Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2007 Archive' started by Rufus_1611, May 24, 2007.
So, these so-called pro-life groups think that it's better to not prohibit any abortions than to prohibit even a few?
It is a step in the right direction.
One step of many.
We didn't get to where we are today all at once, and we won't get back all at once, either.
It's a war, and winning one small battle is better than winning none.
But, that's part of the attention span of so many Americans today. We have a war going on, and they want to know, "Is it over yet?" We get one small type of abortion banned, and they scream, "Why didn't we win the war yet!" It's also one reason many people have to file bankruptcy. Instead of living within their means, and paying off debts one little bit at a time, they give up the war instead of winning one little battle.
Every war is won one battle at a time. (Except for the the Anglo-Zanzibar war which only lasted 45 minutes, but that's an exception.)
I understand what they are saying. Basically it is rediculous for us to be picky about how and when they murder their babies. It's either all wrong or it isn't wrong at all. While I am glad for any babies that might be saved, whatever the reason, this is not some victory to celebrate. The battle is far from over.
As long as they don't sit back and say, "Well, that's enough of that!" I see no problem with celebrating winning a battle, no matter how small. If they don't sit back, it might take a while to build momentum, as with most wars.
And, I don't think anyone's saying that it's OK to ever kill a baby (at least on the pro-life side). I think that they're simply saying, "This is one victory. Now, we need some more.)
It would appear that some people just like to fight a little bit too much.
I think people will become complacent after this ruling. Rather than stepping it up a level, when a little is won, we often step back, sit down, and rest a while. Unfortunately and undoubtedly, when people rest, they are that much more likely to forget there is a war.
I fear that the "people" in Washington will chalk this up as a major victory and decide that's enought oshut up conservatives on this issue for a while, or at least enough to ensure that, when they tell us they're doing all they can to end abortion, and trod out this evidence, we'll buy into it and vote for them again.
Most politicians have no interest in ending abortions on any significant scale. It's a vote getter that they can milk every year. Why would they want to kill that cow just so they'll have to buy another one next time around. It makes no sense from a political perspective.
I really have doubts that this ruling will stop even one abortion.
I wish the politicians were brave enough to take on an issue which could really stop some large numbers of abortions. I do not expect for them to go for the jugular to end all and win at this point, but I would at least like to see the numbers reduced by a percentage that uses whole numbers rather than decimals.
You've spoken some words of iron. I'd like to comment on a few of them. I'll edit the quotes for brevity.
I think that you're absolutely correct, by and large. People have a short attention span. That's why it's important for us to keep it in the forefront of political talk.
I think this may be their intention. It will be a battle that they will fight in their own way, but we can't let it stop there.
Yep. That's why we need to get the laws changed at the local and state level to require a majority to win an election, instead of a plurality as it now stands. This is an uphill battle, as groups such as the NAACP are opposed to it because it "weakens" the black vote to require a majority.
But, if a majority is required to win, then we can vote for the person who truly wants to stop abortion without fear of electing the super-zealous pro-abortion candidate, by voting for a third party candidate.
I think it will stop a few. Also, as long as the exception is to save the life of the mother and not the health of the mother. This procedure is never used to save the life of the mother, as the baby can be delivered via C-section. However, "health" can be defined all sorts of ways, and would leave the door open for all of them to take place.
Get rid of the professional politicians who simply do what it takes to get reelected by trying to please everyone. Sometimes compromise is necessary. For example if the two choices are to stop a handful of abortions or to stop none. But, if the person is compromising to simply stay in office, there's a problem.
Require a majority to win. You can vote for the best candidate and not elect the worst candidate. Even if the best candidate doesn't win, your voice will still be heard loud and clear.
Requiring a majority won't help a third party any. All it will do is require a runoff between the two major candidates.
It will make it so that a vote for a third party is not a vote for the greater of two evils, and there's no need for a runoff. Using Australian rules balloting, you could have as many candidates as you want and get a majority on only one ballot.
If you thought that candidate "a" was Satan incarnate and "b", while bad is not as bad as "a", and "c" is the best choice, but didn't have a chance to win, but "b" did, then a vote for "c" is, in effect, a vote for "a". But, if a majority is required to win, then you can safely vote for "c"; he might win, or he might simply get enough votes to make "b" sit up and listen to the people. But, either way, "a" would not be elected.
This is not valid for presidential elections. Electors are elected by the rules of the state (the reason that the 2000 election was valid in FL, although Gore kept trying to circumvent the law). If every state were like ME and NE, instead of all-or-nothing, and each elector were required to get a majority, the same would apply at that level.
I agree with Scarlett O. Well said!
In addition, if this ruling saves only one child, what Christian would not be willing to celebrate that?
It is just as Hope of Glory depicted, we want our victory now so we can go back to watching the tube! We are also to blame for this stuff, now we should continue to fight in correcting it. We should also be glad WWII was fought many decades ago, as we could never win such a war today, short of being bombed daily as England was!
Watching the media, this ruling has brought the pro-abortion crowd out of the woodwork. We can see the rats!
Now is the time to press on, and not make excuses and compromises. ("Compromise" is a dual meaning word: Sometimes we have to make compromises with others to get a partial victory, without compromising our objective.)
When they say, "What about the life of the mother?" Respond with, "How about if we ban them except to save the life of the mother?"
This makes the majority of them admit that they are not interested in the life of the mother at all, but only in keeping this horrible behavior legal, and accepted! Want to be attacked? Point out to someone how horrible this procedure is, and you will be attacked! (Usually by the same people who bombard you with all the global warming junk, etc.)
Wasn't it Michael Savage who said "liberalism is a mental disorder"?
Does not the fact that those who promote partial-birth abortion (oh excuse me, late term abortion) also are opposed to the death penalty?
In other words: slay the innocent in the womb but protect the life of the murderer on death row.
Judge Roy Moore Condemns PBA Ruling on BEL
I don't have a stomach for the sanctimony of James or Shirley Dobson.
I don't have a stomach for killing innocent babies!
There is no excuse for abortion...
I can think of no one that fights harder for Christian values than James and Shirley Dobson. They have invested their lives in this, and some can't pass up an opportunity to throw rocks.
The Dobsons might not be dyed-in-the-wool Baptist, but I'd venture to say they've done more to fight abortion than most of us put together. I applaud their efforts. If it saves just one baby, it's worth it.