Gods Intention

[Piscator]

This is such a tough social topic. Personally, I honestly still don’t know how I feel and I vote Republican most of the time. I see some points from both sides. I guess I’m on the fence to some extent if that is possible. I don’t think it should be used for birth control but on the other hand every case is different and personal and this is where I struggle with it. I guess I tend to think a woman can do other things to impact the health and life of a baby if she wants to (drugs, drinking etc).

I think we all tend to look at life differently. When we look for life in space we look for the smallest, tiniest cell structure to prove that “life” exists outside of Earth. When we talk about abortion we sometimes defin life differently. We look at other factors of when a fetus is “life” like conception, heartbeat, etc.

Technically sperm alone and by itself is alive..................

Heavy stuff to ponder…………

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by Piscator

This is such a tough social topic. Personally, I honestly still don’t know how I feel and I vote Republican most of the time. I see some points from both sides. I guess I’m on the fence to some extent if that is possible. I don’t think it should be used for birth control but on the other hand every case is different and personal and this is where I struggle with it. I guess I tend to think a woman can do other things to impact the health and life of a baby if she wants to (drugs, drinking etc).

I think we all tend to look at life differently. When we look for life in space we look for the smallest, tiniest cell structure to prove that “life” exists outside of Earth. When we talk about abortion we sometimes defin life differently. We look at other factors of when a fetus is “life” like conception, heartbeat, etc.

Technically sperm alone and by itself is alive..................

Heavy stuff to ponder…………

im with you. To quote our president, "above my pay grade"
If I knocked some girl up in high school, I am all for abortion. But I remember when my wife was just a few weeks pregnanat and we heard the heartbeat, amazing.

What I get from all of these replies is something that troubles me with liberals. Tolerance. Why are liberals tolerant of some extreme views and not of extreme views when they relate to christianity? I GUARANTEE you that some libs driving around with the religious tolerance sticker on their prius are furious over these remarks. Why? cant you be tolerant of others views even if they disagree with yours? If you read through this whole thread, its the conservative crew that is at least trying to understand different points of view. Libs would have this guy tarred and feathered.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

im with you. To quote our president, "above my pay grade"
If I knocked some girl up in high school, I am all for abortion. But I remember when my wife was just a few weeks pregnanat and we heard the heartbeat, amazing.

What I get from all of these replies is something that troubles me with liberals. Tolerance. Why are liberals tolerant of some extreme views and not of extreme views when they relate to christianity? I GUARANTEE you that some libs driving around with the religious tolerance sticker on their prius are furious over these remarks. Why? cant you be tolerant of others views even if they disagree with yours? If you read through this whole thread, its the conservative crew that is at least trying to understand different points of view. Libs would have this guy tarred and feathered.

I agree with the first sentence of your post Jim whole-heartedly. Then you lose me.
Are there foaming-mouth liberals incensed over this? Yes. For me, it is not a question tolerance. I respect their belief structure. I find it troubling b/c he is looking to have an elected seat where he will have he ability to try and impose this belief on the rest of us.

The "Liberal" Position, is not to use abortion as birth control. Instead, given all the heavy discussion here, the point of 'choice' is exactly that. If your beliefs don't allow you that choice, so be it.

This guys words got twisted on him a bit... Todd Akin is just a moron....

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

. I find it troubling b/c he is looking to have an elected seat where he will have he ability to try and impose this belief on the rest of us.

But why him, All elected officials have the ability to try to impose their beliefs on us, no?
Fact Bry, think about this. If Obama is elected the estate tax will go to 55%. That means if you slave all your life, when you die, the government will SEIZE your property, from your children. If your children dont pay, they will come with guns to seize your property. The government will impose its will to seize your property.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

But why him, All elected officials have the ability to try to impose their beliefs on us, no?
Fact Bry, think about this. If Obama is elected the estate tax will go to 55%. That means if you slave all your life, when you die, the government will SEIZE your property, from your children. If your children dont pay, they will come with guns to seize your property. The government will impose its will to seize your property.

Absolutely. And you have the right to vote or not vote for that person, based on YOUR beliefs, and their beliefs...

And that is a bit misleading, as it is for estates worth over 1 million and is back to early 2000 rates where it was 55% over 675,000 and 50% over 1,000,00 or so.... not some unprecedented level

but it is your right to vote for him, or Murdock or Akin based on YOUR beliefs, and what you know about theirs, just as if I lived in Indiana, it would be my right to vote for or against Murdock for the same reasons.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

And that is a bit misleading, as it is for estates worth over 1 million and is back to early 2000 rates where it was 55% over 675,000 and 50% over 1,000,00 or so.... not some unprecedented level

.

yes or no question - you believe the government has the right to seize more that 1/2 your property after you die if you have accumulated more that a million dollars of worth (worth, not dollars, estates are valued with all property)?
I believe it is an absolute crime.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I find it troubling b/c he is looking to have an elected seat where he will have he ability to try and impose this belief on the rest of us.

RI, doesn't everyone have a point of view or a belief? Don't all politicians have the ability to "try" to impose this belief on the rest of us? My argument through many threads here is that's human nature, and the founding documents were based on that nature. The founders understood that danger very well, so they crafted a form of government that would best protect individuals from the imposition of others, at least from that imposition being directed from an all-powerful central government. They gave that central government specific and limited powers which would give it the strength to protect and preserve the union but not give it the ability to impose personal beliefs.

Mourdock is running for a FEDERAL seat in Congress. If the Constitution were being followed as intended, he would have no business imposing his belief on other individuals. And if he understood that, and believed that, and acted on those constitutional principles, he would function within the powers granted and not even try to impose his belief. Simply put, he would not have the ability to do so.

Could your "finding it troubling" be based on the obvious fact that we are no longer operating under the strictures of the Constitution at a Federal level? That you see impositions being imposed, some of which you agree with, from which individuals have no defense? Don't we now assume that Congress can do as it wishes as one Congressman blatently admitted? Don't we just accept Supreme Court decisions that even on their face are dictatorial? The power to tax action or the absence of action at will? That is the power to punitively impose whatever amount on virtually anybody, thereby having the ability to impose any legislation derived from any belief on any and every individual--really? Is that what the Constitution intended or even says? No. But that is the state in which we find ourselves. So it is no wonder that people have, if not an explicity overt fear, at least a subliminal one, of a U.S. Senator imposing his beliefs. And, on the contrary, a desire to elect those who will impose the beliefs we have and agree with.

Isn't the problem that allows your fear to seem to be a reality, the functionally all-powerful, anti-constitutional, administrative state that has replaced a government that was once constrained by the Constitution?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

I agree with the first sentence of your post Jim whole-heartedly. Then you lose me.
Are there foaming-mouth liberals incensed over this? Yes. For me, it is not a question tolerance. I respect their belief structure. I find it troubling b/c he is looking to have an elected seat where he will have he ability to try and impose this belief on the rest of us.

The "Liberal" Position, is not to use abortion as birth control. Instead, given all the heavy discussion here, the point of 'choice' is exactly that. If your beliefs don't allow you that choice, so be it.

This guys words got twisted on him a bit... Todd Akin is just a moron....

'The "Liberal" Position, is not to use abortion as birth control."

Excuse me? That's not even close to the liberal position. The liberal position is that the woman can choose an abortion any time she wants, for any reason. Please show me where the liberal position is that abortions are immoral if used simply as after-the-fact birth control?

Obama's position was to allow 'abortion' after the baby was born, outside the womb, and no longer connected to the mother. Anotehr word for that is 'infanticide'.