PDA

View Full Version : House plan mandates payment for abortions...by all.



Eric Johnson
11-05-2009, 11:23 AM
http://republicanleader.house.gov/blog/?p=666

http://tinyurl.com/ya7a39c

Speaker Pelosi’s Government-Run Health Plan Will Require a Monthly Abortion Premium

Posted by GOP Leader Press Office on November 5th, 2009

Health care reform should not be used as an opportunity to use federal funds to pay for elective abortions. Health reform should be an opportunity to protect human life - not end it.

-more-

YardleyLabs
11-05-2009, 12:25 PM
http://republicanleader.house.gov/blog/?p=666

http://tinyurl.com/ya7a39c

Speaker Pelosi’s Government-Run Health Plan Will Require a Monthly Abortion Premium

Posted by GOP Leader Press Office on November 5th, 2009

Health care reform should not be used as an opportunity to use federal funds to pay for elective abortions. Health reform should be an opportunity to protect human life - not end it.

-more-
Right now,health insurance will generally pay for an abortion. What is being demanded by abortion opponents is that with enactment of health insurance reform and Federal subsidies for insurance premiums that coverage for abortions be eliminated from all insurance plans that would meet Federal requirements for coverage and therefore potentially be eligible for Federal subsidy. I personally find such an ideologically driven exclusion of coverage for a medically valid and legal procedure to be an outrageous intrusion of the government into private decisions. There is no real subsidy involved and abortions are not a significant financial component of insurance premiums now. Why not simply eliminate all insurance coverage for expenses related to pregnancy and child birth for everyone? Both abortions and child birth are elective procedures? Let people pay the costs themselves. Or let us eliminate all reimbursement under insurance programs for religiously affiliated health care providers since once there are Federal subsidies for insurance premiums, this could be considered Federal funding for religion.

The focus of the health program is to provide "vouchers" permitting people to purchase private insurance coverage that complies with certain minimum coverage standards. In no other instance does the plan exclude or prevent insurers from offering services that are in addition to those required. If there is a public plan, it would operate by the same rules as the private plans. The insurers are charging a premium for the entire service package. The Federal subsidy is available to pay a portion of the cost for qualified families as long as the minimum package of services is part of the policy. The same amount is paid whether the policy offers only the minimum services or offers the minimum services plus whatever else the insurer wishes to include. I do not see how the Federal subsidy could, therefore, be considered to be a subsidy of any of these optional services. The entire abortion issue is a red herring.

Bob Gutermuth
11-05-2009, 01:16 PM
This nation needs Osamacare or Pelosicare like the Boston symphony needs a kazoo player. Why don't the democrat leaders in both houses listen to the 56%+ percent of the people who want no part in this boondoggle?

ducknwork
11-05-2009, 01:18 PM
Why not simply eliminate all insurance coverage for expenses related to pregnancy and child birth for everyone? Both abortions and child birth are elective procedures? Let people pay the costs themselves. Or let us eliminate all reimbursement under insurance programs for religiously affiliated health care providers since once there are Federal subsidies for insurance premiums, this could be considered Federal funding for religion.


Which one of the examples that you gave as comparison to abortion directly strip the basic right to life from a human being?

I'm waiting.

Bob Gutermuth
11-05-2009, 01:29 PM
You will wait till hades freezes over for an answer to that question from anyone on the left.

Eric Johnson
11-05-2009, 01:48 PM
Jeff-

In my 20+ years of operating email lists, the phrase "The entire X issue is a red herring." is usually an indicator that the poster is unable to counter the argument with logic. By declaring it a red herring they are dismissing the issue or the poster or both. Truly, you can do better.

The issue is not whether insurance will or will not pay for an abortion. The issue is whether or not I must contribute to a fund that pays for abortions. Currently I do. However, I have the choice of doing so...or not. Under the plan being discussed in the House, I won't have that choice.

Eric

road kill
11-05-2009, 01:59 PM
Right now,health insurance will generally pay for an abortion. What is being demanded by abortion opponents is that with enactment of health insurance reform and Federal subsidies for insurance premiums that coverage for abortions be eliminated from all insurance plans that would meet Federal requirements for coverage and therefore potentially be eligible for Federal subsidy. I personally find such an ideologically driven exclusion of coverage for a medically valid and legal procedure to be an outrageous intrusion of the government into private decisions. There is no real subsidy involved and abortions are not a significant financial component of insurance premiums now. Why not simply eliminate all insurance coverage for expenses related to pregnancy and child birth for everyone? Both abortions and child birth are elective procedures? Let people pay the costs themselves. Or let us eliminate all reimbursement under insurance programs for religiously affiliated health care providers since once there are Federal subsidies for insurance premiums, this could be considered Federal funding for religion.

The focus of the health program is to provide "vouchers" permitting people to purchase private insurance coverage that complies with certain minimum coverage standards. In no other instance does the plan exclude or prevent insurers from offering services that are in addition to those required. If there is a public plan, it would operate by the same rules as the private plans. The insurers are charging a premium for the entire service package. The Federal subsidy is available to pay a portion of the cost for qualified families as long as the minimum package of services is part of the policy. The same amount is paid whether the policy offers only the minimum services or offers the minimum services plus whatever else the insurer wishes to include. I do not see how the Federal subsidy could, therefore, be considered to be a subsidy of any of these optional services. The entire abortion issue is a red herring.


All you need to know about the guy, right there!!

Child birth and abortion moral equivalancy judgement by the "Sole Possesor of the Truth!!"

Pathetic.

It might shock you to know that some of us respect life, even nonviable tissue mass'.

YardleyLabs
11-05-2009, 03:17 PM
Actually, it's not an issue of moral equivalency at all. Abortion, whether you like it or not, is a completely legal medical procedure. For as long as that is true, it has the same status as any other medical procedure, whether that be a tonsillectomy or a heart bypass. For those who believe that abortions are a form of murder, the answer is simple -- convince enough people to change the law and it can be driven back into the alleys where our children can risk their futures and their lives to end pregnancies with which they cannot live. Personally, I remember the pre-Roe v. Wade world too well to ever want to see it return.

However, as long as the procedure remains legal, one should be careful about which approaches are used in efforts to make it more difficult. For each such road sets a precedent that will inevitably be used against some other procedure in the future. Maybe the next target will be birth control or sterilization procedures, or maybe even child birth expenses for any more than ten (nine, eight, seven....) children because why should we all have to subsidize the irresponsible profligacy of the few?

blind ambition
11-05-2009, 03:47 PM
This nation needs Osamacare or Pelosicare like the Boston symphony needs a kazoo player. Why don't the democrat leaders in both houses listen to the 56%+ percent of the people who want no part in this boondoggle?

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121664/majority-favors-healthcare-reform-this-year.aspx

Bob Gutermuth
11-05-2009, 03:51 PM
Not according to Rassmussen.

blind ambition
11-05-2009, 03:59 PM
Jeff-


The issue is not whether insurance will or will not pay for an abortion. The issue is whether or not I must contribute to a fund that pays for abortions. Currently I do. However, I have the choice of doing so...or not. Under the plan being discussed in the House, I won't have that choice.

Eric

Sir; with respect, would you accept an initiative from a religious group to remove taxpayer funding for blood transfusions? There are many who would rather die than submit to this common life saving procedure? Some decisions are best left to the Doctor and patient for the good of all our interests.

blind ambition
11-05-2009, 04:11 PM
Not according to Rassmussen.


I didn't dare post from sources which quoted approval for Obamacare at 70+%
Glad you found a poll you approve of.

YardleyLabs
11-05-2009, 04:21 PM
Not according to Rassmussen.
It's all a matter of how you word the question. Rasmussen asks:

"Generally speaking, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats?"

Gallup asks:
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/prk--aywqe2rohpeefcvva.gif


With respect to bills, Gallup asks a different question and gets still a different result.
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ilgxhlabweuaaydf7g_3rq.gif

When pressed to express an opinion, a small majority favor passage and about 10% less oppose passage.

On the issue of who to trust in structuring health care, the answers become more interesting:


http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/hvafgwg5wum3k_9be-rmpg.gif

In the final analysis, independents remain almost evenly divided on issues of health care. Democrats favor passage very strongly, and Republicans oppose passage very strongly. The votes in Congress are most likely to reflect this reality. A Democrat voting against reform will likely lost the support of their base and will not get any more votes from Republicans. Similarly, a Republican voting for reform would lose support from their base ad still not win support from Democrats. That pretty much says that the vote will follow partisan lines and, if the Democrats hold together, will pass. Whether reform passes or not, I suspect that Democrats will lose seats in 2010. I suspect they will lose more seats if the fail to pass reform than they will if they succeed.

subroc
11-05-2009, 06:04 PM
Actually, it's not an issue of moral equivalency at all. Abortion, whether you like it or not, is a completely legal medical procedure. For as long as that is true, it has the same status as any other medical procedure, whether that be a tonsillectomy or a heart bypass. For those who believe that abortions are a form of murder, the answer is simple -- convince enough people to change the law and it can be driven back into the alleys where our children can risk their futures and their lives to end pregnancies with which they cannot live. Personally, I remember the pre-Roe v. Wade world too well to ever want to see it return.

However, as long as the procedure remains legal, one should be careful about which approaches are used in efforts to make it more difficult. For each such road sets a precedent that will inevitably be used against some other procedure in the future. Maybe the next target will be birth control or sterilization procedures, or maybe even child birth expenses for any more than ten (nine, eight, seven....) children because why should we all have to subsidize the irresponsible profligacy of the few?

To try to frame abortion as just a "legal medical procedure” is a bit silly.

When considering first term and even second term abortions, I expect the case could be made that it is just a legal medical procedure.

But, when considering a third term viable fetus it isn't as simple as that.

YardleyLabs
11-05-2009, 06:17 PM
To try to frame abortion as just a "legal medical procedure” is a bit silly.

When considering first term and even second term abortions, I expect the case could be made that it is just a legal medical procedure.

But, when considering a third term viable fetus it isn't as simple as that.
There are very few third trimester abortions being performed anywhere and most that are performed that late are not elective. There is also an absolute legal mandate to preserve the life of any viable fetus. The attack is on first and second trimester abortions using the imagery of something that almost never happens. Personally, I would have no problems with a law that limited abortions to the first 20-21 weeks of pregnancy except in cases where the procedure was essential to protect the life and health of the mother. Currently, about 1.4% of abortions fall into this category. About 0.08% occur at 24 weeks or later (~1000/year), the point at which a fetus might potentially be viable.

Raymond Little
11-05-2009, 07:45 PM
There are very few third trimester abortions being performed anywhere and most that are performed that late are not elective. There is also an absolute legal mandate to preserve the life of any viable fetus. The attack is on first and second trimester abortions using the imagery of something that almost never happens. Personally, I would have no problems with a law that limited abortions to the first 20-21 weeks of pregnancy except in cases where the procedure was essential to protect the life and health of the mother. Currently, about 1.4% of abortions fall into this category. About 0.08% occur at 24 weeks or later (~1000/year), the point at which a fetus might potentially be viable.

ZERO % WILL EVER BE PREFORMED IN KANSAS ANYMORE.;)

YardleyLabs
11-05-2009, 08:27 PM
ZERO % WILL EVER BE PREFORMED IN KANSAS ANYMORE.;)
Really? What happened? Their last ban was overturned by the COTUS. Was another one passed?

ducknwork
11-05-2009, 08:33 PM
Sir; with respect, would you accept an initiative from a religious group to remove taxpayer funding for blood transfusions? There are many who would rather die than submit to this common life saving procedure? Some decisions are best left to the Doctor and patient for the good of all our interests.

Does a blood transfusion strip the right to life away from a human being?

Bob Gutermuth
11-05-2009, 09:21 PM
Why is it that people who favor the abortion of the innocent unborn are against executing convicted adult killers?

Leddyman
11-06-2009, 08:59 AM
For those who think legality means something is morally acceptable I might remind you that you continually point out the state of race relations in this country in the past. It was legal at one time for one man to own another. Are you prepared to say that it was then correct and moral for them to do so?

It happens to be legal for people to murder the unborn. It is neither correct nor moral. It is a disgraceful state of affairs that is at the root of all that is wrong in this country. A bill that is coming due.

ducknwork
11-06-2009, 10:58 AM
For those who think legality means something is morally acceptable I might remind you that you continually point out the state of race relations in this country in the past. It was legal at one time for one man to own another. Are you prepared to say that it was then correct and moral for them to do so?

It happens to be legal for people to murder the unborn. It is neither correct nor moral. It is a disgraceful state of affairs that is at the root of all that is wrong in this country. A bill that is coming due.

Well said.

YardleyLabs
11-06-2009, 02:45 PM
I was just reading the House Bill (HR 3962). It explicitly prohibits including abortion services as a mandatory component in defining which plans do or do not qualify as meeting minimum standards for coverage. It prohibits any form of discrimination against coverage plans based on whether or not they provide for abortion coverage. It prohibits any plan from discriminating among providers based n whether or not tey provide abortion services. It explicitly states that no provision of the bill shall be construed to modify or require modification of any Federal or state laws governing abortion services or reimbursement of abortion services. Finally, it states that, to the extent that a plan provides coverage for abortion services that are not eligible for coverage by Federal funds that the cost of that component of coverage will be excluded in calculating any applicable Federal subsidies. Based on this, I do not understand the basis for the OP's claim that the House plan requires coverage for abortion services.

dnf777
11-06-2009, 02:59 PM
All you need to know about the guy, right there!!

Child birth and abortion moral equivalancy judgement by the "Sole Possesor of the Truth!!"

Pathetic.

It might shock you to know that some of us respect life, even nonviable tissue mass'.

What about birth control pills? Are they the moral equivalent of murder?

Pete
11-06-2009, 03:20 PM
What about birth control pills? Are they the moral equivalent of murder

Might we go even one step further,,,which would make most men murderers.:)

Pete:p

blind ambition
11-06-2009, 03:29 PM
Does a blood transfusion strip the right to life away from a human being?

No, but the lack of one could. Point is if you hate abortion fight to have it made illegal, not to remove funding from it while it is legal.

Uncle Bill
11-06-2009, 04:46 PM
I was just reading the House Bill (HR 3962). It explicitly prohibits including abortion services as a mandatory component in defining which plans do or do not qualify as meeting minimum standards for coverage. It prohibits any form of discrimination against coverage plans based on whether or not they provide for abortion coverage. It prohibits any plan from discriminating among providers based n whether or not tey provide abortion services. It explicitly states that no provision of the bill shall be construed to modify or require modification of any Federal or state laws governing abortion services or reimbursement of abortion services. Finally, it states that, to the extent that a plan provides coverage for abortion services that are not eligible for coverage by Federal funds that the cost of that component of coverage will be excluded in calculating any applicable Federal subsidies. Based on this, I do not understand the basis for the OP's claim that the House plan requires coverage for abortion services.


When will you and the rest of the libs recognize the healthcare bill, IN ANY FORM... has nothing to do with healthcare.... IT'S ALL ABOUT CONTROL!!!! Just like the global warming bill...the "help the union thugs take charge again bill"...and any number of other Democrat led bills being rapidly shoved down the throats of the American sheeple...before they understand what the hell they've stepped into, and what they've allowed to happen to this country.

UB

YardleyLabs
11-06-2009, 05:02 PM
When will you and the rest of the libs recognize the healthcare bill, IN ANY FORM... has nothing to do with healthcare.... IT'S ALL ABOUT CONTROL!!!! Just like the global warming bill...the "help the union thugs take charge again bill"...and any number of other Democrat led bills being rapidly shoved down the throats of the American sheeple...before they understand what the hell they've stepped into, and what they've allowed to happen to this country.

UB
At least I'm not the one so contemptuous of my fellow citizens that I refer to them as "sheeple". But then I also believe in democracy even when I disagree with the results.:rolleyes:

dnf777
11-06-2009, 05:04 PM
When will you and the rest of the libs recognize the healthcare bill, IN ANY FORM... has nothing to do with healthcare.... IT'S ALL ABOUT CONTROL!!!! Just like the global warming bill...the "help the union thugs take charge again bill"...and any number of other Democrat led bills being rapidly shoved down the throats of the American sheeple...before they understand what the hell they've stepped into, and what they've allowed to happen to this country.

UB

So can I assume you were against the Patriot Act, as a device to increase government surveillance into your private life....and more control??

Roger Perry
11-06-2009, 05:41 PM
Why is it that people who favor the abortion of the innocent unborn are against executing convicted adult killers?

Why is it that people against abortion are for executing convicted killers even abortion doctors?

subroc
11-06-2009, 05:56 PM
Well, I don't know about those that are against abortions and those that advocate for more abortions statistically being for or against executing convicted killers.

But, is there a plausible argument that can be made why a "convicted killer" hasn’t forfeited his right to life?

Uncle Bill
11-06-2009, 06:03 PM
But then I also believe in democracy even when I disagree with the results.:rolleyes:


Ah yes...democracy! That is a sham! We don't have a democracy. We don't even have a good representative republic. What we have and what you obviously believe in is an oligarchy. That's what's being foisted on this nation by your party.

You may wish to hide your head in the sand, but it's sounding more like a duck every day. Fortunately many of those that were hoodwinked a year ago, unlike you and your followers, are beginning to see what is happening to their freedoms, and are starting to realize this isn't what they signed up for.

Someday, even you might come to that realization.

UB

ducknwork
11-06-2009, 10:26 PM
No, but the lack of one could. Point is if you hate abortion fight to have it made illegal, not to remove funding from it while it is legal.

I do what I can to fight it when I have the chance. Does that make you happy? Probably not, because you probably expected that I do nothing other than sit and complain about it.

blind ambition
11-07-2009, 10:13 PM
I do what I can to fight it when I have the chance. Does that make you happy? Probably not, because you probably expected that I do nothing other than sit and complain about it.


Sir, I haven't taken the time to think at all on the subject of what you do or do not do and I don't look to your answers for my happiness. I'm simply giving you my opinion of where things could go to if every group that wished to could interfer with your health choices

Roger Perry
11-08-2009, 07:24 AM
http://republicanleader.house.gov/blog/?p=666

http://tinyurl.com/ya7a39c

Speaker Pelosi’s Government-Run Health Plan Will Require a Monthly Abortion Premium

Posted by GOP Leader Press Office on November 5th, 2009

Health care reform should not be used as an opportunity to use federal funds to pay for elective abortions. Health reform should be an opportunity to protect human life - not end it.

-more-

As of now, abortions are a legal medical procedure. If you don't like abortions I suggest you not get one. I know I won't be getting one anytime soon. A woman has the right to choose what she does with her body. A women can either choose to have a baby or she can choose to abort. It is not up to the right wing zealots to make that decision for her.
If you think the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill" should be strictly followed, you must really be up in arms about all the people killed in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, both Americans, Iraqi's and Afghanistan's. Or, better yet the far hypocritical right should adhere to another of the Commandments "Thou Shalt not commit adultery".

ducknwork
11-09-2009, 06:47 AM
As of now, abortions are a legal medical procedure. If you don't like abortions I suggest you not get one. I know I won't be getting one anytime soon. A woman has the right to choose what she does with her body. A women can either choose to have a baby or she can choose to abort. It is not up to the right wing zealots to make that decision for her.
If you think the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill" should be strictly followed, you must really be up in arms about all the people killed in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, both Americans, Iraqi's and Afghanistan's. Or, better yet the far hypocritical right should adhere to another of the Commandments "Thou Shalt not commit adultery".

First, I don't think adultery is exclusive to the right, although you will probably contest that it is. :rolleyes:

Second, nobody has made any religious references on this thread in opposition to abortion. (Correct me if I'm wrong) You are the first to bring up 'Thou shalt not kill'. Apparently, you assume that religion is the only reason that someone could possibly be opposed to abortion. I have asked more than once about these other foolish examples that our resident libs have given and whether or not they take away a human's right to life. I have received no responses. (Big surprise) So, perhaps Mr. Perry can shed some light on the subject. What other legal medical procedure takes away the right to life from a human being (not to mention an innocent one that cannot defend itself)?


Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness regards,

Leddyman
11-09-2009, 05:17 PM
As of now, abortions are a legal medical procedure. If you don't like abortions I suggest you not get one. I know I won't be getting one anytime soon. A woman has the right to choose what she does with her body. A women can either choose to have a baby or she can choose to abort. It is not up to the right wing zealots to make that decision for her.
If you think the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill" should be strictly followed, you must really be up in arms about all the people killed in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, both Americans, Iraqi's and Afghanistan's. Or, better yet the far hypocritical right should adhere to another of the Commandments "Thou Shalt not commit adultery".

There is none so blind as one who will not see.

The commandment you cite is found in Exodus 20:13. It was written in Hebrew just so you know.
From the theological wordbook of the old testament:
Thou shalt not MURDER.
rāṣaḥ (murder) is a purely Hebrew term. It has no clear cognate in any of the contemporary tongues. The root occurs thirty-eight times in the ot, with fourteen occurrences in Num 35. The initial use of the root appears in the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:13). In that important text it appears in the simple Qal stem with the negative adverb, “You shall not murder,” being a more precise reading than the too-general KJV “thou shalt not kill.”
Harris, R. Laird ; Harris, Robert Laird ; Archer, Gleason Leonard ; Waltke, Bruce K.: Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. electronic ed. Chicago : Moody Press, 1999, c1980, S. 860

Our troops are not murdering the enemy. Unless you think they are murderers and would like to weigh in on that.
Unborn children are being murdered. Unless you think there is some kind of war against the unborn you want to tell us about.
The word in Hebrew is murder. English sometimes gets in the way of our understanding of Biblical languages.

Since you want to argue using the Bible, let's see what it says about unborn children shall we.

Psalm 139: For You formed my inward parts;
You covered me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
The New King James Version.

Isaiah 44: 24 Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, And He who formed you from the womb: “I am the Lord, who makes all things, Who stretches out the heavens all alone, Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself;

Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”

Pretty clear what God thinks about the unborn. They are His, He formed them and He has a purpose for them. People murder them out of convenience. They have enough to worry about without having to live with the consequences of their own bad decisions. Easier to take the life out of the womb than raise a child. So anyway it is a choice; it is choosing to kill another human being, your own child, for convenience.

The only way you can call it a medical procedure is that there is an MD involved. It is not necessary, it does not improve the health of the patient, one of them dies. In my experience medical procedures have some benefit to the person receiving them.

Please share with me the benefit of an abortion? Hmmm?

P.S. I am not now, nor do I plan to be involved in adultery. unless you could hook me up with Sandra Bullock

Hoosier
11-09-2009, 06:09 PM
As of now, abortions are a legal medical procedure. If you don't like abortions I suggest you not get one. I know I won't be getting one anytime soon. A woman has the right to choose what she does with her body. A women can either choose to have a baby or she can choose to abort. It is not up to the right wing zealots to make that decision for her.
If you think the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill" should be strictly followed, you must really be up in arms about all the people killed in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, both Americans, Iraqi's and Afghanistan's. Or, better yet the far hypocritical right should adhere to another of the Commandments "Thou Shalt not commit adultery".

CHOOSE, being the key word. Most insurance doesn't cover elective surgeries. If they did we'd all look like movie stars.

road kill
11-09-2009, 06:36 PM
As of now, abortions are a legal medical procedure. If you don't like abortions I suggest you not get one. I know I won't be getting one anytime soon. A woman has the right to choose what she does with her body. A women can either choose to have a baby or she can choose to abort. It is not up to the right wing zealots to make that decision for her.
If you think the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill" should be strictly followed, you must really be up in arms about all the people killed in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, both Americans, Iraqi's and Afghanistan's. Or, better yet the far hypocritical right should adhere to another of the Commandments "Thou Shalt not commit adultery".

"A woman has the right to choose....."
What if that baby is a woman?
What if she "CHOOSES" to live??

Too bad, huh!!:(

ducknwork
11-09-2009, 06:37 PM
First, I don't think adultery is exclusive to the right, although you will probably contest that it is. :rolleyes:

Second, nobody has made any religious references on this thread in opposition to abortion. (Correct me if I'm wrong) You are the first to bring up 'Thou shalt not kill'. Apparently, you assume that religion is the only reason that someone could possibly be opposed to abortion. I have asked more than once about these other foolish examples that our resident libs have given and whether or not they take away a human's right to life. I have received no responses. (Big surprise) So, perhaps Mr. Perry can shed some light on the subject. What other legal medical procedure takes away the right to life from a human being (not to mention an innocent one that cannot defend itself)?

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness regards,

You are awfully silent on this Mr. Perry...

dnf777
11-09-2009, 09:58 PM
There is none so blind as one who will not see.

The commandment you cite is found in Exodus 20:13. It was written in Hebrew just so you know.
From the theological wordbook of the old testament:
Thou shalt not MURDER.
rāṣaḥ (murder) is a purely Hebrew term. It has no clear cognate in any of the contemporary tongues. The root occurs thirty-eight times in the ot, with fourteen occurrences in Num 35. The initial use of the root appears in the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:13). In that important text it appears in the simple Qal stem with the negative adverb, “You shall not murder,” being a more precise reading than the too-general KJV “thou shalt not kill.”
Harris, R. Laird ; Harris, Robert Laird ; Archer, Gleason Leonard ; Waltke, Bruce K.: Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. electronic ed. Chicago : Moody Press, 1999, c1980, S. 860

Our troops are not murdering the enemy. Unless you think they are murderers and would like to weigh in on that.
Unborn children are being murdered. Unless you think there is some kind of war against the unborn you want to tell us about.
The word in Hebrew is murder. English sometimes gets in the way of our understanding of Biblical languages.

Since you want to argue using the Bible, let's see what it says about unborn children shall we.

Psalm 139: For You formed my inward parts;
You covered me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
The New King James Version.

Isaiah 44: 24 Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, And He who formed you from the womb: “I am the Lord, who makes all things, Who stretches out the heavens all alone, Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself;

Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”

Pretty clear what God thinks about the unborn. They are His, He formed them and He has a purpose for them. People murder them out of convenience. They have enough to worry about without having to live with the consequences of their own bad decisions. Easier to take the life out of the womb than raise a child. So anyway it is a choice; it is choosing to kill another human being, your own child, for convenience.

The only way you can call it a medical procedure is that there is an MD involved. It is not necessary, it does not improve the health of the patient, one of them dies. In my experience medical procedures have some benefit to the person receiving them.

Please share with me the benefit of an abortion? Hmmm?

P.S. I am not now, nor do I plan to be involved in adultery. unless you could hook me up with Sandra Bullock

I won't get into a Biblical argument with you, but I think those passages are all open to individual interpretation as to whether it is the human form or the soul that was being referred to. In my mind, it certainly is not proof that mortal life begins at conception. I think it refers to the eternal soul, that always has been, is, and always will be. Conception, birth, life, death are all just points along an eternal continuum.

In Genesis, there is a reference to earthly life beginning when God "breaths life into the lungs of man". That could easily be interpreted as a newborn's first breath of life, that expands the lungs and begins life on earth.

JMHO

Gun_Dog2002
11-09-2009, 10:34 PM
Actually, it's not an issue of moral equivalency at all. Abortion, whether you like it or not, is a completely legal medical procedure. For as long as that is true, it has the same status as any other medical procedure, whether that be a tonsillectomy or a heart bypass. For those who believe that abortions are a form of murder, the answer is simple -- convince enough people to change the law and it can be driven back into the alleys where our children can risk their futures and their lives to end pregnancies with which they cannot live. Personally, I remember the pre-Roe v. Wade world too well to ever want to see it return.

However, as long as the procedure remains legal, one should be careful about which approaches are used in efforts to make it more difficult. For each such road sets a precedent that will inevitably be used against some other procedure in the future. Maybe the next target will be birth control or sterilization procedures, or maybe even child birth expenses for any more than ten (nine, eight, seven....) children because why should we all have to subsidize the irresponsible profligacy of the few?

So is breast enhancement. Can you send me 5k so I can get new tits for my significant other?

/Paul

Gun_Dog2002
11-09-2009, 10:45 PM
There is none so blind as one who will not see.

The commandment you cite is found in Exodus 20:13. It was written in Hebrew just so you know.
From the theological wordbook of the old testament:
Thou shalt not MURDER.
rāṣaḥ (murder) is a purely Hebrew term. It has no clear cognate in any of the contemporary tongues. The root occurs thirty-eight times in the ot, with fourteen occurrences in Num 35. The initial use of the root appears in the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:13). In that important text it appears in the simple Qal stem with the negative adverb, “You shall not murder,” being a more precise reading than the too-general KJV “thou shalt not kill.”
Harris, R. Laird ; Harris, Robert Laird ; Archer, Gleason Leonard ; Waltke, Bruce K.: Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. electronic ed. Chicago : Moody Press, 1999, c1980, S. 860

Our troops are not murdering the enemy. Unless you think they are murderers and would like to weigh in on that.
Unborn children are being murdered. Unless you think there is some kind of war against the unborn you want to tell us about.
The word in Hebrew is murder. English sometimes gets in the way of our understanding of Biblical languages.

Since you want to argue using the Bible, let's see what it says about unborn children shall we.

Psalm 139: For You formed my inward parts;
You covered me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
The New King James Version.

Isaiah 44: 24 Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, And He who formed you from the womb: “I am the Lord, who makes all things, Who stretches out the heavens all alone, Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself;

Jeremiah 1:5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”

Pretty clear what God thinks about the unborn. They are His, He formed them and He has a purpose for them. People murder them out of convenience. They have enough to worry about without having to live with the consequences of their own bad decisions. Easier to take the life out of the womb than raise a child. So anyway it is a choice; it is choosing to kill another human being, your own child, for convenience.

The only way you can call it a medical procedure is that there is an MD involved. It is not necessary, it does not improve the health of the patient, one of them dies. In my experience medical procedures have some benefit to the person receiving them.

Please share with me the benefit of an abortion? Hmmm?

P.S. I am not now, nor do I plan to be involved in adultery. unless you could hook me up with Sandra Bullock

You forgot the mosaic law calling for the death of a person causing the death of an unborn child.

(Exodus 21:22-25) 22 “And in case men should struggle with each other and they really hurt a pregnant woman and her children do come out but no fatal accident occurs, he is to have damages imposed upon him without fail according to what the owner of the woman may lay upon him; and he must give it through the justices. 23 But if a fatal accident should occur, then you must give soul for soul, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 branding for branding, wound for wound, blow for blow.

Gun_Dog2002
11-09-2009, 10:47 PM
I won't get into a Biblical argument with you, but I think those passages are all open to individual interpretation as to whether it is the human form or the soul that was being referred to. In my mind, it certainly is not proof that mortal life begins at conception. I think it refers to the eternal soul, that always has been, is, and always will be. Conception, birth, life, death are all just points along an eternal continuum.

In Genesis, there is a reference to earthly life beginning when God "breaths life into the lungs of man". That could easily be interpreted as a newborn's first breath of life, that expands the lungs and begins life on earth.

JMHO

Really, better read Exodus then.

/Paul

dnf777
11-10-2009, 05:44 AM
Really, better read Exodus then.

/Paul

That's exactly why I prefaced my comments with "I won't get into a Bilblical argument...".

I know full and well that ANY position humans can debate has support for, and against in the Bible. At worst, wars and crusades are started this way...at best, and endless RTF thread with no conclusion in sight!

Have a good one,
dave

YardleyLabs
11-10-2009, 06:04 AM
So is breast enhancement. Can you send me 5k so I can get new tits for my significant other?

/Paul
Actually the distinction comes from the term "medically necessary" and the exclusion of cosmetic procedures. Health insurance routinely pays for breast reconstruction for women who have lost a breast. When my first child was born, insurance policies routinely excluded payment of costs related to routine child birth, but provided coverage in the event of medical complications. Thus, part of our family planning involved saving the money for the hospital and doctor bills. When we were expecting our second child, an HMO plan provided maternity benefits while the standard fee for service coverage did not. We changed policies to take advantage of the maternity benefits. I actually have no problem with insurance plans voluntarily offering or not offering specific benefits -- such as maternity care or family planning services -- to attract customers as long as those services are not essential for preservation of the life of the covered person (By the way, children are not covered until born). I object to the law preventing coverage for services that are otherwise legal, although I would not have a problem with, for example, a law that denied tax deductibility for a service that was not medically necessary (e.g. cosmetic surgery).

ducknwork
11-10-2009, 06:40 AM
How is an abortion of convenience deemed medically necessary?

Roger Perry
11-10-2009, 07:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ducknwork http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=522326#post522326)
First, I don't think adultery is exclusive to the right, although you will probably contest that it is. :rolleyes:

Second, nobody has made any religious references on this thread in opposition to abortion. (Correct me if I'm wrong) You are the first to bring up 'Thou shalt not kill'. Apparently, you assume that religion is the only reason that someone could possibly be opposed to abortion. I have asked more than once about these other foolish examples that our resident libs have given and whether or not they take away a human's right to life. I have received no responses. (Big surprise) So, perhaps Mr. Perry can shed some light on the subject. What other legal medical procedure takes away the right to life from a human being (not to mention an innocent one that cannot defend itself)?

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness regards,
You are awfully silent on this Mr. Perry...


I know you all celebrate your birthdays, when was the last time you celebrated your conception day?

Roger Perry
11-10-2009, 07:28 AM
First, I don't think adultery is exclusive to the right, although you will probably contest that it is. :rolleyes:

Second, nobody has made any religious references on this thread in opposition to abortion. ,

Let's see Leddyman wrote:
Psalm 139: For You formed my inward parts;
You covered me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
The New King James Version.

Isaiah 44: 24 Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, And He who formed you from the womb: “I am the Lord, who makes all things, Who stretches out the heavens all alone, Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself;

Gun Dog 2002 wrote:
You forgot the mosaic law calling for the death of a person causing the death of an unborn child.

(Exodus 21:22-25) 22 “And in case men should struggle with each other and they really hurt a pregnant woman and her children do come out but no fatal accident occurs, he is to have damages imposed upon him without fail according to what the owner of the woman may lay upon him; and he must give it through the justices. 23 But if a fatal accident should occur, then you must give soul for soul, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 branding for branding, wound for wound, blow for blow.

I believe if I am not mistaken "quotes from the bible"

Seems like I have hit a nerve with the far right.

road kill
11-10-2009, 08:27 AM
"A woman has the right to choose....."
What if that baby is a woman?
What if she "CHOOSES" to live??

Too bad, huh!!:(
GEEZ, no one wants to touch this one?
I think it's a legit question.

Yardley, Roger, Jdog, BUZZ anyone???

Pete
11-10-2009, 08:30 AM
Terry thats all great stuff.
I would recommend anyone looking for biblical answeres in trying to figure out when human life begins in the site of God, should do word studies on
Made,formed ,created and breath life ,, and body ,soul and spirit. Look up and read all the verses that deal with these subjects. It will blow your socks off weather you are a scientist or not.
You will find great parallels between the physical and the spiritual.
This stuff is also scientifically acurate.

The answeres are there and no one needs to interpret them. Most of it is self interpreting. Backed up by !st or 2nd Peter 1:20 ,21

Anyway not trying to change minds just letting those of you who have a thirst for what is true know its there.
You wont read about it in sunday school or church that I can guarentee.

Pete

Gun_Dog2002
11-10-2009, 08:55 AM
Actually the distinction comes from the term "medically necessary" and the exclusion of cosmetic procedures. Health insurance routinely pays for breast reconstruction for women who have lost a breast. When my first child was born, insurance policies routinely excluded payment of costs related to routine child birth, but provided coverage in the event of medical complications. Thus, part of our family planning involved saving the money for the hospital and doctor bills. When we were expecting our second child, an HMO plan provided maternity benefits while the standard fee for service coverage did not. We changed policies to take advantage of the maternity benefits. I actually have no problem with insurance plans voluntarily offering or not offering specific benefits -- such as maternity care or family planning services -- to attract customers as long as those services are not essential for preservation of the life of the covered person (By the way, children are not covered until born). I object to the law preventing coverage for services that are otherwise legal, although I would not have a problem with, for example, a law that denied tax deductibility for a service that was not medically necessary (e.g. cosmetic surgery).

How do you know new teets are not medically necessary?

/Paul

Gun_Dog2002
11-10-2009, 08:58 AM
I know you all celebrate your birthdays, when was the last time you celebrated your conception day?


My parents celebrated that day....moron reasoning
/Paul

road kill
11-10-2009, 09:00 AM
My parents celebrated that day....moron reasoning
/Paul

My wife (RIP) and I always celebrated the day of conception.
I didn't know, but she did, it meant a lot to her!!

And of course my Daughter had decided to choose to live (which is her right) early on!!:D

If I may add, she had a couple gf's who had abortions, they told me they regretted it every day!!
Unintended consequences, the Democrats way!!

ducknwork
11-10-2009, 09:17 AM
Let's see Leddyman wrote:
Psalm 139: For You formed my inward parts;
You covered me in my mother’s womb.
14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
The New King James Version.

Isaiah 44: 24 Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, And He who formed you from the womb: “I am the Lord, who makes all things, Who stretches out the heavens all alone, Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself;

Gun Dog 2002 wrote:
You forgot the mosaic law calling for the death of a person causing the death of an unborn child.

(Exodus 21:22-25) 22 “And in case men should struggle with each other and they really hurt a pregnant woman and her children do come out but no fatal accident occurs, he is to have damages imposed upon him without fail according to what the owner of the woman may lay upon him; and he must give it through the justices. 23 But if a fatal accident should occur, then you must give soul for soul, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 branding for branding, wound for wound, blow for blow.

I believe if I am not mistaken "quotes from the bible"

Seems like I have hit a nerve with the far right.

Don't be such a ding dong. Those were posted after you started talking about religion. Did your Delorian get your time periods mixed up or something, McFly?


For clarification, you brought up religion on
11-08-2009, 08:24 AM , leddyman was the next to mention it
Yesterday, 06:17 PM

ducknwork
11-10-2009, 09:20 AM
I know you all celebrate your birthdays, when was the last time you celebrated your conception day?

I was pretty damn happy when we conceived our daughter, our son, and our baby that is on the way now...

We even went out to eat right after leaving the doctor to celebrate. With our current child that is due in April, we spent the rest of the day at the beach.

Roger Perry
11-10-2009, 09:32 AM
I was pretty damn happy when we conceived our daughter, our son, and our baby that is on the way now...

We even went out to eat right after leaving the doctor to celebrate. With our current child that is due in April, we spent the rest of the day at the beach.

So let me guess, your kid will have conception parties instead of birthday parties.:rolleyes:

Roger Perry
11-10-2009, 09:38 AM
No one will ever change their minds about abortion rights. The far right will contend until the day they die that abortion should be illegal while the majority feel that abortion is the womans right to choose. As long as Roe V Wade is upheld abortion will be legal.

Again if you or your family are pro choice, don't get an abortion, but do not push your holier than thou beliefs on others who disagree with you.

ducknwork
11-10-2009, 09:45 AM
No one will ever change their minds about abortion rights. The far right will contend until the day they die that abortion should be illegal while the majority feel that abortion is the womans right to choose. As long as Roe V Wade is upheld abortion will be legal.

Again if you or your family are pro choice, don't get an abortion, but do not push your holier than thou beliefs on others who disagree with you.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/27820.html
Roger, are you sure that the majority believes it's okay? Who's pushing holier than thou beliefs? I am trying to defend the rights that are granted to each and every one of us by the Constitution of the United States. I understand that you cannot legislate morality, but you CAN legislate rights. A person's rights stop when they infringe on the rights of another. A mother (or anyone) should not have the right to take the right to life away from anyone, even an unborn child.

Why is it that abortion is legal, but if someone kills a pregnant woman, they are charged with double murder?

Pete
11-10-2009, 09:55 AM
In Genesis, there is a reference to earthly life beginning when God "breaths life into the lungs of man". That could easily be interpreted as a newborn's first breath of life, that expands the lungs and begins life on earth

Also look up the word wind in acts 2:2 Trace the word back and you will see its origin as "breath" This is in reference to the new birth which happened on the day of penticost.
So spiritually the new birth has a spiritual conection with breath as being a new life . Only this time its spiritual and not physical.

Paul
in exodus 21:22 and 23 reference reads totally different than the king James or the amplified.
Back then it was a crime to kill a human being.
The result from the miscarrage which was caused from some type of scuffle from a stranger and was only to be deturmined by the father if he wanted to seek restitution. And a judge would deturmine the fine.
In the old testiment the murder would be killed

If no other crime or mischief othen than the miscarrage ,,then the husband would seek out a monetary fine. The amplified version is pretty decent and expounds on some of the words and uses historical back round to help with explanations. Its also written in somewhat of a modern english tone.

Also in Luke,,, God almighty called what was in the womb of Mary a "Holy thing."


There are a plethera of verses that help us understand the heart of God regarding these issues..
my guess is there are instances where it would be wrong to do and cirumstances that warrent it.

All I know is I dont want to pay for somebodies screwed up sex life.

Pete

ducknwork
11-10-2009, 10:49 AM
All I know is I dont want to pay for somebodies screwed up sex life.


Ditto.

If you aren't ready to have a child, you shouldn't be having sex. An innocent life should not be terminated because of irresponsibility.

dnf777
11-10-2009, 10:51 AM
Also look up the word wind in acts 2:2 Trace the word back and you will see its origin as "breath" This is in reference to the new birth which happened on the day of penticost.
So spiritually the new birth has a spiritual conection with breath as being a new life . Only this time its spiritual and not physical.

Paul
in exodus 21:22 and 23 reference reads totally different than the king James or the amplified.
Back then it was a crime to kill a human being.
The result from the miscarrage which was caused from some type of scuffle from a stranger and was only to be deturmined by the father if he wanted to seek restitution. And a judge would deturmine the fine.
In the old testiment the murder would be killed

If no other crime or mischief othen than the miscarrage ,,then the husband would seek out a monetary fine. The amplified version is pretty decent and expounds on some of the words and uses historical back round to help with explanations. Its also written in somewhat of a modern english tone.

Also in Luke,,, God almighty called what was in the womb of Mary a "Holy thing."


There are a plethera of verses that help us understand the heart of God regarding these issues..
my guess is there are instances where it would be wrong to do and cirumstances that warrent it.

All I know is I dont want to pay for somebodies screwed up sex life.

Pete

And by judging from the othe threads on this forum, nobody wants to pay for caring, feeding, educating or health issues of the child. We all know that in many cases, the parents (parent) can't or won't. It seems that there's all this concern for life just right up until the moment of birth, then none whatsoever. Not sayin' I agree or disagree, just pointing out an expensive paradox.

As for the Bible legalities, I still won't engage in Biblical debate. I'm certain that for whatever bibilcal intrepretations you come up with, I could find an equal and opposite claim....I'm just not so inclined to spend the time, so I will have to cede to your position: You are absolutely right, and therefore, I hereby promise NEVER to have an abortion! ;-)

have a good one...
dave

dnf777
11-10-2009, 10:55 AM
If I may add, she had a couple gf's who had abortions, they told me they regretted it every day!!
Unintended consequences, the Democrats way!!

Of the girls (3) I know of who had abortions from HS, all three were stout republicans, who's moral stance had exeptions for the self, apparently.

When it comes to talking the talk, its a political issue....when it's time to walk the walk, it seems to affect all political persuasions the same. I'm sure anyone who has an abortion regrets it.

Pete
11-10-2009, 12:44 PM
As for the Bible legalities, I still won't engage in Biblical debate. I'm certain that for whatever bibilcal intrepretations you come up with, I could find an equal and opposite claim....I'm just not so inclined to spend the time, so I will have to cede to your position: You are absolutely right, and therefore, I hereby promise NEVER to have an abortion! :wink:

If we both used scientific methods to figure this out we would come up with pretty much the same thing.

Also just as with any other scientific analysis,,,you cannot have any preconceived ideas or thats the way the view will be skewed.
Religion has usually started out with preconcieved ideas so if they will follow their logic starting out with a false premise ,,well you know the rest of it.


religion,God and politics are my favorite subjects ,Unfortunately society makes these a no no to talk about,,, like maby if people start talking about religion and politics they may find out something x rated . I figure everything in life is worth discussing except,,,, ummmmm well lets not go there.
This is a family forum:D

Pete

ducknwork
11-10-2009, 02:41 PM
To those who believe it is the mother's choice about having an abortion-

Should abortion be legal in the ninth month if the mother decides she doesn't want the child (not health reasons)?

dnf777
11-10-2009, 03:17 PM
To those who believe it is the mother's choice about having an abortion-

Should abortion be legal in the ninth month if the mother decides she doesn't want the child (not health reasons)?

I see your argument, and its a good one. There are several ways to attempt to answer that question. Biologically: when is sustained life possible outside the womb? Religiously: when is that baby considered a baby--when does it have a soul? Since neither of these questions exists in a vacuum, I think the compromise, if you are to allow abortions at all, has been at the traditional fetal age of viability, with only exceptions beyond that.

The flip side to your question may be at what gestational age should the mother (or anyone else) be held responsible for endangering the life of a minor, or manslaughter, or murder is the mother miscarries? If a bartender serves alcohol to a woman who just came from a motel room and conceived a pregnancy an hour ago, is he contributing to the harm of that child?

Of course, that is an extreme example, but the point and question stand.

Juli H
11-10-2009, 03:49 PM
Of the girls (3) I know of who had abortions from HS, all three were stout republicans, who's moral stance had exeptions for the self, apparently.

When it comes to talking the talk, its a political issue....when it's time to walk the walk, it seems to affect all political persuasions the same. I'm sure anyone who has an abortion regrets it.


hmm...I had a baby out of wedlock, just out of high school...I never considered abortion as an alternative. How could I take the life of another human being when I was the one responsible for bringing her into the world (unborn, but still a human being!)

She is my daughter, now 20 yrs old and I love her dearly and with all my heart.

I was and am a republican/conservative.....
I get tired of kids thinking they don't have to be held accountable for their actions...whether that is having pre-marital sex, partying it up, or whatever...This mentality that is 'allowed' by our youth, carries right on into adulthood......
There is an overwhelming and disappointing trend in our society...and that is, 'I don't have to be responsible for myself, someone else will come to my rescue!'.....

what is going to happen when the hard working, responsible people of this country decide to QUIT working and paying for the 'slackers' that sit on their 'A$$'es' and collect every known kind of welfare known to mankind?

Juli

dnf777
11-10-2009, 04:08 PM
what is going to happen when the hard working, responsible people of this country decide to QUIT working and paying for the 'slackers' that sit on their 'A$$'es' and collect every known kind of welfare known to mankind?

Juli

The bankers and CEOs will have to EARN their bonuses, that's what!

As for your personal story, that is very similar to mine, except I was 19. My daughter is now a senior at TAMU.

gig 'em!
dave

Roger Perry
11-10-2009, 04:08 PM
Ditto.

If you aren't ready to have a child, you shouldn't be having sex. An innocent life should not be terminated because of irresponsibility.

That's right, just preach abstinence like Sarah Palin did to her daughter, That worked out just right didn't it.

Roger Perry
11-10-2009, 04:14 PM
hmm...I had a baby out of wedlock, just out of high school...I never considered abortion as an alternative. How could I take the life of another human being when I was the one responsible for bringing her into the world (unborn, but still a human being!)

She is my daughter, now 20 yrs old and I love her dearly and with all my heart.

I was and am a republican/conservative.....
I get tired of kids thinking they don't have to be held accountable for their actions...whether that is having pre-marital sex, partying it up, or whatever...This mentality that is 'allowed' by our youth, carries right on into adulthood......
There is an overwhelming and disappointing trend in our society...and that is, 'I don't have to be responsible for myself, someone else will come to my rescue!'.....

what is going to happen when the hard working, responsible people of this country decide to QUIT working and paying for the 'slackers' that sit on their 'A$$'es' and collect every known kind of welfare known to mankind?

Juli

I commend you on your decision to have your baby. I hope she lives a long and prosperous life.

road kill
11-10-2009, 04:18 PM
That's right, just preach abstinence like Sarah Palin did to her daughter, That worked out just right didn't it.

Another personal attack on Sarah Palin.

She really scares you guys, doesn't she?

Pete
11-10-2009, 08:08 PM
Since neither of these questions exists in a vacuum, I think the compromise, if you are to allow abortions at all, has been at the traditional fetal age of viability, with only exceptions beyond that.


Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Form is the hebrew word yatsar or something like that .it means to fashion as a potter would a piece of clay. There was a body formed from the elements of the earth but it was dead it had no life until God breath into his nosrtils the breath of life ,,,at that point man became a living soul.

There are lots of references to accompany this.

Since we see A body and a soul here in genesis what about the spirit,
God created man in his image. What is the image of God?

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

I'll stop now,,,, well one more no 2

Isaiah 43:7
Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.

1 Thessalonians 5:23
And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Body ,soul and spirit made ,,formed and created are all different words.

OK i'm done:p

Pete

ducknwork
11-10-2009, 09:20 PM
That's right, just preach abstinence like Sarah Palin did to her daughter, That worked out just right didn't it.

Yes, we'll tell everyone to have sex as much as they want to and not to worry about dealing with the consequences. Kinda like buying cars, tv's, houses, etc that you know you cannot pay for and then wanting help paying for them so they don't get thrown out on the street...

Who needs personal responsibility anyway? I hear it's overrated.

Gun_Dog2002
11-10-2009, 10:36 PM
That's right, just preach abstinence like Sarah Palin did to her daughter, That worked out just right didn't it.

Roger, you prove your ignorance with every post. Wanna guess how many parents and youth successfully abstain from pre-marital sex while in the teen years? Yet you use one example of a clear mistake. You'll note, the girl did not abort the baby.

/Paul

JDogger
11-10-2009, 11:04 PM
She really scares you guys, doesn't she?

Ya, but not in the sense you think Stan. Please, please...work for her nomination in 2012...we're counting on it...don't let us, or her down.:rolleyes:

JD

dnf777
11-11-2009, 05:45 AM
Roger, you prove your ignorance with every post. Wanna guess how many parents and youth successfully abstain from pre-marital sex while in the teen years? Yet you use one example of a clear mistake. You'll note, the girl did not abort the baby.

/Paul

Are you joking? This is sarcasm, right?

Here in the real world regards.....
dave

ducknwork
11-11-2009, 06:03 AM
I love how people try to justify risky, immoral, incorrect, or flat out wrong behavior rather than trying to do something about it. Not just this issue, many others...People are going to smoke pot, so let's legalize it. Kids are going to have sex, so give them condoms. bla bla bla Kids are going to have cyber sex via cpu or cell phone, so legalize it. Teenagers are going to break the law, they're just being kids... Come on people, let's teach our children to be responsible, respectful human beings, not people who do what they want and don't have to worry about the consequences because someone else will pick up the pieces or make excuses for them.

The moral degradation of our society will lead and is leading to our downfall. You reap what you sow.

Evan
11-11-2009, 06:24 AM
Roger, you prove your ignorance with every post. Wanna guess how many parents and youth successfully abstain from pre-marital sex while in the teen years? Yet you use one example of a clear mistake. You'll note, the girl did not abort the baby.

/PaulMillions. But that doesn't provide the shock value our media is looking for in creating a story, so you hear far more about kids who behave more 'colorfully'. You see it so much that the perception is created that it's the norm, and good kids are the wierd exceptions. The real proportions depend on where you might do such polling.

There are lots of good people, with good values.

Evan

Evan
11-11-2009, 06:33 AM
hmm...I had a baby out of wedlock, just out of high school...I never considered abortion as an alternative. How could I take the life of another human being when I was the one responsible for bringing her into the world (unborn, but still a human being!)

She is my daughter, now 20 yrs old and I love her dearly and with all my heart.

I was and am a republican/conservative.....
I get tired of kids thinking they don't have to be held accountable for their actions...whether that is having pre-marital sex, partying it up, or whatever...This mentality that is 'allowed' by our youth, carries right on into adulthood......
There is an overwhelming and disappointing trend in our society...and that is, 'I don't have to be responsible for myself, someone else will come to my rescue!'.....

what is going to happen when the hard working, responsible people of this country decide to QUIT working and paying for the 'slackers' that sit on their 'A$$'es' and collect every known kind of welfare known to mankind?

JuliProvervs 31:10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.


Juli, you have led by example. There is nothing better.

Evan

road kill
11-11-2009, 06:42 AM
Ya, but not in the sense you think Stan. Please, please...work for her nomination in 2012...we're counting on it...don't let us, or her down.:rolleyes:

JD
So.....you know what I think?

Describe to me then, in what sense does this woman frighten you so??:cool:

JDogger
11-11-2009, 08:38 AM
So.....you know what I think?

Describe to me then, in what sense does this woman frighten you so??:cool:
In the sense that she might not be a candidate. That would be disappointing.:(

JD

Roger Perry
11-11-2009, 09:07 AM
Another personal attack on Sarah Palin.

She really scares you guys, doesn't she?

Scares me, hell, if she runs in the primaries I will change my voter registration back to republican just so I can vote for her to be on the ticket.

Uncle Bill
11-11-2009, 10:30 AM
Scares me, hell, if she runs in the primaries I will change my voter registration back to republican just so I can vote for her to be on the ticket.


Of all the posts on this thread...THIS is the scariest...AND the most informational. And we continue to wonder how this nation became the can of worms it now finds itself in????

THE INMATES ARE RUNNING THE ASYLUM!

How can you possibly discuss God OR His teachings? You have run Him out of our society. And yet when a disaster strikes, you have the gall to blame Him for allowing it to happen?

Ask not for whom the bell tolls.

UB

Leddyman
11-11-2009, 10:35 AM
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Form is the hebrew word yatsar or something like that .it means to fashion as a potter would a piece of clay. There was a body formed from the elements of the earth but it was dead it had no life until God breath into his nosrtils the breath of life ,,,at that point man became a living soul.

There are lots of references to accompany this.

Since we see A body and a soul here in genesis what about the spirit,
God created man in his image. What is the image of God?

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

I'll stop now,,,, well one more no 2

Isaiah 43:7
Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him.

1 Thessalonians 5:23
And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Body ,soul and spirit made ,,formed and created are all different words.

OK i'm done:p

Pete

What is your point? You quoted a bunch of scripture without telling us what they are supposed to mean when taken together.

subroc
11-11-2009, 11:53 AM
It appears that you lefties are still hating on Sarah Palin. I am not surprised. your hate knows no limits. I doubt she is running for anything.

With czars being all the rage these days, the next president will appoint her as the czar of being all mavericky...

Raymond Little
11-11-2009, 11:58 AM
Really? What happened? Their last ban was overturned by the COTUS. Was another one passed?

Come on Jeff, everyone knows Tiller took a bullet.;)

YardleyLabs
11-11-2009, 12:20 PM
Come on Jeff, everyone knows Tiller took a bullet.;)
That I know, although it might be more accurate to say that bullets were forced into him while he attended church by a man who will hopefully never live a free day again. Tiller's was one of the only clinics in the country performing late term abortions on a regular basis. However, he was not the only doctor doing so and I suspect that there have already been more performed in the state.

Gun_Dog2002
11-11-2009, 01:54 PM
http://tinyurl.com/yfrw8r6


As the debate over health care moves to the Senate, Democrats find themselves in the unaccustomed position of taking clear sides on an issue they've often dealt with through avoidance and rhetorical sleight of hand.


/Paul