<p>
No, this is NOT saying that embryos take precedence. It IS saying that you don’t sacrifice one human being for another. You don’t take a kidney from an unwilling donor, do you?</p>
<p>I also disagree with your statement regarding a so-called anti-child Bush agenda. But, as I said, I’m finished with this discussion. There is no actual debate, just more name calling and grossly prejudicial overgeneralizations.</p>
<p>Actually, opposition to stem cell research shows a distinct willingness to sacrifice one “living” being for another. Only the human being sacrificed is the one already born, rather than the microscopic piece of potential human material. … No one’s calling names.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, absolutely. Please tell us more, teriwtt.</p>
<p>All you need to know about anti-Choice people is the number who would save 50 fertilized eggs from a lab if the choice meant letting 10 kindergarten children burn.</p>
<p>To begin with, Erik Prince, the CEO of Blackwater is a die-hard evangelical. He has given tons of his personal money to various Christian Right organizations (Family Research Council, Focus on the Family). The Evangelical view of Revelations says that the establishment and continuation of the State of Israel is essential for the second coming of Jesus. This is why evangelical Christians have become such interesting bedfellows with Jews, and have pressured Bush to look past Jewish crackdowns on Palestinians.</p>
<p>Evangelical Christians believe that God blesses those who bless the Jews, and curses those who curse the Jews. So America needs to bless the Jews and Israel so that God will bless America. </p>
<p>Foreign policy is often made with the outcome of Israel at the forefront. Iraq and Afghanistan are just two Middle East countries where the large majority of people are Muslim. This may be simplistic, but the control or destruction of Muslims by anyone who is pro-Israel is usually supported by those who believe it’s a battle of the Jehovah God of the Judeo-Christian Bible, vs. Allah. Evangelicals fear that any political initiatives that come anywhere near close to benefitting Muslims, are a threat to the Israel state and therefore the second coming of Christ.</p>
<p>Pat Roberston shares these beliefs, along with many other influential evangelicals (Oral Roberts, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, and Billy Graham), and see their call to politics as a call from God to influence foreign policy in order to fulfill the prophecy of Revelations.</p>
<p>That’s why I find Pat Robertson’s endorsement of Giuliani really strange. From what I know, Giuliani is Roman Catholic (although quesitonably a practicing one), and Roman Catholics, while believing they are the one and only true church (as evangelicals also do) would never go so far as to say Israel should be its own state, at any costs, because it’s prophesized in Revelations.</p>
<p>Ok sjmom, let’s not generalize and ask a pro-lifer like you some questions.
<p>Hint, if you answer yes to both ( I know you will) you’re not really pro-life.</p>
<p>Let’s analyze the first question. Wouldn’t it be LESS of a contradiction to be against killing innocent unborn children, and be FOR killing DNA tested serial killers than to be FOR killing unborn children, and against killing DNA tested serial killers?</p>
<p>I don’t the death penalty because I think it puts too much trust in our legal system. I think we have the best system on earth, but its still not even close to good enough that we should be executing people based on our findings. I think that if we execute even one innocent person a year, that’s entirely unacceptable.</p>
<p>And even if proof were black and white, I don’t think that even “beyond a reasonable doubt” is a high enough standard for taking someone’s life.</p>
<p>I think its important to remember this is the same Pat Robertson who wanted to assassinate Venezuela’s president, who sucked up to Charles Taylor, who claimed to legpress 2000 lbs, who sells “snake-oil” medicine on his programs, and who is generally a transparent and immoral fraud.</p>
<p>There are plenty of conservative evangelicals who actually believe in what they say and try to live by it, but Pat Robertson is not one of those people. He’s just a con man, and it makes perfect sense for him to hitch onto whatever in-candidate he can find. I’ve never seen Pat Robertson do anything that wasn’t in his direct self-interest to do. Theology has nothing to do with it.</p>
<p>The death penalty is an issue where I changed my mind over the decades. I used to be emphatically pro-death penalty, there being crimes too evil to deserve any other penalty. I still believe that’s true but there have been too many errors where the wrong person was executed and given the impossibility of drawing a line of where this is okay and this is not, I’ll err on the side of the potential innocent.</p>
<p>Leadragon,</p>
<p>Actually, the quote I posted came from Vyse. I am very much pro-choice, which i why I was asking Vyse why she is anti-abortion no matter what.</p>
<p>I support your views. It is better to have young girls not bring new life into this world if they are addicted or if they are miserably poor …</p>
<p>Im ok with abortion in cases of rape or mother’s health. I don’t like it cases of rape, but I think it should be allowable if the victim is really young or severely traumatized or just otherwise doesnt think she can handle it.</p>
<p>Thanks, Pharm.</p>
<p>My stance is mainly that we need to all work together to reduce the circumstances that precipitate abortion. Education, contraception, resources for young mothers, etc.</p>
<p>I’m against the death penalty, but I was happy when Jeff Dahmer was killed in prison.</p>
<p>Guiliani’s personal stance on the right to choose is meaningless if he means what he says when he commits to choosing Supreme Court justices who are strict constructionists such as Scalia, Thomas and Alito. If he is elected and does that, Roe v Wade will be overturned and there will be an end to any federal protection of privacy rights.</p>
<p>“I’m against the death penalty, but I was happy when Jeff Dahmer was killed in prison.”</p>
<p>I have mixed feelings about the death penalty. I believe that sometimes it makes sense to keep a monstrous serial killer alive, because there is a chance that he/she can lead investigators to yet another shallow grave, and there will be closure for another grieving family. This is what happen with Gary Ridgeway case. However, a part of me wishes that he’ll meet Dahmer-like fate.</p>
<p>I have no problem with working to reduce abortion and applaud it. But it raises the question as to why the vast majority of anti-Choice blowhards are also against birth control and fact-based sex education. It becomes clear at some point that “respect for Life” is a cover for would-be ayahtollahs attempting to impose their religious beliefs across a broad spectrum regarding anything having to do with sex. </p>
<p>And education, contraception, etc. will reduce abortion but not all cases. In which case it still needs to be legal.</p>
<p>“The death penalty is an issue where I changed my mind over the decades. I used to be emphatically pro-death penalty, there being crimes too evil to deserve any other penalty.”</p>
<p>I have never, ever supported the death penalty and would never do so under any circumstances. I also consider myself pro-life but don’t vote on the issue. I’d love to know where the condemnation of one-issue voters is when the one issue is that they would never consider a candidate who supports any restrictions on abortion at will. I know lots of those people.<br>
I find this thread fascinating because so many supposedly open-minded people (or at least they like to tell themselves that) are so comfortable lumping so many people together and telling us what we believe. People who don’t know in a serious way that evangelicals are different from mainline protestants who are different from Catholics. Certain of those “Christian prolifers” are reliable republican voting blocks, some are reliably democrat and some swing. But that’s a little too nuanced, right?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Says who? Your opinion is NOT fact. Unless you have some supporting documentation for these bizarre, deliberately insulting statements, then both statements are just more posturing.</p>
<p>For the record, I am opposed to the death penalty, and in favor of sex education and birthcontrol.</p>
<p>And I REALLY don’t understand how anyone could offer criminals the “benefit of the doubt” yet refuse to offer fetuses, especially viable fetuses, the same consideration. </p>
<p>Even the laws of this country regarding murder when a pregnant woman is killed – pursuing 2 counts of murder, not one – are crazy. If the prospective mother can abort a fetus at her choosing, then why would that fetus be considered a human being if it’s killed by a third party? Why should that fetuses status as a human being depend on the mood of the mother?</p>
<p>Unless someone can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that embryos and fetuses are not human life, I don’t see how anyone can support the death penalty for the most innocent among us. Why wouldn’t civilized people err on the side of life?</p>
<p>Fetal homicide laws are state laws. There is no federal law. A look at how the states approach these laws may be an indicator of how that state would approach the right of women to choose if Roe v Wade is overturned. I believe about 15 states have fetal homicide laws that kick in at any stage of pregnancy. Others make an effort to define viability. This area of the law is a real sticky wicket. Once a state gives that protection to a fetus as early as conception, then arguably, the state could prosecute the mother for doing anything harmful to the fetus during any stage of pregnancy.Could the state prosecute the mother for walking on ice if she slips and hurts the baby or for venturing too far from a hospital while pregnant- the classic slippery slope argument.</p>
<p>“I’d love to know where the condemnation of one-issue voters is when the one issue is that they would never consider a candidate who supports any restrictions on abortion at will. I know lots of those people.”</p>
<p>I’ve known plenty of one-issue voters who would never consider a candidate unless he supported complete restriction of abortion.</p>