Obama Most Pro-Abortion President in History

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.

Obama was having a good day, mon! He sings too!

I would argue that voting with a moral conscious is the most important thing we can do. I do agree that it is more important in local politics though, which few seem to care about anymore.

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

Similar to the way secularists force their views onto the unborn child. Would you agree with that?

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?

Of itself, slavery is subject to changing cultures; but, Jesus did speak against human-rights violations (Love your neighbor); and even the Gospels refers to an unborn child as a baby.

"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

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

"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

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.
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.

We really need to do something about all these loose women who are impregnating themselves.

The Magna Carta? Wouldn't Grimm's Fairy Tales be more apt?

I'm tempted to delve into "move the world on," because I think it suggests a kind of clear moral progress that doesn't actually exist. But leaving that aside, Mesmerized is talking about people who already believe in The Bible and have decided to use it as a guide. You may disagree with that initial choice, but doing so doesn't really speak to what he's talking about.

Well, I certainly agree with the certainty part. The obscurity is overblown--just making a genuine effort goes a long way, I think--but it definitely needs to be approached with humility, and I have a kneejerk distrust when people start talking about the "right" way to interpret it outside of the particularly clear passages.

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.

I was thinking of saying something similar in response, and now I wish I had. It's quite right to point out that lots of these unwanted pregnancies could be avoided if the men involved exercised more discretion, too. There's a reason men support abortion as much or more than women: it's an escape hatch for them when they act irresponsibly. Not to generalize about my own gender too much, but we're pretty terrible on this front.

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.

Yeah, this is probably the hackiest, least original jab a skeptic could come up with. And it doesn't really make sense, either: the point in question was about writings that influence thought on law and morality. And while you may not like the fact that The Bible has had a tremendous influence on both (like the Magna Carta) it manifestly has. So, to give a serious answer to an unserious question: nope, it wouldn't be more apt, incongruous sunglasses notwithstanding.

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.

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?

Then, as I said, it doesn't speak to what he said, which was about people misusing it after accepting its authority.

Yeah, the phrasing here doesn't actually align with what you were responding to, but if you thought the previous comment was worth making I can't say I'm surprised that this is the follow-up.

Personally, I think the bar for making snide, substance-free comments should be a bit higher, if one has to make them at all.

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...

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

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? 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.

The Church mentioned in Matthew 16:18. He calls it "My Church" (singular). If there is another church, you would have to go outside this world and find another God, because there is only one. You should study Church history, Christine.

The most basic of laws we have today are founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs. However, sometimes evil people will use Scripture in an attempt to appeal to Jews and Christians, although these very same people don't even believe in what the Bible teaches.

What are your thoughts about Obama's voting against laws that will protect victims of botched abortions?