Bush Signs Partial Birth Abortion Ban...

[KenH]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
1) Committing murder is never justified.

2)What is the Constitution Party's view of abortion (murder) in order to save the life of the mother?

1) Saving the life of the mother is not murder. If someone points a gun at you and you kill them first, is that murder? Nope.

I don't know if you are married or not, but if your wife was with child and the doctor came and told you that due to complications your wife will die if the baby is not taken, are you going to tell your wife, "Sorry, but you are going to have to die and you'll never see your baby. Adios, honey. Don't worry, I can always find another woman to marry to be the mother to your child."?

2) There is nothing in the platform plank covering a situation where a woman has to act to protect her own life.

By the way, Joseph, it's extreme positions like you are taking on this issue that causes the rest of us lots of trouble in convincing the rest of the U.S. that the other 99.9999999% of abortions unrelated to the situation you are talking about should be stopped. Which means that it could be stated that your position is helping to continue the murder of babies. Which means that you are helping the pro-abortion side.

Run that marble around in your brain for a while.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
1) Committing murder is never justified.

2)What is the Constitution Party's view of abortion (murder) in order to save the life of the mother?

1) Saving the life of the mother is not murder. If someone points a gun at you and you kill them first, is that murder? Nope.</font>[/QUOTE]Are you seriously comparing an innocent baby with a cold-blooded murderer who is trying to kill me? Are you trying to say that the baby is now a cold blooded murderer trying to kill the mother? That doesn't ring true to me.

I don't know if you are married or not, but if your wife was with child and the doctor came and told you that due to complications your wife will die if the baby is not taken, are you going to tell your wife, "Sorry, but you are going to have to die and you'll never see your baby. Adios, honey. Don't worry, I can always find another woman to marry to be the mother to your child."?[/QUOTE]

Nice strawman. I am married and have a 2 1/2 month old son. If you would like to know my feelings about this situation, read this link:

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001272;p=3

In the proccess of reading this, you might find out that I am not alone in my beliefs that God can and does work miracles, and our lives are in his hands. If he chooses not to work a miracle, that is his decision. But, I will not be the one actively taking the life of my son or any baby for any reason. If God chooses to take him home, that is his choice. And your last crack was really cruel. To say that I wouldn't grieve the loss is cold-hearted on your part. I most certainly would. But, that is in God's hands and not mine.

2) There is nothing in the platform plank covering a situation where a woman has to act to protect her own life.

By the way, Joseph, it's extreme positions like you are taking on this issue that causes the rest of us lots of trouble in convincing the rest of the U.S. that the other 99.9999999% of abortions unrelated to the situation you are talking about should be stopped. Which means that it could be stated that your position is helping to continue the murder of babies. Which means that you are helping the pro-abortion side.

Run that marble around in your brain for a while. [/QUOTE]

Sometimes the truth isn't acceptable to the lost, immoral world. That doesn't change the truth. It remains the same. And I don't change the truth to make it easier to accept as a partial lie. Jesus never did and neither will I. I also don't think it is so extreme position to say that it should be God's decision to decide and to believe that he could work a miracle and save both the mother and child. Do you?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by KenH:
Run that marble around in your brain for a while.

Your worldly, condescending attitude is duly noted. Perhaps you might want to rethink how you are approaching this conversation here? Either way, I will continue to attack the arguments and not you.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
2)What is the Constitution Party's view of abortion (murder) in order to save the life of the mother?

2) There is nothing in the platform plank covering a situation where a woman has to act to protect her own life.</font>[/QUOTE]And in conclusion, since the Constitution Party does not take a full stand on abortion, IMO, how can I know that they are fully pro-life? As far as I am concerned, either they fully support the life of the unborn against murder (abortion) for any reason, or they are only partially pro-life, and are, therefore, pro-abortion, if only in the slightest way. The only difference with them is that they seem to support abortion (murder) when it is palatable to you.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
Your worldly, condescending attitude is duly noted.

Nothing condescending was meant.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
Either way, I will continue to attack the arguments and not you.

It looks like our positions are pretty well laid out. What else is there to say? You support the pro-life in rhetoric, pro-abortion in practice Republican Party. I support the pro-life both rhetoric and practice Constitution Party.

Looks pretty clear to me.

But I am surprised you would support Republicans since very, very, very few Republicans support your extreme position.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

I readily admit that about the Republicans. However, I also understand that they are certainly closer to where I want to go than the DEMS are and that a vote for a Constitution Party candidate who cannot win is a vote for a pro-death Democrat who will begin, NOT STOP, with overturning the ban on partial birth abortions, and set us back by thirty years. I also understand that we didn't get this immorral overnight and we are not gonna get to where I would like for us to be by waving our Constitution Party magic wand and presto, no more abortions. I also understand that without a conservative Supreme Court, we will never get to where we want to be. I also understand that without more Biblical preaching in our churches and a Holy Spirit revival, we will never change the minds of the those who support immorality to create a political climate that would bring about change in our country. So, go ahead and throw away your vote to someone who doesn't have a chance of winning and allow a Democrat to win who will do more to further expand abortion rights (the right to murder the unborn) than has been done in the past 30 years.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
So, go ahead and throw away your vote to someone who doesn't have a chance of winning

The first thing I owe my country in casting my vote is my conscience. I cannot vote for George W. Bush in 2004 with a clear conscience. I feel awfully guilty about voting for him in 2000. Are you telling me to violate my conscience?

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Vote your conscience and then live with it when a Democrat wins and advances the pro-death agenda further than you ever imagined. But, don't say that you weren't warned about the consequences.

Joseph Botwinick

PS: I don't believe that my view that God can perform miracles is extreme. It might not be worldly and immoral, but not extreme.

 

[Don]

Joseph, as we both know, triage is the process by where doctors decide who to work on first--or who not to work on.

In an extreme case, a doctor may have to make the triage-type decision: Save the mother or the child.

HOWEVER, I know of no situations where this has been a reason for partial birth abortion. Not one.

I am most interested in anyone who can provide evidence to the contrary.

Ken, I don't believe Joseph is presenting an extremist view.

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Originally posted by Kiffin:
I think the President should be commended for the Partial Abortion Ban. I think he needs to further push for the ending of all Federal funding to Abortion. Bush did block Federal funding to International abortions http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/1/22/150154.shtml and once again should be recognized

The President and the Congress needs to do the same and State governments need to act in ending State abortion funding. Here is an excellent article at

Libertarians For Life

Kiffin,

Government abortion funding, as bad as it is, is not the issue.

The issue is that we allow, under our laws, unborn children to be murdered. No matter how it's funded, it is tragic and inexcusable.

Abortion must be made illegal and severely punished.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Don,

In triage, you are deciding who has the worst injuries and doing the best you can to save as many as you can, knowing that time and staff might now allow this. In abortion, you are actually actively murdering another human being. You are actually going out of your way to kill someone. I don't think this is the same thing. The differences seem clear to me. Don't they to you?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Originally posted by just-want-peace:
PJ, I really feel pity for someone so obsessed with "crucifying" Pres. Bush as you seem to be.

Don't feel bad for me, I'm fine. I'm just trying to get folks to see that they're being taken for a ride. If anyone's "obsessed" over President Bush, it's the folks who blindly support him and find no fault in anything he does, no matter how liberal.

Short of UTOPIA, what will satisfy you? I'm really interested, 'cause UTOPIA ain't gonna happen!!

Utopia?? Who asked for utopia??

I just want unborn children to be protected by law, just like they were for centuries prior to 1973.

How do you figure that to be some sort of utopian fantasy?

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Don:
Ken, I don't believe Joseph is presenting an extremist view.

Then I reckon we will have to disagree. I think Joseph's position is extreme, wrongheaded, and contributes to our inability to make progress in stopping abortions. He is, in practicality, helping abortion to continue to be legal to the extent that it presently is.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Ken,

What exactly do you find extreme about my views:

1. Abortion is always murder---killing an innocent life.

2. There is no reason good enough to commit murder.

3. An unborn baby is not comparable to a murderer sticking a gun to my head with the intent to kill me, and therefore, I have no right to murder the baby and try calling it self-defense.

4. In the case of problematic pregnancies, the life of my wife and baby is in God's hands and I will not murder my baby.

5. God can and does work miracles.

6. God can still work a miracle in the life of the mother and the baby and save them both.

7. That is God's choice and not mine.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
I will not murder my baby.

But you will in essence murder your wife by withholding a procedure that would save her life.

I just will not agree with you here, not tonight, not ever. I would never withhold medical care that could save my wife's life. I will not murder my wife.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

But, you will perform a procedure that will murder your baby. How chivalrous. Perhaps you should leave God's choice in his hands when it comes to two innocent lives. Anything short of this is murder.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[KenH]

Well, we obviously are not going to make any headway about resolving the difference in our personal choices. So let's get back to the what this thread is about - government and abortion.

I submit that in a situation where either an unborn baby or the mother will die(unless God intervenes), that the government cannot mandate that the mother must die. If she chooses to die, then so be it. But it is not the prerogative of the government to mandate which one will die.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by KenH:
Well, we obviously are not going to make any headway about resolving the difference in our personal choices. So let's get back to the what this thread is about - government and abortion.

I submit that in a situation where either an unborn baby or the mother will die(unless God intervenes), that the government cannot mandate that the mother must die. If she chooses to die, then so be it. But it is not the prerogative of the government to mandate which one will die.

The problem is as follows:

1. The baby has no choice in the matter.

2. By mandating the choice for the mother in any situation, the state is mandating the death of the child, unless of course, the mother sacrifices herself for the child or God intervenes.

3. You say the government cannot mandate that the mother die, but have no problem with the government endorsing the murder of the child. Two innocent lives are better off being left in the hands of God and not in the hands of a government mandate or the choice of a human. Anything less, is murder.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
3. You say the government cannot mandate that the mother die, but have no problem with the government endorsing the murder of the child. Two innocent lives are better off being left in the hands of God and not in the hands of a government mandate or the choice of a human. Anything less, is murder.

But the government is endorsing the murder of the mother if it mandates no abortions to save the life of the mother. The government is not being neutral as you suppose in your viewpoint.

How am I saying that the government is endorsing the murder of the unborn baby? The government should not mandate an abortion in this case. This is the one case where the government must be neutral in the abortion issue. The government should not decide who will die(unless God intervenes).