Disgusting. I guess the human rights of the unborn just dont matter. There is no amnesity for those poor little human beings.

They totally contradict themself. And make me sick.

You stopped one paragraph short. It says:

"The organization was charged at their Mexico 2005 meeting to deal with questions of decriminalization of abortion, 'access to quality services for the management of complications arising from abortion, and legal, safe and accessible abortion in the cases of rape, sexual assault, incest and risk to a woman's life.'"

"Dealing with questions" is not as ominous as "signing on" to abortion. When an abortion, coerced by a Mariana Island employer, goes bad, should the woman be left to die? Rape, incest or assault is no big deal? The Bible says a fetus of adulterous origins SHOULD be aborted in Numbers 5:27. Is the Bible wrong?

You are reacting, not thinking. The world is not a comic book.

Posted by Mark Noonan-
This is both Satanic and Orwellian: Satanic because it bases itself on the lie that murdering unborn children isn't murder, Orwellian because "Abortion is Amnesty" is right up there with "Peace is War".

Yeah. What the heck do you say to something this upside down??

Congenital Idiot says:

"Dealing with questions" is not as ominous as "signing on" to abortion."

Agreed but to question the side of the issue they are on is disingenious. No one said that. Mark said there was a push to sign on. About that I have little doubt.

"When an abortion, coerced by a Mariana Island employer, goes bad, should the woman be left to die?"

Translation: I've got nothing coherent to say so I'll throw out a ridiculous strawman...still being a moron I see.

"Rape, incest or assault is no big deal?"

Are your reading comprehension skills above a chimp? I reread Marks piece and cant find that anywhere. In your delusional mind is that what he said? It would explain a lot.

"The world is not a comic book."

No its not but you sure are...lol

Congressive,

Coerced abortion is a horrific crime...but AI is setting itself up to consider elective abortion a fundamental human right, and thus any nation which does not allow abortion is violating the rights of all mankind...which, of course, aside from being abominable is quite stupid...how can a man's right be violated if a woman can't get an abortion?

The whole notion that abortion can even be a human right is absurd...but here comes AI, infested with lefties, getting ready to make that assertion.

Amnesty International has been firmly and unambiguously Left for a long time now. This is just the latest salvo.

And Mark made a good point about Orwellian doublespeak. As in his book, it is the property of the Left, and it's interesting to see how and when it surfaces.

As the abortion issue is based, or was the last time I tried to talk to a pro-abortionist about it, on the claim that it's OK to kill unborn children because "they are not really human, after all" or "not really people, after all"----I was once stronly corrected on that, though I didn't see any difference----let me ask:
Of all the times in human history that that claim has been made to "justify" murder, how often has it been proved to be wrong?

Off the top of my head, I can think of some recent examples.

It was "OK" to kill Jews because, after all, they were not "really human".

It was OK to kill American Indians, same reason given.

It was OK to enslave blacks, same reason given.

And that's just in the past 125 years or so.

The thing is, this is what is said when people want to do something for their own selfish reasons, and are looking for a way to justify their actions. This excuse has been used to slaughter millions, and when we look back on history, we are sickened by the acts done based on it. Why do we think that the perspective of humanity in the future is going to say that in this case, the case of the mass butchery of totally innocent unborn children, it will be justified?

I am truly sorry to inform you that you are officially rendered irrelevant. Again, sorry, but not really, and frankly, not too soon.

Cheers.

3moreyears,

sorry, but you are rendered irrelevant here due to accidental birth!

You See!!! that's how you sound! and how stupid you really are!!! "3more marbles lacking"

Jeremiah

I would like to say something, concerning this whole abortion deal!

I DON'T CARE WHAT ANYONE SAYS!, ABORTION IS MURDER OF THE FIRST DEGREE!!

EVERY SINGLE BABY THAT IS ABORTED, AND I BELIEVE THIS WITH ALL OF MY HEART!, EVERY SINGLE BABY THAT IS ABORTED IS THE VERY SAME INNOCENT BLOOD THAT JESUS CHRIST SHED ALL OVER AGAIN!!

THE LIBERAL'S AND ABORTION DOCTORS CONTINUALLY AND KNOWINGLY CRUCIFY JESUS EVERY DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!

Now you just think about it for minute!!

JESUS CHRIST WAS INNOCENT (HE COMMITTED NO SIN!)OK, HIS PRECIOUS INNOCENT BLOOD WAS HORRIBLY PULLED FROM HIS BODY!!

The bible says that the earth "groaned" under the load of sin that was cast off by Jesus crucifixion!! That the sky turned black with anger!!

Just think about it!!

That VERY SAME innocent blood is in the bodies of those little children! :(

THOSE PRECIOUS LITTLE INNOCENT BABIES are just like Jesus THEY COMMITTED NO SIN!!THEY ARE SPOTLESS WHITE AS SNOW!!!

BUT PRAISE GOD THEY ARE WITH THE MASTER!!

Man, I would hate to be in the shoes of those judges and abortion doctors who have that very blood on their hands!! AND THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO ANSWER TO GOD FOR WHAT THEY HAVE DONE!!

THIS IS HORRIBLE!! :(

LET'S PUT A STOP TO IT!! FOR THE SAKE OF HUMANITY!!

PUT AN END TO THE SLAUGHTER BY LIBERAL COURTS AND ACTIVIST!! AND DO!!! IT!!! NOW!!!

Jeremiah

"I am truly sorry to inform you that you are officially rendered irrelevant. Again, sorry, but not really, and frankly, not too soon."
Cheers. 3moreyears

THIS is your retort to Almiranta???
That's all you've got????

ROTFLMAOAU!!!!

"I am truly sorry to inform you that you are officially rendered irrelevant. Again, sorry, but not really, and frankly, not too soon."
Cheers. 3moreyears

THIS is your retort to Almiranta???
That's all you've got????

ROTFLMAOAU!!!!

Jeremiah,

Judgement day is nigh. Are you prepared? It doesn't sound like it. Good luck dude. I know, I'm a joke, go ahead and laugh. I have it on fairly good authority that I'm right and you're wrong. We'll talk soon.

Just as an aside, you my friend are an idiot. Sorry but you really need to get used to it if you aren't already.

3moreyears,

"I am not seeking glory for myself, but there is one who seeks it, and he is the judge"

Jeremiah

Jeremiah,

WAKE UP! You've been had! Sorry, but there's no other way to say it. You too will soon see what you would call judgement and I believe you will be found wanting.

Jeremiah,

I apologize. I generally make it a point not to engage with or reply to lunatics but have suddenly found myself responding to your posts. It won't happen again. Again, I apologize.

3moreyears,

Yes, God "HAD" mercy on me by sending his son Jesus christ!!

"the lord is my shepherd, I shall not be in want"

"I will fear no evil"

Jeremiah

3moreyears quote--Jeremiah,

"I apologize. I generally make it a point not to engage with or reply to lunatics but have suddenly found myself responding to your posts. It won't happen again. Again, I apologize."
__________________________________________________

That's perfectly alright!!

I realize the TRUTH hurts, does'nt it?

Jeremiah

Peace

It isn't fair for you to say that all liberals support abortion. Really, many people personally oppose abortion, but don't feel it is the government's place to mandate what a woman can do with her body. Also, if anyone really wants an abortion that badly, they will use a hanger... making abortion illegal wont stop them from happening, and working yourselves up over it is just wasting time. Why not keep it safe? Especailly if they will happen ANYWAY.

Drew,

I wonder if there ever was an attempt to us a coat hanger for an abortion...that has always sounded to me like something someone made up to make a lurid story. Honestly, its hard enough to get a hanger to slip into your car door to jimmy open the lock when you left the keys in: what sort of person would think that it would be the proper implement to extract an unborn child?

Do you know what happend to those "back alley" abortionists after Roe? They just hung out a shingle - the same people who were "butchering" women in back alleys pre-Roe, were helping women evercise their "right" to an abortion after Roe. Does that bother you at all?

Abortion is an abomination - a woman's right to her own body is absolute, but the unborn child isn't her body. Her "choice" ends precisely where the man's choice ends - in the choice to engage in sex.

And as for the "personally opposed" bit - well, how about I'm personally opposed to someone stealing your money, but don't think I have a right to impose my values on the thief? "Personally opposed" is just a coward's dodge - a milquetoast response to the issue; a desire to appear reasonable as opposed to chicken hearted.

I've met the female victims of the abortion industry - poor women who were suckered in to "choosing" to murder their children...they carry the weight of guilt and regret around with them for the rest of their lives.

It has to go - and it is just DISGUSTING that AI is trying to elevate a "right" to murder children on par with the right to life.

Mark, as I have said before, if Conservatives would let children be taught both the dangers and wonders of sex, abortions might not be necessary.

How does this not make sense? Good sex education will promote more responsible behavior. That is EXTREMELY logical.

But Conservatives refuse to see this, and continue to scream "You won't teach that to MY kid!"

Mark, Conservatives are part of the problem - can you not see that, or are you just to brainwashed trying to pin EVERYTHING that is bad on Liberals.

Grow up!

Let's ALL get together to solve the problem, instead of fighting amongst ourselves and making issues WORSE.

Abortions could be done away with (in most cases) if more people were given access to good sex education and good counseling, etc., that ANSWERED their questions, instead of just condemning them to Hell as religion usually does.

Robert,

Sex education, as presented in public schools, is just a program to get kids having sex at ever earlier ages. It was a bad enough program when I went through it 30 years ago, and its just gotten worse since then.

Kids don't need sex education - they need character education. Teach them a little self-respect - and especially that self respect is EARNED, not given - and you'll see the amount of teen sex going down...what self-respecting 16 year old girl is going to toss her virginity away on some slip of a boy who doesn't even have his own home?

Well? Jeremiah? Is the Bible wrong in Numbers 5:27? Should a fetus of adulterous origins be aborted as dictated? No one seems to have an explanation for this passage. But everyone says the Bible is infallable. Which is it, Jeremiah? Numbers 5:27 says: "If she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband, then when she is made to drink the water that brings a curse, it will go into her and cause bitter suffering; she will have barrenness and a miscarrying womb, [f] and she will become accursed among her people. "

Why doesn't God Himself demand the adulterous woman raise the child anyway? Or the adulterous man pay the child's way? Instead, it's aborted on demand.

Those who call me names are simply confessing that they got nothing. They've run out of dialog when they throw out "idiot" and "chimp." Personal attacks are supposedly not allowed here, but, again, it's just a symptom that you got nuthin'.

Zoot, nice dance, but you answered nothing. When abuses such as a DeLay-condoned coerced abortion as described in the link happen, should AI just stick it's fingers in it's ears and shout "lalalala... we're note listening..."? They have been asked to "deal with questions." Should they just "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil"?

"Head in the sand" doesn't solve anything.

But, please, somebody address the Bible's condoning abortion. And in fact, describing how a baby doesn't possess a soul until a week after it's born. Fundamentalists, if you need the link, I'd be happy to oblige, but why don't you look it up in your concordance for once.

ummm, nice try but uhhh, trying using a real translation please

And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, [that], if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, [and become] bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. (NKJV)

I dont see anything about miscarry, do you?? I dont see it supporting abortion, do you??

You are reacting, not thinking. The world is not a comic book.

No, but your posts are, and so is your life. You're wasting precious oxygen; go jump in front of a bus...

Kids don't need sex education - they need character education.

Truer words were never spoken, and Barney/Baloney, axis of stupidity, Ashley, 3morequeers, kookgressive, and mf53 are evidence of a lack of character education. What were their parents doing while these morons were growing up? Their parents were probably doing acid, coke, and each other.

Hey, threemorequeers, how about some substance? I know it requires research, but "a friend told me..." doesn't pass as substance here, moron...

Hi congressive

Please read the whole Old Testament and then the New Testament.

The punishment for sin in the Old Testament was death. People had to repent by sacrificing a spotless animal. Often the person who committed the sin died and other times innocent people would pay for the sins of others (eg David and Bathsheba’s first child died, because David committed adultery with Bathsheba).

This is exactly why Jesus died on the cross. He was the innocent sacrifice for our sins. He paid the price for our sins.

Hope this makes sense to you. Let me know if doesn't.

Cheers

JJ

necon wannabe: CLICK THE LINK to Numbers 5:27. Read the footnotes if you don't understand what "belly shall swell and thigh shall rot" means.

Thank you, keefer, for vindicating my post. Care to actually address any of those points? Just wishing me death says you got nuthin'.

JJ, I agree that differentiating between Old and New Testament is valid analysis of Biblical concepts. The problem arises, though, with homosexuality never being even mentioned once by Jesus, while divorce was veheminently denounced by Jesus repeatedly as adultery, period, no exceptions. Further, Jesus and the New Testament denounce virtually all violence,i.e. turn the other cheek and feed you enemy and give him drink, etc., while the current so-called war is justified through extensive Old Testament quotations. Jesus said "blessed are the peacemakers" which include Cindy Sheehan, but just try to find one, just one, Christian Right blogger who will say so. Just mentioning her name brings out venom and character assasination. Nowhere does it say blessed are the warmakers who have a good reason. And virtually ALL concept of revenge is thoroughly denounced as unacceptible in any way, shape or form, so "payback" doesn't fly to justify this fake war.

It's still REALLY unclear to me how God can not just condone, but require aborting an adulterously conceived baby in Old or New Testament times. But there it is. Bible thumpers claim the Book is infallable. Jesus Himself said he came to fulfill the Scriptures, not eliminate them.

Congressive,

God has set before man life and death issues!!

So it stands!!

"This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. NOW CHOOSE LIFE, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the lord your God, listen to His voice, and hold fast to him!!"

No question about it! Abortion is murder!!!

Jeremiah

I'll be nice this time. Congressive says:

"Those who call me names are simply confessing that they got nothing. They've run out of dialog when they throw out "idiot" and "chimp." Personal attacks are supposedly not allowed here, but, again, it's just a symptom that you got nuthin'."

Con, when someone constantly throws out ridiculous statements. Attributes them to people who never said them. Then expects them to defend a position they never took. What would you call that? Stupid, Disingenuous, Dishonest, how about the act of someone who really has Nuttin?

This is what is called a Strawman. The definition is; when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

I'll explain it further so there is no question.

1 Person A has position X.
2 Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3 Person B attacks position Y.
4 Therefore, in his warped mind, X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute anything close to having a valid point.

"Zoot, nice dance, but you answered nothing."

Another strawman. I'm going to type slowly in the forlorn hope you can understand. I wasnt trying to answer anything...didnt you notice. I was pointing out the totally idiotic irrational way you presented your, and I use the term loosly, thoughts.

Finally, your one to talk about answering nothing and having nothing. Mark NEVER said the things you attributed to him. You blip over that like a congenital idiot reading a book with big words. I asked several questions that were simple and direct, you answered none of them. Instead you whine about my denigrating your obvious lack of reading comprehension and honest debating skills.

Sparky you are the definition of having nothing. You want me to quit calling you an idiot then quit acting like one. Respond with coherant and relevant thoughts that actually address the subject under discussion. Suprise me, respond in an articulate and honest manner without the hyperbole.

PS.
"But, please, somebody address the Bible's condoning abortion."

I'm agnostic so this means nothing to me particularly. I am in favor of the right of abortion in the case of health or forced sex. I do know that my 2 precious daughters were my children from the day they were conceived and no amount of pseudo-intellectual BS changes that. About 30 I was partner to an abortion of my child...an act of immaturity and selfishness I regret to this day.

congressive quote--

"[f] and she will become accursed among her people."
__________________________________________________

You have an evil mind congressive!!!

You have tainted the holy word of God!!

REPENT!! YOU FILTHY BLASPHEMER!!

Jeremiah

I can, and often have, made strong and coherent arguments against abortion without ever invoking God or sin.

When any category of human life is devalued, claimed to have no significance because of age, development, or any other criterion, it is the first step on a slippery slope. If a life is not valuable because, say, it is within nine months of conception, or because of a physical or mental handicap at that stage of development, it is not a big step to extend that value judgment to a time beyond that nine months. It is the first step toward eugenics. When anyone takes it upon himself to decide that another person has no right to live, and society allows this, it puts that society into a precarious position.

I believe that when a society starts to not only abandon personal responsibility for its actions but to codify the ability to do so, it is entering a death spiral. I don't believe that any society or culture can thrive, prosper, or even endure once it discards personal discipline and personal responsibility. And when avoidance of personal discipline and/or responsibility is not only justified but honored, it is a death sentence for the culture.

I also have a hard time with the idea that any human being has the right to determine the worth of another or its right to live, based solely on how that life might impact that of the decider. If we were to extrapolate that beyond the nine months of gestation, any person could eliminate any other person who presented any kind of obstacle to the first person's goals. This would obviously present all kinds of problems, so we have had to come up with some wildly circuitous "reasoning" to allow this to occur in some instances but not in others.

So the Left has invented a magical line, which, having been crossed, invests the "fetus" with personhood. That line is the actual drawing of breath. On one side of that line, life is inconsequential, at the mercy of the carrier (who can NOT be called a "mother") and of no worth whatsoever, not eligible for any protection. On the other, the rules of society suddenly come into play. But the placement of this line is wholly arbitrary, and wholly dependent on the agenda of the definer.

The line, by the way, used to be at what was determined to be "viability"---the ability of the unborn child to survive if removed from the womb. The old argument was that if a child was killed prior to "viability" it was OK. When medical science made advancements that moved the state of vialiblity back to an inconvenient stage of gestation, the line had to be moved. Then the decision was that the baby had to acutally take a breath, resulting in the barabaric practice of parital birth abortion, which allows a fully-formed, fully viable, infant to come within about three inches of being able to take a breath, and then butchering it, as it writhes in agony.

No, not ALL Liberals are actively IN FAVOR of the wholesale slaughter of infants. But Liberals have been conditioned to believe that if they merely say they are personally opposed but don't think they have the right to impose their views on others, they are off the hook.

Nope. Liberalism is too often used to allow people to avoid the hard decisions, and to feel virtuous about doing so. This is a life or death matter, and not one for fence-sitting. If you do not come out against, and vote down, the ability to kill unborn children, you are allowing that killing to happen. And you not only have the RIGHT to "impose" your views on the murder of innocents, you have the obligation to do so.

You guys crack me up. You carry signs and make speeches about the President having "blood on his hands" because civilians are killed in a battle zone, yet you pretend that there is no blood on your own when you either promote, condone, or merely tolerate the killing of millions of infants.

You whine about the vividness of pictures of acts you either condone or merely accept, but you claiam it is because of concern "for the children". You just don't want to be faced with the reality of your position. It is a strange delicacy to demand that people be allowed to dismember infants, but to object to being exposed to the consequences of your demands. Concern "for the children" means allowing them to be born.

3 more years...how about arguing my position? Do you not agree that the argument of lack of "true humanity" has been the foundation and justification for abuses of people? Do you not agree that this argument was made to justify slavery? Genocide? The taking of land? The causal killing of "property"?

If you don't agree, say so. If you have another position, say so. If I am wrong, say so.

Otherwise, thank you for the excellent example of Liberalism---the arrogant assumption of the right to declare who is and who is not "relevant". Based, of course, on the inconvenience of the person targeted. Sounds like the first step to declaring who is and who is not a person, doesn't it? And the fallback position of those who have no other.

Sex education, as presented in public schools, is just a program to get kids having sex at ever earlier ages.

I love it when you say stuff like this, Noonan, because it makes your statements about how you "only argue from fact" and "hate conspiracy theories" all the funnier.

The point of sex education is get kids to have sex as early as possible.

The point of college is to indocrinate young minds into liberalism and punish conservatism.

The point of the media is to destroy Bush and nothing more.

All of the above are real paranoid-delusion stuff. Yet around here, they're accepted as conventional wisdom. Now that's good comedy!

Sees,

Here's as good a description of what sex education is about as I've found - and it is from an advocate of sex education:

Sex education, which is sometimes called sexuality education or sex and relationships education, is the process of acquiring information and forming attitudes and beliefs about sex, sexual identity, relationships and intimacy. It is also about developing young people's skills so that they make informed choices about their behaviour, and feel confident and competent about acting on these choices. It is widely accepted that young people have a right to sex education, partly because it is a means by which they are helped to protect themselves against abuse, exploitation, unintended pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases and HIV/AIDS.

Sex education seeks both to reduce the risks of potentially negative outcomes from sexual behaviour like unwanted or unplanned pregnancies and infection with sexually transmitted diseases, and to enhance the quality of relationships. It is also about developing young people's ability to make decisions over their entire lifetime. Sex education that works, by which we mean that it is effective, is sex education that contributes to this overall aim...

...People providing sex education have attitudes and beliefs of their own about sex and sexuality and it is important not to let these influence negatively the sex education that they provide. For example, even if a person believes that young people should not have sex until they are married, this does not imply withholding important information about safer sex and contraception. Attempts to impose narrow moralistic views about sex and sexuality on young people through sex education have failed. Rather than trying to deter or frighten young people away from having sex, effective sex education includes work on attitudes and beliefs, coupled with skills development, that enables young people to choose whether or not to have a sexual relationship taking into account the potential risks of any sexual activity.

Stripped of its doublespeak and various PC sugar-coatings, what all that says is that sex education is all about laying down what sorts of sexual activity is possible, and then telling the kids how to do it, with a pro-forma acknowledgement that some people (ie, parents and others who actually love and care about the chidren) have different views, but that narrow and moralistic views (ie, the views that 99% of parents wish to impart to their children) shouldn't impede getting the kids laid as early as possible.

So, Mark, where in those three paragraphs does it say anything about "a program to get kids having sex at even earlier ages," which is what you charges sex ed as being? Lots of talk about informing students, about helping them make proper choices, about reducing risks. But, "We aso want kids to start boinking each other ASAP?" It doesn't say that anywhere. Nothing even close to such an assertion.

So either you have a serious reading comprehension problem or you're a liar. Which one is it? Come on, now, don't be shy. You're the one who posted this, after all. Either you fail to comprehend it, or you'd rather lie about what it says. I'm guessing it's the latter--you've never demonstrated any sort of trend toward honesty. But I'm open to explanations that its the former.

By the way, I like the line that people who oppose sex ed are "people who actually love and care about the children," implying that those who favor sex ed neither love nor care about the children. It's a very hacky line--paticularly from somebody who wishes to be taken seriously as a writer--but a funny line nonetheless. It's completely baseless, but it helps you feel as though you've got some sort of superior stance, and after all, isn't that the point of this whole onanistic undertaking?

Now look at the cold, hard reality: abstinence-only sex ed is a failure. It just plain doesn't work. Study after study shows this. It prevents nothing that its supposed to prevent, but it sure does create a whole lot of naive teenagers who then engage in very risky behavior because, well, they don't know any better. So in actuality, the case could be made that people who favor sex ed are the ones who "love and care for the kids," because they are the people who actually want to do something effective, whereas poor suckers like yourself think if you tell teenagers not to do something, they won't do it. Good luck with that strategy there, Noonan. The rest of us will be trying to actually, you know, help the situation.

Listen folks, I think it would really help the argument to keep the bible out of this. I personally am not a religious person, and am suspicious of people who use a several hundred year old book to justify opinions in the modern age. It just doesn't wash with me. If you want to look like a backward hayseed, then by all means go ahead and quote the Bible, but frankly, you're doing yourself not favours.

I am against abortion. Notice that is possible to be against abortion and not be religious. I just don't feel comfortable with abortion on demand. It feels wrong. As far as I'm concerend, a foetus will eventually grow into a human being if left to its own devices, and that is enough for me to want it protected.

The problem is, in the real world people get stupid. They do stupid things like have unprotected sex, and then regret it when they get pregnant. In the past, they would have had to live with the consequences, but science has given them a way out. I suspect that most girls offered a clean and easy way out will take it, which is why abortion is so popular.

My question to you all is this: if you make abortion illegal, what are you going to do with the girls who have unwanted pregnancies? What happens to them and their children? If you accept that abortion is wrong and should be banned, you have to give serious thought to the consequences. That means more single mothers, and more unwanted children. It also means more mothers will be able to experience the joys of motherhood. Its the ones that take to motherhood badly that I am concerned about.

So give me some answers. What happens to the families if abortion is made illegal?

DPolwarth: "What happens to the families if abortion is made illegal"?

Well the family either decides to keep the baby or put the child up for adoption. If they decide to keep the child the mom will get a crash course in taking responsibility for her actions. She will learn how to be a mom. Life will be tough, but as most parents will tell you, watching your child grow into an adult is incredible.

And guess what else happens - that child is given a chance to live a life just like you.

What do you have against the bible? Do you know that from a historical point of view the Bible is one of the most reliable ancient source documents in the world? Now why would you want to dismiss something like that so quickly? What does the bible say that bugs you so much? Have you read the book of proverbs before - it has timeless, simple and powerful wisdom in it. eg: "Lazy hands make a man poor but diligent hands bring wealth".

The current generation wants to think that wisdom from the past is no longer relevant (I know Mark has spoken about this before on BFB).

congressive: Thanks for your post.

Many issues where not directly addressed by Jesus, however Jesus did discuss marriage between a man and woman on a few occasions. He also did not approve of homosexuality. The Apostle Paul does address homosexuality directly in the new testament.

Jesus, I don't believe was a pacifist (read the story of how he cleared out the merchants in the temple). The scripture with regards to "turning the other cheek" is talking about taking an insult (a slap with the palm of a hand, not a punch in the face).

I don't believe for one second that Jesus wants me to do nothing if someone punches my mom/sister/brother/friend/fellow citizen. It is my responsibility as a man and as a christian to protect and defend people.

When Jesus was sending out his disciples, he told them in Luke 22:36 to purchase a sword if they did not have one.

God gives life and He takes it away. I trust God completely and am ok if he wants to take my life away today even though I am 'innocent' and its 'not fair'.

JJ

DPolwarth: "What happens to the families if abortion is made illegal"?

Well the family either decides to keep the baby or put the child up for adoption. If they decide to keep the child the mom will get a crash course in taking responsibility for her actions. She will learn how to be a mom. Life will be tough, but as most parents will tell you, watching your child grow into an adult is incredible.

And guess what else happens - that child is given a chance to live a life just like you.

What do you have against the bible? Do you know that from a historical point of view the Bible is one of the most reliable ancient source documents in the world? Now why would you want to dismiss something like that so quickly? What does the bible say that bugs you so much? Have you read the book of proverbs before - it has timeless, simple and powerful wisdom in it. eg: "Lazy hands make a man poor but diligent hands bring wealth".

The current generation wants to think that wisdom from the past is no longer relevant (I know Mark has spoken about this before on BFB).

congressive: Thanks for your post.

Many issues where not directly addressed by Jesus, however Jesus did discuss marriage between a man and woman on a few occasions. He also did not approve of homosexuality. The Apostle Paul does address homosexuality directly in the new testament.

Jesus, I don't believe was a pacifist (read the story of how he cleared out the merchants in the temple). The scripture with regards to "turning the other cheek" is talking about taking an insult (a slap with the palm of a hand, not a punch in the face).

I don't believe for one second that Jesus wants me to do nothing if someone punches my mom/sister/brother/friend/fellow citizen. It is my responsibility as a man and as a christian to protect and defend people.

When Jesus was sending out his disciples, he told them in Luke 22:36 to purchase a sword if they did not have one.

God gives life and He takes it away. I trust God completely and am ok if he wants to take my life away today even though I am 'innocent' and its 'not fair'.

JJ

congressive,

Perhaps you are misunderstanding the meaning or intent of the Bible...

Those verses are about adultery -- not about abortions.

RE: "27 If she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband, then when she is made to drink the water that brings a curse, it will go into her and cause bitter suffering; her abdomen will swell and her thigh waste away, and she will become accursed among her people. 28 If, however, the woman has not defiled herself and is free from impurity, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children."

I know liberals claim these verses support abortion, and they cite them to "justify" their pro-abortion stand. Liberals use the verses in an attempt to convince Christians that the Bible supports abortion; and therefore, Christians should support the liberal's pro-abortion agenda.

These verses, however, clearly mean "thou shall not commit adultery" -- not thou shall have "abortion on demand." There is nothing in these verses or anywhere else in the Bible that promotes abortion for the sake of abortion. The "bitter water" was administered as a test or means to determine if the woman committed adultery -- not for the purpose of causing an abortion (if that's what is meant by causing bitter suffering, her abdomen to swell, and her thigh waste away).

The verses say the woman will experience the "bitter suffering" IF the woman committed adultery. It clearly states that IF the woman did not commit adultery, she "will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children."

There is nothing in these verses or anywhere else in the Bible that permits abortion to be used to dispose of the "unintended consequences" of liberal's anything-goes, free-and-casual-sex lifestyles engaged in for one's own pleasure and entertainment!

AAR

JJ, Thanks for the input. The turning over of tables in the temple is often used as a rational for a warrior Jesus, but no one was hurt in the fray, simply a few livelihoods were disrupted temporarily, and are back in business selling CDs and t-shirts in a tabernacle near you. I find it an impossible stretch to use this as justifying toruture and death. The lack of Religious Right indignation point to an acceptance of a bunch of dead Iraqis at the hands of this administration.

The only repeated scripture in both the Testaments that I've ever seen is "If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink:" in Proverbs and repeated in Romans 12:20 almost verbatim. This cannot be interpreted any other way, but that war in any shape or form is a SpeedPass on the highway to hell.

AAR, agreed all around, but the problem is that God aborts the fetus, a seemingly innocent player in the adulterous affair. If God were pure anti-bortion, He'd command them to raise the kid anyway. I don't point this out to use the Bible to justify anything. The more I read it, the more flawed it becomes. This is only problematic to people who don't surrender to the "mysterious ways" copout. I'm personally not pro-abortion, I am pro-active. Universal birth control and education eliminates the slaughter, so we can deal with the morality later. But in this country, ain't gonna happen.

In Samuel, God commands Saul to "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." God then gets upset because he didn't slaughter the sheep and camels. Had no problem with the suckling babies, though. God wanted them ALL dead. I can't wrap my head around this kind of God. Aparrently Jeremiah can, who seems to be having a fundamental breakdown.

Jeremiah, dude, you can't stand in judgement of anyone but yourself, no matter how many all-capital-letter threats you type.

The "liberal-anything-goes" dig is just wrong. "Liberal non-Christians have a lower divorce rate than Christians. PROOF HERE FROM BAPTIST WEBSITE Read it before you spout off about it. Anything-goes does NOT include anything non-consensual, meaning liberals are outraged by rape and coerced abortions practiced in the Mariana Islands protected by DeLay legislation, and slavery paid for by taxpayer dollars as exposed in Iraq. This burns us up beyond outrage.

"Anything-goes" does include informed decisions based on sound education, which reduces the "unintended consequences" to a much lower level than beligerant ignorance. But most righties call it "anything-goes" when in fact it's "who the hell are you to tell me how to live my life when yours is so FUBAR its pathetic?"

Righties tend to think people are just too dumb to decide for themselves, so they need righty leadership. Look how many times I've been called a "congenital idiot," which, by the way, is a horribly insenitive thing to shout as an insult given that those with congenital defects are in no way to blame for them. It's akin to shouting "gimp" at someone with multiple sclerosis. But zoot doesn't seem to have much of a conscience about it. Empathy is not his strong point. ""Zoot, nice dance, but you answered nothing." - Another strawman." Look up 'strawman'. You're not even close. But I admire your unbelievable honesty about your experience with abortion. No joke. Bravo. Had abortion been illegal then, you may not have opted for it, or your lady may have died as a result of a back-alley procedure. But criminalizing you or the woman would have solved virtually nothing. And had there been complications, Amnesty International is considering whether she should be left to die, or treated. A valid question, no?

I wasn't claiming Mark said half of what I wrote. I was asking questions that were a result of Mark's original post.

AI has been asked to deal with questions. Knowledge is power. Ignorance is death.

congressive,

The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and their entire population (except for Lot, his wife who later died, and their two daughters) were destroyed by God for their sins. The entire world population was destroyed on the flood except for Noah and seven relatives. The walls of Jericho were destroyed and the city burned. All of the first born of Egypt were killed. The Egyptian Army of the Pharaoh was destroyed. Check the Bible for many more!

You'll have to talk to God about his punishment for adultery. Apparently God feels pretty strongly about it because it also carries the death penalty -- stoning in the Bible -- as it still does in some parts of the world. As to whether the "bitter suffering" mentioned in the Bible is a miscarriage, I can't say personally. Those aren't the words I would use, but that's what some people say the verses mean... but only if it involves adultery!

The fact is... the Bible DOES NOT SUPPORT ABORTION for the sake of abortion... so why don't you liberals just stop trying to say it does? The fact is you liberals support abortion for the sake of abortion just because that's what YOU BELIEVE is right and that's what YOU want!

As for describing the liberal lifestyle (according the religion of liberalism) as "anything goes", "free and casual sex", "sex for entertainment, pleasure, and gratification", "if it feels good, do it", "anyway you like it", "get everyone involved", etc., I think that pretty much fits; although, if anything it may be understated!

As for describing the liberal view on abortion as disposing of the "unintended consequences" of the liberal's "sex is for pleasure and entertainment lifestyle"... yep, that fits too! Just a little house cleaning to tidy up after the fun!

Yes, I realize rape, incest, and a mother's life doesn't fit in to that category, but those are the least of today's abortions. Most abortions are those little "unintended consequences"!

As to rape, let's put some teeth back into those laws so people don't think of it as just another everyday crime! Do you remember when rape carried the death penalty? That was before liberals made it into a civil right's issue against Blacks and got their liberal judges to agree. How about some real prison time -- life -- or some death penalties to get people's attention again! Let's see it Oklahoma and the other states will be allowed to impose the death penalty or life without parole for a second or subsequent child molestation offense.

Let's start getting tough, really tough, with criminals!

Knowledge (and education) is power. Let's get those school vouchers moving so parents can choose a real education and get some real knowledge for their children. Let's give them some real power!

AAR

" wanted them ALL dead. I can't wrap my head around this kind of God."

congressive,

YOU NEVER QUESTION THE AUTHORITY OF ALMIGHTY GOD!!

HE KNOWS WHAT'S BEST!!

Jeremiah

No liberal champions abortion for fun. That's an absurd strawman. Rape, incest, assault... chicks dig that stuff, don't they? So when they get pregnant as a result, hey, they shouldn't have worn those open-toed shoes. They were asking for it, right?

It's funny how you don't know what the Bible means when it contradicts your crap. Read it HERE - CLICK THIS and go to the footnotes for a clear and concise translation of swelling belly and rotting thigh. Do not, repeat, do not take my workd for it (like you would). God clearly condones abortion is the case of adultery, which is generally a whim of the participants and not a violent crime forced on the woman. Sorry, there's no other interpretation for this.

God is simply down with death, as delightfully described by AAR, who also seems pissed that after five years in COMPLETE CONTROL, the Repubs have accomplished NOTHING by way of toughening laws, and in fact, have authored laws PROTECTING employers from prosecution for forced sex and coerced abortions in the Mariana Islands - HERE'S A LINK before you feign ignorance. Yeah, let's blame the liberals for five years of minority powerlessness.

Jeremiah, HOW DARE YOU QUESTION THE WORD OF GOD!?!? HOW DARE YOU COUNTER THE WILL OF GOD WHO CLEARLY CALLS FOR THE ABORTING OF AN ADULTEROUSLY CONCEIVED FETUS!?!?! HE KNOWS WHAT'S BEST!

You certainly put the "fun" in Fundamental.

"Jeremiah, HOW DARE YOU QUESTION THE WORD OF GOD!?!? HOW DARE YOU COUNTER THE WILL OF GOD WHO CLEARLY CALLS FOR THE ABORTING OF AN ADULTEROUSLY CONCEIVED FETUS!?!?! HE KNOWS WHAT'S BEST!"

"You certainly put the "fun" in Fundamental."
__________________________________________________

You see folks, you can bring out the true colors in people, when you tell the truth, the demons within the liberals, cannot stand the truth, so they come alive!!

And they have'nt a clue as to what they are saying, they are so blind, it is pathetic, well, they chose to blind themselves, so let God do the talking, and we'll see who's right and we'll see who's wrong when He returns!!!

"No liberal champions abortion for fun."

LIES!! ALL OVER THE PLACE!!!

That's what liberals are best at, and congressive here he is definitely a lyer!!

Congressive repent buddy and you will find the truth!!! but without God in your heart you cannot get rid of satan, so repent and start living the WORD!!!

Jeremiah

congressive,

Oh but yes, congressive, liberals do champion abortion for fun. Liberals are the one who promote the "anything goes" free and casual sex for fun and entertainment lifestyle, and then you promote -- demand! -- "abortion on demand" to eliminate the "unintended consequences" of your lifestyle! You want the equivalent of a "walk in" abortion clinic "on every corner" and then you have the nerve to demand that the taxpayers support those clinics and even your condoms (when you have time to use them)!

I realize that today's schools do not provide an education! We need to fix that with those vouchers so at least the parents who want a good education for their children have a choice and aren't forced to send their children to the liberal indoctrination system!

It is apparent that you are a victim of that failed education system. Having a majority of members in Congress who call themselves Republicans is NOT COMPLETE CONTROL -- far from it. As you may have heard, many of those Republicans are Republicans In Name Only (RINOs). Except for the fact that they count toward the total Republican count to determine who is the "majority" party, they might just as well be Democrats because that's the way they vote on many conservatives issues. Yes, I do blame the liberals for preventing Conservatives from FIXING the damage caused by over 50 years of your religion of Liberalism!

Perhaps your liberal schools didn't mention about those filibusters either -- where a handful of Senators, or even one Senator, can block even a vote on an issue. If you read the news you may recall hearing about that tactic from the Democrats to block issues -- judges for example -- where they do not want to allow a majority to vote for the Republican position. It takes a 2/3 majority to stop those filibusters, which Republicans don't have in total numbers and even less when the RINOs are subtracted!

I have read your "click here" link to your interpretation of the Bible -- many times. It does not promote or support your "abortion on demand" views. As I explained, it is a "test", a "trial" for adultery! It is about adultery -- not about abortion. It's amazing how you anti-religious, anti-Christian lefties can find something in the Bible to "interpret" the way you want, but can find nothing to oppose your views and lifestyle or support the views and lifestyles of those who do believe in the Bible!

Using your logic of separating the consequences from the associated actions, we can conclude that the Bible supports killing others fun. How? Well, the penalty for adultery was death (by stoning). So we just separate the action or crime -- adultery -- from the punishment. That means, using your logic, death or killing others for any reason, even just for the fun of it, is acceptable. Well, congressive, I don't see it your way!

Let's put the Bible back in the public schools where it used to be used for a textbook so liberal have a better chance to read and understand it! I'm sure you would agree. And that would help with these little misunderstandings about what was meant by the various verses. You do know that Bibles were used for textbooks -- especially at the time the Constitution was written and ratified! -- don't you?

The Bible clearly condones and support the death penalty, so let's reinstate the death penalty for rape. That might help stop some of your need for abortions since people may think more about a "casual-no-big-deal-rape" it they know it will be their LAST ONE!

As for your allegation that Republican have "authored laws protecting forced sex and coerced abortions" in the Mariana Islands -- I did not read that in the article to which you provided a link. I think that's probably just another liberal interpretation. If you are talking about limiting all of these ridiculous lawsuits that are causing American jobs to go to countries like China, India, and others -- well that's another things liberals have blocked. Liberal Democrats continually block Republicans efforts to stop those insane and ridiculous lawsuits that affect every person in America.

As for minimum wage, those laws eliminate jobs that would have helped low income families, older retired persons, and kids! They reward low productivity and lack of performance.

As to sweat shops around the world. Well I guess that depends of definitions. Some are worse than others. Are they all really "sweat shops", or do the people in many cases get paid to do work that is no harder than they would otherwise have to do in other jobs and be paid even less? Would a person in a poor nation rather work hard to earn at least a little pay on which to live, or would the prefer to be on the streets, digging through trash for food, and starving.. with NO PAY?!. I think most would prefer hard work to starvation and living in the sewers!

And what happens when you liberals eliminate what you call a "sweat shop"? The jobs go to another country and those you claim to help go back to their lives of starvation! But... at least they don't have to work in a "sweat shop", do they? Yep, liberals are sooooo kind -- they actually kill people with their kindness!!!

AAR