Topic awaiting preservation: New Nomination to US Supreme Court (Page 2 of 5)

I never stated it was, I merely said it was argued. Many (including justice Ginsburg) view Roe vs. Wade as denying the abortion issue a "democratic" or "legislative" chance at success - i.e. the court ruled in favor of overturning anti-abortion laws, denying the movement a more "legitimate" (legislative) chance at success. I think it comes down to ends vs. means, and which is more important.

I've read this thread with great interest. Many speak passionately about the how this man will cause our country to change.

I am not a Xian nor any other thing but a man who if forced to identify his religion would answer something like 'Judeo- Christian-apathetic agnostic. I think thats not the point in this Judge discussion.

What will be the affect of this person, if confirmed, on the continuing attempt by the government to abort OUR freedoms. How soon before the people in power decide that our rights of ranting on this forum must be restricted as a brief example.

Yes, I to have an opinion on abortion - not sure why, I'm male - but I think there are lots more important issues than Alito's views of abortion. Lets look at some of those before we burn him at the stake.

quote:

---

cfb said:

I never stated it was, I merely said it was argued.

---

Ok....

the point was brought up, whether it was yours or someone elses, so I responded....

=)

Say, anyone seen Jade?

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Diogenes, do you have anything more productive to add to this discussion than simply trying to goad Jade?

Hitting a chord Moon?

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

Diogenes said:

Hitting a chord Moon?

---

I really don't get you dio.
What chord could you possibly be striking, other than the annoyance of derailing yet another thread with continued arguments about preist abuse?
(keep in mind I am someone who has pushed the issue plenty myself - but....c'mon. not every thread can focus around the same issue....)

Always keep 'em guessing.

It is not the issue of priestly rape of children, but jade's refusal to address it, which I find currently of interest.

There is also a surprising avoidance of the priest topic by all but a few of us.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

Interjecting it into every conversation will only increase that problem...

quote:

---

Diogenes said:

Hitting a chord Moon?

---

No, actually. I just find it a little juvenile to continue to call out to a specific individual after 15+ posts have gone by after said individual's last post and the conversation has very definately taken a different turn. This is a topic about the nomination of an individual to the US Supreme court. It is not about one person's inability to accept and understand the gravity of certain actions within the Catholic Church. If jade's response to your questions are so important to you, start a "Where's Jade?" thread.

Back on topic... I did some additional research over the weekend, and I have to amend an earlier post where I alluded to abortion being part of a constitutional amendment. Abortion is not part of any amendment, the RvW decision was based on several existing amendments relating to privacy.

quote:

---

jade said:

I don't feel sorry for them.

---

jade, I don't think our faith affords us that luxury. But I can certainly understand the sentiment. Feeling rage toward anyone who would intentionally hurt or kill innocents is buried deep within most of our consciences. This is one of those cases where we must remember to hate the killing while remembering to love the killer.

quote:

---

Diogenes said:

If you hated evil, as you claim, you would be picketing the Vatican demanding they rid themselves of pedophiles. That crime is abominable, but no less so than the ongoing protection of said pedophiles by the Vatican and other religious orders.

---

Dio, I am appauled at your lack of concern for the human life that exists in the womb. In fact, all I can think of is jack-booted Nazis terminating those they deemed unworthy of the status of human.

But I will agree with your point that I believe it is a worse sin (more harm done) to abuse young children than to abort 1st trimester fetuses. I've explained my theological reasons behind this in other threads.

quote:

---

RhyssaFireheart said:

First off, the government has no business getting into the reproductive business. None at all. It's not their concern, and until the collective government is raising and supporting any and all children, they need to butt out. Plain and simple.

---

Um... who do you think raises all the unwanted children in our society? Do you pay taxes? If not, then that may explain your words here. Government money goes to support all these broken families, single parents, and children caught in it all. I think the government should very much be concerned about these trends in our society because if the next generation is not being raised properly, then it is society itself that is at risk. The government is in the business of self-preservation as well it should be!

quote:

---

Moon Dancer said:

I am curious as to what others think of Alito as a nominee to the Supreme Court.

---

From what I have seen so far, I am very happy with this nominee. The simple fact that he has been called "Scalito" because he shares Justice Scalia's views comforts me. I was not real comfortable with Chief Justice Roberts precisely because he's middle-of-the-road as you point out, MD.

I favor justices who will do their best to avoid judicial activism. I want to see a court that will stick to its intended purpose and that is to judge whether or not laws written by the legislative branch are constitutional. I believe Alito agrees with this approach, and that is why I support him.

quote:

---

Moon Dancer said:

...It is not up to the Supreme Court to repeal R v W, that is up to the Legislature to do. Until legislature does so, it is the Supreme Court's responsibility to make rulings based on the law that exists as a constituional amendment. At this time, abortion is legal, and there are no provisions in the Constitution to afford protection to an unborn child. Any Justice who does not understand and rule based on this is overstepping his bounds.

So, as I see it, repealing R v W should not even be a topic for discussion when dealing with the Supreme Court. It is not their role. Any of you out there who have made a better study of American Civics, feel free to correct me... I most certainly concede that I could be completely off base!

---

MD, R v W is bad law and it will be repealed eventually. Why do I say that? Basically, because the Warren court overstepped it bounds by making law! The legislature cannot change a law that the court wrote when it came up with R v W. Remember that R v W goes far beyond saying abortion is a right, it goes on to spell out in detail developmental stages of the fetuses and considerations of their destruction relating to trimesters.

You point out that you recall from civics courses that the Supreme Court is supposed to judge the constitutionality of laws and I agree with that completely. They have absolutely no business writing laws as that is up to the legislators who are accountable to the voters. Justices have their seats for life and are not accountable to the people and should not be dictacting law to the masses. This was one of the problems our founders were trying to avoid from England where judges had tremendous power.

In order to come up with R v W, the court had to invent, interpret, or whatever you want to call it, a right to privacy in the Constitution. Based on that concept they ruled that abortion was constitutional right. I think the court had to stretch far too much to get to that ruling and the issue of abortion belongs at the state level where the people can have their say. Having unaccountable judges passing laws by decree is not my idea of a healthy republic.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 11-08-2005 22:17)

Your concern for "innocents" seems somewhat selective to me. What about the mothers who, for any variety of reasons, should not have children?

Where is your xian concern for these poor women? Are they not flesh and blood, do thay not bleed, are they not conscious and aware they are being hurt, unlike a foetus which is unaware?

Where is your rage against those who would force these women into lives of poverty, pain and abuse and very likely the children they bear as well?

Oh forgot, you and jade are those people, no wonder your rage is tempered in that case.

As for raising unwanted children, it is a good thing the government has SOME programs in place, because there is a noticable shortage of xian organizations stepping forward to help them.

As for RvW, the only reason such a law is required it to save people from the likes of you and jade.

In a rational society, un-influenced by narrow-minded religious nutbars, the question of what a woman does with her body would not be so much as a subject for discussion over a beer let alone intrusion by a group of people who believe in mythological beings and a collection of old shepherd's fireside tales.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

Diogenes said:

Where is your xian concern for these poor women?

---

It is in my words and the money I send to support a local pregancy care clinic for women faced with unexpected, unwanted, or otherwise crisis pregnancies.

May I ask where is yours? And, no, simply telling them to remove the inconvenient life form from their wombs hardly counts as a loving and caring solution

The reason killing the fetus is not the best solution is based in the pain and anguish that many women face after having taken that step. Despite all the propaganda designed to cover up the guilt, most women know that aborting a fetus is not simply the removal of "a slippery mass of cells from the womb" as you say.

When a woman is faced with an unwanted pregnancy it does not just involve her body but also a unique and developing human life. The best solution is one that results in a healthy outcome for both of them. President Clinton was on the right track when he said abortion should be safe, legal and rare. That last bit is what the pro-choice hordes forget, or worse, reject.

Outlawing all abortions is hardly the solution either. I do not share in that position. On a topic a difficult as this one, middle ground is the only workable solution for a society such as ours. Safe, legal and rare is what I support.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

abortion should be safe, legal and rare. That last bit is what the
pro-choice hordes forget, or worse, reject.

---

I have to say that based on my experience that is patently false.

I have known people who have had abortions.
And, although I do know that they exist, I have never known anyone who has done so lightly. I have never known anyone who has done so without guilt - sometimes massive amounts of it.
I have never known anyone to go into the situation casually, or without regard for the child.

Obviously, the best scanario would be that these people who know they cannot raise a child never became pregnant or never got anyone pregnant.

Equally as obvious is the fact that this scenario will never play out as well as we would all like.

The point comes down to the simple fact that the government does not have the right to tell a person that this fetus growing inside of her must come to fruition.
Personal views aside, the government does not have that right. A woman has the right to choose, and that should never change - period.

When I speak of pro-choice hordes, the last person I had in mind was a woman faced with having an abortion. I'm sorry if that point was unclear.

I am referring to the extremists who not only want abortion to remain legal but actually advocate women to have abortions. You will find this sort of practice occurring in your local planned parenthood offices regularly.

DL, on what are you basing your point about the government not having the right to make law about abortion? Isn't this just your personal opinion?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

quote:

RhyssaFireheart said:First off, the government has no business getting into the reproductive business. None at all. It's not their concern, and until the collective government is raising and supporting any and all children, they need to butt out. Plain and simple.


Um... who do you think raises all the unwanted children in our society? Do you pay taxes? If not, then that may explain your words here. Government money goes to support all these broken families, single parents, and children caught in it all. I think the government should very much be concerned about these trends in our society because if the next generation is not being raised properly, then it is society itself that is at risk. The government is in the business of self-preservation as well it should be!

---

I'm well aware that my tax dollars support unwanted and abandoned children in society today. I probably pay more in taxes than many because I don't get to take that discount for having children. However, there is no real way of knowing how many of those unwanted children were born because their mother chose to not have an abortion, or could/would not have one for moral reasons of some sort.

Government money goes to support many of these families because of a sense of entitlement. Personal responsibility for one's actions is passé for most people, and education overall is sadly lacking in many parts of the country. When the news article about the 39-year old woman having her 16th child came out, I was appalled. Partly because she is only a year older than I am, and partly because anyone would seriously want that many children. BUT - her and her husband chose to have a family that large and are supporting themselves, not relying on government handouts. In contrast, when I read news stories about women on welfare without jobs and having multiple children, frequently by different fathers... that crap pisses me off.

The problems in our society aren't going to be fixed by allowing or denying abortion. This particular issue is a good one because it does stir up so many emotions and brings out debate in almost everyone. It's inflammatory, it makes good press. But when children in many places aren't even receiving a marginal education, worrying about whether or not someone can have an abortion isn't the most important concern. Here's an example for you - I live in the Chicago suburbs and fairly recently there was a report released about reading scores in the Chicago area public schools. The administration was pleased because there was a 6% increase in reading tests. Sounds awesome, right? Except that was an increase from 36% to 41% (IIRC the numbers)! How can anyone be pleased with that? There are still over half of the students not reading to their educational level, much less beyond it! Hell, I remember being so proud of myself when I was taking those standardized tests and being told I read at a 12th grade level when I was only in 8th grade.

And I'm not trying to hijack this abortion debate into different areas (unlike Diogenes) based on purely religious/non-religious meanings. Religion, if applicable, needs to be part of a person's personal decision in that regard, but it should not be the basis for the overall general decision for the public. Some argue that the father should also be involved in the decision to have or not have an abortion, but as a co-worker correctly pointed out - as long as the man has the option to just walk away and remove himself from the equation, then it needs to remain the woman's choice solely. I'm not saying either that men shouldn't be involved, because many couples can and do discuss their options together.

Life itself has become considered as disposible at all levels, not just for the fetus /unborn children (pick which flavor applies) in the womb. Society is fucked in so many ways, yet we also can't deal with the bigger picture and instead focus on something that inflames our emotions and beliefs that we think we can affect in some way.

_____________________

coeur de feu
Qui sème le vent récolte la tempête!

Very well put, RhyssaFireheart, I find little to nothing I disagree with what you just said.

Making abortion legal or illegal is far less effective than fixing the problems that cause them to happen in the first place. It's a never ending struggle to be sure and the best we can do is to keep hacking away at it and fighting back the darkness.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Last nite on the PBS program Frontline 'The Last Abortion Clinic' presented what I thought, a well balanced airing of 'both' camps.

While Roe v.Wade is the case we're most familiar with there are several other cases I found interesting, specifically... Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. It would seem it is this case that has, at least in part, allowed "state-mandated (abortion) clinic 'regulations' that has shut but one clinic in Mississippi and other states are mandating similar 'regulations.

This link takes you to the homepage and I see that Thursday 12pm et. the program will be available online. Till then 'Interviews' provides basic positions of both camps... and there are a ton of other good links.

For pro-choice it's pretty disturbing for pro-life a time to 'thank the lord.'
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

DL, on what are you basing your point about the government not having the right
to make law about abortion? Isn't this just your personal opinion?

---

Well, when it comes right down to it, you can say that *everything* is a matter of personal opinion.

But if something is growing inside my body, that makes me the only one who can make a final decision about what to do about it.

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

When I speak of pro-choice hordes, the last person I had in mind was a woman
faced with having an abortion. I'm sorry if that point was unclear.

---

well, who do you think a lot of people comprising the 'pro-choice hordes' are?
And while I know there *are* people like those you describe, it seems ridiculous that you seem to sum up the pro-choice point of view in general as being the way you describe.
Also, having made use of my local planned parenthood services when I was younger, I can't agree with your assessment of them either...

Again, in my personal experience, the people fighting for a woman's right to choose are by no means promoters of abortion, and in many cases do not condone the action. It's a matter of having that choice, having that right - it's not about having the abortion, but being able to if that's what it comes to.



(Edited by DL-44 on 11-10-2005 00:05)

Right on DL.

Which takes us back to my and other's original point, that it's no-body's business but the woman's.

Full stop.

It is arrogant and ignorant to the extreme, for some religous follower to presume they have the right to force their unfounded beliefs on another person.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

quote:

---

When I speak of pro-choice hordes, the last person I had in mind was a woman faced with having an abortion. I'm sorry if that point was unclear.

---

When you speak of the "pro-choice hordes" the FIRST person you have in mind should be a woman faced with having an abortion!

quote:

---

Again, in my personal experience, the people fighting for a woman's right to choose are by no means promoters of abortion, and in many cases do not condone the action. It's a matter of having that choice, having that right - it's not about having the abortion, but being able to if that's what it comes to.

---

Spot on! I couldn't agree with this more.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

And while I know there *are* people like those you describe, it seems ridiculous
that you seem to sum up the pro-choice point of view in general as being the way
you describe.

---

There are plenty of people like what I described on the pro-choice side and I see, read and hear them on interviews in the media and demonstrations. I'm thinking about the representatives from NARAL and similar organizations. I'm also thinking about the Eugenics movement and the early views of planned parenthood about keeping the minority population "in check". But it is also true that there are horrible people on the pro-life side who are pure embarrassments to the cause.

I spoke out of emotion and anger at the absurd rhetoric that is so often heard by the pro-choice spokesholes. I believe there are far more people in the middle who want to find a reasonable middle ground solution for our society and the polls I've seen back that up.

I apologize for characterizing the whole pro-choice side in the way I did and thank you for calling me on it.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

Again, in my personal experience, the people fighting for a woman's right to
choose are by no means promoters of abortion, and in many cases do not condone
the action. It's a matter of having that choice, having that right - it's not
about having the abortion, but being able to if that's what it comes to.

---

I suspect your personal experience reflects the people who favor a middle ground solution. I sincerely trust that you appreciate that there are two individuals involved when a woman is faced with the question of having an abortion.

Because of that, I believe it is in the interest of society, friends, family, the father and the woman herself to see a healthy outcome for both if at all possible. This means that aborting fetuses for sex selection, convenience or other similar reasons is not widely supported by those who favor the middle ground.

But we know that most abortions are done for convenience. How does this square with Clinton's "safe, legal and rare" goal? My main question for you is are you concerned about the number of abortions performed in this country every year? If so, do you think it is in society's interest to find ways to reduce that number? And if you don't think government can pass any restriction on abortion then what do you favor to improve the situation?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

(Edited by Bugimus on 11-10-2005 17:17)

It is about a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body, Bugs. Personally, I am generally against abortion - but I support a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body.

I don't feel that society or the government should be attempting to tell a woman what she legally can or cannot do with her own body. Because history shows, if a woman feels she needs an abortion and is desperate enough, that she will do it, no matter what the cost and there is no power on this earth that will stop her from doing so!

To make things much more humane (why endanger both lives?), and because I deeply feel and support a woman's right to her own body, I feel the way the law is now is how it should remain.

If you happen to have a realistic alternative, one that works, I (and I would suspect more than 90% of all women who are considering abortion as well) would like to hear it.

WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles

WS, the law right now allows abortions up to the 9th month. We basically have abortion on demand right now. How can it be described as anything but extreme? Where is the middle ground and how does it support "safe, legal and rare"?

Let's take one example as a test case, would you favor outlawing abortions for the sole purpose of sex selection?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

it is, of course, very convenient to your position to quote the radicals amd ignore the mainstream.

I feel fairly confident 9th month abortions are almost un-heard of and then only in the most extreme cases where both lives are under dire threat.

However, all your bleating does not address the simple fact...it is none of your business what a woman does with her body.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

(Edited by Diogenes on 11-10-2005 21:12)

quote:

---

Let's take one example as a test case, would you favor outlawing abortions for the sole purpose of sex selection?

---

As I have tirelessly said and supported, Bugs - a woman should have the right to decide what is done with her own body. My personal, private feelings have nothing to do with the issue.

How can you call abortion on demand a mainstream position? Or are you? It's nothing short of extremist.

All the polls I've ever heard about abortion show that the mainstream position has most early abortions remaining legal while prohibiting abortions based on late term, sex selection and a means of birth control.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

How can a handful of simple cells, forming a simple organism be granted more privilege than almost all complex life forms in our world? Until it has developed into a recognizable cognitive human, a fetus is far less than a person. It's not even an animal, in many stages it is less complex than even bacteria and viruses.

If we are to say that early stage fetuses have a right to life, then almost all living creatures do, and we should really think about our treatment of plants and animals.

After it has developed into a living human, then it should be protected, no earlier.

Lets take it a step further. Should I feel guilty when a girl I am with uses a morning after pill? Should she? Maybe I?m one of those ?extremists? but I take this very lightly. Not only have I not raised objection, I didn?t even think about it afterwards.

Edit: I should make more clear, I don't support late term abortions for any reason. Once a baby is... a baby, it has the same ownership of its body that we all have, and has the same right to life.

(Edited by Dan on 11-10-2005 22:22)

quote:

---

RhyssaFireheart said:Some argue that the father should also be involved in the decision to have or not have an abortion, but as a co-worker correctly pointed out - as long as the man has the option to
just walk away and remove himself from the equation, then it needs to remain the woman's choice solely.

---

Your co-worker must have been a woman!

The man or father of that life, is forever monetarily connected to that life. Or at least for 18 years of that life. And if being monetarily connected, is not the point, all I can say is, "Try it yourself". All I'm saying is get a DNA test, you young men out there, if your told that YOUR THE FATHER!

(Edited by Zynx on 11-11-2005 01:32)

quote:

---

RhyssaFireheart said:Life itself has become considered as disposible at all levels,

---

Like the Death Penalty? Dam Skippy! Some people should die!

Aside from that, this planet can not sustain a perpetual increase in life. I did not research it yet, but I dare to say that life on this planet, exceeds death. All I'm saying is that life can not be allowed to infest this planet, without some sort of control.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

quote:

---

Bugimus said:Because of that, I believe it is in the interest of society, friends,
family, the father and the woman herself to see a healthy outcome for both if at all possible. This means that aborting fetuses for sex selection, convenience or other similar reasons is not widely supported
by those who favor the middle ground.

---

Then society should B better off by stopping imperfect births? I mean in the interests of "society" we should make sure there is a "healthy outcome". All I am saying is that, U can't pick and choose, based on hindsight!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
" The noblest pleasure is the joy of understanding, and being understood. "

Just a thought/question that I would like to pass on...

"If (Lord Forbid) Your Wife (or Future wife) got Raped...and became pregnant...what would you do?

Would you keep it...or Not

There is a reason for everything...that much is sure.

And if Abortion was/is outlawed... I hope there?s a limit on it (Aborting a 6-8 Month Baby...is just dang wrong...)
The way I see it...The Moment Its Little Heart starts beating...It is Alive.

Both Sides has there Points.... But unfortunately.... everyone is So Strong in something... there mind is closed and basically NOTHING can change there mind... and Once that happens... they are lost to there own belief and are Blind

.......................................
There Is No Impossable, just People Not Intellectual enought to accept it

quote:

---

Zynx said:
--------------------------------------
quote:RhyssaFireheart said:Some argue
that the father should also be involved in the decision to have or not
have an abortion, but as a co-worker correctly pointed out - as long as
the man has the option to
just walk away and remove himself from the equation, then it needs to remain the woman's choice solely.
--------------------------------------
Your co-worker must have been a woman!

The man or father of that life, is forever monetarily connected to that
life. Or at least for 18 years of that life. And if being monetarily
connected, is not the point, all I can say is, "Try it yourself". All
I'm saying is get a DNA test, you young men out there, if your told
that YOUR THE FATHER!

(Edited by Zynx on 11-11-2005 01:32)

---

Nope, co-worker was a man, and a father of 2 actually.

And as you said, you have to have proof of some sort that the man is truly the biological father, as well be willing to put the child through having the DNA test done. PLUS! once all that is done, good luck collecting if the father doesn't want to contibute. Garnish his wages? Sure, if you can. Why do you think Deadbeat Dads are such a problem in the US (and maybe other countries, I don't know honestly).

Let's not forget the spiteful and vengeful women who use their children as ammo against the fathers, and twist and manipulate the kids outlook to suit whatever they feel is appropriate. Don't believe me on that last part of parents manipulating their kids? Try this article on for size --> http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=1231684&page=1 WARNING! May get your really pissed off.

Anyways, back to the kids... I know about a lot of that sort of thing because the lives of my two younger brothers could be soap operas. The middle bro had DCFS brought down on him because his crazy ex-wife felt like saying he was abusing their oldest son, and she later admitted that she was lying. My youngest bro is paying child support, for a kid that he has no contact with, nor does he desire any because it was a result of the two participants being drunk out of their gourds and neither using any brains before enjoying themselves. And I'll be the first to admit I think my youngest bro is a moron in that case.

_____________________

coeur de feu
Qui sème le vent récolte la tempête!

quote:

---

How can you call abortion on demand a mainstream position? Or are you? It's nothing short of extremist.

---

I never called it a mainsteam position

My position on the issue was made clear many times in such debates before. If the fetus is capable of surviving outside of the womb, then clearly one should not abort it.

At the risk of being tiresome, you are all ignoring the basic fact it is none of your business what a woman does with her own body.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

I soooo could get into a heated debate over abortion, but frankly I don't have either the years to do so or the patience. Being a male I do feel that it is not a man's business what a women does with her body in this regard, and that RvW will not be overturned anytime soon.


I would hope that in the chance Abortion is banned I say that all of the women who are forced to have the child should leave it on the steps of the Supreme Court. This is a powerful image and would probably work to create a compromise between Pro-lifers and Pro Choicers.


The constitution is a wonderful document that is intended to define the National Government not what a female does with her body.

---
By reading this you have just spent a second of your time

(Edited by Patrick on 11-11-2005 10:56)

To clarify first off, I am not a commie liberal from Austin. Liberals and Conservatives are both idiot in some respect. I like to think of myself as a more Carlinish when it comes to Politics.

quote:

---

There are crusades that are in existence as we speak in tents and in stadiums and in halls all across America. Ever heard of Billy Graham crusades? Why are you afraid of words. There are physical armies that try to obliterate communism, oppression, evil, tyranny, etc. So there are spiritual armies trying to obliterate sin by prayer. We, as Christians are in a serious war always doing battle with the enemy Satan. And Satan's evil is very real ro us. In my sacrament of confirmation I promised to became a Chrisitan solider to uphold the truth of faith no matter how adverse it may seem in the culture of the times. The majority of the Christian faithful crossing all denominations are in coummunion with this belief.

To many of us Christian faithful, to have one more conservative who is against abortion, etc is going towards winning the battle against the horrible evil of aborting innocent babies. With his confirmation, we see a hope in our desire to change an injustice to tiny humans. Sure there are other important issues out there to be debated,etc., but the issue of abortion is a primary issue that preceeds all others, simply because it regards the most innocent fragile human life. We believe the power of prayer has helped in getting Bush elected so as conservative, he could choose a conservative court, which could unbalance and change the course of the court. I strongly believe he choose Miers and knew she would not be accepted, but it was a ploy use in the scheme to elect another conservative, and a Catholic, because Bush is a fetus friendly President. His aim is to reverse Roe vs Wade.

---

This sounds like a page out of the Pat Robertson's Handbook. Throughout history thinking of this nature has caused more death, pain, and sorrow than anything else, yet these are all things that Jade here is against. Answer this Jade, where is you hard proof that an embryo or fetus can truly feel pain or think for itself. Something that your God said or Dubya said is not proof by the way, although Im sure you believe it to be.

I will admit that during the last trimester a baby is capable of conscience thought, and it is a cruel endeavor to kill a baby at that stage. Im personally against abortions in the Third trimester, and that is why I think a woman should be able to make up here mind about an abortion before this and if she isn't then put the baby up for adoption or raise it. But consider Jade what would become of the fetus or embryo, it will be used to help the sick and dying people who could benefit from the stem cells from its death. So technically abortion can create and heal life.

This topic also brings up something else. What would be a crueler fate, an abortion or a life of Down Syndrome or worst. Some abortions are done because of this fact. This is not me condemning those who are living with a mental retardation, rather I am hoping to prevent the continuation of this unfair condition.

---
By reading this you have just spent a second of your time

(Edited by Patrick on 11-11-2005 11:23)

I am being perceived as unsympathetic to women who abort. I do in fact have sympathy for their souls after the act, but I do have no sympathy for the reason for the act, which deserves no aid. An aid that is a falsehood of love.


In the two years I have been on this post, as being the only Catholic in full communion with the Church I have been constantly been accused of being on the side of the priest who have been in darkness and those who did not make right decisions to cleanse the church of these horrible acts regarding the scandal. The approach to Jade has been, since she is Cath lets goad her constantly about the priest scandal to keep her on the defensive. And this is the only way we can attack her beliefs. I have always made a stand on my thoughts and feelings to these same individuals who constantly accuse me and there are at least (3) posters. For those of you who are new, I can only say you must refer to past archives on this subject and you will see my post. I will only reiterate this. People constantly fall short of the glory in their walk in life, but we can be forgiven and start anew as a people and a church. In the Church's past 2000 centuries, the scandal happened in this last century by a few individuals. It does not reflect nor taint other individuals who try to remain true to the gospels. The church will only now be strengthened she cleanses herself of those who would not do the will of God. A greater church now will be in focus as she resolves to show the goodness that she offers to all.

quote:

---

Nice post, Rhyssa. Unfortunately, you are blowing wind on deaf ears in this case. Such arguments and reason have been pointed at Jade before.

she'll probably just side-step the issue, or go off on a tangent and avoid it altogether, as she has always done, when faced and confronted with reason and logic

---

Web

You of all persons should know that what the Christian God is to Christians defies all reason and logic. We walk by intuitive faith of revelation. In us the spirit draws us to revelations in what is not tangible. No one has ever seen God to prove the existence, but nor can they disprove intelligent God's design. To many of us the world is an intelligent project that reflects a divine origin. And this project is still in process. Some are fooled by the atheism that they carry inside them. They imagine the universe deprived of direction and order, as if at the mercy of some chance. How logical is it that many people today are fooled by atheism & think and try to demonstrate that it would be scientific to think that everything is without direction and order. Through our sacred scripture, the Lord awakens the reason that sleeps and tells us that in the beginning is the creative word, the creative reason, the reason that has created everything, that has created this intelligent project. We understand that the cosmos is also love. We believe this from Psalm 136 in its pointing to the created world as the place to find visible signs of divine charity. The signs of God's love are seen in the marvels of creation and in the great gifts he has given to us. The church teaches us to recognize in created things the greatness of God and his merciful love toward us. I am constantly filled with wonder on the mystery of creation. Our God must be a beauty greater than any that can be desired, the beginning of all beings, the source of life, the light of understanding, and inaccessible wisdoms. The presence of God in creation is a "cosmic revelation" available to everyone, and we try to understand this revelation. This is aided by our prayers. We believe our God is not a cold and distant God, but one shares and is in-love with his creatures. We believe what keeps us in orbit and suspends us in time is the love and mercy of God.

Its my view that a knowledgeable can become what arrogant is. This happens in many walks of life even with some religious and the reason is because we take pride in worldly knowledge. We place a super on knowledge in details, facts, when the higher road is to seek God's interpretation of Wisdom, which is true, right and everlasting. Solely because we are looking for or getting a glimpse of the intellect of God. Knowledge is the accumulation of facts and facts are very important but wisdom is the ability to put those facts together and use knowledge of these facts with insight. Right? When your cluttered with too many facts you may get a narrow perspective. To me, this is one reason why the scientific world so often rejects God. They too become confused. The Lord can not be documented. He is too big for the microscope. He is also too big for a telescope. He cannot always be intellectualized in a way that is "rational" (save for a few arrogant philosophers) and he is not seen in the clutter of details. How often in daily life to do we see knowledge leads to pride and pride causes blindness, boastfulness, attention to self & self love, an, idolizing human intellectuals, where as wisdom is humble, loves and searches for God in all things. I know knowledge is important and we are to seek it to know our surroundings, but we are not to elevate it more important than trying to find God thur religion. There are Christians who decorate their cars with a "fish" as a symbol of Christianity and inside the fish it often says "Jesus." Evolutionists counter with the emblem of a fish that has evolutionary legs and the name "Darwin." So they have made Darwinism their replacement for Intelligent Designer. Can anyone equate Darwinism with Christianity ? Is an incredible series of accidents in the millions of them more likely due to an intelligence of God. And maybe the Christian God? Could our complex body from digestion to reproduction be the product of accidents ? How about lizards that can turn colors to blend perfectly in with their surroundings? Is this an accident? And the humps on camels? How about the elaborate spigots in the neck of a giraffe (that keep it from choking)? Is it a mere coincidence that some creatures at the bottom of the ocean have lamps on their heads to see (or bioluminescence to attract catch to their tongues)? To not realized the conclusion of a force far more above a greater than the theory of Darwinism is not sensible. Wow, I am way off subject.

For those of you who are new to this forum there is a very good abortion debate in the archives if it can be found. I don't have too much time to post these days as I have been out sick and must catch up. But, many contributors to that forum gave some very interesting views. There were very few of us who are fetus friendly on that archive but all the same its very interesting.

quote:

---

jade said:

he approach to Jade has been, since she is Cath lets goad her constantly about the priest scandal to keep her on the defensive. And this is the only way we can attack her beliefs.

---

You are so full of shit it's not funny, Jade...