Religious Left (believe, difference, choice, about)

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Mark S.

Following the course of your logic, the solution is then to legalize child abuse and open clinics where we can strive to make child abuse safe, legal, and rare.

NO! THAT's YOUR logic, NOT mine!

Originally Posted by Mark S.

For someone who cannot care for a child, adoption is always an option.

And if they won't give the child up we just take it? There's a move towards progressive government

Originally Posted by Mark S.

Look. No one is claiming that crisis pregnancies are a problem. That's obvious. But killing the child is not the answer. We need to strive for a just solution to this problem that guards the rights of both mother and child. If we wanted to be really mangnanimous, we might even figure the father into the equation on occasion.

What you propose will never happen until we have agreement on what exactly constitutes a child. Maybe when pigs fly.

[silas777]

Originally Posted by hereinfla

Hillary was a Sunday school teacher, for God's sake. Give me a break!

From a 1996 speech by (United Methodist)BISHOP RICHARD B. WILKE: ...when Julie and I moved to Little Rock, Ark., Julie had joined the First United Methodist Church of Little Rock, and I entered my offices in that very same building. We quickly discovered that Hillary Clinton was a vibrant and vital part of the life of that congregation, serving as a Sunday school teacher, a worker with youth, a faithful worshiper in the church. We were privileged to worship with Mrs. Clinton and Chelsea. In fact we were present the morning that Chelsea was confirmed in the church there and both Governor Clinton and Mrs. Clinton were present.


And, BTW, W is a member of the same denomination. Let's find a statement from somone commenting on his active involvement in the church.

I think the complaint againt's W from the left has always been that he has brought too much christianity to the White House hasn't it? You are kind of proving our point! Mrs Bill Clinton also used to be a Goldwater Republican, she wants to be a senator from NY, she becomes a lifelong Yankees fan, wants to lock up the southern black vote, she becomes Rosa Park drawl n all!

[Mark S.]

Originally Posted by burdell

NO! THAT's YOUR logic, NOT mine!

Not me. I'm the one wanting to make it illegal, remember? If it is wrong, then it should be illegal. One of the pro-choice arguments is that abortions are going to happen anyway, so we need to make it legal. I don't buy that. I won't even say that's bad logic, 'cause it isn't logic at all.

Originally Posted by burdell

And if they won't give the child up we just take it?

If a child is the victim of neglect or abuse, then yes, authorities should step in. But we do that already. Your point was for children who are unwanted. Unwanted children should be given up for adoption, not killed.

Originally Posted by burdell

What you propose will never happen until we have agreement on what exactly constitutes a child.

Don't confuse a scientific and moral point with a semantic one. Yes, there is a difference between an embryo and a fetus, and between a fetus and an infant. Duh. But there's also a difference between an infant and a child, a child and a teenager, a teenager and an adult, an adult and a senior. Obviously. Different stages of physical, emotional, or psychological development does not negate the fact that all of those are human. But abortion says that it is okay to a human prior to a certain stage of physical development. That makes no sense.

[Mark S.]

Originally Posted by silas777

I think the complaint againt's W from the left has always been that he has brought too much christianity to the White House hasn't it?

A very small portion of the left maybe. G.W.'s biggest problem is that he brought neo-conservatism to the White House. That has nothing to do with his religion or lack thereof.

[Magnolia Bloom]

Originally Posted by silas777

I think the complaint againt's W from the left has always been that he has brought too much christianity to the White House hasn't it? You are kind of proving our point! Mrs Bill Clinton also used to be a Goldwater Republican, she wants to be a senator from NY, she becomes a lifelong Yankees fan, wants to lock up the southern black vote, she becomes Rosa Park drawl n all!

Correct. And the fact that she doesn't wear her religion on her sleeve, means what?

As for pandering to Blacks, Clinton has always had a strong connection to the African American community- first Black president and all that. But, honestly, both parties do it- it's called getting elected. The way you win the game is to go to the groups that vote. I seem to remember W embracing negroes after Katrina. (You'll remember, the ones that his mama later said were better off after the hurricane?!) Both sides do it.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Mark S.

Don't confuse a scientific and moral point with a semantic one. Yes, there is a difference between an embryo and a fetus, and between a fetus and an infant. Duh. But there's also a difference between an infant and a child, a child and a teenager, a teenager and an adult, an adult and a senior. Obviously. Different stages of physical, emotional, or psychological development does not negate the fact that all of those are human. But abortion says that it is okay to a human prior to a certain stage of physical development. That makes no sense.

Well I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm willing to accept the law as it stands.

[silas777]

Originally Posted by hereinfla

Correct. And the fact that she doesn't wear her religion on her sleeve, means what?

As for pandering to Blacks, Clinton has always had a strong connection to the African American community- first Black president and all that. But, honestly, both parties do it- it's called getting elected. The way you win the game is to go to the groups that vote. I seem to remember W embracing negroes after Katrina. (You'll remember, the ones that his mama later said were better off after the hurricane?!) Both sides do it.

Actually she does where her religion on her sleeve when it is a political necessity, like campaigning in a black church, but she knows that in general it is a political liability considering her party affiliation! which speaks to the blatant hypocricy, that was my point!

[burdell]

Originally Posted by silas777

I think the complaint againt's W from the left has always been that he has brought too much christianity to the White House hasn't it? You are kind of proving our point! Mrs Bill Clinton also used to be a Goldwater Republican, she wants to be a senator from NY, she becomes a lifelong Yankees fan, wants to lock up the southern black vote, she becomes Rosa Park drawl n all!

She WANTS to be a senator from NY? At least get your facts straight--she IS a senator from NY.

And the complaint isn't that W brought too much christianity to the White House, it's that he brought too little ability to the White House. His reference to the coming war on terrorism as a crusade was inexcusable and just hi-lighted his ignorance of history.

[Mark S.]

Originally Posted by burdell

And the complaint isn't that W brought too much christianity to the White House, it's that he brought too little ability to the White House.

Spot on.

Actually, I really do think that Republicans were even shocked that he made in 2000. Everyone expected Gore to win. They underestimated the ruthlessness and corruption of the Bush campaign machine. All the Republican bets were on Jeb for '04.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Mark S.

Spot on.

Actually, I really do think that Republicans were even shocked that he made in 2000. Everyone expected Gore to win. They underestimated the ruthlessness and corruption of the Bush campaign machine. All the Republican bets were on Jeb for '04.

Gore did win the popular vote in 2000. Instead of wasting time talking about Constitutional amendments about same-sex marriage I wish we could get an amendment that would let our leaders actually be elected by the people.