PRO-LIFE WARNING TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

A 2004 pro-life thread brought back to life | 11-13-04 | Vicomte13

[JeffAtlanta]

Actually, I think he's right on that one; it was gay marriage that brought out the voters in the states where it was on the ballot.

There is no evidence that it helped elect Bush. All of the eleven states that had it on the ballot had the same presidential outcome as in 2000. The ban passed in Michigan and Oregon and Bush still lost those states.

The states that did swing to the other side (New Hampshire, Iowa and New Mexico) did not have gay marriage bans on the ballot.

[AlbionGirl]

Oh my goodness is that unsightly!

[Luis Gonzalez]

You abandon the GOP, you elect Hillary.

How far will Hillary advance your agenda?

[Drammach]

You ARE wearing flame-proof undies...aren't you?

I'm wearing Depends...
Every time I get p*****d off, it's just more fire-proofing..

All the hair on my legs is singed off though..

[AlbionGirl]

If I recall correctly.

[ApesForEvolution]

That was pretty funny! ;)

I support positive ideas and finishing the race...nothing more, nothing less.

I can't help but remember reading about the Hebrew midwives in Egypt that were ordered by Pharoah (?) I beleve, to murder the new born Hebrew babies...original pro-life civil disobedience.

[Paridel]

You ARE wearing flame-proof undies...aren't you?

Sigh, this is the Internet. The correct terminology is asbestos pants. ;-)

-paridel

[AndyJackson]

so that brings us to crime and punishment, which seems to be the basic reason that governmental bodies exist. Now I believe the reason that punishments for crime exist is not to seek vengeance, but rather as a disincentive for future crimes.

You are putting words in the mouths of liberatarians and beating them over the head with it. The function of government in the libertarian universe is not crime and punishment - that is an old testament view of things. The libertarian view would be that the government should act to protect individual liberty, life, and property rights. To the extent that restraining and punishing criminals is necessary to accomplish that then it is just, but vengence against criminals is not a function of goverment in the libertarian universe. In the libertarian view, redress against criminals would be more in line with civil penalties - that they should make restitution for the wrongs they have committed.

In fact, re vengence - "Vengence is mine sayeth the lord" - a teaching that our "Christian right" cannot seem to keep in mind when in their anger, envy and bloodlust they seek to strike out against those they disagree with.

[ApesForEvolution]

Prove it! ;o

[unsycophant]

You seem to be a magnet for them. Congratulations. You have arrived.

[tpaine]

Bumpkin my boy, -- I won't reply later.

[Howlin]

ROFLMAO. You idiot!

[ScholarWarrior]

Have fun, all. Off to give my daughter a birthday party.

[ApesForEvolution]

LOL

Yeah, I know...

[Howlin]

As usual.

[ApesForEvolution]

Pro-abort

[AndyJackson]

my sister lived long enough

I love it when these folks believe that serving judge and jury isn't enough but they need to act as god as well. It is ok since god (or something) speaks to them in voices so they know exactly what god intends. By their reasoning we should eschew all modern medical advances and die by age 33 as, apparently, god intended. Modern medicine is an invention of satan to woo us to his side by beguiling us with a vision of a long, soft an pleasant life. It matters not, in the end, all of us so seduced will burn in the everlasting fires.

[Clorinox]

I could care less what others think of my positions. They can type at their keyboards all they want and they sure as hell won't change my mind. A lot of them would like to force people by the barrel of a gun to do what they think is the only moral option. Unless they are willing to invade my house (if they do they would be in for an awful surprise), and kill me, they are not going to change my mind. Wasn't Jesus espousing personal and not governmental morality? And isn't this really what the argument is about, government enforced morality? Why stop there? Doesn't the baby deserve health care once born? Why not have the gov. pay for that? Do you only care about the baby when its in the womb, once it's out you have no obligation to provide for its food/health? Since many babies who are already born are dying from malnutrition isn't it the governments responsibility to ensure this doesn't happen, every dime spent to ensure no babies die around the world? You should have no problem spending tax resources on innocent babies dying of malnutrition and disease all over the globe.

[kjvail]

There are valid reasons for using natural family planning.

They are few and far between tho. Means of artificial birth control either place barriers between people and interfere with the unitative nature of the conjugal act or they act as abortifacients and are actually nothing more than a chemical abortion. I see you are Episcopalian, perhaps you could learn from John Paul II's Theology of the Body.

BTW, if I recall correctly the Episcopalian church was the first major denomination to come out in favor of artificial birth control in the 1930s.

[AndyJackson]

You can have a problem with whatever you want.

I do. I think pro-lifers who believe that you have a right to condemn everyone who disagrees with you to death at sword or gun-point are hypocritical evil megalomaniacs. There isn't a Christian cell in your bodies.