The Party of Death will not let the Sanctity of Life Bill come to a vote

[ajg1959]

You are wrong. I am pro-life, and politically I believe in a woman's right to choose. That may not work in your world, but that doesn't change mine.

Regards,
BiR

So? Are you saying that we can just throw our fundamental christian standards and morals out the window when it comes to politics?

Maybe if we, as christians, exclude, say, saturday nights from biblical authority, and go out and do whatever we want to? Would that be ok since we still respect God and the Bible the rest of the week?

If we can exclude politics from christian morals, then why not just one night of the week?

AJ

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

When God removes his restraining hand, He allows us to choose to sin or not. In the case of abortion, pro choice means that they always choose to sin by murdering a child.

As usual, you are wrong, carpro.
A woman's right to choose does not always mean that they choose to abort.

 

[ajg1959]

Sure you can - I just did.
I am personally pro-life, politically I believe it is a woman's right to choose. To me, it is no different than telling someone what they can and cannot do in their life, or what they can and cannot believe.

A point worth noting is that I specifically wrote that they are responsible for the consequences for that choice, in this life, and when they go before the Almighty. Personally, I believe abortion is wrong, and the person involved will answer for the choice they make. But it is their choice.

Ok, if I really really dislike someone, do I have the right to choose to murder them?

What you are saying is that you support a woman's right to commit murder.

Why should that even be a right? It is the poor murdered baby that is refused rights, not the heartless mother.

AJ

 

[carpro]

As usual, you are wrong, carpro.
A woman's right to choose does not always mean that they choose to abort.

Sure it does.

If they choose otherwise they are pro life.

Pro choice is a euphamism for pro abortion. There is no need to be pro abortion unless one plans to kill their child ...with your acquiesence, of course.

In your case, you say you are pro life but support pro choice. Just more quibbling on you part.

 

[ajg1959]

As usual, you are wrong, carpro.
A woman's right to choose does not always mean that they choose to abort.

Noone should have the "right" to choose this:

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/pictures_3.html

Look at these pics and tell me you honestly think anyone should have the right to "choose" this.

AJ

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Noone should have the "right" to choose this:

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/pictures_3.html

Look at these pics and tell me you honestly think anyone should have the right to "choose" this.

AJ

You're preaching to the choir here.
I have said repeatedly that I am pro-life. Did you not read this?

 

[ajg1959]

You're preaching to the choir here.
I have said repeatedly that I am pro-life. Did you not read this?

You said you were pro-choice?????

AJ

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Sure it does.

If they choose otherwise they are pro life.

Pro choice is a euphamism for pro abortion. There is no need to be pro abortion unless one plans to kill their child ...with your acquiesence, of course.

In your case, you say you are pro life but support pro choice. Just more quibbling on you part.

I wouldn't expect you to ascertain the difference.
And once again, you are wrong - a woman's right to choose is her right. I find it amusing that you would utilize the word "acquiescence." As I have made my personal opinion clear, your observation is wrong (and misspelled). It is the woman's choice - I have no part in this, directly or indirectly.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

You said you were pro-choice?????

I said that I was personally pro-life. Politically, I believe it is the right of a woman to choose.

 

[ajg1959]

I said that I was personally pro-life. Politically, I believe it is the right of a woman to choose.

Only an idiot would believe this as a credible response. Do you think I am an idiot?

AJ

 

[carpro]

You're preaching to the choir here.
I have said repeatedly that I am pro-life. Did you not read this?

Yes. You are trying to have it both ways.

Paul seems to describe you when he says that , even though you know it's a sin and the price of sin is death, you still support, or applaud if you will, those who practice them...making you as guilty as they are.

In the end, your quibbling avails you nothing.

 

[carpro]

I have no part in this, directly or indirectly.

Don't you?

I don't remember what became of Pontius Pilate, do you.

 

[Revmitchell]

And the mother has the right to choose......

Not in God's eyes nor should murder be in anyone's eyes. Pure evil

 

[donnA]

Yes. You are trying to have it both ways.

Paul seems to describe you when he says that , even though you know it's a sin and the price of sin is death, you still support, or applaud if you will, those who practice them...making you as guilty as they are.

In the end, your quibbling avails you nothing.

Isn't approving sin, or sinful pratices in others a sin itself?

Is. 5:20
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!

 

[Andy T.]

A point worth noting is that the GOP controlled all three branches of the government for most of this and the last decade, and they did nothing.

This will be the second time to point out your repeated, ignorant statements on this. Since when does the President get to appoint 9 brand new S.C. justices? Neither party controls the judicial branch, because judges are appointed for life, so we always have a mixture of liberal and conservative judges. Your ignorant statement makes it sound like Bush got to appoint brand new judges throughout the entire federal judicial system. But then again, I wouldn't expect a liberal to know anything about the Constitution.

 

[Andy T.]

Sure you can - I just did.
I am personally pro-life, politically I believe it is a woman's right to choose. To me, it is no different than telling someone what they can and cannot do in their life, or what they can and cannot believe.

A point worth noting is that I specifically wrote that they are responsible for the consequences for that choice, in this life, and when they go before the Almighty. Personally, I believe abortion is wrong, and the person involved will answer for the choice they make. But it is their choice.

BiR,

Do you think people should have the "right to choose":

- to own slaves?
- to steal others' property?
- to shoot someone for no good reason?
- to blow up a building for fun?
- to molest a child?
- to torture a baby?
- to kill a baby?

I assume your answer to all of these would be "no." Then why do you use the opposite reasoning when it comes to abortion, which you have said is immoral and wrong?

 

[saturneptune]

BiR,

Do you think people should have the "right to choose":

- to own slaves?
- to steal others' property?
- to shoot someone for no good reason?
- to blow up a building for fun?
- to molest a child?
- to torture a baby?
- to kill a baby?

I assume your answer to all of these would be "no." Then why do you use the opposite reasoning when it comes to abortion, which you have said is immoral and wrong?

Arguing whether Democrats or Republicans are correct on abortion is a total waste of time. Democrats are pro abortion. Republicans only support life as an instrument for vote pandering every four years, and care nothing about the sanctity of life, but use is as a means to continue their greed and political power.

Both the Democratic and Republican party are now controlled by lust and greed born in the pits of hell.

 

[carpro]

Democrats are pro abortion.

A well established fact.

Republicans only support life as an instrument for vote pandering every four years, and care nothing about the sanctity of life...

Your unsupported opinion.

 

[JustChristian]

Yes, it is worth notice and thank you BIR. But the present bill has been in limbo for the past year. President Bush would sign it. I am praying that a miracle will happen and it will be voted upon and Pres. Bush will sign it before he leaves office. Will you join me in that prayer?

If a bill in congress would reverse abortion law why wasn't this done the day after Bush took office? I thought it wasn't that easy. Look at all the emphasis that's been placed on appointing Supreme court justices.

I agree with you that Christians who are democrats should work with christians who are Republicans to support this kind of bill. I suggest that the first thing that's necessary is for you and your coharts on the board and in the country:

1) Stop calling the Democratic party the party of Death. After all, it was the Republican party that gave us Roe vs. Wade.

2) Stop inferring or saying outright that anyone who is a Democrat cannot be a Christian.

30 Stop trying to push our churches into supporting one party or the other but rather have them speak out on moral issues.

It's hard to work with someone who continually insults you especially about your religion. Are you willing to take these steps to work with us?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Nope. I aim to defeat democrats. I hate every platform they have, and the last thing I will do is extend a hand to work with them.

The republicans have beaten themselves, it's up to true-God fearing Americans to stand up to the liberal anti-Christian agenda of gay rights, unfettered abortion, socialist wealth redistribution, and infringement of gun rights. Add to that U.N. global climate change power grabs, and illegal wars at their behest.