It is a Sin to Vote for Pro-Abortion Candidates

[CPA2]

I believe the law needs to be written with regards to inhuman treatment and Pain. When a Fetus can feel pain is a good measure to start marching from…because once we start it will continue until conception… (My Opinion)

“A fisherman once told me that fish have neither sense nor sensation, but how he knew this, he could not tell me (Bertrand Russell).”

The Medical Research Council in August 2001 said that pain perception in an unborn child may be as early as 20 weeks. Other studies say that pain perception could be as early as 10 weeks. The Lancet, a British Medical Journal, said that painkillers should be used on the fetus. “This applies not just to diagnostic and therapeutic procedures on the fetus, but possibly also to the termination of pregnancy, especially by surgical techniques involving dismemberment.”

 

[donna_jean]

CWBetts:

Thanks for the challenges to what I posted yesterday. If I have time I will look those up within the course work of social services I have;otherwise, I am sure you can also explore this if you are interested…

May God bless you all today,
Lori

 

[Nyarlathotep]

The idea that we limit ourselves by being one-issue voters is ridiculous.

Ah, do tell.

Abortion is one of those issues that outstrips all others.

But… the Church says that there can be “proportionate reasons”, can’t you think of any proportionate reasons?

There are other issues that I would consider deal-breakers as well,

Oh? Do tell.

but they never show up on the ballot.

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/9495/1262374845371.jpg

 

[Rence]

“A fisherman once told me that fish have neither sense nor sensation, but how he knew this, he could not tell me (Bertrand Russell).”

The Medical Research Council in August 2001 said that pain perception in an unborn child may be as early as 20 weeks. Other studies say that pain perception could be as early as 10 weeks. The Lancet, a British Medical Journal, said that painkillers should be used on the fetus. “This applies not just to diagnostic and therapeutic procedures on the fetus, but possibly also to the termination of pregnancy, especially by surgical techniques involving dismemberment.”

Well if the age of viability is 20 weeks, certainly they can feel pain at 20 weeks. It would hard to convince me otherwise. At 10 weeks, the brain, organs and muscles are starting to function, and if this is so, why wouldn’t a 10 week old fetus not feel pain? what are the reasons why people say they can’t feel pain?

Sometimes I wonder if I’ll ever have a child All these clinicals are pulling at my uterus

 

[Worthy5]

CWBetts;6559812]The idea that we limit ourselves by being one-issue voters is ridiculous. Abortion is one of those issues that outstrips all others. There are other issues that I would consider deal-breakers as well, but they never show up on the ballot. It is only a matter of time before people see abortion as one of those issues that is just as ludicrous to try to justify.

Carl who is justifying abortion?—this is about govt power—why do you think that govt police power is the answer---- there is no answer–people will always fall short of the moral law. Why are you always looking to the govt?

 

[CWBetts]

Carl who is justifying abortion?—this is about govt power—why do you think that govt police power is the answer---- there is no answer–people will always fall short of the moral law. Why are you always looking to the govt?

I hate to break it to you, but the decriminalization of abortion was an act of the federal government over-extending its reach. Roe v. Wade overturned every state law against abortion in the country. If you were truly in favor of reduced federal government interference, you would be on the right side of this issue, instead of the devil’s side.

 

[Lypher]

Well if the age of viability is 20 weeks, certainly they can feel pain at 20 weeks. It would hard to convince me otherwise. At 10 weeks, the brain, organs and muscles are starting to function, and if this is so, why wouldn’t a 10 week old fetus not feel pain? what are the reasons why people say they can’t feel pain?

The intent of my original post concerning pain was to introduce the concept with regards to honest scrutiny and dismemberment. If it is proven that a fetus feels pain then the very close to realization will be awareness.

If we have many… and I think many people that agree with abortion rights, but those same people do not agree that it is OK to club seals my question is why? I believe that the answer is because they have been told, and a lot WANT to believe, that a fetus is merely a bunch of cells to be done with as the mother wants. I honestly believe that with empirical data we will convince a majority of people that currently KNOW abortion is wrong, but allow themselves to be convinced to finally NOT be able to lie to themselves about what they are doing.

I believe that a -7 day old Human Fetus is probably more developed, in many ways, then say a Kangaroo or a Panda. Would it be morally acceptable to rip them apart? Why the distinction in the womb, when in fact developmentally a marsupials pouch is really just a womb. I picked marsupials because they are very underdeveloped at birth and truly do use their pouch like a womb.

In the end the level of pain that a 30 week old fetus would feel will likely be much higher then a marsupial. Again what is right is right and to vote for someone that causes pain, even if GREAT discoveries are being made is wrong. Many ugly men and women have worn Doctors robes and should have been imprisoned. At a minimum these politicians that trade in death should lose their jobs.

Prostitution is not legal in most states… Most people would agree that is should be illegal in all states, but I am sure that some people would say that it is her right to chose. I say it effects other people… The same as a fetus, unless you are saying that a fetus is not a person.

Sometimes I wonder if I’ll ever have a child All these clinicals are pulling at my uterus

I wish they would pull at your heart strings instead…

 

[CPA2]

Dr. Haskell gave his presentation in 1992 to a group of abortionists who made their living killing babies. Haskell also played a video showing how he performed the partial-birth abortion. I did not see the video; however, I understand that you could hear Haskell sucking the brains out of the baby. The audience applauded after the presentation. How horrible!

"I swear to you that I had no feelings aside from the sense of accomplishment, the pride of expertise. On inspecting the contents of the bag I felt only the satisfaction of knowing that I had done a thorough job (The Hand of God, p.60).” What an attitude! The author of those words was Dr. Bernard Nathanson. However, Dr. Bernard Nathanson has repented of the abortions that he performed. I am not aware that Dr. Haskell has repented.

My motivation for posting these words comes from Saint Paul., “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them (Eph. 5:11).”

All human beings have rights, from conception to natural death. “This teaching has not been changed and is unchangeable (Donum Vitae).” Sin has blinded us. I pray that God gives us a clearer understanding of the profound dignity of every human life.

By the way, March 31st was the anniversary of the death (murder) of Terri Schiavo

 

[Worthy5]

[CWBetts;6562809]I hate to break it to you, but the decriminalization of abortion was an act of the federal government over-extending its reach. Roe v. Wade overturned every state law against abortion in the country. If you were truly in favor of reduced federal government interference, you would be on the right side of this issue, instead of the devil’s side

Come on Carl, what do you think the role of the courts are? To check the tyranny of the majority will, exercised through the legislature, from excessively violating the rights of the minority or the individual.

 

[Desertsailor]

Is it a Sin to Vote for Pro-Abortion Candidates?

Of course it is.

It isn’t a political question. It’s a moral question.

 

[Lypher]

Is it a Sin to Vote for Pro-Abortion Candidates?

Of course it is.

It isn’t a political question. It’s a moral question.

 

[CWBetts]

Come on Carl, what do you think the role of the courts are? To check the tyranny of the majority will, exercised through the legislature, from excessively violating the rights of the minority or the individual.

What about the rights of the unborn? Or are they beneath your notice?

 

[CPA2]

Edward Cardinal Egan of New York released a letter along with a photo of a 20-week old unborn child. He asked his readers to look at the photograph and ask themselves if there is any doubt that the picture is a human being.

He closed his letter with these powerful words: “Do me a favor. Look at the photograph again. **Look and decide with honesty and decency what the Lord expects of you and me **as the horror of “legalized” abortion continues to erode the honor of our nation. Look, and do not absolve yourself if you refuse to act.”
The Lord told us in 2nd Chronicles:

“If my people, upon whom my name has been pronounced, humble themselves and pray, and seek my presence and turn from their evil ways, I will hear them from heaven and pardon their sins and revive their land.”

cny.org/archive/eg/eg102308.htm

 

[bullfrogsrules]

april 1st good day to bug parlement ha ha lol

 

[Worthy5]

CWBetts;6566567]What about the rights of the unborn? Or are they beneath your notice?

Not this poster’s problem—this poster has nothing to do with abortion. The unborn gets some protection from the govt and should get more–but the Court has decided that the early fetus does not get police power protection----it is the women’s job to protect it. This govt is not made to solve every problem, at least per the Court. We have been over this right. If you want to change the Constitution, then go for it.

 

[CPA2]

We have been over this right. If you want to change the Constitution, then go for it.

December 2, 2004

The Constitution is a pro-life document

By Ben Thompson

There is a direct relationship between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The Declaration states what our God-given rights are, “life, liberty, pursuit of happines” (property) and why we declared our independence. The Constitution explains what form of government will best guard these rights.

In his original draft Thomas Jefferson used the term “property” rather than “pursuit of happiness,” because owning our own property is so important to our independence and happiness. The majority of our Founders preferred the more general term in the declaration, but used Jefferson’s exact language in the Constitution.

It is important to understand that the Bill of Rights is legally considered part of the original Constitution. The items in the Bill of Rights were originally numbered as “articles,” like the sections of the Constitution, not in the present form as “amendments.” Most of those who signed the Constitution did it with the understanding that a bill of rights would shortly follow, which it did in 1791.

Our Founders wanted all to clearly understand that none of these God-given (natural) rights could be taken away unless we did something specific to cause that loss and that that action was to be proven before a jury of our peers or due process of law. The fifth amendment makes it clear that even if we are accused of a crime we do not lose our basic rights. The proper implementation of habeaus corpus helps guarantee these rights, including the basic right to life, using the exact language which Jefferson originally used in the Declaration: “no person (an unborn baby is a person) shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law.”

The fourteenth amendment reiterates this basic principle: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

Can anyone tell us what crimes unborn children have committed for which they should lose their lives? Of course agruments which support abortion are pure nonsense and evil in nature.

This goes directly to the heart of Roe v. Wade and unequivocably proves that the Supreme Court made an unconstitutional decision. This is specifically why the pro-abortion folks do not want unborn children recognized as a “person.”

Dissenting opinion on Roe v. Wade (emphasis added):

“At the heart of the controversy in these cases are those recurring pregnancies that pose no danger whatsoever to the life or health of the mother but are, nevertheless, unwanted for any one or more of a variety of reasons — convenience, family planning, economics, dislike of children, the embarrassment of illegitimacy, etc. … I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. … As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.” — Justice Byron R. White.

Not only is abortion constitutionally illegal it is a great sin in God’s sight.

Let’s show courage and common sense as we stand up for the rights of the unborn and all of our God-given constitutional rights.

© Ben Thompson

 

[A_Servant]

The Catholic Church has been steadfast in opposing the evil of elective abortion, and with the help of God it will continue in its crusade against murder of the highest degree. The Catholic Church has made it clear that anyone who commits abortion without repenting of it is automatically & fully excommunicated from the Church. Abortion is wrong, and the worst of all evils committed on this earth. Voting for a pro-abortion candidate when a valid pro-life candidate is an option in my opinion is a sin because in effect you are acting as an accessory to the bills he would try to pass to make abortion legal. You vote not just for the theory but the actual practise of the thing.

 

[CWBetts]

Not this poster’s problem—this poster has nothing to do with abortion. The unborn gets some protection from the govt and should get more–but the Court has decided that the early fetus does not get police power protection----it is the women’s job to protect it. This govt is not made to solve every problem, at least per the Court. We have been over this right. If you want to change the Constitution, then go for it.

You cannot accept this position, unless you deny the personhood of the fetus, which cannot be denied. This position is no less evil than those complicit in slavery or the holocaust due to non-action. This is the position of cowardice.

 

[Rence]

Voting for a pro-abortion candidate when a valid pro-life candidate is an option in my opinion is a sin because in effect you are acting as an accessory to the bills he would try to pass to make abortion legal. You vote not just for the theory but the actual practise of the thing.

I think you’re right about that: I agree that when a valid pro-life candidate is an option, that you should vote for the valid pro-life candidate. However, valid doesnt’ just mean a true pro-lifer, because we’re also voting for a valid leader of this country. So have a valid leader who shows promise in leading the country who is pro-life and I’m sure many pro-lifers and pro-choicers would vote for that person.

It’s unacceptable to tell someone that they have to vote for Palin because she is pro-life. If one believe that woman would destroy the country, one is not going to vote for her no matter how she feels about abortion. I can’t even take someone seriously who makes the claim that I must vote for Palin if the other candidate is pro-choice, when that candidate shows that he would be better than Palin.

So, vote with your conscience, whichever way you vote. That’s the only thing we can do.

 

[Lypher]

I think you’re right about that: I agree that when a valid pro-life candidate is an option, that you should vote for the valid pro-life candidate. However, valid doesn’t’ just mean a true pro-lifer, because we’re also voting for a valid leader of this country. So have a valid leader who shows promise in leading the country who is pro-life and I’m sure many pro-lifers and pro-choices would vote for that person. .

Rence,

I am not sure I follow you, but let me try. Suppose we have a selection of Presidential Candidates which includes a Pres. Candidate (A) arguably one of the worst leaders of all time, but a pro life candidate versus Pres Candidate (B) arguably a very good leader, but believes in abortion, or Pres Candidate (C) that is flat out the best leader of all time, the most eloquent oratory skills ever, and if we vote for him it is guaranteed that we will have eight years of the best growth and prosperity of all time, however he not only believes in abortions but forced abortions for those fetuses that have flaws.

Tell me if I am wrong, but using your logic, I believe you would suggest we vote for (C)?

It’s unacceptable to tell someone that they have to vote for Palin because she is pro-life. If one believe that woman would destroy the country, one is not going to vote for her no matter how she feels about abortion. I can’t even take someone seriously who makes the claim that I must vote for Palin if the other candidate is pro-choice, when that candidate shows that he would be better than Palin. .

Again please tell me if I am wrong, but it appears to me that the issue is not so much that it is about the competency of the candidate, but rather your lack of concern for the fetus? In other words if I had a president (A) that would grow the economy at 1% that was pro-life versus a candidate that would grow the economy by 10% that was Pro-Death you would choose candidate (B)?

If that is the case then is not your position just merely a vote of prosperity, stuff, wealth, economics, things?

So, vote with your conscience, whichever way you vote. That’s the only thing we can do.

Again are you not really suggesting that conscience, or morals, should really not have much of a factor with a vote but rather leadership, power, wealth, again trading morals or traditional ethics, for wealth, power, leadership?

God Bless You…