Bush Signs Partial Birth Abortion Ban...

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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. </font>[/QUOTE]Not true. The government is leaving the choice in the hands of God, where it should be.

The government is not being neutral as you suppose in your viewpoint.[/QUOTE]

So, if God chooses not to intervene, do you also believe that he is committing murder? I am not trying to be smug here, but you seem to be implying that neutrality is equal to murder in this case. Furthermore, by the government or the mother making any choice at all in this case, they are taking the choice out of God's hands and into their own. It is called playing God.

How am I saying that the government is endorsing the murder of the unborn baby?[/QUOTE]

If the government endorses the right of a mother to murder her baby, then they are endorsing murder.

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). [/QUOTE]

Interesting. Earlier, you equated government neutrality to murder of the mother. Neither the mother or the government should be allowed to make this choice. This choice rightly belongs to God alone.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Watchman]

Ken, Joe,
If I may interject here. All this seems to be centered around the notion that there are cases where the baby must be aborted to save the life of the mother. Now, what we need to find out is: is this true? I am certainly not a Doctor, but Dr. John Wilke certainly is and he stated at one time that, in the thousands of babies he has delivered there was never a case where the baby had to be destroyed to save the life of the mother. Not only that, but he asked his fellow O.B.'s if they have ever seen, or known of any case where this was true, again, a universal NO.
This is the 21st century American medicine folks. It may well be that we are being fed a line in an attempt to make abortion acceptable.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Watchman:
This is the 21st century American medicine folks. It may well be that we are being fed a line in an attempt to make abortion acceptable.

That's why I earlier said, "the other 99.9999999% of abortions unrelated to the situation you are talking about". Yet Joseph wants to argue over the idea that .0000001% out of 1.5 million abortions per year, which equates to zero.

And with zero being the case, why would we want to hold progress in eliminating abortion with a constitutional amendment hostage to something that won't be necessary? The American people will never go for an amendment mandating that a mother must die to save the life of her unborn child, regardless if the situation will never arise. The majority of people will want that legal safety valve there. And since, as you stated, it won't have to be used, I see no reason to not have that safety valve in the law.

It is better to have the safety valve in a pro-life amendment in the U.S. Constitution than to oppose the safety valve and cause the amendment to be defeated.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Originally posted by KenH:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Watchman:
This is the 21st century American medicine folks. It may well be that we are being fed a line in an attempt to make abortion acceptable.

That's why I earlier said, "the other 99.9999999% of abortions unrelated to the situation you are talking about". Yet Joseph wants to argue over the idea that .0000001% out of 1.5 million abortions per year, which equates to zero.</font>[/QUOTE]Ken, are you doing that new math?

How do you get 99.9999999%? How does .0000001% equal zero? Would you please mind showing your work on this one? Does 2+2 still equal 4? Even if it is one baby murdered, that is one too many.

And with zero being the case, why would we want to hold progress in eliminating abortion with a constitutional amendment hostage to something that won't be necessary? The American people will never go for an amendment mandating that a mother must die to save the life of her unborn child, regardless if the situation will never arise. The majority of people will want that legal safety valve there. And since, as you stated, it won't have to be used, I see no reason to not have that safety valve in the law.

It is better to have the safety valve in a pro-life amendment in the U.S. Constitution than to oppose the safety valve and cause the amendment to be defeated. [/QUOTE]

What is that safety valve, Ken? Oh yeah. It is the endorsement of abortion. Makes perfect sense now. Again, please explain your math to me about how you get zero. If this were true, then why would you even argue for abortion to save the life of the mother? The truth is, you know the number isn't zero.

Also, wasn't it you who was condemning Bush for not going far enough with his anti-abortion policies? C'mon Ken. Let's be honest about it. Safety valve. Please. Are the concessions to murder only ok for you if it saves the life of the mother. Wait a minute. There are no cases of that right? The number is zero, right? You seem to have circular logic. Which is it? Do these types of abortions exist? Or is the number zero?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

The answer is actually .15

That means by your numbers (where you got them, I would love to know. Did you make them up?), only .15 of a baby is murdered in order to save the life of 1 full mother. I wonder how we figured out that it was only .15 of a baby. I guess since there is only .15 of the baby, that certainly justifies its murder to save 1 full mother? My how far we seem to have devalued life. Isn't it sad?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Watchman]

Originally posted by KenH:
The American people will never go for an amendment mandating that a mother must die to save the life of her unborn child, regardless if the situation will never arise.

It is better to have the safety valve in a pro-life amendment in the U.S. Constitution than to oppose the safety valve and cause the amendment to be defeated.
__________________________________________________

Now that, to me, is a very, very, difficult situation.
If it is impossible to get an out-right ban on abortion without the safety valve; but, we can get a ban on abortion with it, should we support it?
Supporting the safety valve: millions of babies would be saved. We support babies being saved.
Supporting the safety valve: some very well could still die. We support some babies dying.
Is that where we are now? What is the right thing to do? Is this a numbers game? Because the numbers are right, that is just cause to support the safety valve?
Brethren, if I must error, I must error on the side of life. I must error on the side that ALL life is valuable and precious to God. I must error in saying that no babies are disposable.
No, ALL or nothing at all.

 

[Don]

Joseph, the similarity with triage is that doctors all too often have to make the decision as to who to work on; i.e., this person is too far gone, let's not waste our time and move on to the next person we can save.

But that's as far as the similarity goes.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Watchman:
No, ALL or nothing at all.

Then, you and Joseph are saying that if you had the opportunity to stop 1,499,999 abortions under a law that allowed 1 abortion that you would refuse it.

And because you refuse it, 1,500,000 unborn babies are slaughtered instead of 1.

Are you sure you want to stay in that position?

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Ken,

You have now thrown out three different numbers: 0, .15, and 1. Which is it please? And what is your source? Are you making up the numbers to support your case?

In answer to your question, I have no problem standing on the side that says that it is God's choice, not man's in this kind of situation. Anything less, is the same as committing murder.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
I have no problem standing on the side that says that it is God's choice, not man's in this kind of situation. Anything less, is the same as committing murder.

And neither side of the Demopublican Party will ever, ever give you that.

The powers that be on the Republican side have no interest in totally banning abortion or in even significantly reducing its occurrence. They simply want the issue so that every 2-4 years they can raise the rhetoric and maybe throw conservative Christians a small bone to keep them voting for them because of the Democrat side.

The Republican leadership would dread the elimination of abortion as a political issue every bit as much as the Colombian drug lords would dread seeing the U.S. legalize currently illegal drugs.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Ken,

You forgot to add the Constitution Party to that list also.

I readily admit that the Republicans are not perfect. But they are:

1. Viable candidates who have a chance of winning.

and

2. a lot closer to what I believe than the Democrats.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
You forgot to add the Constitution Party to that list also.

Nope. Unlike the Demopublicans, the Constitution Party would aggressively push for a constitutional amendment from day one.

But it's your choice, Joseph. If you want to keep on wasting your vote on Republican rhetoric, go ahead. It's your right.

But I will no longer allow the Republicans to deceive me.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Ken,

Are you now saying that the Constitution Party is on the side of leaving that decision in the hands of God instead of allowing a woman to murder her baby to save her life? Would you please link me to that? You are the one who will be electing a pro-death Democrat when you vote for a third party candidate who can't win. You are the one who will set back the pro-life movement 30 years with your wasted vote.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[KenH]

Don't worry, Joseph. I will be able to sleep at night with my vote.

I guess if we both can be satisfied with how we vote, that's all one can ask for in a democratic republic.

We can continue to trade barbs if you want but as far as I am concerned this is my last post on this particular thread. But I won't be surprised if we cross swords on this issue again during the next 12 months.

If you like, Joseph, you may have the last word in our exchange.

VOTE FOR LIMITED, CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT!
VOTE FOR THE CONSTITUTION PARTY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE(to be determined in 2004)!

Everyone is invited to visit the "Politics Forum" during the upcoming election year. There should be plenty of fireworks.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

A vote for the Constitution Party is a vote for the Democratic pro-death machine. Bush isn't perfect. Heck, he isn't even Reagan. But he is a lot closer to what pro-life conservatives believe than the Democrats.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Bush has increased spending FAR faster than Clinton, even on social programs.

Bush has increased federal involvement and spending on education in 3 years FAR more than Clinton did in 8. In fact his "partner" in foisting the evil education policies on us was none other than Edward Kennedy.

Bush has made numerous high level appointments of homosexual activists. I don't know how it compares with Clinton but I think it's probably equal or worse.

Bush was AGAINST Judge Roy Moore in Alabama. Clinton would have done no worse.

Bush has been largely silent on the abortion issue. Yes, he signed the PBA bill, which is a drop in the bucket. I wish he were calling for more legislation, but he now has the "pro-life" vote sewn up so there will be no more.

Bush has praised the National Endowment for the Arts, known for blasphemous filth at taxpayer expense.

In the Republican Party, Bush has backed the left wing mostly, giving power to those who are against conservatives. In the last convention, he insisted that one of the main speakers be a homosexual activist (I forget the name). At the same time, he fought to keep the abortion "issue" off the table.


If you will vote for this man, exactly who WOULDN'T you vote for???


(answer: a Democrat)

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Jim,

While it is noted that many of these things may be true, it is also necessary to point out that many of the things mentioned have nothing to do with the topic of this discussion. Bush is not perfect, but he has two things going for him:

1. He is electable.

2. He is closer to the pro-life agenda than any of the Dems.

Vote your conscience. But know this. A vote for a Constitution Party candidate who will not win is a vote for a pro-death democrat who will set the pro-life agenda back 30 years.

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Joseph, you call what I cited as "not perfect"??

If so, then I would just say that the Democrats are "not perfect" either. So why are you so afraid of them?

Just how far would a politician have to go against what you believe for you to say anything worse than "he's not perfect"?

Or, should I say any Republican politician?

Would you characterize Al Gore as "not perfect"?

I'll bet that overall, he'd have been more conservative than Bush. Clinton was.

 

[Joseph_Botwinick]

Jim,

We have been through this before many times. You believe that there is no difference between Bush and the DEMS. I think you are wrong. I have listed what I think are the differences before in another thread to you. You have yet to dispute those differences except to say that they don't go far enough. What more can I say?

Joseph Botwinick

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Originally posted by Joseph_Botwinick:
What more can I say?

Joseph Botwinick

You could say that from now on you will only vote for candidates who represent the same Christian ideals for which you stand.