TexasCHLforum.com

Oldgringo wrote:This thread has devolved, through 9 pages, into a divisive and sometimes acrimonious debate on abortion. Has anyone changed their minds or is this ?

I believe you are correct, sir...

baldeagle wrote:

talltex wrote:

baldeagle wrote:Saving the life of an unborn child is equivalent to saving the life of any other innocent being. Executing murderers is equivalent to executing abortion providers. See the difference?

Whoooaaa....do you actually believe what you just wrote...That killing a Doctor or Nurse that works at a medical clinic which provides abortion services is equivalent to the state executing a convicted murderer? THAT is scary!

Well, perhaps you need to think about it for a while. Note that I am *not* advocating for the execution of abortion providers. I am simply saying that there is NO moral ambiguity about being both pro-life and pro-captial punishment. Both honor life. Being pro-abortion does not honor life, and neither does being anti-capital punishment.

Perhaps, you need to think about exactly what you wrote...your statement stands on it's own. You are in favor of the death penalty for convicted murderers and you state that executing them is EQUIVALENT to executing abortion providers. Not much ambiguity in that statement. You may not be advocating it, but you have made it plain that you think that they deserve it. I am also in favor of the death penalty...for those convicted of a crime that justifies it as legally defined in the penal code...people working in an abortion clinic have broken no law, and in no way are they the equivalent of a convicted murderer. I am not pro-abortion or pro-life...I simply don't think me, or you, or anyone else has the right to impose our views on others regardless of how certain we may be that ours is the correct view. Let's all tend to our own moral shortcomings and let others do the same...I'm pretty sure we all have plenty of them to go around.

baldeagle wrote:Saving the life of an unborn child is equivalent to saving the life of any other innocent being. Executing murderers is equivalent to executing abortion providers. See the difference?

Whoooaaa....do you actually believe what you just wrote...That killing a Doctor or Nurse that works at a medical clinic which provides abortion services is equivalent to the state executing a convicted murderer? THAT is scary!

Oldgringo wrote:

C-dub wrote:

pcgizzmo wrote: The problem is that you can't count on abstinence ...

Why not? It is 100% effective when used.

Except for one reputed instance, C-dub's statement is correct...I think.

mamabearCali wrote:[Let me refer you to the HHS mandate which requires businesses even those run by staunch Christians to pay for abortifacients. So there are federal laws mandating that employers play for employees abortifacient drugs.

Not all "staunch Christians" share your exact views on this or other social issues. Christianity and morality are not the same thing. There are many types of Christians with many varied beliefs. If all of us Christians believed exactly the same things there wouldn't be dozens of denominations in every little town. My personal beliefs are none of the government's, or anyone else's business, and I don't want either group to make my decisions on them for me. I vote for fiscally conservative candidates regardless of their personal statements on those issues because their INDIVIDUAL feelings are just that, and not binding on me.

Oldgringo wrote: Here we go again....

EDIT:

Abortions are not for everyone. You have a choice...yes or no. It's not my place to judge.

'nuff said...

mamabearCali wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:I understand what y'all are saying, but social issues count big time for me. If one does not have the right to life--what good are liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Then you need to find about 60 million of your closest friends who are going to vote with you based on the social issues. As long as we continue to try to legislate morality, we are going to keep the fiercely divided country that we have. The slippery slope that the Federal government jumped on when it started social engineering is exactly why we are where we are today. If we had a lot less Federal government tinkering with society and with our economy, people could decide their social issues for themselves, not have them mandated.

You vote for whomsoever you want to, however I have to stand before a holy God someday. I cannot and will not stand before him and say "sorry I thought the deficit was more important than the lives of children".

We can and we do legislate morality all the time. We say "you can't murder people" we say "you can't steal from people" we even say "you can't damage your body with drugs", in some states we say "you can't buy Alcohol on sunday". It is simply incorrect to say "we can't legislate morality, we can and we do everyday.

The examples of murder, theft, illegal drugs and so forth, while moral issues, have laws in effect making them illegal. Some of the previous laws making all alcohol illegal and/or banning sales of alcohol and of MANY non alcohol related items on Sunday (referred to as "blue laws") have been overturned in the past by the will of the people because the majority did not agree with them. The SCOTUS ruled on the legality of abortion long ago...it is the law of the land and has been so through several conservative adminstrations as well as liberal ones. The majority of the population is in favor of pro-choice or the law would have already been overturned. You have every right to vote your personal beliefs and support candidates who oppose that viewpoint, but as chasfm11 points out, you can no longer win a national election if you make that the litmus test for supporting a candidate. It really is that simple, because the math is simple...less than 49% of the people want the government to make that choice for them.