Posted on 08/13/2004 9:36:00 AM PDT by IdaBriggs
Homosexuality: There are two flaws in that arguement: Hate crimes laws and gay marriage.
Being homosexual is a protected legal status, and that status costs us money to promote and defend. The courts aren't run as a charity; they cost real money. The more laws we pass that codify homosexuality as accepted behaviour, the more money we have to spend to support it.
I personally don't have any problems with people being gay. Everyone should have their own fun. I just don't want to subsidize it. I don't ask the government for discounts on porn or for free beer, and I don't think homosexual couples should ask the government for marriage licenses.
You choose the lifestyle, you pay your own way. Sound fair?
Abortion: I'm sure that taxpayer money can or has been used to fund abortions. I'm even more sure that if Democrats have their way, taxpayer money would be used to fund abortions at every turn. I don't have any references on me, but I'm sure our fellow FReepers have more than enough, if you are interested. I do think that if we care more about endangered species of animals than we do human life, we're a pretty sorry society.
At any rate, I really don't care what people do or think until they start hitting me up for money. Being free to be stupid or wrong doesn't mean that being stupid or wrong should be free.
I'll take orders from you when you have any importance whatsoever. Don't tell me what to do you newbie numbskull.
Thank you very much Gail. I am going to send this out to several people in my email tonight.
I really think it will make an impact on them.
I recommend you superglue you tush to the chair in front of your computer and do not leave this forum for the next seven days. We'll cure you of this, by God, we will!
Half-jesting, of course. Arguing the pro-life side of the coin is what I do.
Except grellis.
If this country is being run by John F. Kerry on January 21, 2005, then I for one will not be proud. I will be disgusted, impatiently awaiting our next civil war.
I'm pro-choice, and you make a valid argument. If I were pro life (which I used to be), I'd probably be saying the same thing. The problem with the issue of abortion is that there's such an incredibly grey area in between sides, but people tend to act as if it were a black and white issue. One guy's going "There's no grey area when it comes to killing childen!!!", and another's going "There's no grey area in forcing women to have kids!!!".
The issue is decided by how it's framed. No one thinks killing kids should be legal and very few think that, say, condoms kill babies. The question that no one knows the answer to is "When does a sperm and an egg become a child?" One's answer to that question determines whether they're pro-life or pro-choice.
After much thought, in my head I've drawn that line as "at or near birth". I can see the logic of saying that when a fetus can live outside the womb freely, it could be considered a child... so I could understand someone drawing that line at a month or two before birth. However, most pro-lifers draw the line at conception, and they're certainly entitled to draw it wherever they want seeing as it is an opinion, but it doesn't pass the test of reason for me.
And since I don't accept the reasoning, I don't accept abortion as murder. If we were talking about, say, abortion 2 days before expected delivery, then I most likely would. And so does the government.
Now, how do we use the slavery/"inferior human beings with fewer rights" argument to argue against abortion, but keep that argument from being used in regards to homosexuality? Thoughts?
if we're taking this verse literally, then it would seem that this argument only applies to boys though...
I saw Ida's "I'm going over there [to FR]" DU post early today and not only vouch, but suggest Ms. Briggs will be more quickly booted from DU rather than from FR.
yes, i see you chose not to take my original advice...
You arrogant prat. You do notice your warm and fuzzy electric grandmother has been banned. Your a fool.
You have to remember that it was written at a time when people were guided by common sense and there was no such thing as political correctness. "Men" was a generic term that referred collectively to men AND women, as in "members of the human race," as well as a gender specific term. But then, you probably knew that. 
You're a fool.
absolutely. i think we are of the same mind then. the only thing i would potentially question is... "The courts aren't run as a charity; they cost real money. The more laws we pass that codify homosexuality as accepted behaviour, the more money we have to spend to support it."
i don't think there should be any "special laws" passed to make homosexuality more accepted either. i think there is one american citizen and we all should have the same rights. so, if there are laws previously passed that take away rights from homosexuals or any other citizens, then i have no problem with the court costs to throw them out. that's what the courts are for, after all. But then again, I may have just said exactly what you were trying to say.
I believe you meant to say "You're a fool". Have a great weekend = )
NOONE has "a right" to love God in their own way AND BE A CHRISTIAN...NO, we must love God his way, that means repenting of our sins and embracing his word...The Bible.
WE do not go to heaven by continuing in sins that GOD calls an abomination, that includes homosexuality, adultery, witchcraft, and other sins SPECIFICALLY declared unacceptably by God. WE don't make God acceptable to us, we make ourselves acceptable to God.
TRY to remember who it is that is going to let you into heaven, it isn't me or any of the other FREEPERS...it is GOD, and it is his BIBLE, his authority and his RULES. NOW, with that said... please understand GRACE in that you cannot keep his rules without his son living in your life and through you, God does not expect you to be able to do it on your own....but a homosexual or other sinner must renounce the sin, depart from it in order to continue with Christ in their life, by allowing Jesus Christ to do the work of keeping those sins out of the persons life.
Abortion is murder, plain and simple and should need no explanation. You plant tomatoes..you get tomatoes, you plant corn...you get corn. If you really are a gardner this should be a no brainer. The seed is dormant, not dead, it produces what it is....so does the seed of man (sperm and egg), so therefore it must be a BABY HUMAN, not something else that magically changes after three months...it was, is and shall be a human being, and we should not kill it at any stage of development.
Christianity is not a live and let live philosophy...Jesus said 'GO YE INTO ALL THE WORLD AND PREACH THE GOSPEL'...WE must obey if we are christians, or we are disobeying our Lord. Why is that so hard to understand. We know Jesus personally, and we commune with him daily, our desire is to share that with everyone and our command from Jesus is to share that with everyone. If they don't want it, fine, we move on but do not ever expect us to change over to accepting sin as being perfectly fine with God, it isn't.
I've seen her thread too. I'm talking about vouching for her as opposed to her thread.
I know I would too, but that is not the general concensus with the legislators. Give the baby up for adoption is better.
In a heartbeat.
------------------------------------------------------------
Why the drop after 1960? (in deaths of women from illegal abortions)
The reasons were new and better antibiotics, better surgery and the establishment of intensive care units in hospitals. This was in the face of a rising population. Between 1967 and 1970 sixteen states legalized abortion. In most it was limited, only for rape, incest and severe fetal handicap (life of mother was legal in all states). There were two big exceptions — California in 1967, and New York in 1970 allowed abortion on demand. Now look at the chart carefully.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abortion Statistics - Decision to Have an Abortion (U.S.)
· 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing
· 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby
· 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child
· 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy)
· 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career
· 7.9% of women want no (more) children
· 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So how many women’s lives have been saved by abortion?
Only about 3% of abortions since 1972 were reported to be “due to a risk to maternal health.” A reasonable person would recognize that not all of those cases represent a lethal risk. But let’s say they did. That means that nearly 45 million fetuses were butchered to save the lives of about 1.3 million women. Or put another way; 35 babies are killed to save each woman.
Abortion was legal in all 50 states prior to Roe v. Wade in cases of danger to the life of the woman.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.