Every one already knows who will end up bearing the burden of these babies. That is not really changing anyone's positions. This is not a money issue for most.

As for "me first" right wingers, what are you refering to? How about the "me first" lagabouts who bring more babies into the world than they can afford and who don't pay taxes sufficient to cover the benefits they receive. Where is the logic or fairness of accusing the ones who foot the bill for others with being selfish while giving a pass to the ones who are getting more than they give?

This is pointless to debate. You have your position, I have mine. I just think it's very hypocritical that the same people who want to save these babies don't give a sh*t once they're born. Where do you think the money is going to come from when we have 1.2 million extra babies born each year? We all know that most of these babies would be born into lower income families. And Prune is living in a fantasyland if he thinks that there is a waiting list of millions of potential parents looking for babies.

I just think it's very hypocritical that the same people who want to save these
babies don't give a sh*t once they're born.

Not true. Nor am I in a fantasy land.

Remember, facts prove that conservatives give far above liberals when it comes
to caring for people. Liberals think it's the government's job.

Talk about hypocritical. Look at the left.

Not true. Nor am I in a fantasy land.

Remember, facts prove that conservatives give far above liberals when it comes
to caring for people. Liberals think it's the government's job.

Talk about hypocritical. Look at the left.

Aren't you the one who said we should abolish welfare? I agree - it's abused and people are lazy. But seriously - if these babies are being forced to be born who's going to pay the way? Obviously the parents won't give a crap if they wanted to abort them in the first place.

Aren't you the one who said we should abolish welfare?
Yes. Get rid of it completely.



But seriously - if these babies are being forced to be born who's going to pay
the way? Obviously the parents won't give a crap if they wanted to abort them
in the first place.

Their parents are the ones who pay the way. Government funded
irresponsibility, aka the democrat vote program, should be done away with. If
these irresponsible people don't get a free ride or paid for having children, via
the democrat vote program, and have to responsible for their mistakes then it
only makes sense that they'll take the necessary means to not have children
they don't want.

It's not ignorance, it's greed.

Abortion isn't an option.

Well, actually, it is.

The definitive answer on the abortion issue can be found here:

Catholic Charities Social Action Pro-Life 101 (http://www.catholiccharitiesok.org/social_action_prolife.html)

Its a long read but well worth the time and I beleive it addresses almost if not every argument posted.

Aren't you the one who said we should abolish welfare? I agree - it's abused and people are lazy. But seriously - if these babies are being forced to be born who's going to pay the way? Obviously the parents won't give a crap if they wanted to abort them in the first place.

Many people who abort babies make good money and simply don't want to change a lifestyle they've worked hard to achieve. Or they got together with someone they don't want to be tied to the rest of their life and a baby resulted. Plenty of them would make sure any child born to them was well cared for - it is just that they don't want to go down the road that child requires. I worry less about the ones who considered abortion supporting a child than I do the ones who have baby after baby and don't get a thought to what the child needs. And most people who end up having a baby after considering abortion love their children as much as anyone else.

I just think it's very hypocritical that the same people who want to save these babies don't give a sh*t once they're born.


What is hypocritical is the same people who complain about others not giving a **** in fact don't themselves. It is a fact that conservatives are more charitable than liberals and it is also a fact that those who identify themselves as liberals have the means to end all poverty in America without it costing the tax-payers a dime and yet they continue to let children suffer through poverty and have so for decades.

So take all of the other sanctimonious and morally superior people on the left side of this dichotomy that you have created, pool all of their money since they are so compassionate and willing to help the poor, and simply end poverty in America. Nothing is stopping you and you have more than enough money. Why isn't it being done?

Maybe some of you Utopians should realize that the only cure for poverty is wealth.

Many people who abort babies make good money and simply don't want to change a lifestyle they've worked hard to achieve. Or they got together with someone they don't want to be tied to the rest of their life and a baby resulted. Plenty of them would make sure any child born to them was well cared for - it is just that they don't want to go down the road that child requires. I worry less about the ones who considered abortion supporting a child than I do the ones who have baby after baby and don't get a thought to what the child needs. And most people who end up having a baby after considering abortion love their children as much as anyone else.

Speaking of making good money...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5atn-FwfNQM&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5atn-FwfNQM&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

It is a fact that conservatives are more charitable than liberals


Source?

12 week Ultra Sound - That is in the first trimester.
I think I recognize some of those body parts?

Do "conservatives" give more to charitable causes than "liberals"? According to Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks, they do. Dr. Brooks, a professor of public administration at Syracuse's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, was quite astounded with the results of his own research, which was so at variance with the common perception of the generous "liberal" and the Scrooge-like "conservative."

In his book, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservativism (Basic Books, 2006), Brooks discovered that approximately equal percentages of liberals and conservatives give to private charitable causes. However, conservatives gave about 30 percent more money per year to private charitable causes, even though his study found liberal families earned an average of 6 percent more per year in income than did conservative families. This greater generosity among conservative families proved to be true in Brooks' research for every income group, "from poor to middle class to rich."

This "giving gap" also extended beyond money to time donated to charitable causes, as well. Brooks also discovered that in 2002, conservative Americans were much more likely to donate blood each year than liberals and to do so more often within a year. Brooks found "if liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply in the United States would jump by about 45 percent."

When Brooks compared his findings to IRS data on the percentage of household income given away, he found that "red" states in the 2004 election were more charitable than "blue" states. Brooks found that 24 of the 25 states that were above average in family charitable giving voted for Bush in 2004, and 17 of the 25 states below average in giving voted for Kerry. Brooks concluded, "The electoral map and the charity map are remarkably similar."

Why? A clue may be found in the 1996 General Social Survey, which asked Americans whether they agreed that "the government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality." People who "disagreed strongly" with that statement gave 12 times more money to charity per year than those who "agreed strongly" with the statement.

One's values, beliefs and political philosophies seem to impact how much one shares of one's own income with the less fortunate in society. Facts are often surprising and illuminating.

Conservatives Give More to Charity than Liberals? - Casting Stones (http://blog.beliefnet.com/castingstones/2008/04/conservatives-give-more-to-cha.html)

Bleeding heart liberals believing in giving, as long as the government is doing it.

This latest discussion was really interesting to me so I did some research real quick to see what I could turn up on "Who Really Cares?" It turns out that it really isn't as clear cut as it has been stated. The book in question makes a distinction between charity and philanthropy with philanthropy being donations of larger sums of money largely aimed at educational institutions, fine arts, and so on. As we all know the two richest and two largest philanthropists in the nation, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, are both well-known liberals. There donations effectively were not counted for the purposes of this study. Also the author admits that the data he parsed had a lot of qualifying information hitched to it that they decided not to really mention in the book to give a clearer picture. Finally it should be noted that while professor Brooks is a registered Independent he is president of the conservative think-tank the Enterprise Institute.

If we were to view this from a dispassionate science standpoint we would probably say that he has some very interesting data that is worth noting, but we need several other studies to be done by others that reach the same conclusion to really confirm this. It is very interesting data though.

This latest discussion was really interesting to me so I did some research real quick to see what I could turn up on "Who Really Cares?" It turns out that it really isn't as clear cut as it has been stated. The book in question makes a distinction between charity and philanthropy with philanthropy being donations of larger sums of money largely aimed at educational institutions, fine arts, and so on. As we all know the two richest and two largest philanthropists in the nation, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, are both well-known liberals. There donations effectively were not counted for the purposes of this study. Also the author admits that the data he parsed had a lot of qualifying information hitched to it that they decided not to really mention in the book to give a clearer picture. Finally it should be noted that while professor Brooks is a registered Independent he is president of the conservative think-tank the Enterprise Institute.

If we were to view this from a dispassionate science standpoint we would probably say that he has some very interesting data that is worth noting, but we need several other studies to be done by others that reach the same conclusion to really confirm this. It is very interesting data though.

I think there's plenty of information, if you did a search on google, it would pretty much confirm that conservatives out give liberals. Liberals want to see people helped probably as equal as conservative do (I assume), but conservatives give out of their pocketbooks while liberals want the government to do it.

Source?

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html)

The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion.


Just as I thought.. conservatives give a majority of their charitable contributions to the church ... which in many cases go to their preacher's many mega mansions and Mercedes.

Somehow, I don't think those poor struggling single mothers forced by guilt to carry their unwanted children get the full benefit of these donations..

Just as I thought.. conservatives give a majority of their charitable contributions to the church ... which in many cases go to their preacher's many mega mansions and Mercedes.

Somehow, I don't think those poor struggling single mothers forced by guilt to carry their unwanted children get the full benefit of these donations..

That's just plain wrong and a big assumption on your part. There are many Christian organizations that have homes for single unwed mothers, far more than you realize. Just because a person's religion motivates them to give to charity, doesn't mean they give it all to the church. Many non-profit organizations, religious, or not, would go under if conservatives quit giving as generously as they do. That's just a fact, whether you want to admit it or not.

In today's economy, once people give the suggested 10% tithe commitment to their church, how much do you actually believe is left over for other ' non-profits'?

I give to a non-profit specific to Single mothers because I can't bear the thought of the children suffering. I know the majority of it goes to helping the children.

I'm not implying that all conservative giving is allocated this way, but I cringe at the suggested idea that 'liberals' don't give and they may actually give less than 'conservatives' .. if this is a true fact, then yes, it can be attributed to the religious aspect.. giving to the church.. but I really don't care who gives what, as long as people are giving.

And, I hate all the labels by the way.

And, I hate all the labels by the way.

Labels help define people and objectives.

Labels help define people . . . .

And serve no real purpose other than seperate them.

Michael

Pray For World Peace . . . pass it on

Thunder, for you to place all pastors/ Church's in a negative light is totally unfair, I now many that don't live in mansion's or drive luxury cars. My pastor, Bro. Paul Salyer, whom just recently passed, lived in a house given to him and his family by the church several years ago, it was about 6 blocks from SE Highschool (I don't recall any mansions in that area), his wife drove a 4 year old Nissan and he drove a 13 year old pickup.

The last time I checked, we were a "FREE COUNTRY", and have the right to pick and choose who we donate to.

Labels help define people and objectives.

In simplistic, unjustified, slanted, misleading and conclusory terms, if you're into that sort of thing.

I just think it's very hypocritical that the same people who want to save these babies don't give a sh*t once they're born.

Says you. That's really irresponsible to just pull that statement out of the air and not only apply it to many on this board but also to so many of your fellow Americans.

I'm not gonna get into the liberal vs. conservative and who gives more debate. I'm gonna stick to the issue of this topic, children.

The pro-choice people on this discussion keep saying that the pro-life people are sitting in judgment, but I've explained that it's not true. With that being said, who are you to judge me? Not that it's any of your business, but I've given plenty of money in benevolence. I haven't just given tithes to pay for my pastor's $12,000 Skylark. So I do care about children after they are born. It pains my heart every time I read or hear about a child being abused or murdered. I just can't stand any wrong doing against a child, it gets all over me.

I know you can't compare those of us on here who give to church to Bill Gates or Warren Buffet but remember this passage for Luke chapter 21:

1As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. 2He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins.[a] 3"I tell you the truth," he said, "this poor widow has put in more than all the others. 4All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on."

This latest discussion was really interesting to me so I did some research real quick to see what I could turn up on "Who Really Cares?" It turns out that it really isn't as clear cut as it has been stated. The book in question makes a distinction between charity and philanthropy with philanthropy being donations of larger sums of money largely aimed at educational institutions, fine arts, and so on. As we all know the two richest and two largest philanthropists in the nation, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, are both well-known liberals. There donations effectively were not counted for the purposes of this study. Also the author admits that the data he parsed had a lot of qualifying information hitched to it that they decided not to really mention in the book to give a clearer picture. Finally it should be noted that while professor Brooks is a registered Independent he is president of the conservative think-tank the Enterprise Institute.

If we were to view this from a dispassionate science standpoint we would probably say that he has some very interesting data that is worth noting, but we need several other studies to be done by others that reach the same conclusion to really confirm this. It is very interesting data though.

Nothing wrong with philanthropy as you state it, but it really doesn't do anything for the poor.

Nothing wrong with philanthropy as you state it, but it really doesn't do anything for the poor.

When you write "poor," do you mean the generational poor or just someone who is down on their luck due to, say, an illness or being laid off?

And serve no real purpose other than seperate them.

Not true. Labels allow you to know what your getting. Labels also allow you to
know the intent of someone, especially when they start demeaning, belittling
and name calling.

As far as separating, that's what people do when they find out what's in the
unlabeled package.

Many of the pious types obey a set of political ideals far more than the mostly irrelevant and backwards rules written in the Bible. The Bible has unclear rules on voluntary abortion, the free-market, economics, health care, or any of the other issues of today, so they have to imagine what they think Yahweh would say. Since their god exists in their imagination, He agrees with them in every way. Suddenly, the Republican Party has divine backing, and is a religion.

Their problem in arguing for the Bible's cause, though it doesn't specifically mention voluntary abortion, it certainly condones it from a scriptural and ideological standpoint. How many fetuses has Yahweh ordered the death of?

I'll give you guys a chance before I respond with what the bible suggests and doesn't say about abortion.

Thunder, for you to place all pastors/ Church's in a negative light is totally unfair, I now many that don't live in mansion's or drive luxury cars. My pastor, Bro. Paul Salyer, whom just recently passed, lived in a house given to him and his family by the church several years ago, it was about 6 blocks from SE Highschool (I don't recall any mansions in that area), his wife drove a 4 year old Nissan and he drove a 13 year old pickup.

The last time I checked, we were a "FREE COUNTRY", and have the right to pick and choose who we donate to.

What are you talking about?

I came here to share the news I've discovered, but seem it had already been posted here. Born baby thrown in trash. Sad.

Anyways, what Daniel?

Many of the pious types obey a set of political ideals far more than the mostly irrelevant and backwards rules written in the Bible. The Bible has unclear rules on voluntary abortion, the free-market, economics, health care, or any of the other issues of today, so they have to imagine what they think Yahweh would say. Since their god exists in their imagination, He agrees with them in every way. Suddenly, the Republican Party has divine backing, and is a religion.

Their problem in arguing for the Bible's cause, though it doesn't specifically mention voluntary abortion, it certainly condones it from a scriptural and ideological standpoint. How many fetuses has Yahweh ordered the death of?

I'll give you guys a chance before I respond with what the bible suggests and doesn't say about abortion.

How does willy have 0 posts? I'm looking at one right now. I looked and he/she has one other post. Hmmm...weird.

Six pages deep . . . still going strong . . . nothing new . . . I'll check back later.

Michael

Pray For World Peace . . . pass it on

Six pages deep . . . still going strong . . . nothing new . . . I'll check back later.

Michael

Pray For World Peace . . . pass it on

You start a thread and then it doesn't live up to your standards so you'll just let everyone else fight it out so you can check back when it's resolved. What'd you expect.

You're so above the fray.

You start a thread and then it doesn't live up to your standards so you'll just let everyone else fight it out so you can check back when it's resolved. What'd you expect.

You're so above the fray.

Maybe he's busy praying for World Peace. :smile:

You start a thread and then it doesn't live up to your standards so you'll just let everyone else fight it out so you can check back when it's resolved. What'd you expect.

You're so above the fray.

I had no expectations then and still don't traxx. This discussion was taking place on another thread I started on a different topic. And though there was some connection to that other topic, the discussion I hoped to have was being inappropriately overwhelmed by a discussion of abortion, so I started this thread.

The purpose of the post I made and you quoted was simply to state my view. If you took it as being off-handed or flippant, please know that was not my intention. I just haven't read any new ideas or arguments that lead me to alter my moral, ethical or intellectual position on this issue, which is that abortion is a tragic outcome to the bad decision or unfortunate circumstance that led to pregnancy, but that the state does not have the authority to dictate what personal rights a pregnant woman has or doesn't have. I further believe that the state's resources and the time of our elected officials would be better spent working to improve the quality of life for all of our people through better education and healthcare and that religion cannot be for protecting the life of an unborn person and not hold the same position for all human life.

I see people posting here with strongly held beliefs and take it on face value that they have given this topic as much consideration as I have and would be open to further evaluation of their stance if they were so moved by something they heard or read. I value all of the opinions expressed here and try to make no personal judgments and to refrain from personal attacks.

Every post I have made to this forum is still here and available to being reread, and if they were, you would see that I have not always been successful and staying away from comments I would rather take back. For quite a while now, I have chosen to sign my name to my posts and it has caused me to be more thoughtful about what I write here.


Maybe he's busy praying for World Peace. :smile:

I have also chosen to add "Pray For World Peace . . . pass it on" to all my posts. Though I currently do not attend any church or ascribe to any particular religious faith, I truly believe in the value of pray in enriching my personal well being. Every time I type Pray For World Peace . . . pass it on, I consider it a prayer in ever sense. I also believe in the power of advertising and every time anyone reads any post I make with "Pray for World Peace . . . pass it on" at the bottom, it is a tiny commercial for the idea of World Peace.

Michael Smith

Pray For World Peace . . . pass it on

Wonderful post, Michael.

Whatever your position may be, I support your right to express it. Just try not to get stopped driving in OKC with a sign that reads, "Abort Obama, Not the Unborn".

Anti-Abortion Sign Nets Traffic Stop, Secret Service Visit - Oklahoma City News Story - KOCO Oklahoma City (http://www.koco.com/news/18752319/detail.html)

I am sharing that story nationally.

ACTION TO PROTEST OKC POLICE (http://realusa.ning.com/profiles/blogs/action-to-protest-okc-police)

Complete with the department address and phone contact.

I am sharing that story nationally.

ACTION TO PROTEST OKC POLICE (http://realusa.ning.com/profiles/blogs/action-to-protest-okc-police)

Complete with the department address and phone contact.

Thunder, do you think this incident displays some kind of pro-Democrat or pro-Obama leaning by this police officer or do you see it as strictly over reaching by an individual or a hair-trigger misperceived national security threat response, or what? All in all, it's pretty lame when it went beyond the officer just stopping the guy, doing a field interview and letting it go at that. But I guess it will also get a lot of play in the conservative talk realm.

Looking at it from a slightly different angle, it is also easy to draw a parallel between this stop and Tim McVey getting pulled over because the license tag fell off of his car. Police stop motorists and make a lot of contacts with citizens in many different ways and often it is just the dumb assed behavior that criminals tend to display that leads to their arrest. What if the guy had actually been a real whacko with some serious plans? Then we would all be applauding this officer's sterling performance.

Certainly, the total police response to this got out of hand and was way over the top.

:backtotop

There are a lot of points that can be made and discussed about this and it could easily have been posted as a new thread rather than muddying this topic's water with this unrelated information.

Michael

Pray For World Peace . . . pass it on

I am sharing that story nationally.

ACTION TO PROTEST OKC POLICE (http://realusa.ning.com/profiles/blogs/action-to-protest-okc-police)

Complete with the department address and phone contact.Why dont you attend the next meeting of the OKC City Council and voice your concerns to them in public?

Why dont you attend the next meeting of the OKC City Council and voice your concerns to them in public?

OKC wouldn't want to waste their money for an interpreter. :sofa:

OKC wouldn't want to waste their money for an interpreter. :sofa: Then you dont know much about The City of OKC. Here is my interpretation; I'll anonymously complain, criticize, and claim my rights have been violated, but, I will not do the same in public where in order to do so would require that I reveal my face, my address, and the city in which I reside.

Possible reasons for your justification; I guess when you look at from the cops point of view, I understand why he stopped the guy maybe. I mean after all it's not really that big of a deal. I mean lets be honest the guy really shouldn't drive around like that. Plus, I mean it's not like he went to jail, or got a ticket. No harm, no foul.

Expressing your freedom of speech with a bumper sticker is not the same thing as driving around without a licence on your car.

Expressing your freedom of speech with a bumper sticker is not the same thing as driving around without a licence on your car.

No argument from me on that MadMonk.

Police officers are trained to take note of things they see that are (in their estimation) out of the ordinary . . . what the guy did attracted the attention of the police. Whether it should have or not is a whole other discussion . . . but obviously it attracted the attention of this officer and he did a field interview . . . perfectly normal. Confiscating the guy's sign and calling Secret Service was a little over the top.

My point was that this police officer was doing his normal thing and if the guy in the car had been a total nut bag with a sawed off shotgun in his back seat we would all be saying "great piece of police work" rather than raking him over the coals. He definitely over reacted.

Michael

Pray For World Peace

The cop asked him questions, but I don't think the cop searched the truck. So, without searching for the truck, it wasn't warranted to contact SS. I think that this guy have some grounds to sue the department.

The cop asked him questions, but I don't think the cop searched the truck. So, without searching for the truck, it wasn't warranted to contact SS. I think that this guy have some grounds to sue the department.

Who's stopping him?

Michael

Pray For World Peace

Life can be characterized by the inherent capability to grow, have a metabolism, react to external and internal stimuli and eventually to reproduce.

I've been quietly awaiting a regardful response to my question towards Prunepicker. I'll iterate: Can you provide evidence of a zygote, blastocyst, or embryo reacting to any stimuli? If not, how do you reconcile calling it life? Just how do you determine the capacity for 'eventual reproduction' of a cluster of cells?

I've been quietly awaiting a regardful response to my question towards
Prunepicker. I'll iterate: Can you provide evidence of a zygote, blastocyst, or
embryo reacting to any stimuli? If not, how do you reconcile calling it life?
Just how do you determine the capacity for 'eventual reproduction' of a
cluster of cells?

Willy,
I'm sorry for missing your post, or posts.
All of the above mentioned entities respond to stimuli. Also, by watching
under a microscope you can see them move, or react, to various forms of
stimuli. This is something scientists have viewed in the classroom as well as
in the lab.

I'll just say one thing.. I will never go to Il Dolce Gelato again. Besides, they gelato sucks there.

I'll just say one thing.. I will never go to Il Dolce Gelato again. Besides, they gelato sucks there.

And it's spiked with LSD ......evidently.

This is an unresolvable argument. The Supreme Court can say when they think life begins. Each of us can as well. All of them are opinions. The Bible doesn't tell us. Short of God coming down from on high to give us the only answer, we opine.

Abortion is neither black nor white, and for the people who cannot see shades of grey, it's an easy answer. For the rest of us, it's a decision we wish no one ever had to make. However, life is never that simple. We and our government have to make the best decisions we can, and live with the results of those decisions.

If we say people cannot legally have abortions, some will have them illegally and will die or suffer serious complications. Children will be born who have only a short miserable life and a miserable death to look forward to. Women will have to carry the fruits of rape and incest for 9 long months and risk their lives to have those babies. None of those are good things. On the other hand, life is probably life from the moment of conception, and babies are aborted who had the potential for a long and happy life. Not a good thing either. So we muddle through and compromise is probably the only decent solution for all of us.

More have died from "safe" abortions than not. The number would
significantly drop if abortions were made illegal.

I believe each unwanted child should have a trial by jury and all of the
necessary appeals to see if a crime worthy of the death penalty has been
committed.

This is an unresolvable argument. The Supreme Court can say when they think life begins. Each of us can as well. All of them are opinions. The Bible doesn't tell us. Short of God coming down from on high to give us the only answer, we opine.

Abortion is neither black nor white, and for the people who cannot see shades of grey, it's an easy answer. For the rest of us, it's a decision we wish no one ever had to make. However, life is never that simple. We and our government have to make the best decisions we can, and live with the results of those decisions.

If we say people cannot legally have abortions, some will have them illegally and will die or suffer serious complications. Children will be born who have only a short miserable life and a miserable death to look forward to. Women will have to carry the fruits of rape and incest for 9 long months and risk their lives to have those babies. None of those are good things. On the other hand, life is probably life from the moment of conception, and babies are aborted who had the potential for a long and happy life. Not a good thing either. So we muddle through and compromise is probably the only decent solution for all of us.

In my opinion, it is this kind of mealy-mouthed waffling that has brought about a huge portion of our current societal ills. Apparently you didn't bother to check the Bible before you made the decision that it doesn't (therefore God doesn't) have anything to say about when life begins. In Psalm 139, God makes it VERY clear that a life exists EVEN BEFORE conception. How can this be? Don't ask me, ask GOD. He has made the whole process of birth so miraculous that in my opinion, and even science - that of statistics - agrees with me, there is no pregnancy that is a mistake. That's because it takes God to bring about conception.

OK, now bring out the athiests who look down their noses at those of us who believe in one all-powerful God who made us and everything else in the universe. But non-believers do no better job explaining the universe than do believers. In fact, it takes more "faith" to accept most of their explanations than it does to accept God's omnipotence.

And so, which position, pro-abortion or anti-abortion costs the most lives? You can't really believe that anti-abortion costs more lives since abortions end millions of lives every year in America. God forgive us all.

So we, as a society, need to grasp, once and for all, before God Almighty, that by far, without a doubt, that the people who are really most important of all to the world are all who are unborn? If so, why not treat each fetus as a God?

In my opinion, it is this kind of mealy-mouthed waffling that has brought about a huge portion of our current societal ills. Apparently you didn't bother to check the Bible before you made the decision that it doesn't (therefore God doesn't) have anything to say about when life begins. In Psalm 139, God makes it VERY clear that a life exists EVEN BEFORE conception. How can this be? Don't ask me, ask GOD. He has made the whole process of birth so miraculous that in my opinion, and even science - that of statistics - agrees with me, there is no pregnancy that is a mistake. That's because it takes God to bring about conception.

OK, now bring out the athiests who look down their noses at those of us who believe in one all-powerful God who made us and everything else in the universe. But non-believers do no better job explaining the universe than do believers. In fact, it takes more "faith" to accept most of their explanations than it does to accept God's omnipotence.

And so, which position, pro-abortion or anti-abortion costs the most lives? You can't really believe that anti-abortion costs more lives since abortions end millions of lives every year in America. God forgive us all.

So therefore it's God that causes overpopulation and foster kids that NEVER get to stay in one home long enough to bond with a set of parents. Where is God when little kids get abused and neglected, tortured and raped? Are we like sea turtles? Does he get us to the water and then we're on our own? BTW, we all die in the end so what's the problem with ending one before it starts?. Skip the earthly pain and go straight to heaven.

I don't look down my nose at believers...you can have your beliefs. That's your protected right. What I want is for believers to keep their heavenly laws out of the legislative branch of government since there's basically a god on every corner in this world.

So therefore it's God that causes overpopulation and foster kids that NEVER get to stay in one home long enough to bond with a set of parents. Where is God when little kids get abused and neglected, tortured and raped? Are we like sea turtles? Does he get us to the water and then we're on our own? BTW, we all die in the end so what's the problem with ending one before it starts?. Skip the earthly pain and go straight to heaven.

I don't look down my nose at believers...you can have your beliefs. That's your protected right. What I want is for believers to keep their heavenly laws out of the legislative branch of government since there's basically a god on every corner in this world.

Having worked with many foster children, I honestly can't say that they have a fate worse than death and I wouldn't suggest "putting them out of their misery" even if that were an option. People say that sort of thing all the time but it doesn't make sense unless they think we should just exterminate the victims of all the horrible things you just mentioned. And btw, should we also exterminate the "wanted" children who end up in foster care or are abused? (You do realize that the vast number of foster kids and abused children were wanted, don't you?) I don't think so and you don't either. It is an empty argument, no matter how often it is used.

But I do agree with you that the legislature needs to stay out of the religion business.

So we, as a society, need to grasp, once and for all, before God Almighty, that by far, without a doubt, that the people who are really most important of all to the world are all who are unborn? If so, why not treat each fetus as a God?

Translate Please !

Read carefully, PQ. There ARE reasons and situations where an abortion is the more humane thing to do. THAT is what I'm arguing. I'm not saying to kill all the kids. I'm merely countering your side that says that there is NEVER any good reason to abort a fetus.

If you're a believer in the "God loves the little children" idea then don't you think He should do something besides facillitating their birth and then leaving them to whatever may happen to them. I do consider some of the cases I've seen and heard of where kids lived a torturous and loveless life to be much worse than never making it out of the womb. I find it kinda strange than many of the same folks that get all enraged at abortion clinics don't mind at all sending an eighteen year old off to possibly get killed in war. Many of those same people are also very much in support of the death penalty. Didn't God make that murderer or that Iraqi too? Aren't we snuffing out His creation without his permission?

Really I don't see how anyone as a stranger should care about someone else's baby so much. I sure don't. When I think of promoting sexual responsibility, and so hopefully reduce the likelihood of unwanted babies, I'm thinking of a pregnant woman not having to be in the position of choice.

Translate Please !

No translation needed. Either you think that unborn babies are more important to society than anybody else or they're not. I think they're not.

Read carefully, PQ. There ARE reasons and situations where an abortion is the more humane thing to do. THAT is what I'm arguing. I'm not saying to kill all the kids. I'm merely countering your side that says that there is NEVER any good reason to abort a fetus.

If you're a believer in the "God loves the little children" idea then don't you think He should do something besides facillitating their birth and then leaving them to whatever may happen to them. I do consider some of the cases I've seen and heard of where kids lived a torturous and loveless life to be much worse than never making it out of the womb. I find it kinda strange than many of the same folks that get all enraged at abortion clinics don't mind at all sending an eighteen year old off to possibly get killed in war. Many of those same people are also very much in support of the death penalty. Didn't God make that murderer or that Iraqi too? Aren't we snuffing out His creation without his permission?

First, I am not one that thinks NO fetus should be aborted but I am very conservative about it. Next, as someone who has worked with foster kids for ages, and who was responding directly to your comments about foster care and abuse, I think my response was on point. And while I am opposed to the draft, which would send an 18 year old off to war against his will, fortunately, we don't have one. Any 18 year old that goes off to war did so by his/her own choice. And god bless 'em, they are the best of us.

First, I am not one that thinks NO fetus should be aborted but I am very conservative about it. Next, as someone who has worked with foster kids for ages, and who was responding directly to your comments about foster care and abuse, I think my response was on point. And while I am opposed to the draft, which would send an 18 year old off to war against his will, fortunately, we don't have one. Any 18 year old that goes off to war did so by his/her own choice. And god bless 'em, they are the best of us.

OK, I believe we have somewhat of an understanding of each others points and they're not that different after all. I DO have to say that you appear to be missing my point on my comparison of abortion and war. The soldier's willingness to go isn't what I'm questioning. It's the high value that some put on the life of an 18 day old fetus vs. the seemingly low value that they place on an 18 yr. old. BTW, I've had two soldiers, at different times, move in with us because they were homeless and had health issues from battle wounds(when our own government pretty much refused to help) so I think our military is pretty special too.

Turns out we're not that different in opinion after all. Thanks for the conversation either way.