I agree with you CDW, very well written nm

• All those that think abortion is a WONDERFUL thing - this will fall on deaf ears anyway!!! sm
  • WONDERFUL???? - ExMQMT
  • What Bush's ban actually did...(sm) - Just the big bad
  • Maybe if we all supported family planning and free contraceptives - WORLD WIDE - abortion would no l - CDW
    • I agree with one thing you said. Abortion is - wannie
    • What does that mean.......if we all support? - not our job SM
    • Why is it...........sm - m
    • I agree with you CDW, very well written nm - Mrs. M
    • No, necessary evil is just a term used to excuse - the action........sm
  • Only on deaf ears if from misinformed mouth nm - Mrs. M
  • why did you choose the word Wonderful? - have you actually heard this subject described th
    • I definitely have.........ad nauseum PRO-CHOICE - NM
  • I looked at the article but I would like you to know - Christine
    • I totally agree with Christine and would like to add sm - Mrs. M
      • What does Republican have to do with it? - i don't care what party they affiliate with....
        • Because the repubs are anti abortion nm - Mrs. M
          • I used to be a Repub, and when they added anti-abortion to - their agenda, I switched to Democrat.
            • There ya go, I rest my case nm - Mrs. M
    • Oh, there's that self-righteous garbage again - sm
      • You sound irrational...killing ethiopian babies with your money? ??? - Mrs. M
      • So you could always - Christine
        • No, most of those murder enough babies legally as well..... - now I pay to kill others in ALL countries
          • Did you ever think to check his website to see exactly - Lynn
            • Where have you been? - sm
              • You have other options and yelling wont do any good - Lynn
                • Well, if you're so worried about your money - time to get involved.......sm
                • It's "phase"...... time to stop blaming Bush - you need to read up on Obama
                  • And you need to read your dictionary for correct spelling...... - #1 speller
                  • Bless your heart, my faze was entirely right, your correction of me is entirely wrong - Lynn
                    • oooooh....somebody had her little button pushed! - LOL........ nm
                    • Faze is absolutely right! sm - Christian without the hate
  • Looks like.......... sm - m
    • Like I said.......this man has no morals..... - he bends whichever way the wind blows.........NM

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

piglet.  What would you like to discuss?

commandment -  Two wrongs DO make a right. 

As I've suspected for a long time now, he's deaf and *dumb*!!

Thanks for posting this. 

 I believe I said in order to be forgiven, one has to 'fess up, own up, repent and go and sin no more.  This is a 1 on 1 deal with God. I have repeatedly said, in response to many issues, that God judges, not us but what I get is God will judge W and anyone else with whom we agree and who are we to say anything different but the liberals, the people of other faiths,  poor people, the spiritually bankrupt people, the **undeserving poor** as opposed to the ***deserving poor***, now that is a different story. We can and ought to judge them as harshly as possible; speaking out of both sides of one's mouth it would seem to me. In response to my unChristianness I have enclosed the definition of repentence with Bible ***links***. 

What is Repentance?

Repentance comes from a Greek word meaning to change one's mind. It is much more than feeling sorry about what has happened or regretful about circumstances and their outcome. The key element is the concept of change, of turning completely around. It involves both a turning from and a turning to. In the Bible it means to be converted; to undergo a radical change of heart and life, a complete turnabout of life.

The Shorter Catechism says Repentance unto life is a saving grace, whereby a sinner, out of a true sense of his sin, and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, doth with grief and hatred of his sin, turn from it unto God, with full purpose of, and endeavor after, new obedience.

The change of mind and heart comes as we move from a state of rebellion against God and the idolization of our selves (Rom 1:21ff; 3:10-19, 23). We agree with God in His assessment of us - we are sinners in thought, word and deed - under His wrath and curse. No longer do we seek to justify ourselves, excuse our sins, or try to merit salvation. Rather we comprehend the awful truth about ourselves - that we are spiritually dead in our trespasses and sin - and the wages of sin is death, and after that will come judgment. (Eph 2:1-3; James 1:15; Rom 6:23; Hebr 9:27).

True repentance is not putting on sackcloth and ashes, a negative preoccupation with ourselves. However to turn from sin and live for Christ, we must see our sin for what it is and how it affects our thinking and actions and this can be done most clearly as Christ bears it to the cross - God's response to our sin is such that he couldn't spare his own Son. (Rom 8:32)

Repentance includes Confession - the acknowledging of our sinfulness to God and our admission to Him that apart from Christ we are unable to please God. It includes knowing God's forgiveness, we can turn away from sin when we know our sinfulness no longer keeps us from God. And true repentance leads to new obedience. We are turning to newness of life, living now as God would have us to live.

True repentance can only come at the foot of the cross. It is inseparable from faith for this reason. Repentance is admitting that we are as God sees us, and He knows every secret within our hearts (Psa 139, Matt 6:4, 6). Faith embraces the Savior he offers for our salvation.

Only as we realize what our sin is before God, will we experience true godly sorrow for our sins (Cf 2 Cor 7:8-11) Worldly sorrow regrets the consequences, feels remorse that I'm guilty - it leads to death. If we dwell on our sins rather than viewing them in the shade of the cross - we would be driven to despair and hopelessness. But godly sorrow leads to repentance and salvation - we see ourselves as we are and hate our sin, humbling ourselves before God. True repentance is being honest with ourselves and with God without fear - because we trust God has dealt with that sin on the cross. (Rom 8:1ff)

P.S. All humans make mistakes. All presidents are human, ergo, all presidents make mistakes.

he is the money guy on CNBC. We listen to him sometimes, have read a couple of his books, and because of watching his show in Sept or Oct of last year, we pulled our money out of the stock market, which was the BEST idea. It is an interesting artcile to some, maybe not to others.

http://www.mainstreet.com/article/moneyinvesting/news/cramer-my-response-white-house

pertaining to personal workspace adornment (size, number and/or appropriateness of photographs, posters, banners, political content, sports memorabilia, etc.) then I would agree with you.  If you don't like the policy, don't work there.  Your office is not your personal gallery.

If the company doesn't want somebody hanging up a Soviet flag, then they're probably going to have to prohibit Old Glory as well.

However, if this is a policy formulated on the spur of the moment to appease a complainer, then I disagree.  What's next?  An Ohio State fan complaining about a Michigan pennant in the next cubicle?)  Nor do I agree that new policies should be formulated after the fact to deal with an existing situation just because nobody foresaw it.  If it's an important issue, then a rule should already cover it. 

If this is a public area (waiting room/reception area) then I am sure the company must have had the foresight to write a standard regarding decor, since all visitors will see this.  In my opinion, if it ain't covered in that policy, it should be okay.

Interesting that people voluntarily come to this country, going to considerable effort to get here, then so easily become offended and need special accommodations.  What is it they don't understand about "liberty"?  If an American coworker complained about the Ugandan flag in a neighboring workspace, there would be h*ll to pay!  Disciplinary action against the complainer.  Law suits!  ACLU involvement!   Paid leave  and free counseling for the Ugandan employee to get over the trauma of the event!

by a first-generation African-American woman (hard to get by with calling her a racist) in The National Thinker: 

Had Americans been able to stop obsessing over the color of Barack Obama's skin and instead paid more attention to his cultural identity, maybe he would not be in the White House today. The key to understanding him lies with his identification with his father, and his adoption of a cultural and political mindset rooted in postcolonial Africa

Well worth reading the entire thing:  http://209.157.64.200/focus/news/2278969/posts?page=1

I don't think some people realize the seriousness of the illegally invading a sovereign nation for what is truthfully nothing more than regime change, after being dishonest to the entire world about the true reasons for invading this country.

If/when it happens, they still won't get it.  And if/when more Americans are killed by terrorists because this president was too stubborn to care about America first and refused to implement most suggestions of the 9/11 Commission, the ones who survive the next terror attack will still be kneeling down and kissing his boots because they are preprogrammed to believe this man can do nothing wrong.

 knew there were pro-life liberals; just had to look for some.  She does not understand the stand some of you are taking, any more than I do. 

Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life

Consistency demands concern for the unborn

Mary Meehan, The Progressive,

The abortion issue, more than most, illustrates the occasional tendency of the Left to become so enthusiastic over what is called a "reform" that it forgets to think the issue through. It is ironic that so many on the Left have done on abortion what the conservatives and Cold War liberals did on Vietnam: They marched off in the wrong direction, to fight the wrong war, against the wrong people.

Some of us who went through the anti-war struggles of the 1960s and early 1970s are now active in the right-to-life movement. We do not enjoy opposing our old friends on the abortion issue, but we feel that we have no choice. We are moved by what pro-life feminists call the "consistency thing" -- the belief that respect for human life demands opposition to abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, and war. We don't think we have either the luxury or the right to choose some types of killing and say that they are all right, while others are not. A human life is a human life; and if equality means anything, it means that society may not value some human lives over others.

Until the last decade, people on the Left and Right generally agreed on one rule: We all protected the young. This was not merely agreement on an ethical question: It was also an expression of instinct, so deep and ancient that it scarcely required explanation.

Protection of the young included protection of the unborn, for abortion was forbidden by state laws throughout the United States. Those laws reflected an ethical consensus, not based solely on religious tradition but also on scientific evidence that human life begins at conception. The prohibition of abortion in the ancient Hippocratic Oath is well known. Less familiar to many is the Oath of Geneva, formulated by the World Medical Association in 1948, which included these words: "I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception." A Declaration of the Rights of the Child, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1959, declared that "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth."

It is not my purpose to explain why courts and parliaments in many nations rejected this tradition over the past few decades, though I suspect their action was largely a surrender to technical achievement -- if such inventions as suction aspirators can be called technical achievements. But it is important to ask why the Left in the United States generally accepted legalized abortion.

One factor was the popular civil libertarian rationale for freedom of choice in abortion. Many feminists presented it as a right of women to control their own bodies. When the objection was raised that abortion ruins another person's body, they respond that a) it is not a body, just a "blob of protoplasm" (thereby displaying ignorance of biology); or b) it is not really a "person" until it is born. When it was suggested that this is a wholly arbitrary decision, unsupported by any biology evidence, they said, "Well, that's your point of view. This is a matter of individual conscience, and in a pluralistic society people must be free to follow their consciences."

Unfortunately, many liberals and radicals accepted this view without further question. Perhaps many did know that an eight-week-old fetus has a fully human form. They did not ask whether American slaveholders before the Civil War were right in viewing blacks as less than human and private property; or whether the Nazis were correct in viewing mental patients, Jews, and Gypsies as less human and therefore subject to final solution.
 
 

Class issues provided another rationale. In the late 1960s, liberals were troubled by evidence that rich women could obtain abortions regardless of the law, by going to careful society doctors or countries where abortion was legal. Why, they asked, should poor women be barred from something the wealthy could have? One might turn this argument on its head by asking why rich children should be denied protection that poor children have.

But pro-life activists did not want abortion to be a class issue one way the other; they wanted to end abortion everywhere, for all classes. And many people who had experienced poverty did not think providing legal abortion was any favor to poor women. Thus; 1972, when a Presidential commission on population growth recommended legalized abortion, partly to remove discrimination against poor women, several commission members dissented.

One was Graciela Olivarez, a Chicana was active in civil rights and anti-poverty work. Olivarez, who later was named to head the Federal Government's Community Services Administration, had known poverty in her youth in the Southwest. With a touch of bitterness, she said in her dissent, "The poor cry out for justice and equality and we respond with legalized abortion." Olivarez noted that blacks and Chicanos had often been unwanted by white society. She added, "I believe that in a society that permits the life of even one individual (born or unborn) to be dependent on whether that life is ?wanted' or not, all citizens stand in danger." Later she told the press, "We do not have equal opportunities. Abortion is a cruel way out."

Many liberals were also persuaded by a church/state argument that followed roughly this line: "Opposition to abortion is a religious viewpoint, particularly a Catholic viewpoint. The Catholics have no business imposing their religious views on the rest of us." It is true that opposition to abortion is a religious position for many people. Orthodox Jews, Mormons, and many of the fundamentalist Protestant groups also oppose abortion. (So did the mainstream Protestant churches until recent years.) But many people are against abortion for reasons that are independent of religious authority or belief. Many would still be against abortion if they lost their faith; others are opposed to it after they have lost faith, or if they never had any faith. Only if their non-religious grounds for opposition can be proven baseless should legal prohibition of abortion fairly be called an establishment of religion. The pro-abortion forces concentrate heavily on religious arguments against abortion and generally ignore the secular arguments -- possibly because they cannot answer them.

Still another, more emotional reason is that so many conservatives oppose abortion. Many liberals have difficulty accepting the idea that Jesse Helms can be right about anything. I do not quite understand this attitude. Just by the law of averages, he has to be right about something, sometime. Standing at the March for Life rally at the U.S. Capitol last year, and hearing Senator Helms say that "We reject the philosophy that life should be only for the planned, the perfect, or the privileged," I thought he was making a good civil-rights statement.

If much of the leadership of the pro-life movement is right-wing, that is due largely to the default of the Left. We "little people" who marched against the war and now march against abortion would like to see leaders of the Left speaking out on behalf of the unborn. But we see only a few, such as D*ck Gregory, Mark Hatfield, Jesse Jackson, Richard Neuhaus, Mary Rose Oakar. Most of the others either avoid the issue or support abortion. We are dismayed by their inconsistency. And we are not impressed by arguments that we should work and vote for them because they are good on such issues as food stamps and medical care.

Although many liberals and radicals accepted legalized abortion, there are signs of uneasiness about it. Tell someone who supports it that you have many problems with the issue, and she is likely to say, quickly, "Oh, I don't think I could ever have one myself, but . . . ." or "I'm really not pro-abortion; I'm pro-choice" or "I'm personally opposed to it, but . . . ."

Why are they personally opposed to it if there is nothing wrong with it?

Perhaps such uneasiness is a sign that many on, the Left are ready to take another look at the abortion issue. In the hope of contributing toward a new perspective, I offer the following points:

First, it is out of character for the Left to neglect the weak and helpless. The traditional mark of the Left has been its protection of the underdog, the weak, and the poor. The unborn child is the most helpless form of humanity, even more in need of protection than the poor tenant farmer or the mental patient or the boat people on the high seas. The basic instinct of the Left is to aid those who cannot aid themselves -- and that instinct is absolutely sound. It is what keeps the human proposition going.

Second, the right to life underlies and sustains every other right we have. It is, as Thomas Jefferson and his friends said, self-evident. Logically, as well as in our Declaration of Independence, it comes before the right to liberty and the right to property. The right to exist, to be free from assault by others, is the basis of equality. Without it, the other rights are meaningless, and life becomes a sort of warfare in which force decides everything. There is no equality, because one person's convenience takes precedence over another's life, provided only that the first person has more power. If we do not protect this right for everyone, it is not guaranteed for everyone, because anyone can become weak and vulnerable to assault.

Third, abortion is a civil-rights issue. D*ck Gregory and many other blacks view abortion as a type of genocide. Confirmation of this comes in the experience of pro-life activists who find open bigotry when they speak with white voters about public funding of abortion. Many white voters believe abortion is a solution for the welfare problem and a way to slow the growth of the black population. I worked two years ago for a liberal, pro-life candidate who was appalled by the number of anti-black comments he found when discussing the issue. And Representative Robert Dornan of California, a conservative pro-life leader, once told his colleagues in the House, "I have heard many rock-ribbed Republicans brag about how fiscally conservative they are and then tell me that I was an idi*t on the abortion issue." When he asked why, said Dornan, they whispered, "Because we have to hold them down, we have to stop the population growth." Dornan elaborated: "To them, population growth means blacks, Puerto Ricans, or other Latins," or anyone who "should not be having more than a polite one or two `burdens on society.' "

Fourth, abortion exploits women. Many women are pressured by spouses, lovers, or parents into having abortions they do not want. Sometimes the coercion is subtle, as when a husband complains of financial problems. Sometimes it is open and crude, as when a boyfriend threatens to end the affair unless the woman has an abortion, or when parents order a minor child to have an abortion. Pro-life activists who do "clinic counseling" (standing outside abortion clinics, trying to speak to each woman who enters, urging her to have the child) report that many women who enter clinics alone are willing to talk and to listen. Some change their minds and decide against abortion. But a woman who is accompanied by someone else often does not have the chance to talk, because the husband or boyfriend or parent is so hostile to the pro-life worker.

Juli Loesch, a feminist/pacifist writer, notes that feminists want to have men participate more in the care of children, but abortion allows a man to shift total responsibility to the woman: "He can buy his way out of accountability by making `The Offer' for `The Procedure.' " She adds that the man's sexual role "then implies-exactly nothing: no relationship. How quickly a `woman's right to choose' comes to serve a `man's right to use.?" And Daphne DE Jong, a New Zealand feminist, says, "If women must submit to abortion to preserve their lifestyle or career, their economic or social status, they are pandering to a system devised and run by men for male convenience." She adds, "Of all the things which are done to women to fit them into a society dominated by men, abortion is the most violent invasion of their physical and psychic integrity. It is a deeper and more destructive assault than rape . . . ."

Loesch, de Jong, Olivarez, and other pro-life feminists believe men should bear a much greater share of the burdens of child-rearing than they do at present. And de Jong makes a radical point when she says, "Accepting short-term solutions like abortion only delays the implementation of real reforms like decent maternity and paternity leaves, job protection, high-quality child care, community responsibility for dependent people of all ages, and recognition of the economic contribution of child-minders." Olivarez and others have also called for the development of safer and more effective contraceptives for both men and women. In her 1972 dissent, Olivarez noted with irony that "medical science has developed four differ ways for killing a fetus, but has not "developed a safe-for-all-to-use contraceptive."
 
 

Fifth, abortion is an escape from an obligation that is owed to another. Doris Gordon, Coordinator of Libertarians for Life, puts it this way: "Unborn children don't cause women to become pregnant but parents cause their children to be in the womb, and as a result, they need parental care. As a general principle, if we are the cause of another's need for care, as when we cause an accident, we acquire an obligation to that person a result .... We have no right to kill order to terminate any obligation."

Sixth, abortion brutalizes those who perform it, undergo it, pay for it, profit from it, and allow it to happen. Too many of us look the other way because we do not want to think about abortion. A part of reality is blocked out because one does not want to see broken bodies coming home, or going to an incinerator, in those awful plastic bags. People deny their own humanity when they refuse to identify with, or even knowledge, the pain of others.

With some it is worse: They are making money from the misery others, from exploited women and dead children. Doctors, business and clinic directors are making a great deal of money from abortion. Jobs and high incomes depend on abortion; it?s part of the gross national product. The parallels of this with the military industrial complex should be obvious to anyone who was involved in the war movement.

And the "slippery slope" argument is right: People really do go from accepting abortion to accepting euthanasia and accepting "triage" for the hunger problem and accepting "lifeboat ethics" as a general guide to human behavior. We slip down the slope back to the jungle.

To save the smallest children, save its own conscience, the Left should speak out against abortion.

Mary Meehan has written for Inquiry, The Nation, The Washington Monthly, The Washington Post, and other publications.

the Supreme Court's decision on eminent domain, either, and I also hope that guy buys Souter's property and turns it into a hotel.  I love the name of the restaurant he wants to build in the hotel: Just Desserts.  (I can't remember which TV show I saw that on because, contrary to those on these boards who already have me figured out, I DON'T only watch MSNBC.  I actually flip back and forth between MSNBC and Fox.  I'm sure it was one one of those stations, though.)

And I totally agree with a woman's right to choose.

I do have a problem with partial birth abortions, based on my limited understanding of it, which is what I've heard the conservatives say about a full or nearly full-term baby being basically born and then "beaten to death" by the doctor.  (From what I've discovered from some conservatives on these boards in the past few days, I take everything they say with a grain of salt and accept the possibility up front that it's an exaggerated statement devoid of critical facts.)

But if this is indeed true, then I don't know how it could be considered anything BUT murder.  And I don't understand the issue regarding the health of the mother because if the mother can survive the delivery of a baby that can survive outside the womb, then the issue would seem nonexistent. (Again, I don't know that much about it.)

I also have mixed feelings about children and abortion.  One the one hand, it is a surgical procedure, and if my child can't even have her ears pierced without my consent, then certainly she shouldn't be allowed to have a surgical procedure without my consent.

But what about if she's been impregnated as the result of a rape by her father or other family member?  That sick stuff DOES happen in this country.  What if she knows she wants an abortion?  Should she be forced to have the baby?  I can think of situations where she might be safer if the parents didn't know, but yet I still feel the parents have a right to know.  I'm very conflicted about this particular issue and can't say I have a definite opinion.  That's why I'd like to hear more on the subject from some intelligent, thoughtful, nonjudgmental people.

As far as gay marriages, I admit I get a little "twinge" at the use of the word "marriage." It might be that something deep in my gut is telling me that marriage SHOULD be between a man and a woman.  After all, WE invented it and WE wrecked it.  I think they should invent a new name for their unions because from what I've personally seen, gay couples seem to last for a very long time, much longer than some marriages I know. As far as whether or not they should have rights, why SHOULDN'T they?  I don't recall a day during puberty when I woke up and made the decision that I was going to be straight.  Likewise, I'm willing to bet that no gay person woke up and decided to be gay.  I just don't understand why people are so threatened by the thought that a group might actually have RIGHTS in this country.  As with abortion or stem cell research, etc., if they don't believe in it, they shouldn't PARTICIPATE IN IT. I'm neither pro-gay or anti-gay.  (A quick look in the mirror, though, reminds me that I'm definitely pro-gray. )

With all of these social issues, as you said, we will "stand in judgment with our maker."  That's between us and our own personal God, and those with different religious/spiritual beliefs have no right to shove their beliefs down our throat.

I saw a post on the other board referring to when the U.S. was founded, saying that the vast majority was Christian but that others were given "the freedom to others not to believe..."  

NOBODY can "give" anyone "freedom" to either believe or not to believe, and the fact that this poster thinks they can is either very stupid or very scary, and I'm not exactly sure which it is. I think this is relevant because I believe there are some conservatives out there who don't only want the law to reflect their specific narrow brand of religion, but they would LOVE to be able to control what people think and believe.

Knowing that Bush is going to appoint one (maybe two before the end of the year) new Supreme Court Justice(s) scares me because, as you said, our rights are being slowly taken away, and this man has proven by his own actions that the personal freedoms of others aren't things that he cares for much, especially freedom of speech and ideas. That's why he banned anyone who didn't agree 100% with his views from all of his "open town hall" meetings.

We also have an evangelical Senator who holds a public meeting in a search and says that liberals aren't people of faith.

First, it's freedom of speech.  Next, it will be freedom of religion.  What about freedom of "thought." 

I wonder what their views on stem cell research would be if it was discovered that stem cell research held the key to developing a new technique to control thought processes of those who disagree with them.

However, I don't think it's because of President Bush AND his DADDY. I think George W. came into office hell bent on finishing what his daddy DIDN'T finish and only needed a reason, real or invented, to "finish" it.  And I totally agree with you when you say that this was his personal agenda. I think the disconnect is that many people want him to focus on terror, but his personal agenda has always caused his focus instead to be on Iraq, and I personally am very fearful for the future of this country as a result of that.

I believe they will definitely find a way to twist it if some are found guilty. Under no circumstances will they admit that this administration could possibly do anything wrong.

It should be criminal to expose children to such hostility and insanity. It sounds like real violence could have ensued if these whackos would have been crossed in any way.

I almost feel for some of these people.  A brief visit to the Conservative board left me thinking I should have worn a helmet and worn body armor.  Although it's a scary place over there, it must be terrible to exist inside a body that harbors such rage and hatred every day, 24/7.  I don't understand what has happened to their religion, but my Christian religion still promotes love, tolerance, respect and the principles of the Golden Rule, all attributes that seem completely foreign to them.  All they do is trash others and haven't contributed one positive thing to that board.

Sometimes I think there isn't much difference between these people and the terrorists who attacked us and other countries.  They both exhibit signs of mental illness, a maniacal obsession with controlling what everyone believes, and they both promote hatred, violence and intolerance in the name of their respective gods.  About the only main difference I can see is that the terrorists, unfortunately, seem to be much more intelligent in their pursuit of their goals.