Obama wins VA, MD and DC!!!

I may be wrong but Obam winning the popular vote isn't going to mean that much. The dems have something called superdelegates that are not bound to the popular vote at all. HIllary i'm sure has most of them wrapped up. We'll see what happens but I'm thinking she's next in the cherry throne(mccain doesn't stand a chance).
 
I don't see this as a good thing either. The democratic candidates are all too pro-choice for me. Last thing this country needs when it's already losing its morals.
 
They arn't "pro choice", they are "pro government takes care of you without any choice in the matter and we heavily tax you to death and beyond".
 
Yeah we need smaller government not bigger government. I hate even most of the republican candidates because of bigger government. I really only like Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee because they both stand for smaller government and reform. America Need reform and sadly I don't see reform in either of the Democratic candidates.
 
vibrokatana said:
They arn't "pro choice", they are "pro government takes care of you without any choice in the matter and we heavily tax you to death and beyond".
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's like they think they can take care of us better than we can take care of ourselves.

On a side note, I hardly take promises of politicians with anything but a huge 600-ton piece of salt. The income tax was supposed to be for paying off WWII. Now we lose huge amounts of our income to it after it was paid off several times over. So much for that.
 
Anyone who can support the murder of human beings based on the idea that they are mere masses of tissue cannot be much of a decent human being, let alone a leader of a nation. Yet again, none of the other candidates republican or democrat seem to be very splendid; in fact they all seem very bleak.
 
The way I see it the choice should be made by the individual. What I don't like is how many hospitals pretty much market abortion. The person needs to be informed and understand that they are taking a life if they abort it. I don't really think it is a sin to abort a baby so long as their is a justifiable reason and it is not made out of selfishness. A person who is too young to bear a child should not be forced to go through the pregnancy, if they were able to abort they might be able to live a normal life without having to quit school. I think saving someone from a harsh life being raised by a mother who can barely support you is morally acceptable.

The problem we have nowadays is that the government has too much power and is corrupt. The corruption keeps spreading faster and faster to the point where society is forced into making decisions about gay marriage, abortion, the right to suicide, etc. People nowadays look too much at fixing the symptoms and not the true root of the problem. Until that root issue is fixed new symptoms will keep popping up and will never be stopped.
 
There shouldn't really be a choice. The only way I can see taking a baby's life is if it determines whether or not the mother lives. If the girl was getting pregnant in high school, she should have realized the consequences of her actions before she did it.

That's why there is adoption. If they can't afford to raise the child because they're young, then let a couple who can't have kids raise them.
 
I believe that if the mother is not willing to take care of the baby then she should abort it. Already our country is riddled with broken families caused by welfare, which reduces babies to dollar signs and adds incentive for the mother to not have a husband. Having a child is a huge step, something that cannot be reversed. To penalize someone so traumatically is a crime IMO.
 
vibrokatana said:
I believe that if the mother is not willing to take care of the baby then she should abort it. Already our country is riddled with broken families caused by welfare, which reduces babies to dollar signs and adds incentive for the mother to not have a husband. Having a child is a huge step, something that cannot be reversed. To penalize someone so traumatically is a crime IMO.
Click to expand...

If the mother is not willing to take care of the child abort it? I have to say i'm shocked at your stance vibro. There's other options for "unwanted" children than killing them..like adoption. What about the child who pays the ultimate price simply because he/she is unwanted? That's the real crime.
 
To penalize someone... As in the mother? AT LEAST SHE IS STILL ALIVE!

The only one getting penalized by putting a baby up for adoption is the baby itself. But that baby still gets to live it's life. It isn't ended right away because some teenager decided to sleep around.

Look at it this way. If you have to take care of your mother or father when they get too old to take care of themselves, are you going to have doctors assist them in euthanasia? I would hope not. You would put them in a nursing home where they will be taken care of.

Same situation with a baby. Different end of the age spectrum. They can't take care of the baby. Do you penalize the baby and have it killed? No. You have it put up for adoption where someone will care for it and love it and raise it because they cannot have their own children.

Two of my friends grew up under the roof of their adoptive mother. This worked two ways. One. The adoptive mother had two babies before adopting. Both passed away right after birth for no apparent reason that could be explained. Two. My best friend, the younger of the two, was born to a 16 year old girl with a drug problem. She was given up immediately after birth and she ended up in her adoptive mother's house (Praise the Lord!). The older sister was born to a mother in the same circumstances (Once again, Praise the Lord for their mother and her willingness). Try and tell me that their birth mothers shouldn't have been "penalized" by having to go through with the birth.

And you're right, Vibro. It is a huge step that cannot be reversed. Just like having sex. That isn't the baby's fault that the mother felt like she was in love with some guy. It's not the baby's fault that the mother conceived. The baby shouldn't be slaughtered for it. The mother gets a slap on the wrist and then moves onto the next guy and the cycle repeats itself. If the baby is born, it's more likely that it wouldn't happen again. Who deserves to be punished there? The mother for being irresponsible and conceiving, or the baby who is just existing because it was conceived by the mother and father?

Like hescominsoon said. The real crime comes when the baby has to pay the ultimate price for a teenagers mistake.
 
Last edited:
I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

I'm 100% Pro-Life. However, I don't think abortion should be outlawed completely. Why? Because it's considered (rightly or wrongly) a healthcare issue and while it may sound great to outlaw it, it sets a precedence that should be considered. If we outlaw abortion, and basically give the government control over the womb, what's to keep them from later passing laws that say that due to overpopulation, people are only allowed 2 children? You can only have a boy and a girl? If there's a chance of a birth defect, you have to abort?

Laws sometimes sound great when they go your way. However consider what may happen if administrations change and the wind blows a new direction. Don't pretend it won't happen... it ALWAYS will.

That said, I think we need to put more of an emphasis on adoption in this country. Cut the red tape and the expense, and free it up so that more people can adopt. Give tax credits and perks to those that adopt, and take away tax credits for welfare moms. Have free counseling services that emphasise adoption over abortion, with care and support for the birth mothers rather than judgement and shame. Make sure that women know what to do in the case of a rape (get to a hospital for a D&C ASAP after the incident), and make sure it's affordable. There's better and less invasive ways to go about solving the abortion problem other than outlawing it outright.
 
Thrain said:
There shouldn't really be a choice. The only way I can see taking a baby's life is if it determines whether or not the mother lives. If the girl was getting pregnant in high school, she should have realized the consequences of her actions before she did it.

That's why there is adoption. If they can't afford to raise the child because they're young, then let a couple who can't have kids raise them.
Click to expand...

Totally agreed.
 
My mother had me young, and I had my first kid young, and anyone who bails out because they are too young is just lazy... I did it, my mom did it, and everything is great!
 
I had just turned 21 and my fiancee was 19 when we found out we were going to have a baby, now did it change my life? yes completely; however, with great sacrifice comes unimaginable joy. I had to put my own dreams on hold for the sake of that unborn child and thanks to him, my dreams are better realized, and I now have more ambitions towards achieving them than ever before. If a couple/mother to be decides a baby is simply too much responsibility, the least they could do is let a family who is unable to reproduce give that baby a wonderful life. I do not even completely agree with the abortions due to medical emergencies, however I belive that they should be reserved for medical emergencies instead of choices that are made with false pretentions at the drop of a hat. Even medical abortions are controversial, as doctors are not God, though most think they are; and their suggestions is by no means the absolute certainty. Imagine you had a family history of genetic illnesses and your first child did not survive infancy; you (your wife) got pregnant again, having been told by medical professionals about the great chance of him/her not surviving, would you abort the baby? Well, whoever said yes just killed Beethoven. My point is that if God decides to bring a child into this world, than it is for a reason, and any interruptions will be going against God's will. I also do not agree with telling people that they are going to go to Hell because they aborted a baby and protesting outside of abortion clinics, because our religion is a religion of forgiveness and compassion, not loathing and hatred. I believe "unbiased" therapists/nurses should be appointed to women/girls who are leaning towards abortion to give them the facts and their "real" options. On the contrary to popular belief; having a child young does not hinder one's ability to live their life, instead it opens their eyes to a brand new world where selfnessless reigns and the words "I love you" uttered from the lips of a little person who's life God has placed in your hands is incomparable to any other worldly pleasure.
 
I wouldn't say it lies in the middle per se, but for me personally, if abortion were to never get completely banned, I think I'd be okay with it. I'm also 100% pro-life. And right now, I think what's totally possible and what I'd love to see happen for a start is that the red tape currently oppressing adoption gets moved in front of abortion. That is to say, make putting a child up for adoption easier and make aborting a child much much harder. Depth to follow:

If the mother is underage, force the parents to sign off on it to avoid any abortions due simply to embarassment or fear. Set a deadline in the pregnancy that abortions must be commenced and make it early. (Partial-birth abortions disgust me.) Require the mother (and anyone else involved) to receive counceling prior to any decisions which would discuss the option of adoption. Just generally make things more complicated because right now, the general concensus is that it's the "easy way out" and that could not be more false. It's practically an impluse purchase, and you're talking about a PERSON (or at the very least a future person)...

What needs to happen immediately is for the government to agree and decree that, exceptions aside, Adoption > Abortion and move toward the future with that in mind. I think that's possible.

-Chadley
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top