Do you religious freaks only care about the fetus and not of
Posted By: Jan on 2009-03-06
In Reply to: number 1 Jesus freak here - shelly
the woman that got raped, the real VICTIM?
How about ASKING HER what she wants to do with this fetus of a rapist and let her decide. Last not least it is HER body and her FETUS (at least half of it, the second half is that of a rapist), who belongs in prison!
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
If the religious freaks forced me to have it, -
I'd stomp on it the moment it popped out.
Calling everyone RELIGIOUS FREAKS is as offensive
As me calling you a S L U T for your supposed 'rape.'
Get over yourself. Too bad your mother supported your abortion, instead of having one of her own.
O a dangerous man? He freaks me out.
So it could get worse if he is president? Yes, he is very intelligent. He knows how to manipulate and knows exactly what to say and what people want to hear. He now wants to "change the WORLD." He is now trying to "kill people's expectations" of him. Some of the things he is now saying is like we are going to have to make sacrifices. What that is? I am afraid to find out. I don't want America to change the way he wants it to change. I love the USA, but the O is scary and I am afraid to the point that I was considering (if I can) moving to Canada if he is our new president.
Get a clue people. This FREAKS ME OUT.
I am off the board. This is it. Our United States will never be the same. You want change, you are going to get your change. Downhill from here. Hope you all like the Hitler years. Maybe the O is the messiah, anti-Christ, whatever. This is not a normal political election. Major movement going on. Nothing like this is posted about McCain. Everything on this board is trying to convince everyone of horrible things about O. Nothing about McCain and if McCain comes up, it is so petty. I think some of you like the thrill of what will happen in the next year if O makes it. GOD HELP US ALL if he does. Probably God's wrath will be on us. At least that is what I have been reading on CBN, Kay Arthur, etc.
Whacked out Jesus freaks?
Boy, what a clever girl you are. Did you string all those words together yourself?
Here's one:
Trashy little crack ho's.
You know, like all those girls getting abortions.
Relgious Freaks? Do you mean Muslims?
Or is it only OK to bash Christians in America?
The number of abortions due to rape is so minescule compared to the massive quantities by women who are just too plain lazy or stupid to get themselves on birth control, it's a total joke. Add into that, the inordinate number of women who cry 'rape' when they actually just got wasted and laid, and there's a whole lot of unnecessary suffering going on.
Here's a compromise - I'll support morning-after pills for rape victims - and you support SELF-CONTROL. Sadly, in America these days, self-control is as foreign an idea as thrift and personal responsibility.
The fetus belongs to God, before and after...
xx
Do you hear yourself? Fetus? Embryo....?
This was a living breathing infant no longer connected to the mother even by the umbilical cord. You "understand" why he took the position? The most horrific and inhumane "position" that allows a poor child to suffered alone in a dirty linen closet for 45 minutes until it dies?? I'm sorry...that is abhorrent on SO many levels. How can anyone "understand" something like that, or support someone who actually is willing to let infants die due to lack of care because someone might say it gives the infant rights?? The most innocent among us? And he says he cares about people? Please.
Wrong...when the fetus could live on his/her own outside (sm)
the mother's body and is aborted and either killed or left to lay there and die, it is most definitely murder.
Injury to fetus...........and abortion
nm
I have to weigh in here as someone who aborted a fetus sm
in what you would all consider late term; I had an anencephalic fetus and aborted at 30 some weeks. Am I a murderer according to your logic? I did what was right for my family and myself. And I thank GOD that I had a courageous provider who would do this for me.
What about the life of the raped woman,,,you are hypocritical freaks!...nm
nm
While a fetus remains a part of MY body, is sure
And it will never be yours, or anyone else's.
I'm sorry, but are you comparing an embryo, fetus to a turkey?!?!? And you think it is funny?!?!
I wonder if I'm the only one who finds your idea of a joke offensive. Just when I was ready to be offended by "blob of tissue" you chime in with your turkey joke. I'm stunned sometimes at the callousness of some people. I don't know why I would be stunned considering the world we live in, but I still am from time to time. Thank my Heavenly Father! I wouldn't want to be so cold.
Those "blobs of tissue" have heartbeats. Those "blobs of tissue" have such beauty and such potential. Those "blobs of tissue" are alive.
Carrying a hydrocephalic fetus doesn't put the mother at high risk. Please.. nm
x
who could possibly care? War, financial ruin, health care needs.
nm
Well, I care. I also care about the constitution.nm
nm
and I'd like to keep my religious freedom sm
without having to answer to the Christian right. If they had their way, we'd all be wearing babuskas and having a kid or two every year, paying homage to them at a tithe of 10% and having to hate all other religious ideologies.
If Coulter is so religious...
...why doesn't anyone know her at the church she says she attends?
No, not a religious board.
I'm referring to posts on the conservative political board under the post about Michelle Malkin.
What is a religious wacko?
Someone who believes that a fetus is a human being? Your label "religious wacko" is very disrespectful and unkind. I am pro-life and I am not mentally unstable.
Like it or not, the fight to protect the unborn will NEVER EVER stop.
A religious wacko is...
Someone who does not understand the separation between church and state, that freedom of relgion also means freedom FROM religion, sees nothing wrong with imposing/ legislating their own religious beliefs and values on everyone else, goes bannas whenever anybody disagrees with them, and would just as soon replace our democratic system with Christian theocracy.
Can we say religious whacko.....
xx
I am not even religious. I like Palin because she is
nm
Religious Right has already messed up too much in this
and the rest of the misguided 'faithful' to step out of the picture so that our leaders can actually do their jobs, without all the holy rollers tripping them up.
Religious freedom.
dd
You don't have to be religious to be hated by
xx
This was not a religious post, but..(sm)
since you mentioned it, it is actually possible to have hope without God. Athiests represent only a small portion of the general public as well as Obama supporters. Your post assumes that everyone who supports Obama must be athiest. You might want to revise that one. LOL.
Religious Right and Gay Marriage
Gay marriage is an important issue for the religious right.
What exactly do they want a president to do about it?
Take this to the religious board
Many of us do not believe that. Many on the religious board do not believe that, but this is a religious statment. Show me the proof of what you just said.
Religious hierarchy...
I wonder what they call the homosexual henchmen who try to browbeat everyone who doesn't love and accept their behavior?
I am not even religious. Take your useless
nm
Sorry you have no religious beliefs....... that is sad!
--
Do you actually believe only religious people think
--
Many religious people are pro-choice.
.
I SAID most religious people...I did NOT say most Christians.
You guys don't rule the world, ya know. Just your little corner...just your own lives, not everyone else's.
Religious Protest from the Left
A Religious Protest Largely From the Left
Conservative Christians Say Fighting Cuts in Poverty Programs Is Not a Priority
By Jonathan Weisman and Alan Cooperman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, December 14, 2005; A08
When hundreds of religious activists try to get arrested today to protest cutting programs for the poor, prominent conservatives such as James Dobson, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell will not be among them.
That is a great relief to Republican leaders, who have dismissed the burgeoning protests as the work of liberals. But it raises the question: Why in recent years have conservative Christians asserted their influence on efforts to relieve Third World debt, AIDS in Africa, strife in Sudan and international sex trafficking -- but remained on the sidelines while liberal Christians protest domestic spending cuts?
Conservative Christian groups such as Focus on the Family say it is a matter of priorities, and their priorities are abortion, same-sex marriage and seating judges who will back their position against those practices.
It's not a question of the poor not being important or that meeting their needs is not important, said Paul Hetrick, a spokesman for Focus on the Family, Dobson's influential, Colorado-based Christian organization. But whether or not a baby is killed in the seventh or eighth month of pregnancy, that is less important than help for the poor? We would respectfully disagree with that.
Jim Wallis, editor of the liberal Christian journal Sojourners and an organizer of today's protest, was not buying it. Such conservative religious leaders have agreed to support cutting food stamps for poor people if Republicans support them on judicial nominees, he said. They are trading the lives of poor people for their agenda. They're being, and this is the worst insult, unbiblical.
At issue is a House-passed budget-cutting measure that would save $50 billion over five years by trimming food stamp rolls, imposing new fees on Medicaid recipients, squeezing student lenders, cutting child-support enforcement funds and paring agriculture programs. House negotiators are trying to reach accord with senators who passed a more modest $35 billion bill that largely spares programs for the poor.
At the same time, House and Senate negotiators are hashing out their differences on a tax-cutting measure that is likely to include an extension of cuts in the tax rate on dividends and capital gains.
To mainline Protestant groups and some evangelical activists, the twin measures are an affront, especially during the Christmas season. Leaders of five denominations -- the United Methodist Church, Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Presbyterian Church USA and United Church of Christ -- issued a joint statement last week calling on Congress to go back to the drawing board and come up with a budget that brings good news to the poor.
Around 300 religious activists have vowed to kneel in prayer this morning at the Cannon House Office Building and remain there until they are arrested. Wallis said that as they are led off, they will chant a phrase from Isaiah: Woe to you legislators of infamous laws . . . who refuse justice to the unfortunate, who cheat the poor among my people of their rights, who make widows their prey and rob the orphan.
To GOP leaders and their supporters in the Christian community, it is not that simple. Acting House Majority Leader Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said yesterday that the activists' position is not intellectually right.
The right tax policy, such as keeping tax rates low on business investment, grows the economy, increases federal revenue -- and increased federal revenue makes it easier for us to pursue policies that we all can agree have social benefit, he said.
Dobson also has praised what he calls pro-family tax cuts. And Janice Crouse, a senior fellow at the Christian group Concerned Women for America, said religious conservatives know that the government is not really capable of love.
You look to the government for justice, and you look to the church and individuals for mercy. I think Hurricane Katrina is a good example of that. FEMA just failed, and the church and the Salvation Army and corporations stepped in and met the need, she said.
Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, said the government's role should be to encourage charitable giving, perhaps through tax cuts.
There is a [biblical] mandate to take care of the poor. There is no dispute of that fact, he said. But it does not say government should do it. That's a shifting of responsibility.
The Family Research Council is involved in efforts to stop the bloodshed in the Darfur region of Sudan as well as sex trafficking and slavery abroad. But Perkins said those issues are far different from the budget cuts now under protest. The difference there is enforcing laws to keep people from being enslaved, to be sold as sex slaves, he said. We're talking here about massive welfare programs.
The Rev. Richard Cizik, a vice president of the National Association of Evangelicals, returned yesterday from the Montreal conference on global climate change, another issue of interest to evangelicals. Frankly, I don't hear a lot of conversation among evangelicals about budget cuts in anti-poverty programs, he said. What I hear our people asking is, why are we spending $231 million on a bridge to nowhere in Alaska and can't find $50 million for African Union forces to stop genocide in Darfur?
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
We certainly wouldn't want a president whose religious
Or impact how they view society or race relations or even science. We surely would not want religious beliefs to impact political decisions on any level, including voters.
Religious people go to church
Religious people who go to work check their religion at the door. The constitution specifically instructs Congress to do the same. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This means keep religion out of federal legislative codes. Implied therein is the concept that the nation is not theocratic in nature.
The original poster is well understood in the expressed wish that this not be forgotten and remain unchanged. It is difficult to understand what is meant by the statement that religion will be in the White House under any leadership. Clearly, religious people, some to a greater degree than others, will inhabit the White House and the chambers of Congress. However, religion is constitutionally prohibited from entering the body of our laws and does not provide a foundation for our governmental institutions. The constitution has given indivuals immunity from federally mandates on religion. Wise men of great vision, our forefathers.
BINGO... that's why the rabid Religious Right does
They're as bad as the fundamentalist Islamics...'It's OUR way, or the highway'!
Sheep.
Are you saying only religious people are pro life?
If so, you are wrong.
It's only a "political" issue to religious
Why else would any religious group want you to vote?
Silly girl!
Trying to figure this out. Religious dems....sm
give more than religious repubs, and nonreligious dems give less than nonreligious repubs. Do I have this right? It seems to me the religious dems give the most, yes?
Not trying to start a religious discussion here, but
being on its knees is exactly what this country needs. 
Religious beliefs are not the issue here...
We were discussing the law...the phrase concerning Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is actually in the Declaration of Independence, and does not mention "citizens" at all. Regardless of your religion or lack thereof, I'm not aware of any nation in which murder or the taking of a human life is not outlawed.
As far as the ultimate decision resting with God, of course all decisions ultimately rest with God. But does that mean we should not govern ourselves or our behavior while we are here on this earth? Of course not. Laws protect the innocent - few are as innocent as an unborn child. It never ceases to amaze me that people can condone the killing of unborn babies, but are horrified if someone kills one that is 3 days old...or leaves one in a dumpster shortly after birth...or on the doorsteps of a church. I think it has been drilled into our heads for so long that this is a choice for women and our RIGHT that we actually never step back and think about the fact that we are talking about killing babies. If someone were to propose a law that men...simply because they were men...had the right to, oh, kill 3 year olds, people would laugh their heads off at the absurdity of it. Yet that is exactly what we are doing - giving women the right to kill their own children, simply because they are women and the child is in their body. Why not give the fathers the right to abort the child? After all, it is half theirs? Again, an absurd notion. But because we are women and the children grow in our bodies, we have the right to kill them? I'm sorry, I can never understand the justification for this. There are alternatives. There are choices. Choosing to kill the child should not be an option. In what other situation is it acceptable to kill another human being as a viable choice? I can think of only one - self-preservation. Self defense. So I supposed under the law, if the unborn child is killing you, you should probably be able to protect yourself. I would have to agree with that argument, but sadly, that is rarely the reason for an abortion.
Very true. More religious propaganda..sm
One nation indivisibile, no matter what your religion, with liberty and justice for all was the original intent to pledge that you love your country. No religious affiliation necessary. What ever happend to "Love thy neighbor as thyself"? "As you do unto the least, so you do unto me", "Judge not lest you be judged", and there are many others. My God is a God of love and knows we are all fallible, but he does not judge us. He is there to love us and to try to guide us toward loving and helping our fellow humans, not hate and division and bigotry that people who have a lot to gain by influencing politics are fostering in the name of God/Jesus and religion. This is the reason that there need to be a separation of church and state in this country. Amost every war that has ever been fought has been fought in the name of God/religion. Do you think that it is God's intent that we should be at war in his name? Think about it.
Plays the religious card?
When it suits him? How about trying to set the record straight when others spew baloney about him? If you were running for office, you would do the same thing if people were saying incorrect things about you, what you believe in, have voted or not voted for, etc.
If he didn't people would then say, "See, he didn't dispute it, so it must be true." Either way, the bashers find reason to bash ... cause that's what they do.
If it were so free (of religious bulls#it), then
Right?
Religious Coalition for Choice
I received an email last night from the above organization, RCRC.org. It is an organization supported by many major religious supporting reproductive choice. A few of the member groups are:
Catholics for Choice
The American Baptist Church
Presbyterian Church USA
United Methodist Church
Episcopal Church
United Church of Christ
Union for Reformed Judiasm
any many, many more ...
I posted this on this board because the choice issue is a political issue, as well as a faith issue for so many people.
As a Jew, I find it interesting that so many Christian organizations support reproductive choice for women. I'm curious if anyone here belongs to any of these groups or knows anything about the organization. I am still reading up on it myself.
Silence. Did everyone go to the religious board?nm
x
|
