I think the only way such a stance jives is when a person is more concerned about the well-being of the folks already here on Earth. While I think abortion is a bad choice and should be avoided pretty much at all costs, I am most concerned about the people already here.

 

What constitutes them being here on earth?

Here is a thought:

 

What if there was a two strike rule. One murder, life without parole. Two murders( in prison) your gone.

Why? Which would be more punishment? A painless death or confinement to a cubbyhole till the day you die.

 

A cubbyhole where you are fed of the public's dime, where you can file frivolous lawsuits on the public's dime and where a roof is over your head paid for by the public dime.

 

Now if we could put them to hard labor and let them earn some of their keep that would be different but there's little doubt that some bleeding heart would have issues with that.

So in other words they need to see, read and understand God's word exactly as you do?

 

No not at all... IMO a minister should support his opinion with Gods word and that should be where his opinions derive from, not his up bringing nor his environmental influences JMO...

Show me that a human cannot make a mistake, and I will be for the death penalty. Until then, I will let God decide when people exit this earth.

 

 

Maybe you should let God decide when they enter this earth.

A cubbyhole where you are fed of the public's dime, where you can file frivolous lawsuits on the public's dime and where a roof is over your head paid for by the public dime.

 

Now if we could put them to hard labor and let them earn some of their keep that would be different but there's little doubt that some bleeding heart would have issues with that.

 

I would think that all of the legal challenges for those on death row msut be extremely expensive as well.

There is a difference, and unless you are being sarcastic you know it.

 

I’m not so sure there is a difference… A life is a life, death is death and it appears to me that most anti death penalty supporters have no problem taking the life of another person just the matter in which it’s took…

I’m not so sure there is a difference… A life is a life, death is death and it appears to me that most anti death penalty supporters have no problem taking the life of another person just the matter in which it’s took…

 

I was referring to the difference between killing a criminal on the loose and a criminal already in prison. The former is the only option to protect society, the latter is one of a few options (prison for life).

I was referring to the difference between killing a criminal on the loose and a criminal already in prison. The former is the only option to protect society, the latter is one of a few options (prison for life).

 

Seems to me the argument isn't whether or not to kill them but when it's acceptable to do so...

I will address this because I have openly said that abortion is the #1 and in some cases the ONLY consideration that I give in voting.

 

I have not a problem in it, because I feel that is the #1 problem this country has.

Would you feel better that I look at how a candidate will handle the economy and tax breaks meaning how much money is in my pocket compared to the importance of a life?

 

I am against abortion. I don't even make exceptions for rape or threat to the mother's life. Rape can't even be proven in court most of the time, how are we to expect it to be settled in a doctor's office? As to being a threat to the mother's life; isn't it a possibility that any woman could die in childbirth?

 

That being said, I will tell you that this is the LAST reason I would vote for someone. Talk is cheap. I would rather hear a candidate address the reasons why our society places so little value on life in the first place. I'm tired of politicians whose policies and practices are antithetical to the "Pro-Life" stance they used to get elected. I would prefer we all look at how a candidate would propose to solve the many societal ills (poverty, immorality, breakdown of the family, etc.) that would lead a woman to the abortion clinic door.

 

I got into some trouble at church about this in 04; when, in my opinion, George W. Bush really pandered to the Catholic voter. Well, it's been nearly 4 years and last time I checked abortion is still legal. I am realistic enough to know that striking down Roe vs. Wade is not going to reduce the number of abortions performed to zero. Abortion is an effect. Until we fix the causes, it will continue to happen.

 

I am going to be honest and say that sometimes I also resent being lectured by male politicians and clergyman who, because they are men, will never be in a position to choose to, or not to have an abortion.

 

LBBC, I guess this isn't that thing we're going to agree on...

We need to have a clear understanding of Roe v Wade. Overturning it, which will never happen because it is too much ingrained in our legal system, would not "outlaw" abortions. It would merely return the issue to the states. That's how it was prior to Roe v Wade. Some states held the practice to be legal and some did not.

 

Roe (Norma McCorvey) could have gone to any of several states for an abortion. However, she was recruited by the usual liberal groups seeking to have the Texas law declared unconstitutional and, thus, the similar laws of any other state declared unconstitutional. They were successful although, by the time the case was decided 7-2 by the US Supreme Court, Roe's (McCorvey's) baby boy was long ago born, placed for adoption, and adopted. Roe (McCorvey) was merely the vehicle used by the abortionists to get their issue in court and they were successful.

The last two posts help sum up why abortion is not a big issue to me when I go into the voting booth. Although I agree with LBBC that it is one of the most important issues in our world, because of the politicts of the issue, it doesn't enter my head in the voting booth. Politicians on the left and the right have used peoples strong feelings on the issue of abortion to hide other things they stand for, and trick people into voting for them. I cannot stand the thoughts that a hypothetical pro-life president would nominate a Justice to the Supreme Court, just so that the Justice would be a vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, and not truly follow the law. And the same for a hypothetical pro-choice president. I think the politicians have turned the abortion issue into a game, and they care more about who wins, than the real root of the issue.

Seems to me the argument isn't whether or not to kill them but when it's acceptable to do so...

 

Agreed. It's acceptable when there is no other option.

No not at all... IMO a minister should support his opinion with Gods word and that should be where his opinions derive from, not his up bringing nor his environmental influences JMO...

 

Hate to break it to you, but we all bring that to the table, including you and me. Jesus spends more time talking about the responsibility of helping the poor than he does children and unborn babies. Yet I don't believe he is forsaking either. Too many of us would take the care for the children to heart and leave the "social good news" as optional. :thumb:

 

I got into some trouble at church about this in 04; when, in my opinion, George W. Bush really pandered to the Catholic voter. Well, it's been nearly 4 years and last time I checked abortion is still legal. I am realistic enough to know that striking down Roe vs. Wade is not going to reduce the number of abortions performed to zero. Abortion is an effect. Until we fix the causes, it will continue to happen.

 

LBBC, I guess this isn't that thing we're going to agree on...

 

As I mentioned in my post, a Republican controlled Congress passed a Partial Birth Abortion Bill. Democrat Bill Clinton vetoed it. The Republican Congress did not have the necessary votes to override the veto.

 

Republican George Bush that you said pandered to the Church (btw, I see that as the Christian Church including but not limited to Catholics) signed into law the Partial Birth Abortion Bill that is now in effect and makes it illegal to allow the baby to be partially born and then aborted. Allowing this procedure the Clintons and the Democratic party saw as okay. So, yes, there is a type of abortion that is no longer legal in this country because of the actions of George W. Bush.

 

In addition, GW appointed two SC justices that hopefully will have some say in where Roe v Wade stands in the future.

 

While GW CANNOT just ban it since the SC said, sorta, in Roe v Wade that abortion is a legal procedure, there are other ways that it has to be attacked. And eventually, you hope the makeup of the SC reaches a point (BTW, that will not happen with a pro-life candidate whether it is a Democrat, Rudy G or Romney) that they will effectively overturn Roe v Wade.