I never hear pro-lifers say "Don't do it, it's a sin."

I hear them say things like don't do it or I'll shoot you.

Don't do it, it's murder.

I dont hear thim ask, Is the only option you have?

All I hear is My God is better than your God and he talks to me.

Katz, can you even think of one reason to accept abortion as an answer?

Personally, I would not say that President Obama is looking better every day - I would only say the Republicans have only found idiots so far to challenge the President. They will lose again.

Look at the field: Mitt Romney - been there, tried that, same old stuff.
Ron Paul - crazy as a bed bug. Michelle Bachman - makes a crazed bed bug seem almost normal. Rick Perry - Well, just another crazy bed bug - but a Texas bed bug! Santorum - who dat? Herman Cain - can't sexually a woman and expect votes - you lose, Herman, order another pizza. Newt Gingrich - an insider who has gathered more money for himself - and dumped a wife who had cancer and another who was not pretty enough. Loser, Newt!

When I have present the prolife opinion via religious reasons, it is shot down as just religious opinion. I researched it from the scientific standpoint and found that life truly does begin at conception. You are right tho, abortion is a sin, and many pro-lifers speak this truth. There are many non-profit pregnancy centers in this country that speak this truth. These centers also provide options for mom, dad and the unborn. They also provide counseling for post abortion side effects.
Unfortunately, there are those who claim to be pro-life and yet they threaten and wave their guns...how can they think that is pro-life?
When is abortion the answer? I think never, but when it is for the life of the mother or result of rape, I would leave that decision between a woman, a man, and God. However, 99.9% of abortions today do not fit into either one of these categories.
It is a sin, but there is forgiveness. I have never found fault with anyone who has had an abortion. How could I, is their sin any worse than any of mine? Doubt it. However this particular sin has a fatal effect on another person and that person's parents may not know the truth of this issue. It is for this reason that I am so involved. We are called to defend the orphans and innocents of this world. But since sin is sin, I try to remember the words of Jesus-Forgive them for they know not what they do.
Does this answer your questions?

I would rather hear your reasons to accept in your heart and to bear the weight on your soul, the death of an innocent life.

I cannot think of a reason but I will not judge. Others may have a good reason and they should answer to God, not man.

Who will you appoint to make the rules? The Christian, the Muslim, the Jew, the atheist? Who?

I'm pretty sure all your examples detest murder, if they're good people to begin with.

All detest murder but all embrace killing.

If life is eternal and the body is just the vessel for the soul, is it murder to burn down the house?

We can really get deep into this.

Deep? or just plain ridiculous???????

also...apparently you never were selected for jury duty. Someone has to make judgments on crimes that are committed. Without judgments, we are without parameters and consequences for actions that are taken that harm others. Pretty sure these are historically part of a civilized society.

So, what you believe is truth but what others believe is "just plain rediculars?"

Perhaps your true colors are showing?

Hardly...you posted that all detest murder and all embrace killing...what does that even mean? I don't see that as deep, I think it is a ridiculous statement.
Has nothing to do with my true colors, which is also a ridiculous statement. In fact, it is a very judgmental statement to come from one who claims that he/she will not judge.

They all have used war to settle disputes. Capital punishment has been and is justified by all. All gave killed in the name of thier God.

I misunderstood which part of my post you found resiculous.

How far would you go to defend your family and home and property?
How far to defend the life of your neighbor?

As far as required. Killing if required.

You?

I would do the same! I detest murder, but this does not mean that I "embrace" killing?

Define "selfish".

Now, I certainly would NOT argue that there aren't any of what you would call 'convenience' abortions. It happens. However, the vast majority of abortion happen in the first few weeks - this is why the 'viability' argument gets tossed around. And although I don't have the numbers, finances plays a HUGE role in it. One broken condom or a woman who gets sick and doesn't realize that antibiotics will nullify effects of The Pill for a time and you suddenly have someone going "I'm WHAT?"

But there's a discussion that doesn't seem to happen beyond the initial "'fer it, or a'gin it" shouting.

Let's say abortion is banned - and for the sake of argument let's ignore for a moment the resulting illegal aboritons that would happen. Let's also ignore the whole rape/incest/mother's-life argument for a moment.

So now you're forcing these pregnancies to term by rule of law.

The fact is a lot of people can't afford to properly care for these children (abortions are also disproportionate among minorities). What do you do at that point? If you're one of the conservatives who might have a "Can't Feed 'Em? Don't Breed 'Em!" bumper sticker on their car - what do you do at that point?

Do you provide public aid? Do you think adoption will solve the problem? If so, there are over 5,000 kids in the Greater Boston area that would disagree with you as they're waiting (they're just not the kind of babies that most adoptive parents want).

Do you take the kid away? If so, doesn't that go against the Conservative mantra of less government?

Again, abortion is the symptom - the 'disease' is unwanted pregnancies.

So, as I understand it, Katz and CMANN would kill someone to protect a valuable piece of property even if their life was not threatened. An unarmed burglar breaks into your home and takes Grandma's diamond ring she brought to the US in 1919. The burglar makes noise on the way out of the house; you hear him and grab the .44 Magnum pistol; spot the open jewelry box; see the burglar outside the house going to his car; you raise the .44 Magnum and cap a few rounds into him as he is entering his car.

Right or wrong?

Buzzer goes off, you do not pass go, you do not collect $200, go directly to jail. Your life is not in danger therefore you have no right to take his life.

Now if he turns and points something at you, points whatever, and you think it is a firearm and you shoot him in the chest, pat on the back, community service ribbon, hero of the day award.

There is a thing called the "reasonable man rule." To be PC it should be called the "rreasonable person rule" so that we cover the ladies also. :angel: Now if you catch him coming into your house, after breaking a window or door down and cap "he's butt" then you most likely are in the clear, as again in the "reasonable man rule" you really didn't have any idea what his intentions were or are and he most certainly is not an invited guest.

Do some research on the 10 Commandments and the one that states:

"Thou shall not kill" is an incorrect translation of the Hebrew. The actual translation is:

"Thou shall not murder."

Really a big difference in meaning. It is a God given right to protect your life and those of your loved ones or neighbors from getting maimed or murdered. Therefore, if your life or your loved ones are not in danger and you "cap his a**" have fun living on the state dime for a few years.

:popcorn:

Now I'm beginning to understand the problem within the GOP. They let the extremes dictate to the majority. I'm liking it! The Progressives try to do the same thing to the Dems, but occasionally common sense is victorious.

To my fringe GOP friends - stick to your ideals. Don't for a second think about compromise. Be right. You are all right. Right? Go down in flames.

Xavier

Glad you got the right answer, Figmo. See, all that government paid training paid off for you, didn't it?

are you forgetting it takes two to tango? or not!!

btk

How many does it take to foxtrot?

What do dance instructions have to do with shooting an unarmed burglar who is in the process of getting into his car after taking a family heirloom diamond?

Seriously, you need me to define this word.

1: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others

2: arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others <a selfish act>

Does that answer your question?

I guess that Figmo answered your post.

You presume a lot. Tell me, how does one know that a burglar is not armed?
Your scenario assumes that I also am a brain-dead idiot. Under the circumstances that you provide I would be acting on totally insufficient evidence. I have no idea whether the person outside my house is the same person that was in my house. Under such circumstances I would probably get his number and called the police after checking to see if I had in fact been burglarized.

Another thing that you have to take into consideration his attitude and training. I did not go off half cocked and it would never be my intent even when confronted by an armed intruder to kill said the intruder. That would be murder. Intent being the controlling factor. If I were forced to shoot him and he died his death would not have been my intent just his fate or God's failure to intervene.

What were Obama's qualifications again?

Obama Is Looking Better Every Day...Not
 

According to the White House it has concluded that Obama cannot run on his record, he will have to wage the most negative campaign in history to stand any chance. With his job approval ratings below 45% overall and 40% on the economy, the President cannot affirmatively make the case that voters are better off now than they were four years ago. Obama is now neck and neck with a generic Republican challenger in the latest Real Clear Politics 2012 General election Average (43.8-43.%) Voters disapprove of Obama's performance 49-41% and 63% disapprove of his handling of the economy.

WSJ "The Hillary Moment" page A17 Nov21 authored by Patrick Caddell pollster for Jimmy Carter and Doug Schoen pollster for Bill clinton

A couple of pertinent poiints:

1. It does not matter what qualifications Obama had in 2008 - he won! The motley group of Republicans have no qualifications - and they will lose again!

2. Someone said the Democrats will have to run the most negative campaign in history in 2012. Somehow, I am betting that the G'Nopers are goiing to run an extremely negative campaign. The G'Noper campaign will be filled with vague half-truths, Big Lies, and all the other propaganda techniques they can muster.

No need to tell any lies about our Current President. He has done enough lying no one will need to help him out on anythng.