John Kerry: "Life begins at conception, but I support abortion."

In the greater scheme of the universe you're right. In the framework of how society works you're wrong. That ideology has been tried out before using "might is right" ethics, it wasn't pretty.

yEAP, THIS IS MUCH BETTER:

I can only gather that * some * of you are worried that if Bush has another four years that somehow he will get a nominated SC justice that opposes Roe v. Wade past Congress.

Guess what...

Even if he succeeded in his nefarious plan and Roe v. Wade were overturned, abortion would not be illegal federally.

Bush has already proven that he has no problem nominating activist extremist judges.

We can be pretty sure that Bush would nominate a justice who doesn't believe in free speech and who wants porn to be illegal.

Look at the circuit judges Bush has been nominating - many of them are right wing religious extremists with an agenda of cleaning up the filth of non-Christian America.

Why not elect a president who strongly believes in the separation of church and state? Kerry believes that religion and government should be kept apart. That is very important to anyone who believes in a truly free society.

Silly me -- I thought we were talking about abortion.

Carry on.

Completely selfish & moronic statement

You brought up Bush and judges. I simply pointed out that Bush has a record of appointing activist right wing judges.

Bush is supporting judges who are against free speech, free choice, and any other freedom that goes agains their view of the bible.

If you don't think that a right wing Supreme Court along with a bunch of right wing lower courts can make this country less free, you are wrong.

Bush is trying to appease fundamentalists by appointing activist religious fanatics to America's courts. This is wrong and goes against the idea of maintaining a free society.

The central question for the religious right is when does life begin. What they really mean when they say that is when does God ordain it, i.e., when does he give that biological process a soul. If this happens at conception, then to end the biological process is to end the soul, thereby interfering with the will of God.

I get the imnporession that the ONLY thing you do in life is sit in front of your computer, drink booze and smoke weed 'til you can't think straight, and then make a ton of idiotic posts on GFY.

HAHAHA .... LOL ... HeeeeeeHaaaaaaaaa !!!!

I don't think a comment from you has ANY credibility in the " brains" department....

What a horrid thing to bring up when people are (for some inexplainable reason) worried the Bush and his 'approved' appointes are going to make abortion illegal in the US.

I notice you haven't refuted my point...

Again, you don't understand that life does not mean the same thing to a fundamentalist right wing christian that it does to a biologist. The human body is made up of millions of living cells and there is no point in the process of conception at which life is created from 'nonlife', biologically. Christians, however, believe that there is a point at which this biological process is sanctioned by God. When God creates the soul, life begins. Most fundamentalists believe that this occurs when the sperm fertilizes the egg.

BULL....

An infant becomes a " child of god " when he is baptized... If it dies before ( like at birth ) it is not " admitted " in the " kingdom of god"....

This has been repeated over and ovber again in the religious corses when I was a kid ( and let me tell you that this is a while ago ,,,)

and i use " it" because this is what it is to the christian religion ... a " it " like a dog.

This is very true. I have not been shy about stating that I am a person of faith and that I have a world view similar in many respects to that of the religious right. However, it is my belief that God created free will for a reason. By trying to legislate morality, the right wing is trying to restrict 'free will', which is something I don't believe God intended. I am not saying that there should not be basic laws like 'thou shalt not kill.' But I believe that God intended us to make our own choices in life and it is wrong for me or anyone (especially any government) to try to control those choices. Each person needs to be accountable for his/her own behavior. I personally believe that abortion is wrong. But I don't think I have the right to force anyone else to live in accordance with my beliefs on that issue.

Care to be specific, asshole?

You have a total misunderstanding of what babtism is. Time to reread those old sunday school notes.

Exactly:

I taught the US wamted to liberate the women in Afghanistan and Irak... Maybe stary at home...

Thank You Mr Fiction for the clarification!
"he supports freedom for people to disagree and freedom for women to make their own choices"
as it should be

It is possible to hold the view that life begins at conception but to also know that there are many people who disagree. Knowing that the 'proof' either way is disputed perhaps he feels it is best to let people make their own personal decissions rather than claiming your own view is the only one that could possibly correct.



Oh and that is coming from the daughter of an adopted man. So, I have a lot of reasons to be happy not everyone with an unwanted pregnancy goes the abortion route.

from google:

Did you mean: baptism

LOL

This sounds like another load of misquoting generated out of some fantasy mind.

When exactly did Kerry make such a statement?

Underneath this I can see Kerry is saying he values life from conception - but there are MANY reasons why abortion should not be the concern of any fucking perverse government - they ain't bearing any children.

Point to me what I wrote that it is not as said here:

Baptism is held to be necessary both necessitate medii and præcepti. This doctrine is rounded on the words of Christ. In John, iii, He declares: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God." Christ makes no exception to this law and it is therefore general in its application, embracing both adults and infants. It is consequently not merely a necessity of precept but also a necessity of means. This is the sense in which it has always been understood by the Church, and the Council of Trent (Sess, IV, cap, vi) teaches that justification can not be obtained, since the promulgation of the Gospel, without the washing of regeneration or the desire thereof (in voto), In the seventh session, it declares (can. v) anathema upon anyone who says that baptism is not necessary for salvation. We have rendered votum by "desire" for want of a better word. The council does not mean by votum a simple desire of receiving baptism or even a resolution to do so. It means by votum an act of perfect charity or contrition, including, at least implicitly, the will to do all things necessary for salvation and thus especially to receive baptism, The absolute necessity of this sacrament is often insisted on by the Fathers of the Church, especially when they speak of infant baptism. Thus St. Irenæus (II, xxii): "Christ came to save all who are reborn through Him to God,infants, children, and youths" (infantes et parvulos et pueros). St. Augustine (III De Anima) says "If you wish to be a Catholic, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin." A still stronger passage from the same doctor (Ep, xxviii, Ad Hieron.) reads:"Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without the participation of His Sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole Church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they can not possibly be vivified in Christ," St. Ambrose (II De Abraham., c. xi) speaking of the necessity of baptism, says:" No one is excepted, not the infant, not the one hindered by any necessity." In the Pelagian controversy we find similarly strong pronouncements on the part of the Councils of Carthage and Milevis, and of Pope Innocent I. It is owing to the Church's belief in this necessity of baptism as a means to salvation that, as was already noted by St. Augustine, she committed the power of baptism in certain contingencies even to laymen and women. When it is said that baptism is also necessary, by the necessity of precept (praecepti), it is of course understood that this applies only to such as are capable of receiving a precept, viz. adults.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm

I need your guiding for my un-completed education....

direct fiesta, its better to not even entertain boobkid. no matter what you link he will never accept it. a few days ago he denounced literature in the bible backed by the church, saying even though the Vatican agrees the literature is legit, he didnt accept it.

hahaha

why waste the time, I dont even read his posts.

directfiesta:

They liberated them with a few hundred tons of depleted uranium weapons for which they are now suffering with children being born with deformities and hell knows what else.

Reckon these "women of Afghanistan" may not appreciate this "liberation" so much when their children are born deformed/dead and they have cancer tumors.

All this fucking concern within the US about abortion once again shows how fucking out of touch with reality some are - some women of Afghanistan would clearly be better off with abortions.

Don't ask a nation that is incapable of providing decent basic heathcare to it's own citizens without them declaring bankriuptcy to even discuss abortion - they ain't got a clue - disneyland prevails.

PS.. BTW.. When are they gonna stop talking shit about "syndromes" attributed to US soldiers?

Dump the euphemisms - it's called depleted uranium poisoning and the extent of this is "something we don't talk about". All bullshit...


PPS... As of August 2003 the depleted uranium dispersion in Iraq is 1900 times higher than normal - cancer rates are up dramatically. This will be called the "Iraqi Syndrome" next :-)

IF THEY DONT WANT THE KID WHY FORCE THEM TO HAVE IT?


What kind of childhood/growing up is that kid going to have?

Like Doctor Dre said up there, its just better off to do it.

Fuck em.. And fuck you too.

Hahaha! You seem to labor under the misconception that if one does not accept something the Vatican says, he cannot be a Christian. The literature you mentioned is, and please listen very carefully, NOT IN THE BIBLE. The protestant denominations DO NOT ACCEPT THE AUTHORITY OF THE VATICAN.

If you aren't reading my posts, how do you know their content? Have another drink and STFU.

OK, you got me on the spelling/typo. Obviously, I need to do a better job of editing my posts. But like everyone else who realizes that he/she is losing an argument, you immediately start looking for any spelling/typo errors you can find to make yourself feel superior. I understand. really, I do.

Read the following post... big enough to see ... Typo was just funny ....

You google up a definition and all of a sudden that makes you an expert? OK! Whatever. BTW, since you don't quote the source of your definition, how am I to know it is credible?

Your major problems is that you are making the baptism argument in response to a thread about question of when life begins. You implied that because some Christian doctrines teach that a person cannot enter heaven until they are baptized, that this must mean that life cannot begin until you are baptized. (At least that is how I understood you). If life does not begin until one is baptized, then there is nothing that can be denied entry into heaven, is there? Clearly there must be a soul involved; otherwise, what would be the necessity of baptism?

Baptism is necessary for salvation. Salvation of what? If life has not begun, there is nothing to save.

In fact, that's almost exactly what Kerry said. Which has apparently triggered some peoples "flip-flop" meter, although it's nothing of the sort.

Abortion has nothing to do with any government of politician - it is the concern of those involved and healthcare professionals.

The sooner all politicians shut the fuck up about abortion, quit making it some political football and pay some attention to doing the job they were elected to do - ie .. run the country and SERVE the people - the better off all with be.

So far they are doing one miserable job....

No, I had given in my own words what I was taught when I was a kid. I googled just to back it up because you said and I quote:

You have a total misunderstanding of what babtism is. Time to reread those old sunday school notes.

Naturally, hou do not backup anything.

No, I was responding to YOUR statment and again I quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by boobmaster
Again, you don't understand that life does not mean the same thing to a fundamentalist right wing christian that it does to a biologist. The human body is made up of millions of living cells and there is no point in the process of conception at which life is created from 'nonlife', biologically. Christians, however, believe that there is a point at which this biological process is sanctioned by God. When God creates the soul, life begins. Most fundamentalists believe that this occurs when the sperm fertilizes the egg.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and highlight:

When God creates the soul, life begins. Most fundamentalists believe that this occurs when the sperm fertilizes the egg.

Can you please supply a link to where the " fundamantalists " even refers to " sperm" ... LOL


If it wasn;t for your top of the head fictionnal " facts". I wouldn't off brought this up at all.

Now, I will follow FletchXXX advice and ignore your answers

This is one of the biggest problems with the religious right. They have an old testament mentality. The whole point of the new testament was to show that salvation is not possible via the law. It is only possible via the grace of God through the sacrifice of Christ.

Christians spend far too much time trying to change the law, to make it look more like the old testament. They are trying to turn all sins into laws and are trying to force everyone to follow them under penalty of law.

Jesus said a very interesting thing in the new testament. He said that if you lust after a woman in your heart, you are as guilty as if you had commit adultery with her in the flesh. What this really means is that there is a difference between a sin and a law. You can be guilty of a sin and not guilty of a law.

If sin and the law are not the same thing, then trying to turn sins into laws is a pointless exercise by Christians. I have no doubt that we would like them a whole lot better if they stopped trying to do this.

You can just let people decide ... it's a very personal decision and it has many factors involved

What I tried to explain

I am against abortion, but I am not gonna tell a woman what she has to do if she pregnant.

Prff you really think they would make porn illegal ??? If they do that, they got NO clue how many people lifes that will toutch

Ok ... I've seen people that has fucked up lives because of their parents ... They were not ready to have childs or whatever .

I dunno in what situation you are to talk like this but some people almost wish their parents would have done it ...

I been in that situation myself ... shit happens you know ? and I'm really happy right now that I didn't had a child at 16 years old I wasn't ready for it ...

Right now I have a little girl and she lives happily .

I really don't know what is sadder, the fact that you have a complete misunderstanding of the issues, or that you are too blind to even see it. You brought up the issue of baptism in response to something entirely unrelated. Baptism has to do with 'saving the soul'. The soul can only be saved if it is created. Most Christians believe it is created at conception, which is a euphemism for 'sperm fertilizing an egg. When fundamentalists say 'at conception', this is what they usually mean.

You said you were going to stop reading my answers. Please do. You don't seem to be capable of understanding them anyway so you are just wasting your time. You don't really want to understand because you don't like what they mean.

Hey you kiddin, if he can pick up more votes...count on him selling us out !

Abortion is not as complicated as some have made it.

As soon as that sperm and egg meet up, that's a human being. It doesn't look like a human because it doesn't have arms, legs, and a head yet, but that's exactly what will become of the union of a human sperm and a human egg. It cannot be anything else but a human being from it's very inception. All the code for it to grow into something with hands, feet, and head are there as soon as the sperm fertilizes that egg.

Sperm + egg = human

I don't approve of abortions but it does seem like the less of two evils in very REMOTE cases. I completely disapprove of it as a form of birth control, but ultimately I cannot tell a women what to do when she's pregnant. We have to hope and rely on common sense of most people not to abuse this particular right to choose. Sometimes that's not good enough, but it's the best we have witout infringing on the rights of others autonomy.

Is abortion killing a human being? Yes it is. Is it ever justified? Almost never.

but does that life have rights?

i believe in quality of life, not quantity, if a child isn't wanted, don't bring the child into the world

sperm is life, but you don't see people bitching about killing sperm now do you?

You mock this believe yet you are ignorant of the very real fact that your mythology requires an even greater leap of faith. Your god is pure blind Chance.

It always amazes my that pseudo-intellectuals such as yourself base your entire worldview on the research of a bunch of intelligent men with lots of letters after their names who spend millions of dollars each year trying to create life in a test tube in order to prove that no intelligence was necessary to create it in the first place. Do you realize how completely ridiculous that sounds?

Nice ET-baby. Agagagoodiedoodiehoochie