Horrible news: Dobson secretly abandons abortion pledge

Agreed, John.

 

I am divided on the death penalty. For one, innocent people have been executed only to be vindicated later. Second, God might plan to use that person's life later.

No it makes them complicit with evil and that is unchristian. Abortion is evil. It is murder by any rational understanding what is done to whom. Right now, it is legalized murder. Anyone who empowers those who would keep it legal are complicit with the taking of human life.

I never said it was... but it isn't voting against a clear standard of God either.

I'm not in your personal business as in telling you what you can do or believe. You will account to God for yourself. I am only declaring the truth. Abortion is evil. In fact it is evil that most often attempts to cover up sinful sexual behavior. Voting for pro-abortion candidates makes one guilty of empowering them.

No Bush isn't the same as voting with God. He makes mistakes like any man that we might elect. But respect for the right to live is fundamental. There are moral arguments to be made for and against social welfare, the war, environmental protection, etc.

There is no more moral justification for legalized abortion than there is for legalized infanticide or any other murder for the convenience of the murderer.

 

Exactly!! And we should repect a person's private voting choices. It's no one's business. </font>[/QUOTE]Practically speaking, if this were true then we would have no debate, no public exchange of ideas, no political discourse, and an even more uneducated/uninformed electorate.

We all make each other's votes our business when we say anything at all concerning politics.

 

Exactly!! And we should repect a person's private voting choices. It's no one's business. </font>[/QUOTE]Practically speaking, if this were true then we would have no debate, no public exchange of ideas, no political discourse, and an even more uneducated/uninformed electorate.

We all make each other's votes our business when we say anything at all concerning politics. </font>[/QUOTE]Why is that abortion (which btw I am against) is the determining factor and not the issue of the death penalty?

As to the idea of no longer needing debates, even if you removed abortion and the death penalty aren't there plenty of things to discuss? School funding, taxes and judges are just a few that come to mind. Debating the merits of an issue is one thing, telling people that a vote for one person over another is tantamount to evil is far reaching at best.

What about the people how have no say in their government (I'm thinking of China) are they complict with evil if the government does something unchristian?

BTW I didn't vote for Kerry, I'm getting the impression that you think I did.

 

I'm all in favor of having a healthy and civil exchange of ideas. But doing so does not give anyone privilege to interfere with a person's soverign right to vote their conscience, or to make their voting decisions anyone's business but their own.

 

I would say the issue is with abortion because that is clearly against the constitution as well as being against God's law. The death penalty is sanctioned by the constitution as it is after "due process" and is also arguably sanctioned by the bible.

After all, the Levitical law provided for a death penalty.

 

Dave, we don't live under Levitical law. We live under the Constitution. So the issue of the death penalty in Levitical law is immaterial.

As for abortion being against the Constitution, the legality of abortion has never been at issue. It was legal before Roe v Wade, and was legal after. At issue has been whether or not it is a right of the states to set laws regulating or restricting it, or whether a the constitutional right to privacy over one's person on the topic precludes the states rights issue.

 

Exactly!! And we should repect a person's private voting choices. It's no one's business. </font>[/QUOTE]Practically speaking, if this were true then we would have no debate, no public exchange of ideas, no political discourse, and an even more uneducated/uninformed electorate.

We all make each other's votes our business when we say anything at all concerning politics. </font>[/QUOTE]Why is that abortion (which btw I am against) is the determining factor and not the issue of the death penalty? </font>[/QUOTE] Principally because we don't just arbitrarily apply the death penalty to people who are considered inconvenient or who are being knowingly punished for someone else's transgression.

Everyone on death row has been tried and convicted of a particularly heinous murder. The unborn are guilty of nothing but being the offspring of someone who behaved immorally.

Yes.

No it isn't when that thing is in fact evil. Killing someone out of pure convenience is evil. Killing someone who represents the most innocent class of persons on earth for pure convenience is worse than evil.

Not to the extent that we are... but they do have a responsibility to resist.

I don't think that German's living in towns adjacent to extermination camps were without guilt since they did nothing to stop it.

No. I am simply arguing the issue with you.

Who you voted for this go around isn't necessarily relevant to what we are discussing.

 

Right and wrong.

The court nor the federal gov't had the right to dictate homocide law to the states without defining "person" in the legal sense. This seems to have been avoided since the "life" of the unborn could be proven even in 1973.

That's why they constructed it on the absolutely innane grounds of privacy and due process. Neither of those Amendments were ever intended to protect someone from being charged with man slaughter or murder.

States had laws based on their perception of what was a justifiable taking of life and what was not. The court ruled that they couldn't make that judgment if the person had not been borned.

Bad logic. Bad law. Bad application.... liberal judicial activism at its absolute, appalling worst.

 

I'm all in favor of having a healthy and civil exchange of ideas. But doing so does not give anyone privilege to interfere with a person's soverign right to vote their conscience, or to make their voting decisions anyone's business but their own. </font>[/QUOTE]I don't recall asking anyone how they voted. Did I? I know I didn't try to interfere with anyone exercising their voting rights.

 

But the states did?

That wasn't the issue with RvW, since abortion was legal to one extent or another in many states in 1973. The issue was whether rights granted in one state could be curtailed in another.

Anyhoo, this topic isn't about the history of abortion l, so I suppose we should refrain from starting "yet another" thread on that topic. In fact, the context of the OP has turned out to be false.

The topic currently at hand is the use of the abortion topic as a litmust test on voting, and to what extent. Let's stick to that, lest this become a 40 page thread about nothing.

 

But the states did?</font>[/QUOTE] Effectively yes. Every state made a determination as to what point an abortion could take place. Making later abortions illegal was an implicit declaration of personhood entitling them to legal protection of their rights.

That wasn't the issue with RvW, since abortion was legal to one extent or another in many states in 1973. The issue was whether rights granted in one state could be curtailed in another.</font>[/QUOTE] That's a ridiculous argument since no state was trying to dictate law to another state.

Why doesn't the same go for murder law, three strikes laws, sentencing guidelines, etc, etc? Why? Because it is a ridiculous assertion and overstep by the court.

That's how it got started. I answered the question.

I think you were the one that brought Roe v Wade into it.

 

No it isn't. I am stating my case and giving reasoning. You are more than welcome to be wrong.

If you think I am wrong that it should be prerequisite for Christians then please formulate a scriptural defense of murdering an innocent child for convenience.

 

3-page warning: This thread will be closed no sooner than 1:00 a.m. ET by one of the moderators.

Lady Eagle,
Moderator

 

I guess those folks who are devoted to the cause of overturning Roe v. Wade are finding out that they aren't part of the establishment after all.....

Regards, and thanks for the link,
BiR

 

I totally, totally disagree. A vote for a candidate on any governmental level, regardless of party, is what we should all do. Otherwise, we are settling for less than what we desire in government.

So many people in this nation succumbing to the limited way of thinking that we can only realistically vote for one of the two major parties is a major reason why our country is rushing toward economic bankruptcy.

 

If you have three candidates:

a. Believes in abortion on demand, and will get 49% of the vote, not matter what.

b. Believes that abortion should be curtailed in most circumstances, but is willing to compromise to get them abolished in some circumstances under which they are now legal. He will get 51% of the vote unless a third party candidate pulls votes from him.

c. Believes in banning all abortions. He will get 5% of the vote.

If you vote for candidate "c" in this situation, you have contributed to electing candidate "a". That's how Clinton was elected with 43% of the vote; Perot got 16% or so of the vote.

 

Your logic is flawed, Hope of Glory. You are stuck in a two party matrix. I vote for the person I want to hold the political office for which I am voting - regardless of his/her party status or chance of winning.

That's why I have voted for Democrats, Republicans, Independents, minor party candidates, and even did a write-in vote one time.

I am a true maverick when it comes to voting, and I like it that way. I don't want anyone to pigeon hole me or take my vote for granted.

Of course, if you want to vote based on compromise instead of based on who you want ot hold a particular political office that is your choice.

 

Since there is no majority required to win, then you are voting for the greater of two evils. Since there is no majority required to win, we are stuck in a two party quagmire.

If you want reform, work at the state level to change the law to require a majority to win any election. No votes would be wasted, and a vote for the best candidate would not be a vote for the greater of two evils.

It's not my "logic", btw, it's reality. It has happened quite often at every level of government, but most prominently, it permitted Clinton to be re-elected with only 43% of the vote. That's not logic; that's history.

 

Actually, it does take a majority of the Electoral College to win the presidency, not a plurality, regardless of how the popular vote nationwide goes.

A major flaw in your logic is to assume that a voter who votes for a minor party candidate would vote for one of the major party candidates otherwise. That is not true. Such a person might not vote at all if a minor party candidate that he/she wants to vote for was not on the ballot.

Look, Hope of Glory, we will just have to agree to disagree. You're not going to convince me and I doubt that I will convince you. Have a nice evening.