Bush is biggest obstacle to a conservative court

Discussion in 'The OT' started by Richard King, Jul 7, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Cap, you beat me to it. I had thought about that last night and hadn't had a chance to post it yet. The way SCOTUS normally acts, if RvW was overturned things would go back to the way they were, where it was the decision of the state. In the past few years we have seen state laws that have gone to SCOTUS overturned. The court did not say that states could not regulate or prohibit abortion. They gave guidelines as to what would be acceptable. As an example, abortion to save the life of the mother was necessary. However, the anti-abortion writers of the law refused to include that provision, so it was overturned. If RvW is overturned we will see a patchwork of states that allow abortion, and those that don't. As before, the rich will be able to get abortions, and the poor will have unwanted babies or kill themselves trying to get rid of them. And 30,000 children that were born will continue to die every day of preventable causes (10,950,000 a year, 109,500,000 a decade, 325,500,000 in the past 30 years), but few people will put the time and effort into changing that as has been put into overturning RvW.
     
  2. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    How about the 30,000 children who die each day from preventable causes? Are they important?
     
  3. djlong

    djlong Hall Of Fame

    4,344
    57
    Jul 8, 2002
    New Hampshire
    I'm not saying this to bait you - but I'm honestly asking you a question.

    Have you ever actually been in a clinic that, among other things, performs abortions?

    I'd also ask you one other thing and I'll try to keep this as non-inflammatory as possible.

    Have you ever had to deal with a miscarriage? (Obviously I mean from the standpoint of your wife/girlfriend/s-o miscarrying your child)
     
  4. Capmeister

    Capmeister Large Hairless ApeCutting Edge: ECHELON '08

    5,222
    2
    Sep 16, 2003
    You have to think about what is LIKELY, not what is POSSIBLE, sometimes. It's possible that we pas a law that overturns Brown v. Board of Education, too--but it's politically not likely. I believe the same is the case with abortion. Like it or not, it just is NOT seen as baby killing for most, with the exception of partial birth abortion.
     
  5. Cholly

    Cholly Old Guys Rule!

    5,053
    72
    Mar 22, 2004
    Indian...
    As a Catholic, I feel compelled to disagree with much of your statement. Although Catholics overwhelmingly oppose abortion, I see Catholics divided politically, just as people of most other faiths are divided. One needs to go a bit deeper -- as a generalization, I think that in affluent areas, Catholics may be more inclined to suport Republicans. In middle class and poor areas, they may be more inclined to support Democrats.
    IMHO fundamentalists are more likely to vote Republican in today's world, regardless of Roe v. Wade.
     
  6. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    While I certainly respect your opinion as a Catholic, from reports I have seen and my own experience in talking with Catholics in the areas where I live, many Catholics voted Republican for the first time, primarily because of this issue. Republicans didn't have to pick up very many Catholics in the last election on this issue to make the difference.
     
  7. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    I kind of doubt the pro-life crowd will be satisfied if the option of abortion is merely returned to the states. What will happen when "one-hour abortion clinics" start springing up along state lines like so many firework stands or strip clubs next to states where those things are illegal? The next thing will be state laws outlawing crossing a state border in order to obtain an abortion.

    No, the pro-lifers will only be content when abortions nationwide leave clean and safe medical clinics and return to back alleys and self-induced coat hanger atrocities.
     
  8. kb7oeb

    kb7oeb Icon

    631
    0
    Jun 16, 2004
    I was watching a show talking about Embryonic Stem Cell research and the controversy surrounding it. One of the guys they talked to gave a hypothetical scenario. Imagine you are in a fertility clinic with your young son and the building catches on fire. You have have choice between grabbing a container containing a hundred of your potential children or your son. What are you going to take?
     
  9. ntexasdude

    ntexasdude Hall Of Fame

    2,684
    0
    Jan 23, 2005
    My son of course because he's a real live human being. The ones in the jar are potential children.

    My wife and I are having discussions right now with doctors in St. Louis and John Hopkins in Boston about using stem cells to grow my son new ribs. They seem to think it will be possible for him in a few years.
     
  10. Roger

    Roger Banned User

    518
    0
    Aug 7, 2002
    “Bush ABSOLUTELY wants Roe overturned, especially if its on his watch.”

    I highly doubt that since he and both Kerry belong to the Order of Death (Skull and Bones) and Bush belongs to the Bohemian Grove as well. Satan loves the sacrifice of innocence that this country makes to him everyday in the form of infanticide. There’s no way Roe vs. Wade will be overturned until Jesus Christ comes back.

    There is no left vs. right. It’s a false paradigm to keep you fooled and to give you a false sense of power with a vote that no longer matters after Bush stole the election not once but twice but my point is that both sides are controlled and both sides work towards the same goals. Both sides are members of the same groups like Skull and Bones, CFR, Trilateral, Bilderberg etc.
    Don’t think for a moment that the person who is appointed and confirmed will not be totally controlled and regardless of who gets in you’ll continually be screwed 5 to 4 by these *******s.

    This Supreme Court BS out of this country is the only area that I can think of that rivals Russian Theatre.

    As for the Catholic Church...

    1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
    1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
    1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
    1Ti 4:4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
    1Ti 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

    This description of this cult fits the Catholic Church to a T. Who in their right mind would tell their young men that they couldn’t ever marry and have companionship to lead a church when God stated: Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
    Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
    Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
    Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
    Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
    Gen 2:25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

    The Catholic Church is cruel and was involved in more religious persecution and wars than any other religion. This cult didn’t even allow their early members to even own a Bible. How can anybody let alone an alleged group of God tell young men (or women Nuns) that they can’t have a wife and the natural emotional and physical desires and needs that go with it? The Catholic Cult is rotten to the core and built upon a lie. Peter had nothing to do with this cult, period!

    Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

    Hail Mary, mother of God; I pray to you Saint whomever and to my deceased hubby; save me from Purgatory and confess my sins to the man who’s not allowed to marry; I pray to the statue (idol) of Mary; I shall never eat meat on Friday; and the crap goes on and on and on.

    This Catholic cult stole (hijacked) the name catholic and took Peter as their foundation when it’s not true. Peter is of God and this Rock is built upon Jesus Christ not a pope voted in like a politician by men not ordained by God.

    Webster 1828: CATHOLIC, a.

    1. Universal or general; as the Catholic church. Originally this epithet was given to the Christian church in general, but is now appropriated to the Romish church, and in strictness there is no Catholic church, or universal Christian communion. The epithet is sometimes set in opposition to heretic, sectary or schismatic.

    The Catholic Church is neither from Peter nor God but by the fourth beast of Daniel (Roman Empire) for crying out loud. Get out of this crap and all other organized religion and read your Bible and start your own local Church or groups. Don’t be fooled so read His Word will you? Don’t listen to these liars that give you a license to sin by preaching God’s love and telling you that sin is okay. We’ll even marry you so you can have same sex benefits. What a bunch of nonsense.

    Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
     
  11. markh

    markh Hall Of Fame

    1,036
    0
    Mar 24, 2002
    Did you somehow miss that the Catholic Church was the only Christian Church until Martin Luther came along? As far as the Church not letting members own a Bible in the early days, when was the printing press invented? Books of any kind were not owned by the average person.
     
  12. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    Did you somehow miss that the Catholic Church was the only Christian Church until Martin Luther came along?

    You are off by about 500 years and forgot about the Orthodox split. And of course there have always been, even during biblical times, branches of the "official" faith that had their own beliefs that separated them. Paul's letters to the various churches are proof of this.
     
  13. rickfromthesticks

    rickfromthesticks AllStar

    81
    0
    Sep 22, 2004
    No, I have never been to a clinic that performs abortions that I am aware of. From what my medical professional wife tells me, there aren't any around here, most abortion clinics are dedicated to that procedure. I'm sure that in the larger cities some hospitals do.
    I have some experience in miscarriages. Not in my immediate family, but it is pretty common among many of my friends. Now granted, most of my friends are church people, but we have funerals, mourn together and mention them by name very often in service and say will see them in Heaven someday. Part of our sensitivity comes from our pastor and his wife losing two children before they were successful, but since he brought it up it's amazing how many of our small congregation have shared this burden.

    I'm not baited or offended because I guess I'm too stupid to understand what you see as bait in your question. Sometimes ignorance is bliss!

    As for some of the rest of the comments here, two things come to mind. Bogy, where in the world did you get the number of 30,000 children dying a day of preventable causes? It seems ridiculous, but I'm pretty ignorant. If true of course they matter. Link me to find out the details and I'll see if there is anything I can do from my tiny sphere of influence.

    Second, did you democrats ever consider why your base is dwindling? Could it be that most of the 40 million abortions since 1973 were from families that were predominantly democrats, the poor, distressed and liberal (face it, who would be more likely to have this procedure, somone who is conservative or someone who is liberal)? Say 30 million were voting age and 2/3 were democrats, thats a 10 million vote advantage you would have had.

    Food for thought!

    Rick
     
  14. markh

    markh Hall Of Fame

    1,036
    0
    Mar 24, 2002
    OK, 500 years. My point was just that the Catholic Church was the major force in Christianity for about 1000 years then instead of 1500. I admit that religious history is not my strong subject. When was the first printing press invented?:)
     
  15. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    The point is I believe, the baby in the womb, at least for the first four or five months and possibly to term can reasonably be viewed as only a potential child also.(And frankly the idea of naming and having funerals for miscarraiges and stillbirths is pretty macabre sounding to me. But to each his own.)

    We've had some talk about miscarriages and stillbirths. They are much more common than most people think. Early in pregnancy, a mother may not even be aware one has occured. Any late period with an unusually heavy discharge is a prime candidate. The question becomes then, where to draw the line? When is a zygote or fetus human?

    Regardless of what you think, the choice of "instant of fetilization" as the moment of "humanity" is as arbitrary as anything. One could as easily choose when organs are functioning, recognizably human brain wave activity is present, or when a fetus can survive outside the womb without extraordinary measures.

    And since this almost always becomes a religious debate, could someone point me to the place(s) in the Bible that even address the question of abortion? Let alone take a pro- or con- stance? The only one I have heard is in the Old Testament in which a left-handed reference can be construed in a prescribed punishment for someone who causes another man's wife to miscarry in the course of a scuffle. It is NOT described as "murder" nor is the punishment near as severe. It seems to be more of a punishment for depriving the husband of the value of property, in this case a child. And despite it being a known practice in the time of Jesus(records indicate the Greeks practiced it as birth control and the "medical" instruments are regularly found by archeologists of the era), Jesus NEVER mentions it. Not once, not even in passing. There must have been some Greeks around, half the New Testament is WRITTEN in Greek!

    So what's the deal? Where's the Biblical justification for making such a big stink about abortion? If it's such a big sin, how come it's virtually unmentioned in the Bible?

    Here's what happened. It's been conflated into murder. It never was "murder" before, even in strict Biblilcal times. Only in the last hundred years or so has anyone even considered it murder. The reasons for this I can't tell ya. Perhaps it's the converse of Rick's logic. Condoning abortion ain't good for filling the pews. More children! More coins in the collection plate!

    Food for thought!
     
  16. rickfromthesticks

    rickfromthesticks AllStar

    81
    0
    Sep 22, 2004
    So what's the deal? Where's the Biblical justification for making such a big stink about abortion? If it's such a big sin, how come it's virtually unmentioned in the Bible?


    OK jonstad, here's at least a short answer:

    Jer 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
    God forms us in the womb and even "knows" us there.

    Deu 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
    God has a plan for the unborn, including raising up a seed from David for the Savior.

    Mar 10:14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
    We know Jesus loved born children for sure.

    Lev 18:21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD.
    This was a pagan practice of killing children (admittedly born ones) for false gods that Israel paid a heavy price all through history.

    Now I do understand your trepidation concerning letting religious people write the laws of the land. There are many things we see in the Old Testament that if taken literally would put us in the same category as the Islamic terrorists. For example, the scenario of the sperm and the child mentioned earlier in this thread. Check this out.

    Gen 38:9 And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother's wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.
    Gen 38:10 And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also.

    Should using contraceptives be a capital crime? No. God is the God of justice, we are just commanded to obey Him first, but this teaches us that He even cares about "potential" unborn. It wasn't the spilling of the seed that condemned Onan, it was his attitude about it. Onan didn't want to help his dead brother carry on his bloodline.

    In conclusion, I would say that it isn't the killing that is such a concern, it is the fact that the victim is helpless. The more helpless the worse the "crime" against God. The Bible teaches war is sometimes of God and the death penalty is approved for GOVERNMENTS (not individuals). These "victims" are grown and have had their opportunity to display faith in God or lack thereof. They are not helpless.

    It's a big topic and this is just a capsule. Abortion is not new, it was going on at the time of Jesus and I am a little surprised that He didn't mention it by name. I have quotes from the early church fathers that describe and condemn the process in such detail, I can tell that not much had changed in 2000 years on this issue. From their description you would think you're reading a medical manual including tools and everything. Ugg!

    Rick
     
  17. djlong

    djlong Hall Of Fame

    4,344
    57
    Jul 8, 2002
    New Hampshire
    Many people think that any question regarding one's experiences concerning abortions or miscarriages is 'bait'.

    The reason I ask is that I've known far too many people who simply listen the shrill rhetoric (on both sides).

    On occasion, when I'm really in a bad mood and someone goes spouting off on how they think that people walk into abortion clinics 'on a whim', I'll go off on them and ask them if they ever had to do some of the things I had to do when my wife miscarried (I'll spare the graphic details) - and that maybe when they get their heads out of their handler-approved propaganda pamphlets I'll be happy to talk to them but, until then, their ignorance is not worth any further response.

    But when you get people who know, for example, how much prenatal care Planned Parenthood provides, or the fact that many clinics aren't just "abortion factories" and that there really are developmental stages in pregnancy, it makes for a much more reasoned discourse.
     
  18. Cholly

    Cholly Old Guys Rule!

    5,053
    72
    Mar 22, 2004
    Indian...
    :soapbox: What started out as a thread engaging in conjecture about who might be the next appointee to the Supreme Court has descended into a series of religious diatribes. I've often heard it said that you can use the Bible to support almost any opinion. Who among you are truly religious scholars other than Bogy? Can't we keep religion out of politics?
    (Aside to Bogy: In my neck of the woods, many Catholics are passionate Republicans. As for me, I've always been a registered Republican, but have often voted for the other guys :D )
    :backtotop Being that President Bush is a "compassionate conservative" by his own admission, I believe that he will nominate a conservative to the Court. It would seem that Gonzales would pass the litmus test and still stand a chance of being accepted by the Democrats.

    Charlie
     
  19. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    WHO Report
    The World Heath Organization good enough? 10.5 million a year figures out to just under 30,000 a day. And that is CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF FIVE.

    So your position is that primarily poor, distressed and liberal get abortions? No rich, advantaged conservatives ever get them, or ever have teenage daughters who get knocked up? I've found that when it comes to their own situation many people change their view, at least for their own situation.

    Besides, dwindling base? Right now the nation is as close as it could be to being evenly divided. If you are right, the Democrats would now be beating Republicans by a huge margin. Of course, if it weren't for this issue, Democrats would be beating Republicans by a huge margin anyway.
     
  20. rickfromthesticks

    rickfromthesticks AllStar

    81
    0
    Sep 22, 2004
    Thank you for the link Bogy, I guess my first thought was 30,000 in the US which would be epidemic. That would be my "we are the only ones that count" mental attitude showing and I apologize for it.

    As for the shot about:
    "So your position is that primarily poor, distressed and liberal get abortions? No rich, advantaged conservatives ever get them, or ever have teenage daughters who get knocked up? I've found that when it comes to their own situation many people change their view, at least for their own situation."

    Now you know that's not what I said. My guesstimate allowed 10 million conservative decisions for abortion. Too many of "us" conservatives are in name only and their decisions reflect other world views. If we were truly united not only Bush, but congress would have no viable option but to nominate and approve a strict constructionist to the Supremes. Many people on both sides are looking for political advantage rather than the future stability of our nation.

    Rick
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements