I don't think the problem is that they refuse to do work - it's that people don't offer them work in the first place. I mean, if you really think about it, not many people would invite an unknown homeless man to work in their shop.

The kind of social welfare I would like to see is very similar to the one I volunteered at in Alameda - they provided housing and help with food for homeless families for two years until they could find a job and get back on their feet.

Stephanie:

I am for compassion on those that really need it, not those who cheat or don't work to get it or vote for politicians that bribe them. Those like Obama and Hillary who promise free health care and free this and free that are just bribing people. Why can't you libs see that. Vote for me and I'll give you money. Where's the money come from, thin air?

I give a great deal of my income to the church and ministries. I am a board member of a Phoenix ministry headed by a former NFL player which takes a great deal of my time and money.

The government has taken repsonsibility for what the church or other faith based/charitable organizations should be doing.

It is immoral for the government to forcefully take someone else's money and just give it to another. Plainly, that is theft.

Charity is done with a cheerful and wiling heart not by compulsion, otherwise it is not charity and the effects of giving it are destructive.

If a person like myself, wants to support the poor through the church is is done much moire efficiently and directly since these types of minitries are run by volunteers and the overhead is nil.

I have never taken welfare, and I have never taken unemployment. I have always worked my way out of problems. If I become disabled my safety net is my savings, my family and my church, NOT the government. The government has never done anything for me nor do I want them to do anything other than to provide for domestic tranquility, i.e, via the military and the police.

Beisdes, God promises believers that He will never leave or forsake them and that the righteous will never go begging bread. I believe that. If more people did, we'd have a lot less problems.

I assume you're young. Do you have nay idea where all this socialism is heading? Have you ever visited the Soviet Union or Cuba or China in the 50's to the 90's? That's where we are headed. Russia and China are becoming freer than we are with all that maniacal, murdering flaming liberal Ted Kennedy inspired state control legislation he is proposing.

It won't be long until you earn $1,000.00 and you find that your take home pay is $200.00 with 80% of it being taxed. It's coming quick.

I guess you'd prefer a civil war?

Have a good life. I've lived most of mine free and wouldn't have it any other way.

Just WHERE are the separation of church and state police? Can you just imagine if instead of Obama it was John McCain, Mike Huckabee or Mit Romney standing in a pulpit with a huge cross behind them, speaking of doing the lord's work?
Come on people, where are you? Certainly you folks should be, at the very least, going ballistic. You certainly would be if it was one of the Republicans I mentioned.
Proof positive of the highly selective nature of "concern" when it come to separation of church and state.
Posted by: Mary at May 15, 2008 4:18 PM

Great point Mary. It shows they really care less about justice then they do about their own personal agendas.

The Democrats are on course with another self-destructing presidential candidate.

Lauren, I am praying for them now.

SoMG:

So now there is no question that you support the murder of children as long as they have not yet exited the birth canal? No worry there SoMG, your demonic image is etched in stone. A man is committed to what he confesses.

Do you realize what you promote SoMG? It is so evil, so blasphemous, I don't know why Jill hasn't banned you from this site. You are the worst of the worst.

For is it you who wants to turn the threshold of life into the gates of hell. And what are the gates of hell?

The gates of Hades is a familiar Semitic expression for the threshold of the realm of death.

Read this gospel passage SoMG and read it thoroughly because in ignoring it's warning you seal your own fate.

Mark 9
42"And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck. 43If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. 45And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. 47And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48where " 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'
49Everyone will be salted with fire.

Yes, SoMG, promoting abortion or performing abortions causes a believing mother to sin and turn her body into the gates of hell.

"How about late-term babies getting stabbed in the back of the head and their brains sucked out? No, it won't like that one either. "

Well no, I guess its a good thing that's ALREADY ILLEGAL.

"How about 11-year-old girls being raped by their step-fathers?"

Well we already know how much more compassionate it is to FORCE an 11 year old to stay pregnant...

But regardless,

did you miss the link that Lisa provided in the McCain thread? McCain supports abortion in rape/incest cases, and believes that in those cases, patients claiming this is the case should be given "the benefit of the doubt" rather than being forced to provide proof. How exactly would that be different from current policy (under Bush), or what Obama's policy would be?

Stephanie,

If social programs work so well why are these people in the desperate straits you describe?
Many of those homeless people may in fact be mentally ill. Where are the institutions we had for such people unable to care for themselves? They were shut down in the 60's and this was viewed as such great progress. No one asked what would happen to these poor souls or future generations of the mentally ill. I'll tell you what happened to them, they live on our streets.
Try to get someone committed for mental health care and see what happens.
Yes there certainly were abuses, but rather than address those abuses the institutions were shut down and no provisions were made for the people turned loose with no schooling, job skills, or ability to even function normally.

Good for you that you volunteered your services! That's my point Stephanie, its people like you and the charity you volunteered for that make a difference, not gov't programs.
We have many charities in my town, some for homeless families and individuals, and they are run by private charities, private citizens, and churches. In fact, I'm going to the mother's and infants shelter in a little while to volunteer child care. This facility is run by the Salvation Army.

The kind of social welfare I would like to see is very similar to the one I volunteered at in Alameda - they provided housing and help with food for homeless families for two years until they could find a job and get back on their feet.

Posted by: Stephanie at May 15, 2008 5:21 PM

I think this would be very good Stephanie. There are lots of people who do need help, especially the working poor today. I was reading somewhere online that apparently, the young generation in Europe falls into this - people who have jobs but just can't seem to make ends meet. The problem is that there are many people with alot of money but who don't care to share their wealth.
And sometimes people fall on hard times no matter what. When my husband left me in 1998, I was almost homeless and with 4 children. No one would rent to a single mom with 4 kids and no job. My youngest was 15 months. If it weren't for a girlfriend I would have been on the street. Some people aren't as lucky as I was.

Also, many of the homeless do not want jobs or living accomadations. For some reason, they just want to live on the street. Who knows why.

HisMan: "Those like Obama and Hillary who promise free health care and free this and free that are just bribing people. Why can't you libs see that?"

It's not free health care, it's government health care. Like government roads. We all chip in and pay our taxes and the government provides roads for us to drive on. With some exceptions, we don't get charged for driving on those roads. Roads are important for the economy and for each of us personally. Same with Health Care. Same with the military. Do you complain that the government is trying to give "free military protection to people who can't afford it?"

Without government, people rich enough could hire their own private protection, build their own roads, and pay for their own medical care.

This is interesting.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1798,55-Origin-of-Life-Paper-Is-Retracted,Cornelia-Dean

Patricia, you wrote: "SoMG is in favour of killing children, his preference is to do it BEFORE they are out of the womb. It's only a matter of time before he also sanctions murder of children after birth too. "

Nope. That's stupid. You're stupid, Patricia.

"HisMan", you wrote: "So now there is no question that you support the murder of children as long as they have not yet exited the birth canal? "

Not murder. Justifiable homicide.

"HisMan", you wrote: "The government has never done anything for me nor do I want them to do anything other than to provide for domestic tranquility, i.e, via the military and the police."

I thought you wanted government to ban abortion. Guess not!

You're a font of self-contradictions today, HM. First you say God does not exist (see above), now you say you're against government banning abortion.

"HisMan", you wrote: "The government has never done anything for me nor do I want them to do anything other than to provide for domestic tranquility, i.e, via the military and the police."

I thought you wanted government to ban abortion. Guess not!

You're a font of self-contradictions today, HM. First you say God does not exist (see above), now you say you're against government banning abortion.

"HisMan", you wrote: "Mark 9
42"And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck. 43If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. 45And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. 47And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48where " 'their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.'
49Everyone will be salted with fire. "

It's all in your mind, HM.

SoMG: you are the quintessential stupid person because you believe in abortion and you OUGHT to know better. Ignorance is not an excuse.

Amanda,

Remember what you are supporting when you cast your vote for Obama.

Coming from Canada I have to say that I like the idea of social medicine. I don't mind my taxes going into the pot to help those who might need it.
However, what I don't like is paying for non-essential things like ABORTION and birth control.

Jasper, you and I both know in Massachusetts it won't make a bit of difference in the end result who either of us votes for.

And if you remember previous conversations, I like John McCain. The rape/incest without being forced to provide proof is the abortion stance that makes the most sense to me personally, and I especially appreciate the potential of a President who will support stem cell research. If it wasn't for the whole "100 years in Iraq" thing, I'd be voting for him.

Hal,

Hear me out here for a minite. Do you really trust the government that much with your health and the health of your family? That's really extending the hand of trust to Big Brother.

As much as I like you I don't want your health to be jeopardized in the future by a government that has demonstrated that it cannot deliver in areas such as these.

Do you really want the government being run like the Post Office, Amtrak, and Social Security? It's hard for me to understand that peopel who support these notions also diss the military which is well, run by the government. You know, we hear a lot of promises made but exactly how will it be paid for? Do the health insurance companies just go away or become wards of Uncle Sam. What about the jobs that may be lost. What about the loss of doctors and nurses who don't want to work under that system but also those that won't even go into those fields?

You know, this is tremendously risky and once we go down that road, you know there's no turning back.

I am self-employed and I am not wealthy enough to pay for the clinics for the rich that will be established off-shore or wherever when the government takes over. Having said that, I don't want the government to manage health care. The profit motive goes away and competition goes away and the quality and cost will go up. This is Economics 101.

Besides, do you really want bad doctors exempted from malpractice? You know they essentailly would, since they will, indirectly or directly, all be employees or surrogates of the Feds. I am sure that the government will protect even the bad ones.

Perhaps that would be one good thing. The elimination of greedy, slimy malpractice attornies who put good doctors out of business by filing frivolous lawsuite against them.

When it's done in other countries the government becomes the arbiter of who lives and who dies, you know, kind of like legalized abortion.

The solution to the health care fiasco is to get the government to get out of the mix completely and let market forces play out and at the same time reform malpractice law. At first there would be difficulties but over the long haul we'd all be better off.

My objection to all this is really not for me Hal. I'm 55. Either way the gov is going to be taking care of me in a few years. I'm more concerned about younger folk.

On the surface Hal, government run health care sounds good and it's a big carrot, however, do we all really want to risk becoming jackasses so Obama or Hillary can satify their insatiable lust for power?

SoMG: Why does it matter if you kill the baby before cervix or after the cervix. There's really no difference. You just pretend that there is.

HisMan, this is a huge issue, requiring more time and effort then I have right now. I'm heading out the door. I'll try to get back to you tomorrow. I understand where you're coming from.

Yes, SoMG, promoting abortion or performing abortions causes a believing mother to sin and turn her body into the gates of hell.
Posted by: HisMan at May 15, 2008 5:47 PM
HisMan, I think SOMG's enjoys promoting people into the gates of hell. In fact the more I read his posts the more I think he is a satanic worshipper. I mean, he obviously believes in spirits cause he uses the term spirit as part of his moniker.

Patricia, you wrote: "What I don't like is paying for non-essential things like ABORTION and birth control."

By paying for abortion and birth-control you avoid having to pay for labor and delivery care for the indigent, which would cost more than the abortions and birth control you pay for. Thus you are enabled to keep MORE than you pay.

In other words, you would have to pay HIGHER taxes if the government stopped paying for bc and abortion. Government-funded bc and abortion for the indigent enables you to pay LOWER taxes. It's a lie to pretend that government-funded bc and abortion cost you money because they save you money.

Amanda,

the 100year thing was taken out of context. We've been in Germany and Korea fot the last ~50 years.

Thank you for being honest about your support of Obama.

Patricia, you wrote: "Why does it matter if you kill the baby before cervix or after the cervix. There's really no difference. You just pretend that there is."

There's an enormous difference. I'm willing to entertain arguments that abortion is WRONG, but even if it is wrong it's still different from infanticide. There may be similarities but there are also differences. I bet you could start listing differences between abortion and infanticide youself. If you can't, you're stupid.

I agree with Hal, the question of whether or not to nationalize medicine is very big and ought to be on its own thread.

It might look like England or Russia. On the other hand it might look like Germany or Switzerland.

HisMan, you will not deny that the current state of medical affairs in the USA is unacceptable in many ways and rapidly becoming more so?

Mary: 4:18: Just WHERE are the separation of church and state police? Can you just imagine if instead of Obama it was John McCain, Mike Huckabee or Mit Romney standing in a pulpit with a huge cross behind them, speaking of doing the lord's work?
Come on people, where are you? Certainly you folks should be, at the very least, going ballistic. You certainly would be if it was one of the Republicans I mentioned.
Proof positive of the highly selective nature of "concern" when it come to separation of church and state.

Can't argue with that logic. What's next, a Gospel album?

Hal,

Paying for roads is one thing. Everybody uses them, everybody wants them, everyone is happy to chip in for them.

Not everyone wants abortion. Not everyone wants National Healthcare. Creating roads does not mean that those with more money can choose to ride on better roads, but national health care does mean that the very rich will be getting excellent care, while the rest of us wait in long lines to get a tooth pulled.

Hisman is right on this. It may sound great to have the government take over healthcare, but if the government takes over healthcare, it will CONTROL health care. It's the fear of the government calling the shots that is the concern.

We are a nation that takes care of itself. We are a people that stand on our own. That's the definition of America. And of our own free will we help those that can't stand. But that is NOT the governments job. At least not here in the USA.

When a government gets too much control, you cease to be a free republic. You turn into a socialist country.

Our kids get free lunches and breakfasts (half of which get thrown away), free computers, free school (and you KNOW how I feel about public schools), welfare...

When do people take responsibility for themselves?

SoMG says that it will cost us more in the long run if we stop paying for abortions...I say, it didn't cost me more in 1971. If people don't think they will get a free ride, they just might take responsibility for the lives they create.

Let them have sex. Then we'll kill or pay you to keep em. Either way, you don't have to do a thing.

It's nuts!

mk: He's pretty scary looking, where did you find him?

Honestly Janet,

I don't remember now.

But an art student here in Chicago did him. At the Art Institute. Yikes!

MK, you wrote: "I say, it didn't cost me more in 1971. "

What do you mean by this?

You wrote: "If people don't think they will get a free ride, they just might take responsibility for the lives they create."

Then again they might not. Some of them certainly won't. The indigent ones won't be able to. That's very expensive and socially destructive. To have indigent women who can't afford abortions forced to have babies they don't want and cannot afford instead! That's a recipe for a permanent self-propagating underclass. IF we're going to use force to control women's reproductive lives, the opposite would be smarter. Require women to prove they can support their babies before allowing them to have them. That's assuming we're willing to use force to control women's reproductive lives either FOR abortion or AGAINST it, which I am not. I am strictly neutral.

SoMG: There is no difference between abortion and infanticide since the result is a dead baby. The only difference is the location of the baby when the act was committed. Your ignorance is profound in this matter.

Paying for abortion and BC does not save me money. Abortion and BC are not without considerable medical and psychological side effects and thus they lead to much increased medical costs. The also have a significant cost on society in ways never forseen. They also result in a birth dearth and an aging population which is unable to support itself. A growing population produces an economically stable and viable society. Abortion and BC lead to death and a dying society like the one we live in today.

"Require women to prove they can support their babies before allowing them to have them."

With this draconian statement, you should move to China. I'm sure they'd love to have you!

SoMG,

What I meant was that before abortion was legal women weren't getting pregnant at the same rate.

Are you going to tell me, that without Roe V Wade, we would now have 45 million more children than we do?

I don't think so. I think most of those women simply wouldn't have gotten pregnant. Some would sure, just like they always have. I think there were 45 million abortions because feminism, the "sexual revolution", birth control, sex in the media, and abortion all converged at the same time.

Women have grown careless because they CAN. If they knew that they would have to take care of the children they conceived I think they might just keep their legs crossed.

And I am not forcing anyone to get pregnant. That would be their decision. I'm just asking that they take responsibility for their choice. And killing their offspring is NOT taking responsibility.

MK: Obama looks a little bit buddhist, a little bit Christian!

SoMG,

I guess we'd need to see welfare statistics pre Roe v Wade and after. I'm willing to bet there are MORE people on welfare now, not less.

Patricia,

He looks more like a stand up comedian than the messiah!

SoMG,

Here's the thing SoMG, you don't give an alcoholic free wine, you don't give a drug addict free heroin, and you don't give able bodied people a free ride.

Short term help in a desperate situation, sure. But I've seen welfare moms...it's a scam. And I'm paying for it.

OH but MK: in Vancouver they give drug addicts free needles!
It hasn't worked. DUH!

MK: I was thinking of Donny and Marie Osmond.
You know, "she's a little bit country, he's a little bit rock 'n roll!"

P,

He's a little Messiah/He's a little antichrist?

P,

Maybe we should line up women for the rapists...wouldn't want them to work too hard.

And put our valuables on the porch, so the thief doesn't have to break and enter.

Or give free guns to the gangs. They're going to get them anyway.

Patricia, you wrote: "The only difference is the location of the baby when the act was committed. "

Congratulations! You have made the first entry in your list of differences between abortion and infanticide: location of the baby. I bet if you try you can think of more differences.

Location is more important than you seem to think. For instance, if I hold a pencil three inches away from your eye, that's no crime, no sin, no problem. But if I change its LOCATION by four inches, stabbing an inch of pencil into your eye, that IS a crime. And a sin. And a problem. Even though the only thing that changed is location.

You wrote: "Paying for abortion and BC does not save me money. Abortion and BC are not without considerable medical and psychological side effects ..."

Wrong. Both are rare. According to Ronald Reagan's right-to-life Surgeon General C. Everett Coop, the total cost of "Post-Abortion Syndrome" to society is approximately nil.

You wrote: "...and thus they lead to much increased medical costs. "

Nope. Wrong again.

MK, you wrote: "Here's the thing SoMG, you don't give an alcoholic free wine, you don't give a drug addict free heroin, and you don't give able bodied people a free ride."

What does this have to do with the question of government-provided abortion?

You wrote: "Short term help in a desperate situation, sure. But I've seen welfare moms...it's a scam. And I'm paying for it."

What does THIS have to do with the question of government-provided abortion? Shouldn't we do all we can to keep the welfare mom's family SMALL?

SoMG,

That's the point. The location shouldn't really BE an issue. The issue is stabbing someone in the eye with a pencil.

The issue has become where the baby is located, but that is a misdirection. The REAL issue is the killing of a human being NO MATTER WHERE THEY ARE.

Your analogy is bad logic.

What you'd need to say to make the analogy comparable, is if I stab someone in the eye with my pencil while standing in the kitchen it is not a crime, but if I do it in the living room it is a crime.

OR

Where the suction hose is makes a difference. If I keep the suction hose three feet away from the woman, I am not committing a crime, but if I put the suction hose into the woman, then I AM committing a crime.

I wish we could keep religion out of elections. I don't want to know about Obama's theological beliefs, I want to know what he'll do as president.

That said, I wonder whether he would be putting out such over-the-top literature if the right weren't busily spreading false and bigoted rumors about how he's secretly a Muslim (and therefore probably supports terrorists, and his middle name's Hussein, ya know...)

Amanda,

Do you have no issue with a rapist going unpunished and free to victimize again and again? Unreported rape and incest means just that. Also, why perpetuate the notion the victim has any reason to be ashamed? Why aren't we giving the victim the message she has no reason to be ashamed?
I would think reporting would be required if nothing else to protect other women from being victims and to punish the perpetrator. Also, to protect an incest victim from being returned to her abuser.

MK, 8:28PM

Absolutely! What better way to make the rape of women easier than to have it to go unreported. The victim has every reason to be ashamed! Far better more women are raped, even tortured, mutilated, beaten, and murdered by a rapist who is free because his crime went unreported than require a rape be reported.

MK, you wrote: "Are you going to tell me, that without Roe V Wade, we would now have 45 million more children than we do? "

No--pregnant women would have travelled to states where abortion was legal for their abortions, that's all. Same as with the Irish. The cost of an abortion would have been higher by the cost of a trip to NY or California.

You wrote: "I think there were 45 million abortions because feminism, the "sexual revolution", birth control, sex in the media, and abortion all converged at the same time. "

I agree with you. But you should add, that Roe v. Wade was itself a consequence of feminism and the "sexual revolution".

You wrote: "Women have grown careless because they CAN. If they knew that they would have to take care of the children they conceived I think they might just keep their legs crossed."

This theory doesn't seem to work in Nigeria. Or El Salvador. It also didn't work in South Africa, where deaths from complications from abortion abruptly dropped 90% when abortion laws were liberalized.

You wrote: "And killing their offspring is NOT taking responsibility."

Yes, getting an abortion IS one way of taking responsibility for your pregnancy. Allowing yourself to be forced by your government to grow a pregnancy you don't want is not. That's SURRENDERING responsibility.

You wrote: "I guess we'd need to see welfare statistics pre Roe v Wade and after. "

Before/after statistics would not answer the question. There are other factors besides availability of abortion which have stronger effects on the size of welfare rolls, and which changed a lot from the '60s to the '70s. You would have to control for these effects. In other words, you would need to compare statistics from the time after Roe v Wade against HYPOTHETICAL statistics that WOULD HAVE OCCURRED after 1972 if Roe v. Wade had been decided differently.

Which is, of course, impossible. In the end, one can only speculate. However, there is a role for common sense. Which says, getting back to the earlier part of the conversation, that allowing indigent women to be forced by their indigence to bear children they do not want and cannot afford to raise is a bad idea.

SoMG: it's the intent of your actions that differ and I KNOW you KNOW this because both Bobby and Chris A. have discussed this with you before. Unfortunately, you cannot seem to grasp this concept of ethics.
The location does not change the fact that this is a baby. The intent in both situations is to kill the child.
It's pointless to argue with you because you can't or won't think for yourself. Too bad for you.

"Wrong. Both are rare. According to Ronald Reagan's right-to-life Surgeon General C. Everett Coop, the total cost of "Post-Abortion Syndrome" to society is approximately nil."

Koop's statements were made when very little research had been conducted into the cost of abortion to society. However, 30 years later it is becoming increasingly evident that killing 1.5 million babies per year has some significant cost. It's not rocket science. Even proaborts now recognize the problems with abortion and the effect abortion has had on creating the huge problem called the demographic winter as well as the huge gender imbalances seen throughout the world.

Deny, deny, deny is the proabort way. Keep up with your delusions honey. You are one very lost soul.

MK: lol we could keep this Donny and Marie thingy going all night! Have a nice evening. I'm going to get my beauty sleep.

That's assuming we're willing to use force to control women's reproductive lives either FOR abortion or AGAINST it, which I am not. I am strictly neutral.
Posted by: SoMG at May 15, 2008 8:01 PM

This coming from the twisted mind of somebody who stated they are proud to feel a little responsibility for every abortion out there.

Haven't read the comments, but..

...throwing stones in glass houses?

How many times did Bush proclaim to do God's work on earth, or say that he believes "God wants him to be president."?

Reminds me of this great comic, let me find it...

oh here:

http://www.idrewthis.org/d/20040804.html

MK, you wrote: "The location shouldn't really BE an issue. The issue is stabbing someone in the eye with a pencil. "

They are the same issue. The act of locating the pencil stabs. The act of stabbing locates the pencil.

"The issue has become where the baby is located, but that is a misdirection. "

Nope. On the contrary, it's the critical point which wins the argument for the pro-choice side, EVEN for those like me who feel sorry for the aborted fetuses and agree that fetuses are persons, human beings, entitled to all the rights and privileges that already-born human beings are entitled to. Just not SPECIAL rights, such as the right to occupy another person's body without her continuing consent. That's not a GENERAL human right--already-born people don't enjoy it, as I illustrate below. It's a SPECIAL right which some would award to the unwelcome unborn for no reason except that they need it in order to live.

You wrote: "The REAL issue is the killing of a human being NO MATTER WHERE THEY ARE."

So if I tried to locate myself (or part of myself) inside one of your bodily orifices, you would be unjustified in killing me in order to stop me from doing that? Suppose there were no other way for you to stop me? And why should I stop at the orifice? Supposed I tried to locate part of myself inside your abdomen or chest. (Remember you said, NO MATTER WHERE THEY ARE".) Would you be justified in killing me then?

You wrote: "Your analogy is bad logic."

Excuse me but I made no analogy. I cited the pencil as an EXAMPLE of how important location can be (particularly when the location is inside someone else's body), not as an anology.

You wrote: "What you'd need to say to make the analogy comparable, is if I stab someone in the eye with my pencil while standing in the kitchen it is not a crime, but if I do it in the living room it is a crime."

Do you really think that the difference between being inside or outside another person's body is only as important as the difference between being in the kitchen or the living room? If you do, you're crazy. Again, if I put part of my body in your living room, that might cause you to react a certain way. But if I put part of my body into your chest, or tried to, it would make you react very differently! If your reactions in these two cases would be the same, then you are not a rational person.

Just because you can site an example of location which is unimportant does not show that ALL issues of location are unimportant. Some, like the pencil, and like pregnancy, and me locating part of my body inside your chest, have heavy consequences. In particular, those questions of location INSIDE ANOTHER PERSON'S BODY, are more important and consequential than most other questions of location.

You wrote: "Where the suction hose is makes a difference. If I keep the suction hose three feet away from the woman, I am not committing a crime, but if I put the suction hose into the woman, then I AM committing a crime."

Nope. Not a crime. Well, maybe it is for you, because you do not have a licence to practice medicine.

SOMG,

INSIDE ANOTHER PERSON'S BODY

So you would agree then that a woman carrying a full term pregnancy can kill the baby inside her?

"Truthseeker", you wrote: "This coming from the twisted mind of somebody who stated they are proud to feel a little responsibility for every abortion out there."

Every METHOTREXATE abortion which is CHOSEN by the patient. If methotrexate is used to abort a pregnancy against the patient's will, I will feel sorry about that.

So far I've read about misoprostol being used to abort someone's pregnancy against her will, but not methotrexate. This could be because you're more likely to get away with it if you use methotrexate -- the effect is delayed, the loss of pregnancy will not be detected until days or weeks after dosing by which time the victim will have flushed the methotrexate out of her system (very short half-life) and (presumably) disposed of the potentially incriminating remains of the doctored food or beverage. Whereas with misoprostol, the effect (cramps, voiding of the uterus) is immediate or nearly so. VERY stupid to use misoprostol if methotrexate is available. Maybe the smart ones are managing to stay out of the news.

SoMG:

For once you're right SoMG, the Gospel is in my mind, because Christ lives in me and He is the Word made flesh and I have the mind of Christ as does every single believer.

Yes, I do want the Supreme Court to "overturn", no, obliterate Roe v. Wade, so just add courts to my list of the military and police.

I must correct my error:

Nope. Not a crime. Well, maybe it is for you, because you do not have a licence to practice medicine.

Actually you can DO the abortion without a licence. As long as you don't COLLECT A FEE for doing it.

Mary, you wrote: "So you would agree then that a woman carrying a full term pregnancy can kill the baby inside her?"

Yes, especially if by doing so (or having it done) she was enabled to reduce the size of the head and thereby lessen the trauma of labor and delivery.

Suppose she did it herself. Aborted her pregnancy with her own hands the day before the due date. How would you punish her for doing that?

In fact, "HisMan", you want your government to do many things other than preserve the domestic tranquility. Don't you long for a government based on the Bible?

@PiP: Ahahahahaha! That one is *classic* DC Simpson.

For more about scientists regretting their work, see

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/science/25jacobson.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Every METHOTREXATE abortion which is CHOSEN by the patient. If methotrexate is used to abort a pregnancy against the patient's will, I will feel sorry about that.
Posted by: SoMG at May 15, 2008 9:55 PM

SOMG, You block out the other patient from your head. You know who I am talking about. The one who the methotrexate kills.

SOMG, 10:05PM

Say what? To reduce the size of the head and prevent the trauma of labor and delivery? Uh, SOMG, sometimes feet, butt or shoulders come first. You're not making a lot of sense.
Would I want to see her punished? I would have to know the circumstances? Is the woman mentally ill? If not I would want to see her punished like I would want to see the woman who kills her newborn punished. Its the same difference to me. However I think it unlikely she would be since the fetus would not be considered legally a person. How about you? Do you think it should be her right to kill the baby simply because she decides she doesn't want it?

Lord's work? I've never heard of such heresy! How is he doing the Lord's work when he aborts an entire generation of his own ethnicity? Doesn't he know that Klanned parenthood enjoy aborting black children? Doesn't he know that abortion is killing black children 2 to 1 to that of other ethnicities? Looking at his track record looks like the racist democrats bought him off.

SOMG, You and Obama have a lot in common. You both are go through the morally wrenching discussions about abortion and come out happy to assist women in killing their babies.

"Truthseeker", the fetus is not the abortionist's patient.

Rae,

isn't it?! I have so many favorites...

SOMG, Since you take pride in your part of methotrexate abortions, does that mean if anyone I love chooses to kill their baby using methotrexate then I should hold you responsible for it?

It would be no different then selling them a gun when you knew they were going to use it to kill right?

Adlyn,

Do you mean the same Democrats who supported slavery, founded the KKK, opposed anti-lynching laws, established Jim Crow and segregation, put American citizens of color(Japanese Americans) into concentration camps, put a klansman on the Supreme Court, opposed the Civil and Voting Rights Acts of the mid 1960's, and presently have a former Klansman and Klan recruiter in the US Senate?
Why would you ever call Democrats racists?

Mary, you wrote: "Say what? To reduce the size of the head and prevent the trauma of labor and delivery? Uh, SOMG, sometimes feet, butt or shoulders come first. You're not making a lot of sense."

The head is (usually) the widest and least squish-able part of the emerging neonate. The open fontanelles give it a little squishiness but only a little--it's still the widest part, the part that determines how far the cervix must open. Which determines more or less how traumatic the labor and delivery is. (Did you really not already know this? Have you ever WATCHED a childbirth?)

You wrote: "Do you think it should be her right to kill the baby simply because she decides she doesn't want it?"

No, I think it should be her right to kill the baby simply because she decides she doesn't want it AND it is located inside her body, AND it has no right to force her to endure the trauma of full labor-and-delivery if she prefers to avoid or reduce that trauma by means of abortion.

SOMG, the only medical license you desreve is as a witch doctor. Some doctors administer methotrexate to cancer patients to save their lives and they regret the harm that the methotrexate causes the person they administer the methotrexate to. You on the other hand would administer methotrexate for the purpose of killing. NO abortionist should ever have a license to practice medicine. The fact that you do is an oxymoron.

"Truthseeker", you wrote: "Since you take pride in your part of methotrexate abortions, does that mean if anyone I love chooses to kill their baby using methotrexate then I should hold you responsible for it?"

If someone shoots you, should you hold the people who tested and developed the make of gun he used responsible?

Mary,

So true. I don't understand it though, how can Obama support these people let alone the democratic party? However, let's not forget that the Democrats blackmailed MLK Jr, so that they could get their hands on the black vote, and Klanned parenthood only gave MLK Jr, that "award" so he wouldn't suspect them of wiping out black children. Something that pro-aborts will never tell you. The Democrat party is drenched with blood.

*****
Obama wake up! The Democratic party is just using you! They aren't with you, they are laughing at behind your back all the way to the bank!

*****
P.S. His niece Dr. Alveda King is constantly telling PP to stop using her uncle's name but of course they refuse to listen and continue to bring MLK Jr, good name down in the mud.

But hey! that's progression for ya!

"Truthseeker", you wrote: "Some doctors administer methotrexate to cancer patients to save their lives and they regret the harm that the methotrexate causes the person they administer the methotrexate to. "

The chemotheraputic dose of methotrexate is five times more than the abortifacient dose. (Think of the difference between drinking one liter of vodka vs drinking five liters.)

Patients with rhumatoid arthritis take methotrexate regularly for most or all of their lives. I don't know what their dose is.

No, I think it should be her right to kill the baby simply because she decides she doesn't want it AND it is located inside her body.
Posted by: SoMG at May 15, 2008 10:43 PM

Then in some ways you are not quite as radical as Obama cause he thinks she should be able to kill the baby if she meant to abort but gives birth to a live baby by accident.

SOMG,

Yes I have witnessed births and I have seen shoulder and butts come out first, causing more trauma than a head would and determining how wide the cervix must dilatate. Shoulders and butts are bigger and less malleable than a head, especially when the legs are folded straight up and are trying to come out along with the butt. The head is in fact more "squishable", to use your high tech term since the skull bones are not fused which is often why you may see "coneheads".
Did you really not already know this? Have you ever WATCHED a childbirth?

So you do in fact support the killing of a full term baby in the womb.

@PiP: I find this one pretty funny:

http://www.idrewthis.org/d/20041207.html

Barack Obama has a lot of nerve.

imagine if Pres. Bush or McCain ran an ad like this? The MSM would be all over it.

Not a peep from the liberals....

Adlyn,

I have no idea how Obama and 92% of black Americans can support the Democrats.

"Truthseeker", you wrote: "Since you take pride in your part of methotrexate abortions, does that mean if anyone I love chooses to kill their baby using methotrexate then I should hold you responsible for it?"

If someone shoots you, should you hold the people who tested and developed the make of gun he used responsible?
Posted by: SoMG at May 15, 2008 10:45 PM

If the maker of the gun created it for the specific purpose of killing people like me and takes pride in it when people like me get killed, then yes.

Jasper,

Like I asked before, where are the separation of church and state police?

"Truthseeker", In that circumstance, I would be against deliberately killing the neonate, but I wouldn't take any extraordinary measures to save it either. Especially if I didn't know who was going to be responsible for the costs. Since unintended live birth is most common (or rather, least rare) in second-trimester abortions, refusing to take extraordinary life-saving measures means an almost-certain death sentence. (Third trimester abortions are themselves rare events, so the complication of a third-trimester unintended live birth is even more rare.)

"NO abortionist should ever have a license to practice medicine."

Correct TS.

The Hippocratic Oath is an oath traditionally taken by physicians pertaining to the ethical practice of medicine:

I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

SOMG,

You would take no effort to save the neonate, an almost certain death sentence, but would not deliberately kill it. The difference is what?
You sound like the perpetrators of the Tuskegee experiment. They didn't deliberately kill the men by infecting them with syphillis, they just took no measures to medically treat those already infected, an almost certain death sentence.

Mary, you wrote: "I have seen shoulder and butts come out first, causing more trauma than a head would and determining how wide the cervix must dilatate."

I said "typically". You are describing atypical births.

"Shoulders and butts are bigger and less malleable than a head,"

Nope. The shoulders have have greater length but less width than the head. The net result is less stress on the cervix. The shoulder is only dangerous if the emerging neonate tries to pass the shoulder and head at the same time. The pelvis (which determines the width of the butt) of a typical neonate is narrower than its head.

You wrote: "...especially when the legs are folded straight up and are trying to come out along with the butt. "

Again, I said TYPICALLY.

"Truthseeker", In that circumstance, I would be against deliberately killing the neonate, but I wouldn't take any extraordinary measures to save it either. Especially if I didn't know who was going to be responsible for the costs.
Posted by: SoMG at May 15, 2008 11:04 PM

Judging from what you say SOMG it appears you justify killing babies based upon the financial costs society would incur. A large part of why you believe it is o.k. to kill babies is because the mother doesn't want to care for them and therefore they would be a burden/financial cost to society. Is that a fair assesment?

Neonate?
what do call the baby whe he is born SoMG?

Homo-sapien?

I've seen six live births of my own children and don't see how anybody can use the trauma of the birthing process to justify the pre-emptive killing of the child. Especially with the pain killers and epiderals available today. My wife recovered from birth almost immediately hold our babies and begin breast feeding. SOMG, it sounds more like an excuse or a way to scare a woman into getting an abortion than a rational reason for one.

Jasper, no one takes the original Hippocratic Oath today except a few cranks. It's been modernized. The original Hippocratic Oath includes, among other oddities, a pledge to train the sons of other physicians for free and a pledge never to do any surgery ("even on sufferers from stone"!) but to leave it to barbers. The barbers were the ones who knew how to use sharp instruments like razors and things.

When I was in school, most or all of the students who opted to take the original Hippocratic Oath were right-to-life Christians. You'd think they'd object to swearing in the name of Apollo. Isn't there something in the Bible about not having any other gods but God?

@Jasper: Do you even know what "neonate" means?

Hel-loooooo..."Neonatal Intensive Care Unit" = NICU- who goes to a NICU, Jasper?

SOMG,

A shoulder presentation often requires a C-section because it is too difficult and dangerous to deliver normally. I was referring to the type where the shoulder and head are emerging together since the head obviously isn't going to be too far behind.
I've seen some nerve wracking feet first deliveries. Butt presentations deliveries can also be more difficult and result in planned or emergency sections. I have seen these deliveries and I'm sure the women weren't sitting down for a week. They were plenty traumatic.
Where did you say "typically"?

SOMG, doctors specialize in healing, not killing. A doctor administers methotrexate as a medicine to heal people. Doctors do NOT administer methotrexate to kill people. See the difference. Your obsession with money has you blinded. You even use the woman's lack of money as a reason to justify the killing of her child.
Repent SOMG. The hour is late for you.

@TS: Not always true. There are doctors who are so bloody incompetent that they *do* kill their patients.

My grandma was in labor to give birth to her first child in 1946, my grandfather was not there because he was in the Philippines finishing "clean-up work" from WWII.

So anyway, my grandma was in labor, and the doctor was not at the hospital she was at- so he told the nurses to TIE HER LEGS TOGETHER so that she couldn't push until he got there.

Useless bastard got there so late, the baby died in the birth canal from stress and suffocation.

That doctor killed my grandmother's otherwise perfectly healthy little girl because he was lazy.

"Truthseeker", you wrote: "Judging from what you say SOMG it appears you justify killing babies based upon the financial costs society would incur. A large part of why you believe it is o.k. to kill babies is because the mother doesn't want to care for them and therefore they would be a burden/financial cost to society. Is that a fair assesment?"

No. The patient's wish for an abortion (along with her body-ownership rights) is what justifies it. WHY she wants the abortion is irrelevent. The fact that abortion is financially beneficial to the woman who chooses it and the society that allows it is irrelevent to its justification; I would consider it justified even if it were financially harmful.

That's why I oppose laws which seek to criminalize abortion for the purpose of sex-selection. I would consider it morally unacceptible to force a woman to grow and bear a girl (or a boy) if she didn't want to.

Anyway, I think the dangers of sex-selection are exaggerated. So some societies have more men than women. So what? Most likely their scarcity will make women more desirable and then people will sex-select the other way. But this is by-the-way.

Patricia, you wrote: "SoMG is in favour of killing children, his preference is to do it BEFORE they are out of the womb. It's only a matter of time before he also sanctions murder of children after birth too. "
Nope. That's stupid. You're stupid, Patricia.
Posted by: SoMG at May 15, 2008 6:11 PM

SOMG, Patricia is not stupid. You are in denial. You continually justify your killing of babies because of the financial costs to society. It is not such a "reach" to see you justifying killing children outside the womb since they are still a financial cost to society. Maybe just the orphans for starters huh?

"Truthseeker", you wrote: "Doctors do NOT administer methotrexate to kill people. "

Wrong. Some docs prescribe it to be taken orally, so I guess you could say they don't administer it. However, some docs prefer to administer methotrexate for abortion in their own offices by intramuscular injection. And we both agree that abortion is killing a person.

Rae,

I love that one too!

Hey all of you bitching about people getting "up in arms about it" just because the msm isn't doing it (they're so up in arms already about his taste in breakfast food) doesn't mean that responses aren't happening.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/05/madness_this_is_america.php

Also if you haven't noticed Republicans have been doing the same stuff! You didn't notice Bush's divine mandate in 2000 and 2004? You haven't noticed the Republican commercials?

"Truthseeker", you wrote: " Patricia is not stupid. "

I'd say the jury is still out on that.

You wrote: "You continually justify your killing of babies because of the financial costs to society."

No I don't. See my previous post above, where I wrote: "The patient's wish for an abortion (along with her body-ownership rights) is what justifies it. WHY she wants the abortion is irrelevent. The fact that abortion is financially beneficial to the woman who chooses it and the society that allows it is irrelevent to its justification; I would consider it justified even if it were financially harmful."

You wrote: "It is not such a "reach" to see you justifying killing children outside the womb "

It is if you understand my position correctly. Which justifies killing children only when they are located inside another person's body, and the other person doesn't want them there.

Doctors are healers. Rae, the person that killed your grandma's baby should have lost his license to practice and never be called a doctor again. SOMG and the rest of the abortionists should never have gotten a licese to practice cause they are killers, not healers. It is very simple, doctors are people who heal other people.

Here, Rae:

http://www.idrewthis.org/d/20050204.html

Oh and this

http://www.idrewthis.org/d/20050218.html

It is if you understand my position correctly. Which justifies killing children only when they are located inside another person's body, and the other person doesn't want them there.
Posted by: SoMG at May 15, 2008 11:53 PM

SOMG, what if the baby is totally dependent on the mother and has severe birth defects that have ruined the mother's life. She doesn't want the baby. Why should the mother have to bear the burden? The baby might as well be inside her body cause noone else is offering to help and it is wearing her to the point she can't care for the baby anyway. Shouldn't she be allowed to put methotrexate in the baby's bottle?

@PiP: I like this one too:

http://www.idrewthis.org/d/20050114.html

Did you hear what happened in California? Heeeell yeah!

http://www.idrewthis.org/d/20050413.html

this is possibly my favorite of all of them

Hell Yeah Rae! I'm super excited!

Truthseeker, No, I would not consider killing it justified after it was born.

And putting an abortifacient dose of methotrexate in a baby's bottle wouldn't kill it. You'd need a very high dose of methotrexate to do that. Cyanide would be more effective, and more humane. It would be better to inject it all at once than to put it in the bottle where it would be consumed gradually. A sub-lethal dose of cyanide could be very nasty.

Maybe you see it as semantics but.....
It never needed to be legislated. The government recognized marriage in order to support men and women who were having children and raising families together. No matter how many times you say the phrase "gay marriage" it will never be possible. Marriage is a "special" relationship between a man and a woman.

Probably the most humane way to kill a neonate, or for that matter any person, or for that manner any mammal, is by rapid cervical dislocation--separating the spine from the base of the skull. That's what hanging does if the rope is long enough and the platform is high enough. If the rope is too short death occurs by slow strangulation which is INhumane. If the rope is too long and the platform is too high the head is torn from the body, which is humane but aesthetically displeasing.

Go for the intermediate in all things, as Aristotle said.

OK SOMG. Would you kill somebody who was going to kill you even if they were not inside your body?

"Truthseeker", sure I would, if there were no other way to protect myself.

Location inside another person's body (without their consent) is not the ONLY circumstance that justifies homicide. War, self-defense, capital punishment (if you believe in capital punishment).

TS,

gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage gay marriage

;)

Rae and PIP. I would rather the government did away with recognizing marriage all together. It's not a secular thing. For people like yourselves to say hooray about it means you don't respect that a relationship between a man and a woman is any different then the relationship between to men or two women. Do you really believe that?

Oh yah, you believe in Obama too. Naivette? Change is not good when it brings chaos along with it. Some day you will likely se that.

"Truthseeker", you wrote: "I would rather the government did away with recognizing marriage all together. "

Me too. That's a great idea.

Marriage should be a private contract between individuals. Its meaning, obligations, and goals should be determined by the signers. Except to enforce the terms of the contract like any other contract, government should have nothing to do with marriage.

Then we wouldn't have to have these fights about what marriage means. Everyone would decide for themselves. The American way.

SoMG:

I want a government based on the Bible? Not in this lifetime, but, ah, the next.......

Every studied believer knows that Jesus Christ will riegn as King of King and Lord of Lords forever. What is so, so, so sad SoMG, is the absolute self condemnation you will realize in the fullness of time. It is truly tragic.....
The hell that you will occupy forever, if you continue in your unbelief, will be of your own making.

Isaiah 9

1 Nevertheless, that time of darkness and despair will not go on forever. The land of Zebulun and Naphtali will be humbled, but there will be a time in the future when Galilee of the Gentiles, which lies along the road that runs between the Jordan and the sea, will be filled with glory.

2 The people who walk in darkness
will see a great light.
For those who live in a land of deep darkness,
a light will shine.
3 You will enlarge the nation of Israel,
and its people will rejoice.
They will rejoice before you
as people rejoice at the harvest
and like warriors dividing the plunder.
4 For you will break the yoke of their slavery and lift the heavy burden from their shoulders.
You will break the oppressor’s rod,
just as you did when you destroyed the army of Midian.
5 The boots of the warrior and the uniforms bloodstained by war will all be burned.
They will be fuel for the fire.

6 For a child is born to us,
a son is given to us.
The government will rest on his shoulders.
And he will be called:
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 His government and its peace
will never end.
He will rule with fairness and justice from the throne of his ancestor David for all eternity.
The passionate commitment of the Lord of Heaven’s Armies will make this happen!

TS, we believe that they shouldn't be legally different--otherwise that's called discrimination.

And I agree, I'd rather we all go to civil unions and leave marriages a religious institution so we can give gay people their rights and do away with all the religious stuff.

Marriage is already less of a covenant because it is regulated by the state. I say everyone goes to civil unions but its going to take a while for other people to hop on our bandwagon.

"For people like yourselves to say hooray about it means you don't respect that a relationship between a man and a woman is any different then the relationship between to men or two women. Do you really believe that?"

I do believe it.

I've seen *multitudes* of straight couples making a complete and utter MOCKERY of "marriage". As far as I'm concerned, marriage is nothing more than a tax agreement- so why the hell should gay couples be exempt from it because of their sexual orientation?

You do know that just 50 years ago it was ILLEGAL in some states for whites and non-whites to marry...

SOMG, Your rationale for killing a person based upon said person being inside another person's body can only exist in the case of a pregnant woman. Would you agree?

Crap, I misspoke...Loving vs. Virginia was in 1967...

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html

"And I agree, I'd rather we all go to civil unions and leave marriages a religious institution so we can give gay people their rights and do away with all the religious stuff.

Marriage is already less of a covenant because it is regulated by the state. I say everyone goes to civil unions but its going to take a while for other people to hop on our bandwagon."

@PiP: Agreed.

gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination gay marriage is an abomination

Rae,

I totally agree and...

THERE IS TOTALLY AN IDT COMIC ABOUT THAT

http://www.idrewthis.org/d/20040308.html

http://www.idrewthis.org/d/20040216.html

Blow it out your @$$, HisMan.

ts said,
"For people like yourselves to say hooray about it means you don't respect that a relationship between a man and a woman is any different then the relationship between to men or two women. Do you really believe that?"
***

"I do believe it."
Posted by: Rae at May 16, 2008 12:37 AM

How about the fact that a man and a woman can bear children together. Doesn't that make for an undeniable difference in their relationship?

"How about the fact that a man and a woman can bear children together. Doesn't that make for an undeniable difference in their relationship?"

No, it doesn't.

Being able to pop out a kid does not make you anymore special than those who cannot.

The real trial is raising a child in a manner that keeps them from being a spoiled little prick like 99% of the people I went to high school with and raising said child to not be selfish in an overly self-indulgent world.

marriage is between a man and a woman
marriage is between a man and a woman
marriage is between a man and a woman
marriage is between a man and a woman
marriage is between a man and a woman
marriage is between a man and a woman
marriage is between a man and a woman
marriage is between a man and a woman
marriage is between a man and a woman
marriage is between a man and a woman
marriage is between a man and a woman
marriage is between a man and a woman
marriage is between a man and a woman
marriage is between a man and a woman
marriage is between a man and a woman
marriage is between a man and a woman
marriage is between a man and a woman
marriage is between a man and a woman

"How about the fact that a man and a woman can bear children together. Doesn't that make for an undeniable difference in their relationship?"

No, it doesn't.

Rae, come on now. Lets at least engage in honest debate. Admit that only a man and woman can produce a child so we can go forward here.

*yawn*

Is that really the best you can do?

Please.

Over half of marriages between men and women are complete jokes- how can gay folks possibly make it even more pointless than straight folks have already made it?

HisMan, you wrote:"The people who walk in darkness
will see a great light."

Don't you mean "...HAVE SEEN a great light"? That's a terribly difficult aria (from Handel's MESSIAH) to sing. The best realization of it I have heard is performed by Donald McIntyre in a recording conducted by Karl Richter. Donald McIntyre was a true Wagnerian power-baritone used to making himself heard over enormous orchestras in huge halls like Bayreuth and the Met where he played Wotan and Hans Sachs--do you right-to-lifers know Wagner?--as well as lower-pitched roles like Gurnemanz. He has no problem with Handel's long melismas which are (probably) more challenging than Wagner's lines.

You wrote: "For a child is born to us,
a son is given to us.
The government will rest on his shoulders.
And he will be called:
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

That's "the government will BE upon his shoulders. And HIS NAME SHALL be called..." etc. The choral numbers like this one are adequate, especially "And He Shall Purify", but the soloists, rather than the chorus, are the reason to buy this recording (Richter) rather than any other MESSIAH.

Art and music are two of Christianity's redeeming features. Then again Freeasonry (in the person of Mozart) and anti-Christianity (The Ring of the Nibelung) haven't done too badly either.

TS,

You think marriage is a covenant that a man and woman make WITH GOD.

Therefore, atheists should not be able to get married.

To call marriage a committment or contract is an offense to God. Marriage is a blood covenant. In biblical terms, a blood covenant is defined as a promise entered into with and before God, that shall not be broken and is sealed in blood. When a blood covenant was broken, the ensuing consequence was death. And even today, when the covenant of marriage is broken by divorce, a form of death occurs.

God created covenant relationship so that a bond of promise indicated a right standing with Him, which would place one in a positon to receive blessing, destiny and wholeness from God. God designed marriage as a covenant to bless man and make him more spiritually mature.

Why do you think God wants to bless a marriage? It's for one sole purpose. So that He might be glorified. If the Church is the bride of Christ, then each and every marriage should aspire to the the physical manifestation of the invisible reality of Christ and His bride.

A good marriage is two individuals individually seking after God. As a result, they come together, in addition to having a common spiritual foundation with which to weather the storms of life.

@Truthseeker: Sure, a man and woman can produce kids- doesn't mean they will or that they're actually capable of it.

But why does having your own biological spawn more special than say adopting said spawn?

I don't think the ability to have biological children is important- what IS important is that they are capable of raising their children in a loving, moral, environment and teach their children that it's important to care about the rest of the world and that the planet does not revolve around them.

@HisMan: *eyeroll*

The purpose of the government recognizing marriage to begin with is that they recognized the unique relationship between a man and a woman to bear children and raise a family together. It was in their best interest to help them suceed and raise productive members of society. If you give the same rights to gays, then you should give the same rights to unmarried heterosexual couples or that is discrimination too, right PIP?

Well there's the thing ts,

any heterosexual couple can get married. There is no "test" you have to pass. It is not hard. That whole "discrimination" rant was unfounded.

HisMan,
That is why I say I would rather the government did away with recognizing marriage all together cause as a secular institution they cannot recognize it as a union between a man, and a woman, and God. Just another attack on the traditional family. But what God joins together, no man can break apart. Hallelujah

The Christina church of the first two centuries sought to avoid any mixing of pagan musical practices with their own religious experiences. Clement, for instance, forbade the singing of psalms and the reading of Scriptures in profane meetings so that Christians would not be confused with the "wandering minstrels, singers and tellers of tales of high adventrue, who perform their art for a mouthful of bread." All instruments were banned from Christian worship due to their association with pagan ceremonies and the low reputation of instrumental musicians. Although there are numerous references in the Old Testament to instrumental accompaniment in Jewish worship, by the end of the first century even the Jews no longer featured instruments in their liturgy. Musical instruments were absent from the synagogues since the Exile, and with the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD instruments disappeared from Jewish liturgy altogether.

Unlike the mystery cults that believed in the power of musical incantations, the early church Fathers affirmed that the word (logos) held primacy over the music. The early church Fathers often admonished musicians to keep the words audible and to avoid excessive musical elaboration. Solo songs and unison chants were preferred features of musical worship in that day. Writings by Basil indicate that men, women, and children all participated in singing. The texts for the songs were based upon Old Testament scriptures (principally psalms) or drawn from Christian doctrine found in writings comprising the New Testament.

One distinguishing feature of the early church was its devotion to musical improvisation often connected with charismatic utterances. In the first letter to the Corinthians the Apostle Paul writes about singing with the spirit (I. Cor. 14:15). Tertullian later noted that in second-century Christian gatherings, "anyone who can, either from holy Scripture or from his own heart, is called into the middle to sing to God." In succeeding centuries, however, this musical improvisation was abandoned in favor of a codified collection of chants or melodies.

Church music changed in several respects in the next millennium. In the ninth century part-singing contained two melodic lines sung in fifths or fourths. Centuries later independent melodies were sung in counterpoint to the main vocal line. At first instruments were introduced into Christian worship sparingly. One of the first instruments in liturgical services was the organ, which would reinforce the main melodic line--the tenor part. Later other instruments were introduced, but not just because they were popular in secular settings. In the 1500s the violin was considered an instrument appropriate only for dances or weddings, yet within a century it displaced its string counterpart of the viol family and became an important instrument in sacred music. By the sixteenth century instrumental music was fully welcomed in Christian liturgy and a variety of instruments would often perform with or without soloists or choirs. St. Mark’s cathedral in Venice, for instance, boasted two organs and "orchestras" of wind and string musicians.

The Reformation and Counter-Reformation greatly changed music of Lutheran and Catholic churches. Martin Luther took an active part in the preparation of a new repertoire of church music, with congregational singing encouraged. The Lutherans set German texts to new melodies and Catholic hymns. The use of contrafacta, that is the setting of Christian text or poetry to secular music, was widespread among Lutherans at this time. The Catholic church at the Council of Trent reacted unfavorably to the new German songs in part because some of these texts, such as the original text of Ein Feste Burg, condemned the papacy and customs of the Catholic church. The Council of Trent also sought to restore piety to the liturgy by banning "compositions in which there is an intermingling of the lascivious or impure, whether by instrument or voice" and by asserting that nothing may be sung in church unless it is taken from Sacred Scripture, or is at least in accord with it. As a result of the Council of Trent the Catholic church censored music and musicians more vigorously.

This overview of music in the Christian church while far from comprehensive does provide us with some points of discussion. In its nearly two millennia of existence the Christian church has employed roughly four criteria to determine what music is appropriate for Christian worship. These are instrumentation, style, lyrics or song text, and judgments concerning the results of the music. Although the context of music in contemporary churches may widely differ from historic churches, the same criteria have surfaced in current discussions.

Well there's the thing ts,

any heterosexual couple can get married. There is no "test" you have to pass. It is not hard. That whole "discrimination" rant was unfounded.
Posted by: prettyinpink at May 16, 2008 1:00 AM

Not true PIP and not a rant. To we who believe in the sanctity of marriage, we could no remarry. But you who don't believe could have civil unions over and over again. Say Julie is "married" to John. John passes away and he was the breadwinner. Now Julie is a widow without health insurance for her family. She meets Mike who would like to support her but Julie will NOT break her marriage vows by marrying a second time. Why should Mike and Julie be denied the benefits of civil unions just because they are heterosexual?

TS,

I really have no idea what you are ranting about. Legally someone can remarry if they are widowed. There is no problem and it has nothing really to do with their heterosexuality or not.