Abortion-a crying shame. (HOF thread)

Frank Ernest

New member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by :aikido:7

WHEW! At least I'm safe....

Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
 
Last edited:

Frank Ernest

New member
Hall of Fame
Originally posted by :aikido:7

Fundamentalists can't be accused of history, anthropology, archeology, literature, DNA studies, sociology, theology, papyrology and numanistics concerning the Bible.

:loser: Neither can you.
Bible study is actually "studying the Bible."

:darwinsm: Let me know if you ever get around to doing any.
 

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Originally posted by deardelmar

When the economy is bad, killing babys does not become more right!
That's a bit of "apples and oranges", dd. He was addressing frequency, not morality.
 

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
Frank Ernest loved the unborn
To hysterically protect he is sworn
But as soon as they're out
And playing about
He leaves them to rot like the corn
 

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Originally posted by Frank Ernest

:darwinsm:
Another "maundering" Talmudic lawyer arises.
How cute! Frankie learned a new word... :rolleyes:

It must really be unpleasant to be drubbed over the head regularly with your own holy book... :doh:
 

Zimfan

New member
Pie Iesu domine, dona eis requiem. Pie Iesu domine, dona eis requiem. Pie Iesu domine, dona eis requiem. Pie Iesu domine, dona eis requiem. :doh:
 

elected4ever

New member
Dear Friends of the Constitutional Republic,

The headline on a recent Joe Klein column in Time magazine (1/17/05) was Where The Outrage? He was writing about the Senate confirmation hearing of Judge Alberto Gonzales, President Bush choice to be the next Attorney General.

Mr. Klein's point was that there should have been outrage --- but wasn't --- because Judge Gonzales was complicit, at the very least, in the Bush Administration's decision to use severe physical interrogation techniques on detainees at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and elsewhere. He complains that there was nothing, not even a burp of public outrage.

Well, I, too, have been wondering about where the outrage has been concerning Judge Gonzales conformation hearing. But, I have been thinking about a different subject --- abortion. I have been thinking, specifically, about the following exchange between Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Judge Gonzales:

Sen. Durbin: The last question is a brief one, and it may have been touched on earlier. But when Senator Ashcroft in your position aspired to this Cabinet-level appointment, he was asked about Roe versus Wade, which he disagreed with on a political basis, and his argument was he would enforce, in his words, "settled law," and Roe versus Wade was "settled law" in America. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but could you articulate in a few words your position about the enforcement of Roe versus Wade or any other court decision that you personally or politically disagree with?

Judge Gonzales: Thank you, Senator. Of course, the Supreme Court has recognized a right of privacy in our Constitution, and in Roe the court held that that right of privacy includes a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. A little over a decade ago, the court, in Casey, had an opportunity to revisit that issue. They made a -- they declined to overturn Roe, and of course made a new standard that any restriction that constituted an "undue burden" on a woman's right to choose could not be sustained. My judgment is that the court has had an opportunity -- ample opportunities -- to look at this issue. It has declined to do so. And as far as I'm concerned, it is the law of the land and I will enforce it.

OK. So, where's the outrage to this response by Judge Gonzales from the supposedly pro-life Christians and conservatives who worked enthusiastically for Mr. Bush's re-election and voted for him? Where is the outrage at Judge Gonzales's refusal to say anything critical of the Roe v. Wade decision which is, arguably, the most appalling, un-Constitutional example of judicial activism in Supreme Court history --- a decision which simply invented a right to privacy which has resulted in the killing/murder of more than 40 million innocent unborn babies?

Before Judge Gonzales's confirmation hearing, he was supported for Attorney General by, among others, Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for Pat Robertson's American Center For Law And Justice; Tom Minnery, head of Public Policy at Focus On The Family: and Gary Bauer, president of American Values.

I repeat: Where is the outrage to this response by Judge Gonzales from the supposedly pro-life Christian/conservative community? Mr. Sekulow? Mr. Minnery? Mr. Bauer? Anybody?



A letter I received from the Constitution Party.
 

Art Deco

New member
Originally posted by elected4ever Judge Gonzales: Thank you, Senator. Of course, the Supreme Court has recognized a right of privacy in our Constitution, and in Roe the court held that that right of privacy includes a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. A little over a decade ago, the court, in Casey, had an opportunity to revisit that issue. They made a -- they declined to overturn Roe, and of course made a new standard that any restriction that constituted an "undue burden" on a woman's right to choose could not be sustained. My judgment is that the court has had an opportunity -- ample opportunities -- to look at this issue. It has declined to do so. And as far as I'm concerned, it is the law of the land and I will enforce it.
Where is the outrage? For what, delineating the present state of the abortion issue at the Supreme Court? What is his job? Enforce the law of the land. Does he say he personally supports abortion on demand? No.

There is no doubt that a pro-life majority on the Supreme Court will eventually overturn Roe vs. Wade. If it happens on Bush's watch Gonzales will again say: "As far as I'm concerned, it's the law of the land and I will enforce it."
 
Last edited:

elected4ever

New member
I have a question. In that the egg that is formed in the woman's body is never a part of the woman's body and that the egg when fertilize attachés itself to the woman's body and grows as a separate entity. Why is the fetus considered a part of the woman's body at any stage of development? Is a fetus considered as no more than a cancerous tumor growing inside the woman's body?

I submit there is a deference between a cancerous tumor and a fetus. I cancerous tumor when fully developed causes death to its host and a fetus when fully developed is dispelled from the body and springs forth in life. Why are the two considered the same?
 

elected4ever

New member
Republicans Offer the Unborn 32 More Years of Roe v. Wade

Perhaps we must come to grips with the fact that with Republican
President, Republican Senate, Republican House and majority Republican
appointees on the Supreme Court, 4,000 dead babies daily is the best the
GOP has to offer. ...

by Scott T. Whiteman, Esq.

In a December 16, 2004 National Review Online article A Pro-Life Mistake , Attorney Clark D. Forsythe of Americans United for Life recommended that State Legislators cease and desist in the introduction of legislation prohibiting abortion in their States. Attorney Forsythe counseled that since the Supreme Court is not pro-life (despite the fact that Republican Presidents appointed a super-majority, seven out of nine, of those Justices), it would be folly to introduce such legislation at this time. An old proverb comes to mind, "If not now, when?"

On November 2, 2004, the American electorate voted into office a Republican President, Republican House, Republican Senate and a majority of Republican Governors. The Supreme Court is made up of a super-majority of Republican appointees. We have, in America, undeniable Republican Party Rule. If the Republican Party is pro-life, now is the best and only time to effectuate any real pro-life legislation.

Those pro-lifers who refused to support the reelection effort of Mr. Bush were told that the election was about the judiciary and the Supreme Court - without good appointments, we'll have another 32 years of Roe v. Wade, we were told. Prior to the election, and since, was there any evidence from the White House that there is any intention to nominate pro-life justices? In fact, has not Mr. Bush nominated several abortion supporting judges to the lower benches, and wasn't his campaigning for Alren Specter (who has promised to block all pro-life Justices) evidence that Mr. Bush has no intention of creating a pro-life judiciary and of eliminating legal abortion in America.

Perhaps we must come to grips with the fact that with Republican President, Republican Senate, Republican House and majority Republican appointees on the Supreme Court, 4,000 dead babies daily is the best the GOP has to offer. Given the President's remarks in the third Presidential debate, that "reasonable people can come together and put good law in place that will help reduce the number of abortions," we ought not be looking to the Republican Party as the vehicle by which abortion will be made illegal. All the big-government GOP has to offer is regulations that might reduce the number of abortions. I know from a statistical point, 1,000 puréed babies daily would be "better" than 4,000 diced-up babies, but it is not better for the 1,000 the President has permitted to die on his watch.

I question why the director of Americans United for Life (AUL) would council his fellow colleagues in the pro-life movement to refrain from introducing legislation that would prohibit abortions. I can't help but believe that he shares the opinions of the Republican Party - and the President specifically - regarding minimizing abortions, and he is not committed to ending legal abortion in America. The AUL offers model legislation guides to pro-life lobbyists on Abortion Clinic Regulations, Cloning, Crimes Against the Unborn Child Act, Human Embryo Research, Heath Care Rights of Conscience Act, Parental Involvement for Minors Seeking Abortion, Physician-Assisted Suicide and Informed Consent Legislation. Not a one of the AUL eight recommended legislative strategies decries the legality of abortion. If, and frankly since, abortion is immoral and unlawful, it cannot be regulated without us acquiring the same bloody hands that the pro-abortion lobbyists have. Regulating abortion concedes its legality, and assumes that abortion is here to stay as a Constitutionally secured right. Apparently this is the best the Republican-minded pro-lifers have to offer - to concede defeat before the battle begins. Compromise requires that you be willing to accept half a loaf, we are told. Then the GOPers ask for a quarter loaf, and get about an eighth. Why has no one thought to ask for a loaf and a half? Preemptive concession - in this case that abortion is legal and will remain such - is the rule of day.

Additionally, regulating abortion creates new federal regulative programs, requires funding and oversight, and permits the pro-life movement to remain on its high horse demanding more federal intervention in abortion related causes. Keeping abortion legal for nearly 32 years now is quite possibly the best fund-raising strategy any lobbyist organization could have ever conceived.

It is due to this politically impotent view that I am not a member of the Republican Party. When you belong to the political machine, as Attorney Forsythe and his Americans United for Life, the National Right to Life and other compromisers satisfied with being the reasonable people the President suggested would come together and pass good laws permitting a certain number of abortions, you lose your taste for victory. What Mr. Bush, Attorney Forsythe, the AUL and others have effectively said is that they want abortion to remain safe, legal and rare. But, if every pregnancy resulted in a natural end (either birth or miscarriage), but abortion was still legal, the pro-life movement would have lost the battle, and the pro-abortion "rights" advocates would have won.

The GOP and the pro-life lobbyists have demonstrated their lack of commitment to the unborn, and they must, therefore, be opposed. They are no longer the friend of the unborn, and they are no longer our friends if they are unwilling to expend the political capital we have given them to protect the unborn. Parties and lobbyists are vehicles to advance a cause – if they stop advancing, it is time for us to find or create one that will.

The crux of Attorney Forsythe's argument (I'm not picking on him since in reality the grand majority of these "pro-life lobby" organizations would contend the same as he) is this: Legislatures, don't expend in 2005 the political capital received in 2004 since the courts will oppose you, and you will be slapped with an attorney's fees bill from the ACLU.

Legislators, if I may humbly submit to you an alternative to the preemptive concession of Attorney Forsythe: If you fail to act, you will be slapped with a bill for the blood of the unborn you have permitted to be shed in your State. As State Legislatures, you can interpose between the Judicial Usurpation of Roe and the unborn babies in the womb. Since Roe was decided unconstitutionally and fraudulently, it is void ab initio and invalid as against the States - but you must be willing to make and stand by that argument.

As a party to the Contract of the United States Constitution, you have an absolute right to insist upon compliance to it from the other Party, namely the Federal Government. Go right ahead, declare abortion illegal - you have, after all, also taken an Oath to the United States Constitution. To submit to Roe in your jurisdiction is to commit perjury of your Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

The only question left is this: If the Republicans elected into office are willing to make that stand, will the leaders of the Party and the pro-life movement support it? If not, and frankly my hopes are not very high, or if they are not even willing to raise Interposition as a remedy against a Federal usurpation of power, it is time to conclude that neither the Republican Party, nor the pro-life lobbyists, are committed to ending legal abortion in America.

Deo Vindicae,


Scott T. Whiteman, Esq,

What do you guys think? Any merit to Mr. Witeman's sugestion?
 

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
wake up anyone?

wake up anyone?

One reason there is such a "push back" reaction to the GOP/evangelical/humanist stance on abortion is that the members of these three groups cannot help noticing the inconsistent ethics demonstrated by those who claim to believe that "all life is sacred."

This overriding concern dwarfs scientific conundrums as to whether or not a fertilized egg is a human being or when is a fetus to be designated as a human being.

This "pro-life" hypocrisy is demonstrated all through the tone of Geroge Bush's inaugural speech, in which he claimed that America lives out its ideals in the spread of democracy throughout the world.

A vigorous attack on poor education, poverty and child nutrition in our own country seems to live up to our ideals better than any ill-conceived wars.

Besides, why NOW does the President frame our anti-terrorist crusade in this new way?

Is it because WMDs, WMD programs, pulling down a statue in Baghdad, and having the capability of making WMDs no longer work as justifications for the president's unconcern for the sacredness of life and limb?

Only George Bush knows, but he doesn't have to answer to any earthly concerns.
 

aikido7

BANNED
Banned
Why does being on fire for the Lord give one license for name-calling and pretending basic issues do not matter?

Specifically, How is it "communistic" to hold our hipocrisies up where we can all see them?

That was the point of my post, if you had bothered to read or think. Sadly, you did not.
 

Art Deco

New member
Re: wake up anyone?

Re: wake up anyone?

Originally posted by aikido7 This overriding concern dwarfs scientific conundrums as to whether or not a fertilized egg is a human being or when is a fetus to be designated as a human being.
There is no scientific puzzle as to whether or not a fertilized egg is a human being or when is a fetus to be designated as human, among reputable scientists. Using God given logic uncorrupted by cognitive dissonance, human life is seen from a linear perspective. Uninterrupted by artificial means, human life begins at conception and ends at natural death. It is, was, and always will be, scientifically speaking, human.
 

Art Deco

New member
Originally posted by aikido7

Why does being on fire for the Lord give one license for name-calling and pretending basic issues do not matter?

Specifically, How is it "communistic" to hold our hipocrisies up where we can all see them?

That was the point of my post, if you had bothered to read or think. Sadly, you did not.
Speaking of hypocrisy, does Aikido7 support abortion on demand?:confused:
 
Top