Less That $1.9k To Go!!
Just A Reminder
Please Don't Forget
To Donate To FR
This Quarter
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 08/25/2012 6:34:50 AM PDT by C19fan
Mike Huckabee rallied hundreds of Southern Baptists on a conference call Friday night in support of Todd Akin, offering advice about how they can help the embattled Missouri Senate candidate stay in the race — while acknowledging Akin still may have to bow out.
“This could be a Mt. Carmel moment,” said the former Arkansas governor, referring to the holy battle between Elijah and the prophets of Baal in the book of Kings. “You know, you bring your gods. We’ll bring ours. We’ll see whose God answers the prayers and brings fire from heaven. That’s kind of where I’m praying: that there will be fire from heaven, and we’ll see it clearly, and everyone else will to.”
(Excerpt) Read more at dyn.politico.com ...
Wasn’t he winning before he opened his big mouth?
In his voting record of 12 years in the House and 12 in the legislature he has. And actions speak louder than words in the SHOW ME state.
You're not helping, are you? You are fighting for the other side right now. You are echoing the MSM and Democrat talking points.
Maybe if conservatives backed up Akin like we backed up Dan Cathy, he'd win in a landslide.
But you'd rather wring your hands and play the victim.
Read my tagline.
We're in a war. Which side are you on?
"Birth Control" Pills cause early Abortions
Why Pro-Lifers Must Oppose Contraception
“What About an Ectopic Pregnancy?”
This is IMO one of the most egregious examples of how some in the pro-life movement view ectopic pregnancies. “Let’s just wait it out and hope that the mother doesn’t hemorrhage to death while we wait it out until and hope that the baby dies a “natural death” first”. Don’t do anything to intervene to save the mother’s life until we are absolutely certain the fetus is already dead and rule out that she is carry twins”
In conclusion, there are no occasions in which the intentional killing of the pre-born child is justified. Scientific fact and divine law are clear: life begins at conception, and there are no exceptions to the prohibition of intentionally killing an innocent human being. We must stand true to these foundational principles through every emotional appeal and in every tragic scenario if we are to have any principles at all for which to stand.
If you, on solely religious grounds are against the use of birth control or of medical intervention in cases to save the life of the mother such as in cases of ectopic pregnancy; fine, I have no argument with your religious beliefs, but realize that this is not position held by the majority of people in this country nor is it supported by common or historical legal or medical precedence. If you are pro-life as I am, you must understand that these positions, while you may think they get you into Heaven, does not in reality help the pro-life cause and in the greater scheme of things only hurts the pro-life cause. We can turn the tide of the number of abortions if we can come together on where we all agree rather than on points were we may disagree.
Contrary to what some of you are trying to claim about me, I am pro-life and always have been, but not on religious grounds as I am a non-believer. But I am pro-life as a conservative constitutionalist and one who believes in human rights and the constitutionally protected life of unborn children in the womb. Where I may differ with some of you is perhaps where life and human rights begins and ends and the rights and the sanctity of the life of the mother begins and ends.
For instance, in cases of ectopic pregnancy where there is no chance for the child to be born alive and continuation of the pregnancy would most likely result in either the mother’s death or in her inability to ever again conceive or bring another pregnancy to term, I have no issue with emergency medical intervention to save the mother’s life. In these very rare cases, but not exceptional cases, I believe that saving the life of the mother, as she may have other children to care for or may in the future give birth to other children is an ethical and moral consideration. To let her needlessly die when her unborn child has no chance of survival is IMO immoral and unconscionable.
I believe that the responsible use of birth control among sexually active consenting adults, married or unmarried; those who do not what to have children, using birth control is the responsible thing to do; condoms, the “Pill”, barrier methods, the rhythm method; all are available and affordable (and that the government should not and need not pay for them) and what responsible people, married or unmarried, use to prevent unplanned pregnancies, but when those methods fail, we should not murder the child especially once that child in the womb has reached the point of viability outside the womb.
In cases of reported cases of rape or incest, I have no problem with the victim receiving emergency contraceptives as I do not think that is the same thing as an abortion.
As far as “late term” abortions (with the exception in the extremely rare cases necessary to save the mother’s life), or partial birth abortions, gender based abortions or abortions of children with congenital defects, or in abortions of convenience or in failure of birth control - I do not believe in abortion as I believe that is that abortion in these cases is the murder of an other human.
Are we clear here or do I have to further explain my pro-life position?
Actually, Mike, I’m thinking of you and Todd more as Nadab and Abihu.
The 'other side' wants Akin to remain in the race so that McCaskill will be able to win what was an un-winnable race for her only two weeks ago. As for Cathy, I backed him up because he didn't back down from truth like Akin did. Cathy didn't say something incredibly stupid just because he wanted to avoid answering a question about abortion when it comes to the victims of rape.
Very, very well put.
> Contraception was designed to limited population growth.Contraception is the same spirit as Abortion: destruction of God’s greatest blessings.
See my tag line.
By the way, God’s penultimate blessing is, “I will multiply your generations.”
God’s penultimate curse is, “I will cut off your seed.”
Many people today, even Christians, are rejecting the blessing and volunteering for the curse.
Where do you see in that post a demand to outlaw contraceptives? Or by labeling them as a form of abortion?
In that quote there is not one single line about banning contraceptives. You realize, don't you, that that was the talking point of the left (And Mitt Romney-bots...but, I repeat myself.) against Rick Santorum's candidacy.
Akin defended those babies conceived from rapes, when he said that the rapist should be the one punished not the baby. Or as that Scotish Character said in the movie, “ Its not the baby that needs killing”.
Romney won’t say that.
What does Mitt Romney have to do with Todd Akin’s idiocy? Sure, Akin is more pro-life than Romney. A lot more. But that’s not the issue here. The issue is getting rid of Claire McCaskill. If Romney (or any other Republican) were running against her today, he would beat her. Akin will not. So it comes down to who you want sitting in that seat for the next six years. But one thing is for sure. It won’t be Todd Akin. As bad as independent voters feel about Claire McCaskill, their opinions of Todd Akin are even worse. And that is the reality of the situation.
How many times have you seen that happen here?
I like your poker analogy. But unfortunately for us it isn’t Akins money in the pot. He is willing to risk the long odds because he cares a lot less about the fate of the nation and the party than he does his very very small chance of winning a Senate seat. Meanwhile he can keep funneling the money idiots send him to his son running his doomed campaign. He has nothing to lose. It is the rest of us who stand to lose and lose big.
The majority of those mice did not miscarry IIRC. Roughly 30000 pregnancies from rape happen every year. Around 11% miscarry and 50% are aborted. The pro life position needs to be that this is 15000 innocent victims. Not that their mothers were not the victims of “legitimate” rape.
Doc, I’ve looked at the links in your #105 and none of them are even freeper threads. What you and DmanA were asserting was that freepers were calling for banning contraceptives. We asked you to show us one of those posts by some freeper, because we hadn’t ever seen one.
We all acknowledge that there are religious groups that don’t support contraception, the Catholic Church believing that for forever, so far as I know. (I’m not Roman Catholic.)
Santorum said he though contraceptives gave a false sense of security to our women, and that single-parent homes were a great burden on them. That is one of the reasons he did not support contraceptives. However, he was took great pains to point out that he did not think that personal belief of his about the destructiveness of contraception should be public policy.
As always, though, the objection to contraception is not the objection to abortion which is always the direct killing of an innocent baby.
Are there Catholics out there who think that such a particular belief should be imposed legally on the entire nation. There probably are, but I’ve never met one or read one. Are there many who might say the nation would be better off if everyone did reject contraception. Since that is speaking to the belief side of the issue, I’m sure there are. But those folks haven’t pushed for any kind of legal ban that I’ve ever heard of.
Are you Pro-Life, allmendream?
However, I think you and some other Freepers are talking past each other.
Please understand that for evangelical Christians such as me, as well as many other social conservatives, we don't necessarily believe all sins should be punished by civil authority. If you show that Person X or Person Y believes something is sinful, you haven't yet proved they want to criminalize that sin.
I can think of lots of people — not only Roman Catholics but also evangelicals — who are concerned that the Pill and IUDs work by preventing implantation of an embryo in the uterus. I happen to be one of them; if in doubt, I don't think we should risk using something which may cause abortions. However, I do not believe the science is clear enough yet on that issue that we have valid grounds to make the Pill and IUDs illegal, even if we had the votes to do so. The fact is we need five votes of nine on the US Supreme Court, and until we can get those five votes, nothing else matters, so were wasting our time talking about criminalizing birth control even if we had a large majority in some state legislature that wanted to do so.
I'd have to spend a lot of electrons explaining details to back up my view on this, and after I did, I'd be explaining the classic Reformed position which won't necessarily reflect the views of some other evangelicals on Free Republic. Short version — the Old Testament and more clearly the New Testament assign certain enforcement to the family, certain enforcement to the religious authorities, and certain enforcement to the civil authorities.
For example, the civil magistrate has no authority to administer the sacraments, the church has no authority to execute offenders, and in general the church and state both need to stay out of family life. To cite another example, let's say a father is a racist bigot who hates all black people and refuses to let them into his house. Even modern liberals don't advocate forcing that bigoted father to let his son's black friends into his house, and his views are not illegal. However, I would say that father, though fully within his rights under state and family authority to decide who is allowed in his own home, is a valid subject for church discipline if he hates fellow Christians merely because of the color of their skin. We are not permitted by Scripture to fear those who fear God. Just one proof of that: God, through the Apostle Paul, had some pretty severe rebukes for Peter when he drew back from the early Gentile converts and refused to eat with them.
I don't expect any of this argumentation to persuade a non-believer of my belief system. I do hope it is helpful to you in understanding my belief system even if you don't accept it. When I say something is sinful and wicked, that doesn't always mean I want the government passing a law against it, even if we had the votes and the constitutional authority to do so. Some things are beyond the legitimate sphere of authority of the state and belong instead to the sphere of the church or of the family.
I told you what I saw. If you don’t believe me it’s no skin of my nose.
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.