Obama Most Pro-Abortion President in History
X
User Lists
Presidents can have great effect on social issues, and long after their tenure, through supreme court appointments. (Roe vs. Wade is the obvious example here.) Some people's vote is greatly influenced by this fact.
I've talked to so many people who voted for Obama based alone on his pro-marijuana mentality. I just hate the misconception that he's going to do anything about that....ever..... As if the president is going to have marijuana legalized in the next four years. It's in the states that these kinds of social changes will happen (such as gay marriage) and then eventually, federally, things will have to change due to sheer overwhelming public opinion. But I don't feel like a conservative president will slow down states legalizing marijuana very much ..... I just don't. It's not like if Romney were elected Colorado wouldn't have legalized marijuana. The only reason i'm bringing this up is because I believe this can be a foil for the abortion issue.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
what is the purpose of the above photo? what is it meant to illustrate and what does it have to do with abortion? Very weird
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
And that's what bothers me, people vote solely on social issues which I understand because that's what can hit us at home personally. However the Roe vs. Wade precedent was set in 1973 but people are still voting based solely on Obama's abortion views but clearly at this point it is a states battle.
I've talked to so many people who voted for Obama based alone on his pro-marijuana mentality. I just hate the misconception that he's going to do anything about that....ever..... As if the president is going to have marijuana legalized in the next four years. It's in the states that these kinds of social changes will happen (such as gay marriage) and then eventually, federally, things will have to change due to sheer overwhelming public opinion. But I don't feel like a conservative president will slow down states legalizing marijuana very much ..... I just don't. It's not like if Romney were elected Colorado wouldn't have legalized marijuana. The only reason i'm bringing this up is because I believe this can be a foil for the abortion issue.
I've talked to so many people who voted for Obama based alone on his pro-marijuana mentality. I just hate the misconception that he's going to do anything about that....ever..... As if the president is going to have marijuana legalized in the next four years. It's in the states that these kinds of social changes will happen (such as gay marriage) and then eventually, federally, things will have to change due to sheer overwhelming public opinion. But I don't feel like a conservative president will slow down states legalizing marijuana very much ..... I just don't. It's not like if Romney were elected Colorado wouldn't have legalized marijuana. The only reason i'm bringing this up is because I believe this can be a foil for the abortion issue.
I think one of the biggest misconceptions in politics right now is the effect that income tax has on our economy. Everything is framed right now in terms of the 99% vs the 1%. The truth is no matter who is in control we are talking about a 4% difference in the tax code. Both sides would have you believe your choosing between socialism and true democracy.
I say all that to say, voting on moral issues is just as important, if not more so, as voting on economic ones.
__________________
Letterboxd
Letterboxd
X
Favorite Movies
Actually slave owners often justified it using passages from the Bible and by pointing to the fact that slavery has existed throughout history. They also justified as a way to spread Christianity by essentially forcing their own religious views onto their slaves.
Abortion is slavery in that promiscuous women and others with a high degree of selfishness use it as a form of birth control and to make their lives easier at the expense of the lives of the innocent child. It is controlling and using others in order to satisfy one's own deviant behaviors which has made slavery into something ugly. You should watch Roots (1977) in order to understand the pro-life movement as seen through the victims of human right's abuses.
Anyone can distort truth. Wendy Davis, the filibuster queen of Texas, used the Bible to "justify" abortion even though she took the passage from the Old Testament out of context without understanding its moral implications. Scripture cannot be used to justify evil. Satan was the first to pervert God's word (Genesis 3:1 and Matthew 4:6) and St. Peter warns against the practice of using Scripture to satisfy one's personal ambition (2 Peter 3:15-16). I find it funny that people who distort the Bible for personal interests don't realize how stupid they look to people who actually know what the Bible says and what it means.
There is one distinct difference between slavery in biblical times and slavery of recent centuries: the rights of slaves in biblical times were enforced and their dignity recognized, and they were seen as people and not animals. The rights and dignity of slaves of recent centuries and the unborn are not recognized. Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court has discarded the natural law and has replaced it with a gross distortion which now allows any given segment of the human population to be dehumanized and killed. Perversions of justice are not law when we come to realize the truth. So, slavery and abortion are exactly alike. A woman claiming her unborn child is "my body" in order to justify killing her baby is the same thing an unjust slave owner would say about their slaves: "I own this slave and I can do with him as I please."
Not only does Obama perpetuate the perversion that strips away a person's humanity, he extends this hideous practice to survivors of abortion.
Planned Parenthood of Florida has made their lack of concern for survivors of botched abortions abundantly clear:
Direct link:
Google: "Planned Parenthood" botched abortion Florida
As I pointed out earlier, Obama has a proven voting record of not supporting a child born alive because of a botched abortion. What objection do you have, if any, to recognizing such a child as a human being with rights?
Last edited by Mesmerized; 01-23-14 at 09:20 AM.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
They were able to rationalize it because the Bible essentially condoned slavery and because Jesus never spoke against it.
"And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!" ~ Luke 1:41-42
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Abortion is slavery in that promiscuous women and others with a high degree of selfishness use it as a form of birth control and to make their lives easier at the expense of the lives of the innocent child.
Scripture cannot be used to justify evil.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
"Obama Calls on Nation to Recommit to Abortion
"Pro-life support has actually increased over the last several years, according to Gallup
"While Obama touts abortion as a way to protect women’s freedoms, not all women appreciate trivializing the life they harbor inside of them. Nicole Peck stated at the March for Life rally that her abortion stripped her of not only her money and her baby, but also her self-respect.
"With the Obamacare abortion pill mandate still sparking lawsuits and religious freedom controversies, the administration will undoubtedly persist in their attempt to sell abortion as a basic right."
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/sarahje...ision-n1783506
"Pro-life support has actually increased over the last several years, according to Gallup
"While Obama touts abortion as a way to protect women’s freedoms, not all women appreciate trivializing the life they harbor inside of them. Nicole Peck stated at the March for Life rally that her abortion stripped her of not only her money and her baby, but also her self-respect.
"With the Obamacare abortion pill mandate still sparking lawsuits and religious freedom controversies, the administration will undoubtedly persist in their attempt to sell abortion as a basic right."
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/sarahje...ision-n1783506
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
The bible shouldn't be used to justify anything. It's just a book
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
And the Magna Carta is just a piece of paper. But obviously both have writing, and that writing conveys ideas, and ideas are precisely what we use to justify things.
What I mean is that ok of course writing conveys ideas but using quotations from ancient religious works which were written thousands of years ago in different cultures with different mores, and forcing interpretations into present day situations just does nothing to move the world on.
I've got nothing against reading religious books, the bible has much beautiful prose. However I'd rather people made new legislation without having people justifying life and laws in the 21st century with a supposed certainty that they know what the bible 'means' when it's a text that's reached us through Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek/Latin translations thus making 'meanings' obscure anyway.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Abortion is slavery in that promiscuous women and others with a high degree of selfishness use it as a form of birth control and to make their lives easier at the expense of the lives of the innocent child.
A sweeping generalisation that takes no account of lives lived in poverty and ignorance, desperation and lack of education.
The bible shouldn't be used to justify anything. It's just a book
And the Magna Carta is just a piece of paper. But obviously both have writing, and that writing conveys ideas, and ideas are precisely what we use to justify things.
Mesmerised says "I find it funny that people who distort the Bible for personal interests don't realize how stupid they look to people who actually know what the Bible says and what it means"
What I mean is that ok of course writing conveys ideas but using quotations from ancient religious works which were written thousands of years ago in different cultures with different mores, and forcing interpretations into present day situations just does nothing to move the world on.
What I mean is that ok of course writing conveys ideas but using quotations from ancient religious works which were written thousands of years ago in different cultures with different mores, and forcing interpretations into present day situations just does nothing to move the world on.
I've got nothing against reading religious books, the bible has much beautiful prose. However I'd rather people made new legislation without having people justifying life and laws in the 21st century with a supposed certainty that they know what the bible 'means' when it's a text that's reached us through Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek/Latin translations thus making 'meanings' obscure anyway.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Mesmerised says "I find it funny that people who distort the Bible for personal interests don't realize how stupid they look to people who actually know what the Bible says and what it means"
What I mean is that ok of course writing conveys ideas but using quotations from ancient religious works which were written thousands of years ago in different cultures with different mores, and forcing interpretations into present day situations just does nothing to move the world on.
I've got nothing against reading religious books, the bible has much beautiful prose. However I'd rather people made new legislation without having people justifying life and laws in the 21st century with a supposed certainty that they know what the bible 'means' when it's a text that's reached us through Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek/Latin translations thus making 'meanings' obscure anyway.
What I mean is that ok of course writing conveys ideas but using quotations from ancient religious works which were written thousands of years ago in different cultures with different mores, and forcing interpretations into present day situations just does nothing to move the world on.
I've got nothing against reading religious books, the bible has much beautiful prose. However I'd rather people made new legislation without having people justifying life and laws in the 21st century with a supposed certainty that they know what the bible 'means' when it's a text that's reached us through Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek/Latin translations thus making 'meanings' obscure anyway.
Obscure? The Church has been translating and copying the Scriptures for 2,000 years into various languages, and all by hand long before the printing press was invented. The Bible and it's 72 books were officially confirmed at several councils including the Council of Carthage in 419 and, again, ratified at the Council of Trent in 1545 in response to the Reformation. If anyone knows what the Bible means and what it teaches, the Church certainly does; and to say the Bible has no meaning, today, is unfounded. Before condemning it, perhaps you should read the Gospels and the Book of Proverbs and tell me if all of this is meaningless, today.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
We really need to do something about all these loose women who are impregnating themselves.
That said, the law isn't exactly doing much to help: it shouldn't be surprising that, when one of the two parties has total control, the other is usually seen as less responsible for the outcome.
The Magna Carta? Wouldn't Grimm's Fairy Tales be more apt?
But don't worry, I'm sure you can come up with some fresh material to make fun of believers with. Maybe something comparing Jesus to Santa or the Easter Bunny. Pretty sure nobody's done that one yet.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
the point in question was about writings that influence thought on law and morality.
But don't worry, I'm sure you can come up with some fresh material to make fun of believers with.
I think the point, brought up by Christine, was that people use the bible as justfication through citation, by authority alone.
Since when did they need help?
Personally, I think the bar for making snide, substance-free comments should be a bit higher, if one has to make them at all.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Pro life is anti-woman.
__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...
X
Favorite Movies
VIDEO: Brit Hume Blasts Roe vs. Wade, Planned Parenthood
Daniel Doherty | Jan 23, 2014
During the Special Report broadcast last night, Fox News contributor Brit Hume offered up some thoughts on the 41st anniversary of Roe vs. Wade and the decades-old abortion debate. More precisely, he blasted the High Court’s landmark decision granting women a constitutional right to “snuff out” an innocent life “with a beating heart.” This, he argued, according to estimates, has happened to roughly 55 million unborn children since the decision was brought down in 1973. He added that unborn babies as young as 20 weeks “can hear and recognize their mother’s voice,” and that the tactics of the Left to obfuscate breakthroughs in science and medical research are increasingly desperate and absurd. Meanwhile, his criticisms of Planned Parenthood were particularly withering. “The biggest chain of abortion clinics in the country refers to itself as ‘Planned Parenthood,’” he said. “In 2012, this organization says it carried out quote ‘abortion procedures’ 329,445 times. Whatever that number represents, it’s not parenthood.”
From TWS:
Source: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danield...thood-n1783502
Daniel Doherty | Jan 23, 2014
During the Special Report broadcast last night, Fox News contributor Brit Hume offered up some thoughts on the 41st anniversary of Roe vs. Wade and the decades-old abortion debate. More precisely, he blasted the High Court’s landmark decision granting women a constitutional right to “snuff out” an innocent life “with a beating heart.” This, he argued, according to estimates, has happened to roughly 55 million unborn children since the decision was brought down in 1973. He added that unborn babies as young as 20 weeks “can hear and recognize their mother’s voice,” and that the tactics of the Left to obfuscate breakthroughs in science and medical research are increasingly desperate and absurd. Meanwhile, his criticisms of Planned Parenthood were particularly withering. “The biggest chain of abortion clinics in the country refers to itself as ‘Planned Parenthood,’” he said. “In 2012, this organization says it carried out quote ‘abortion procedures’ 329,445 times. Whatever that number represents, it’s not parenthood.”
From TWS:
Source: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/danield...thood-n1783502
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Obscure? The Church has been translating and copying the Scriptures for 2,000 years into various languages, and all by hand long before the printing press was invented. The Bible and it's 72 books were officially confirmed at several councils including the Council of Carthage in 419 and, again, ratified at the Council of Trent in 1545 in response to the Reformation. If anyone knows what the Bible means and what it teaches, the Church certainly does; and to say the Bible has no meaning, today, is unfounded. Before condemning it, perhaps you should read the Gospels and the Book of Proverbs and tell me if all of this is meaningless, today.
To say "If anyone knows what the Bible means and what it teaches, the Church certainly does;" - which Church? Cos from what I see there's different interpretations according to which church you belong to from the liberal wing to the extreme far right wing churches, all of whom interpret the bible in amazingly different ways so 'the church' doesn't know what the bible means as 'the church' itself cannot agree. Unsurprisingly as 'the church' is made up of human beings who can never agree anyway.
Disagreeing about interpretations of religious books is not a bad thing, it's a human thing , it's just wrong in my view to bring those interpretations of religious texts into decisions which affect legislation.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I haven't condemned the bible at all. I have questioned the use of it by certain people.
To say "If anyone knows what the Bible means and what it teaches, the Church certainly does;" - which Church?
To say "If anyone knows what the Bible means and what it teaches, the Church certainly does;" - which Church?
Disagreeing about interpretations of religious books is not a bad thing, it's a human thing , it's just wrong in my view to bring those interpretations of religious texts into decisions which affect legislation.
What are your thoughts about Obama's voting against laws that will protect victims of botched abortions?
X
Favorite Movies
X