Monday, October 6, 2008


"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible


matthew said...


It turns out I agree with Obama on 4% of the issues.

The questions were clearly skewed to drive at a particular result but it was an interesting test.

Barb said...

I think I agreed on 1 per cent--but there were a few other questions I wasn't sure about in my own mind.

Are you and your bro' planning to throw your votes to someone who has no chance of winning? Some
3rd party candidate or write in?

As definite as you are about abortion, you should vote for the candidate who will try to get constructionist judges on the courts. Bush did veto some FOCA style bills. Those on the front lines in defense of babies want us to vote for the candidate with good pro-life voting records

and that is McCain. This is as close as we have come to having a more constructionist court who would not misconstrue the right of privacy as a right to abortion.

Cases do find their way to the Supreme Court and we have gained restrictions on abortion through pro-life politicians and judges. We will lose it all with Obama --and because of it many more babies will be killed.

matthew said...

I'm still not sure what I'll do. I voted for the Constitution Party candidate in 2004.

I'm leaning in McCain's direction this time, though, because of what you just said.

steve said...

Clearly, early gestation is a grey area. Your opinions don't have much firm back up as far as scripture is concerned, just ancillary and metaphorical connotations. But I definitely respect your opinions. I think we all agree that late term abortion and partial birth abortion is definitely evil. I think we can also agree that the best course of action is to limit the need for abortion in the first place. That is what Obama has been preaching. Let's all work together to diminish the reasons that women seek abortions. I don't think public policy will ever change except by direct intervention from God. And as far as I'm concerned, from a moral standpoint, it's up to God to judge. I just don't think a clump of cells represents human life. And I think the majority of Americans feel this way. Even John Mcain is on public record as being pro choice. Clearly the RNC is using you for your votes. The leaders of the GOP don't give a hoot about abortion; they are mindless automatons with only dollar signs in their eyes. They use social issues to drive wedges between the American people so that they can go on raping and pillaging without any check against them.

I do respect your black and white hardcore stance against all forms of abortion and your’ championing of life. But I think that you need to be consistent. I would respect your opinions a lot more if you were consistently pro life in all aspects of life. God loves Iraqi babies and Afghani babies just as much as any baby, whether in the womb or not. How many Iraqi babies have been written off as "collateral damage"? Why don't you stand up for those lives? Or the life of starving kids the world over crushed under foot by grinding poverty caused and ignored by the "free hand" of the market? I think I know why, because fighting abortion is convenient, it doesn't take much to carry a sign and align yourself against poor women who find themselves in a difficult position. But dismembered Iraqi babies and poverty stricken starving babies are too much of an abstraction and don't align ultimately with your world view. I think Jesus weeps that man still kills one another, I think maybe Jesus had to hold back the hand of God's wrath when we incinerated those at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the largest man made tragedy in the history of civilization. But yet Christians hail this as an American triumph. I personally don't believe God gives a crap about America because we seem to be the best at destroying his creation and destroying other human beings. It's easy for us to not see it this way because it's been sanitized by the news media - and our way of raining destruction on our fellow man is done through technology, so we don't get down and dirty with our smart bombs like our enemies who have to resort to more old fashioned ways of slaughter. But yeah.. abortion.. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard so called “saved” Christians when referring to our enemies in the Middle East.. “Let’s just Nuke them!” “We should turn Tehran into a glass parking Lot”. I always like to add that the logistics won’t work because we would have to heliport all the Muslim pregnant women out of the blast zone to save their growing fetus’s. We don’t want to abort them in the womb, just when they are out of the womb, then we can blast their little brown baby brains to a homogenous vapor. I know what you’re going to say.. sometimes war is necessary, and sometimes war is ugly and people die that weren’t meant to die. But sometimes the life of a poor struggling mom or a teen girl is ugly, and sometimes the choices she makes aren’t in the best spirit of life, but maybe we should just call that fetus collateral damage for an injured and broken life and craft public policy that helps this poor girl and therefore ultimately limits the number of abortions that actually occur. Instead of making it an abstract political hot potatoe. These are real lives, whether in war or whether struggling with an unwanted pregnancy, they need real public policy to address them, not platitudes and soundbites. Even if RVW is repealed and abortion against the law, struggling women will still seek abortion by other means, just as terrorists seek to engage in violence by other means do to short sighted hardline politics.

Antipelagian said...

Barb inquires:
Are you and your bro' planning to throw your votes to someone who has no chance of winning? Some
3rd party candidate or write in?

I'm going to be voting *for* the best candidate...are you going to be voting *for* anybody?

Barb said...

I'm voting FOR McCain and Palin --because she really is pro-life and lives it and believes it --and believes in the Lord the way we do --believes God is real and involved in the affairs of people and nations --a Supreme Being to acknowledge in private and public prayers. I think she's capable of drawing good people around her to help her, if she were to be pres., and she would make them aware of her nose for corruption and her intolerance for it.

McCain really has a nearly 100 per cent pro-life voting record with the American Right to Life folks and Obama has a 100 percent pro-abortion voting record --and is extreme in his abortion defense. Says he will pass FOCA first thing.
nullifying the gains of pro-life workers at the state levels --which will mean more abortions. He told Rick Warren he would appoint judges like the liberals on the Court now. That may cause a sea change in American culture --with even more daring TV programming, porn and drug proliferation, and unlimited abortion, FOCA and ERA --granted, the difficulty of getting more than half of the voters, and more than half of the legislators and judges to uphold decency, family life, traditional morality.

there have been many pro-family, pro-religious freedom cases decided in "our" favor in the courts because of conservative judges --even though they haven't had high press coverage. It's been a constant legal fight to keep freedom of religion for public school kids --and to restrain the promotion of ideologies of atheism and secular humanism, moral relativity,etc. in classrooms.

The GOP platform has a history of standing for RIGHT on these social issues --which do affect all of culture. And efforts are made to follow that platform, but the evil half of courts and country makes progress slow.

Of course, the best way to affect culture is through Revival --but we find that even in Christendom, people lose sight of what a Christian worldview looks like and the Devil presses every advantage he can.

Worldview is what The Truth Project addresses --DVD series starting at our home this Sunday night at 7 pm.

Steve, I don't know when McCain went "on the record as being pro-choice." When was that? I know when he ran for pres. 8 years ago, he said he was pro-life and his voting is solidly pro-life. So where do you get your info?

The reason conservatives had a problem with McCain, I think, was that he wanted this muzzle on special interests in campaigns --and the influence of money, of course. But, we knew that would affect the peoples' right to put their money into advertisements of their own making, participating in campaigns, and that seemed like a denial of free speech that would affect pro-family groups as well as others.

Also, McCain doesn't profess to be "born again" per se --as Obama did. I suspect Palin is the only one who is, of the 4. If Obama really is, he has sure taken a peculiar stand on the abortion issue and he has had strange affiliations with questionable folks very recently.

It is absolutely absurd, Steve, to defend abortion anywhere in the 9 months --while protesting the Iraq War. Abortion is direct, pre-meditated, deliberate, targeted violence to the tiniest, youngest, most innocent human beings. War is something else, also horrific to children, but there are sad and necessary reasons for war that have nothing to do with trying to kill babies --but with ending the regimes of brutal tyrants --ending genocide --ending the reign of murderous crazy people who threaten death to America and Israel and wage war against their neighbors.

Also, when a child is maimed or severely injured in war, Americans do everything they can to save it --not so with Obama on the infants who survive the war in the womb. He says, "Let them die because that was the mother's choice" (words to that effect.)

What's wrong with that picture???

when an evil regime controls its nation's military, the people wanting freedom have no hope. We gave the shia and the Kurds hope for freedom. We need to stay there until their democratically elected gov't and military are strong enough to preserve the peace and preserve democracy.

I know about 4 people who had abortions; none were the pathetic example Steve presents: 1 because her boyfriend didn't want to support another child after fathering another woman's baby during his infidelity. She claims she screamed in protest and changed her mind and was forcibly put through the procedure in Angola, IN, a couple of years ago.

Another lady because she just wasn't ready. She wasn't poor; she had the support of her well-to-do parents who didn't believe in abortion, but abortion was legal and she didn't want a baby yet and was not married. I think she didn't want the father in her life.

Another tells about it as a great regret of her young life --that she was not a Christian then and didn't know any better.

another was a h.s. student whose mother wanted her to abort so she could continue on with educational goals. We tried to talk her into adoption, to no avail. After all, there's nothing wrong with abortion; it's legal so it must be right, as well.

The pathetic girl in U.s. with nowhere to turn rarely exists. There are ads for the crisis pregnancy center and Heartbeat of Toledo in places frequented by needy people on welfare. Help is available. P.P. is supposed to help even those who deliver, arent' they? why else would they get gov't funding if not for prenatal, post natal care for pregnant poor women.

What needs to be changed is the insurance situation for girls covered by their parents' policies who get pregnant --the middle class. they can't marry or they fall off their parents' health insurance and I'm thinking that other insurance won't take pregnancy as a pre-existing condition --or the couple just can't afford a policy. That should be changed. But nevertheless, there are ways for poor people to have their babies --Hill burton hospital funds for one thing, more available at the beginning of each year than at the end.

If girls are not delivering because they can't afford to, they are probably the middle class and not on medicaid. There should be help and encouragement to give birth. That won't be the outcome if Obama is elected and does what he promises --signs FOCA into law. The ERA --Equal Rights Amendment has also resurfaced which takes away all discrimination on the basis of sex and it will include orientation. Obama will sign that. it's been waiting in the wings for just such an extremely liberal president. If possible, they will make churches and Christian colleges conform to their egalitarian views, hiring gays and transgenders and women, regardless of their ideology.

To limit abortions, we also do need to do better with sex ed --really stressing all the advantages of waiting for marriage --and all the risks (and expenses) of not waiting.

It's a mess with parents and colleges giving no chaperonage, no curfews, such that temptation to have sex is very prevalent among those who have any date life with mutual attractions --especially for those who get apartments and live alone. Shacking up is up 1000 percent in the last few years.

Valérie said...


I have read you comment and it has touched me so much I am still crying. I am catholic and have mixed feelings about abortion, and I think you made a beautiful and humbling speech about the topic, and putting things into balanced perspective.

I would like to ask you your permission to quote your long second paragraph: I have in mind to ask the host of the blog I regularly visit to post an article on this subject for me, and I would like to use that paragraph that you wrote.

I have never asked myself, but he does this many times for other people.

I would put whichever credit you prefer.

Otherwise if you prefer, I am nearly sure Whynot (the host of the blog) would accept to publish and article on your behalf directly. He's not religous like us, but is open to all points of views that are sensitively and challengingly expressed.

If you chose to do this, you can email him, his email address is made public on his blog.

Greetings from Paris.

Antipelagian said...

Barb said:
What needs to be changed is the insurance situation for girls covered by their parents' policies who get pregnant --the middle class. they can't marry or they fall off their parents' health insurance and I'm thinking that other insurance won't take pregnancy as a pre-existing condition --or the couple just can't afford a policy. That should be changed.

Now this is a *great* point. Health insurance is difficult for many to get...but many, many, many people qualify for medicaid. I have friends that are on family just welcomed a son, another is still pregnant.

There are avenues available for the poor...and the not so poor as my friends would be examples (maybe they are just as poor, just more frugal).

We need to change our perspective on children before we ever value life: they are not a burden, they are a blessing. Insurance companies should not be able to treat pregnancy like a preexisting illness...and though this isn't ideal, I think universal prenatal health coverage is a good idea. Given the sky-rocketing costs of insurance and healthcare, we need to do this.

matthew said...

I also think Barb has made some great points both in the original post and in comments.

By the way, I think one could make a much better argument (Constitutionally) for universal health care than for universal K-12 education.

Barb said...

Doctor choice might be affected by universal plans.

With universal health care, I suspect private health care would still be an option --private insurance. And some doctors might not take the folks on gov't plan if a broken gov't doesn't pay them appropriately for their expertise, their years of difficult study and academic loans to repay, their long hours, their high malpractice insurance, their staffs and offices and high tech equipment, etc. I think I read of some totally medicare practices that weren't making it economically.

As it is now, my husband will take charity cases and medicare/medicaid --but those latter arrangements are part of the reason the gov't is going bankrupt. They are abused because its free (people running to ER's, using ambulance for taxi, instead of making appointments with doctors --for non-emergencies --and ER's cost much more to run and charge the gov't more. Also, non-compliance is a problem with some patients for whom their care is free.)

I know one friend on medicaid who says she can't find a specialist who will see her for some condition or other. She has had every expensive test and procedure in the book --and they never find anything wrong with her. Her life revolves around her health and doctor visits, trips to the ER for sniffles. She longs to get on disability to have that for income --but she hasn't found a doc who will say she is unable to work some kind of sit-down job. But most of the income and support she has had all her life have been from the gov't -i.e. the working tax payers --and her supplemental aid comes from church and Christian friends who are fulfilling Christ's commands re: the poor.

However, Socialism that rewards the indolent same as the hard working and ambitious is not right --and destroys incentive and protects the irresponsible and the lazy.


I've said before that I've watched poor people, who are missionaries and small church pastors and teachers and small college profs --(they aren't as poor now as they were when i was young) ---they lived genteel lives because of their skills applied to their homes, their disciplined lifestyles with frugality, their value of books, music, and art --and church--and they availed themselves of all the riches that are free in this nation of ours.--often going camping in nearby parks --taking time to enjoy nature --going to the free events in the town. RICH lives of hard work, love, faith and discipline.

The Church and Jesus Christ are the hope of the poor --and we Christians are to see that gov't IS humane and helpful --not enabling irresponsibility --but having compassion on ALL children, ALL ill, ALL elderly, ALL in prison, ALL in need of clothes and food.

As it is, the poor in America do get healthcare. It's the middle class that's falling between the cracks.

I never reached a point where I thought my role was to be hard-nosed toward any needy friend --regardless of what level of personal responsibility was theirs.
Jesus doesn't call us to make that judgement. And besides, I need compassion too!

But we can make the observation and try to think of strategies to teach the guy to fish instead of just always giving the fish.

The NEw Testament Church teaches discipline and says those who refuse to work don't need to eat --that's a standard to teach children --chores first. It doesn't mean we should let anyone starve. It's a principle, after all.

WE can TEACH personal responsibility to all in our families --and to all whom the church disciples! If everything is comfortable and free for those who don't want to pay attention in school, who want to act like fools growing up, why would they ever develop responsibility?

We need to say, there is no free lunch for the able-bodied who could find jobs and help themselves if they only would.

Gov't and the Church rightly try to educate and prepare people for work.

Gov't alone doesn't motivate ethics --obviously. The Church is the greatest influence for good character and charity --and THAT'S the reason why they deserve their tax deduction regardless of their political stands--also because the church is made up of tax payers --and, at our best, we do good by teaching ethics and personal responsibility-and we do good when we are salt and light in the culture.

Barb said...

A repeat from previous comment of mine for Valerie's attention:

It is absolutely absurd, Steve, to defend abortion anywhere in the 9 months --while protesting the Iraq War [for being deadly to babies.]

Abortion is direct, pre-meditated, deliberate, targeted violence to the tiniest, youngest, most innocent human beings. War is something else, also horrific to children, but there are sad and necessary reasons for war that have nothing to do with trying to kill babies --but with ending the regimes of brutal tyrants --ending genocide--ending death to babies --ending the reign of murderous crazy people who threaten death to America and Israel and wage war against their neighbors and commit genocide within their own nation by the thousands.

Also, when a child is maimed or severely injured in war, Americans do everything they can to save it --not so with Obama on the infants who survive the war in the womb. He says, "Let them die because that was the mother's choice" (words to that effect.)

What's wrong with that picture???

when an evil regime controls its nation's brutal military, the people wanting freedom have no hope. We gave the shia and the Kurds hope for freedom from the harsh Sunni rule (Hussain style) in Iraq. We need to stay there until their democratically elected gov't and their military are strong enough to preserve the peace and preserve democracy. Our people are working with theirs to bring peace between the factions --to stop the crazies among them who would continue to bomb babies in marketplaces.

Valerie, You and liberal Americans believe so many lies about Bush's entry into Iraq --we know they DID have WMD --killing thousands of Kurds with chem. warfare. Sadam's former head of their nuclear program fled for his life from Sadam and tells of Sadam's nuclear hopes. We gave them months of warning to get rid of them and they wouldn't let inspectors inspect freely to be sure the country was clean. We knew the shia and kurds wanted our help at the end of the first gulf war. AT that time, Sadam threatened death to our president who had defeated his attempt to take-over Kuwait.

Hussains were Hitlers and Stalins in their character, committing atrocities against fellow Muslims.

The people rejoiced in the streets when we defeated his regime.

they got grumpy later --at us and each other, sunnis and shia --because our presence there was not effective at first --not until the surge. Al Kaida was attacking, stirring the friction between the sunni and shia, wanting civil war. We were not keeping the peace for them, and they needed it. And they still need us.

The surge helped. We need to stay there --like we did in Japan and Germany.

Barb said...

Someday, history will realize that the Sr. an Jr. Bush role in middle east opened that region to modern civilization --to democracy--to constitutional democratic gov't by law --and to Christianity.

Sat 7 TV is beaming from Lebanon into the Middle east 24 hour Christian programming --with great results and growing popularity.

Muslims are having visions of Jesus Christ and coming to faith.

Our own church has been offered property by the Kurds for a building in Iraq. Amazing!

Amazing things. Christ will not return until the whole world knows about Him. And the Muslim world is one that has been kept in the dark about Christ and in the dark ages for centuries. We do have our foot in the door --and Christ will follow. Actually, He has opened the door and we wisely follow with his Gospel.

Antipelagian said...


Universal Health Care need not be socialized medicine...Barack Obama's plan, for instance, would be insurance. I don't know the intracacies of his plan, but I think universal health insurance is worth looking into...and I don't mean comprehensive health care...I mean basics which would include pregnancy/delivery.

To make this work there would need to be reform...and if we were to do insurance vs socialized healthcare, we could have groundrules set by us that would control abuse of the system and be enforced by the if people are using ambulances as taxi cabs...the bill bounces back to that individual.

I also think co-pays should be if someone knows they're going to pay a $50 co-pay for an ambulance ride, they'll take a deep breath and think about their decision.

This needn't bankrupt us. If we cut spending on countless other needless items, we'd be fine. This would be a truly pro-life position to take...for the first time in years, we would promote parenthood.

Since this would be insurance targeting a specific area of need, it wouldn't generate would foster life and decrease abortions significantly. It would help the family without insurance to have children. We could also tailor this to promote adoption, directing unmarried pregnant women to organizations that match children to adoptive parents. There are ideas like this bouncing around...and it's not in the GOP, ironically it's the Blue Dog Democrats that were voted in last election cycle...and the Democratsfor Life are highlighting the pro-life initiatives these Democrat politicians are taking.

steve said...

I'm flattered that you found my post touching Valerie, but I meant it just for this blog and group of people and I would be uncomfortable with it being spread around. Mainly because it was very stream of conscious and I just wrote what came to mind. Sorry.

Barb said...

There should be improvement in the system, AP -- For one thing, EVERY document involving a patient should have his name in the upper right hand corner. I look all over the papers when filing to find a patient's name -- they are everywhere --and sometimes your eye snags a doctor's name by mistake and gets misfiled that way.

I understand that the military has that rule for their papers. It's a simple thing--but would save time --and thus some money! Charting has been standardized more by the healthcare industry, but faxes and letters and lab reports, etc. still lack uniformity for efficient filing.

Don't think the democrats will do national health care well or to your liking. They are too socialistic in their thinking. And There is just too much corruption and lack of religious faith and ideals in the party. Any party that defends gay marriage and abortion has no respect for or fear of God.
And I don't know why Catholics or Christians support that party.

They will have the tax payer paying for transgendering and helping gay people hire surrogate mothers and fathers so they can be parents, too. I bet we'll be asked to fund research to see if a man can really give birth by receiving a woman's organs.

We DO have many charitable programs --even with years of Republicans as presidents --so I don't buy it that the Dems are the party of reform that will work --and the party of compassion. They are, to me, the party of immorality --championing every evil in the name of the first amendment or privacy right.

GOP got the 1000 tax credit for every child, and we've not opposed the earned income tax credit (I don't know who started it) --Bush was behind the stimulus packages last year and this year, money given back to tax payers.

What we need is bipartisan commitment to improving the economy and providing healthcare for all --and we almost have it now through the private and gov't programs.

GOP also supported vouchers so ALL kids with motivation would have the money to be admitted to private schools (if they qualified by behavior, attendance, and admission tests) or to attend any public school of their choice --like the GI Bill where vets could choose any college for their education --if they qualified for admission.

Dems in power WILL CERTAINLY TRY to deny equality to religious schools if we don't kowtow about homosexuality and transgendering in our hiring and admissions.

I agree that a commitment to cover pregnancy even for the middle class would be good. If Germany pays people to give birth--we can help our people with the costs of giving birth. But we don't want to encourage promiscuity and baby making for an income as the welfare program used to do. The women would have another baby to get an extra monthly stipend from the gov't.--as long as there was no able-bodied male in the house. This was very destructive to poor families. When Gingerich's "contract with America" was approved finally by Clinton, many welfare mamas went to work --because we said they couldn't stay on welfare indefinitely and be paid for more and more babies. Did this increase abortion? I don't know--it has been about the same every year until the last two years seeing a half million reduction--we think because of the restrictions on abortion and a continued push regarding the wrong of an industry that would even THINK that surviving abortion victims and partial birth abortion victims should be killed that way.

Actually, there was an initial decline in pre-marital pregnancy--coinciding with abstinence education, too.

The studies saying abstinence ed didn't work were skewed; there are many objective studes that show where abstinence ed programs reduced teen pregnancy noticeably.

Barb said...

When evaluating abstinence ed, we need to know what the nature of that education was --and did every child get it --or did high truancy mean that many did not? When was it offered? and how often? and which programs were used? How did they define abstinence-based sex-ed?

Antipelagian said...


Universal Health Insurance would not be a monthly check subsidizing is not SSI...there would be *no benefit to promiscuity*, though it would promote these women carrying their children to term.

I'm against government programs that promote degeneracy.

It amazes me that the GOP isn't bouncing ideas like this around...though corporate wellfare is something they seem to love and creating insurmountable debt for your grandchildren to bear...add to that the fact we *punish* procreation as a society (except when it comes to SSI recipients), that means fewer tax payers in the future.

I don't know--it has been about the same every year until the last two years seeing a half million reduction--

I wonder if how many abortions result from RU486? Those numbers can't be known...we may be aborting more children than we're aware of...and add to that prevalent use of abortifacient contraception, we could be aborting more than 20 Million+ children each year for all we know.

Valérie said...


It is a pity that you feel this way, as in the last few hours I have really become excited about writing an article for the first time in my life, and your paragraph has really inspired me.

But it is ok.

What I will do is to quote your paragraph but not indicate its source. You say some thing about not wanting it being spread around, but the thing is that as soon as you make a comment on any blog in the world it is already in view of any person with internet access - my asking you was not so much that I repeat and quote your wonderful paragraph, it was more that if you wanted credit for it of even publish it yourself.

And it's not flattery, Steve, that I found what you say so moving. It just links to my confused mind so well and helped me clarify what I think so much.

Thank you again.

Barb said...

Valerie, the blind lead the blind! or rather the deaf lead the deaf.

The things that move you to tears --wow.

Pro-lifers SHOUT that they care about the babies after they are born --SHOUT that they don't like war but consider it necessary to stop baby-killing tyrants like Sadam and Hitler and STalin --SHOUT that America takes care of the poor sick children and feeds them. Our kids get free school lunches and do still get breakfasts and healthcare if their homes are needy for any reason.

We DO care about the genocide which kills babies and others around the world. We care that there are tyrants like Osama bin Ladin who need to be conquered. The one chance we had to get him was in Somalia? (if memory serves me) in Bill Clinton's watch and that gov't offered to give him to Clinton, and he turned away, not interested. I remember that critics noted that our military couldn't find Osama, but the journalists at the time could. Sad that Bill Clinton let him get away before 9/11. Otherwise, we probably would not be in the middle-east today.

we haven't had a good chance to apprehend him since.I think he's dead, actually, as we've seen no new tape from him.

But back to the babies. VALERIE! You and Steve are the inconsistent ones. You cry over babies killed accidentally in war -- while maintaining it's a mother's RIGHT to intentionally kill the children in their wombs! Babies maimed in war are helped; babies maimed in the womb are killed if they survive (until BAIPA was passed, and I hear Obama was the only Senator who voted against it 4 times.) Babies were killed mid-delivery in late term abortions --and Obama approved that, also. why kill them when they are viable and all the way out except for their heads? --they could survive outside the mother if she couldn't or wouldn't carry to term and be adopted.

Obama supports the late term abortions. --An absolute right to abort anytime during pregnancy is his position.

But in reality, there is no right to do wrong.

War is not intended to kill babies when the U.S. engages in war --but to save people's lives in the long run by changing out a murderous regime. Freedom has always been costly to achieve in human lives. But tyranny was horrifically costly in human life also --under Sadam. Abortion, on the other hand is INTENDED to kill babies.

Didn't you read about Sadam's burial grounds with thousands of his subjects buried there??? killed by him? The U.S. did a good thing to rid the world of this monstrous evil man.

Collateral damage, Steve? War is tragic --but how would YOU stop a tyrant from killing his citizens like a Hitler?

people who support abortion are unwittingly also supporting a monstrous evil. Wake up.

It has encouraged promiscuity also. Fear of pregnancy kept my generation more chaste --those who crossed the line and got pregnant got married or adopted out --1 out of 40 white girls --1 out of 5 black. AFTER legalized abortion, those numbers went up 800 and 400 percent. Because fear of pregnancy was no longer a deterrent to casual sex.

"Let he who has ears to hear --HEAR!" --Jesus

"Suffer the little children to come unto me, for of such is the kingdom of Heaven." --Jesus

"Woe unto any who would harm these little ones; it were better that a millstone were hung about his neck and he were cast into the sea." --Jesus

"Thou shalt not murder." --God-- via the tablets given to Moses and the Israelites

Barb said...

For those who have aborted:

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

steve said...

In an August 19 1999 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, McCain said:

"I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary. But certainly in the short term, or even-the long-term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."

kateb said...

Barb - I agree with you on your posts here. Well said. Let he that has ears hear.

In my opinion, it would be easier for a child to recover from a war than a botched abortion. At least the human mind (one that has a soul) can come to understand that activities of war.

But the idea that your own mother tried to murder you?

No human being who is being honest can rationalize ending another one's life in a premeditated murder. And abortion is premeditated murder. Of your own unborn child.

Let them confess their sin quickly and be forgiven. For to face God with a sin such as this would not end well. Not at all. And all those cheap cool kids cliche's about why abortion is ok?

Really don't think this will fly with God. Not at all.

Barb said...

Steve, Assuming your source from 1999 is true, Shame on McCain for buying into the lie that women need abortion and will get them in dangerous ways if we don't do it for them. At least he has always voted against it.

So I'm voting for Palin! And I do think McCain has more national security sense.

Nothing would please me more than to have either candidate be a successful president, full of wisom and character and good decisions --with clarity on our economic plight.

But Obama is just way too liberal in his history --especially on abortion. He needs to re-think that issue! instead of being the most liberal kid on the block calling it woman's choice to have a dead child --even if that child survives the abortion. let it die, he says--probably because it will be disabled. But the disabled like living! Who are we to kill them at any stage???

Barb said...

Nice to experience agreement once in awhile, Kateb!

kateb said...

I agree Barb!

It's very, very important to remember that one of the first things that Hitler did was to euthanize the infirm and the elderly that needed care.

Jeanette said...


After reading your rather disheartening comment about abortion, collateral damage and wars anywhere I'm going to try to collect my thoughts and see if I can tell you where I come from on this topic.

I believe life begins at conception for any race or any country. God said if a two men are fighting and there is a woman with child and the child gets hurt the one who hurt the child should be put to death. That tells me God does not consider unborn children to be a blob of cells. He says He knew me when I was in my mother's womb. That's not a born child.

Why do we have hungry children or adults in this world? Well, Jesus did tell us the poor would always be among us, but it is our responsibility as Christians, indeed as humans, to help those who need help.

I give to charities but we also prefer to give the bulk of our charitable giving to missions because that way not only are the bodies being fed, but the spirits also.

I give because I want those poor people across the world to have shelter, food, clean water, medical care; in other words the basics in life.

It takes a lot more people than my husband and me to do this, and thankfully God has put this burden on an untold number of hearts.

War and why war? It's not God's will anymore than abortion or starvation are. It is due to the influence of the prince of the earth; Satan.

All evil comes from him and any goodness you see on this planet comes from God, the Creator of All and Who loves us all, regardless of color or nationality.

I'd rather see no wars but my Lord has told me we will have wars and rumors of wars during the last days, and I could pick up my Bible and read it and think I was reading today's newspaper.

The day is soon coming when all arguments will be moot as God will be the center of all our lives whether or not we want Him to be.

crusader09 said...

So way after the fact, I took the test and I agree with Obama on 6% of the issues. And I'm sure that I know EXACTLY which issues they were...

Interesting test though!