RE: Awwwww....Michelle just wants to be Mom!

RE: Awwwww....Michelle just wants to be Mom! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> Current Events

Message

SovereignIsHe -> RE: Awwwww....Michelle just wants to be Mom! (8/12/2008 4:12:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant It seems that the pro-life crowd seems to focused on one thing - ending abortion - and have given no real thought as to what will replace it. So far on this thread, the only answers anyone has posted have been: Dumping the responsibility off on others and away from those who create the problem isn't a viable solution... In reality it smells more like a make them pay concept... quote: Appoint USSC justices to reverse Roe v Wade, ban abortion, arrest and incarcerate the back-alley butchers that will take over the 'market'...maybe the soi-disant pro-life movement can acheive these things. And I am not opposed to any of it. How commendable... You support is duly noted... quote: WHAT THEN? What are you going to do about the thousands - millions? - of unwanted, unplanned, family-crippling babies that a prohibition is going to bring into this world? Shouldn't you be asking those who make the choice to bring these children into the world first? I wasn't aware that as a Christian my support for what is right in the sight of God was predicated on me personally supplying the needs to everyone that would rather sin than do right by God's word... quote: I haven't heard any useful ideas on how to deal with that. Does anyone HAVE any ideas? For starters how about that term you used prior in this thread, ah yes.... personal responsibility Should I also consider paying the bills of those who steal so they might stop? John

SwedishCovenant -> RE: Awwwww....Michelle just wants to be Mom! (8/12/2008 4:16:19 PM)
Tried to post this earlier and it did not take for some reason. Hope it posts this time. quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: IOW, no specific action that cost you a dime, a minute, or an erg of exertion. Well no, I am also not doing things that would lead to an abortion, I am teaching my kids about why abortion is wrong, I personally donate to pro-life organizations that help pregnant women who have no resources of their own, I have personally supported people with children who found themselves without a means of support to the point of having them live in my home. What have you done? Ten percent of my income goes to a denomination which runs a local shelter for runaways, abused spouses, and others at risk due to pregnancy (and other causes). I'm too old to adopt, but I've sponsored two other families named guardians of at-risk children, and footed the bill for my sister's adoption of a lovely girl whose mother was considering abortion but was willing to bear the child to term once she was assured that somebody would be able to give a damn. You see, some of us are doing something constructive to cure the problem - something beyond mere jawbone.

Peter_Gunn -> RE: Awwwww....Michelle just wants to be Mom! (8/12/2008 4:21:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant Ten percent of my income goes to a denomination which runs a local shelter for runaways, abused spouses, and others at risk due to pregnancy (and other causes). In other words, you're tithing to your church and they're giving monetary support to a half-way house.

SwedishCovenant -> RE: Awwwww....Michelle just wants to be Mom! (8/12/2008 4:21:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe quote: ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant It seems that the pro-life crowd seems to focused on one thing - ending abortion - and have given no real thought as to what will replace it. So far on this thread, the only answers anyone has posted have been: Dumping the responsibility off on others and away from those who create the problem isn't a viable solution... In reality it smells more like a make them pay concept... quote: Appoint USSC justices to reverse Roe v Wade, ban abortion, arrest and incarcerate the back-alley butchers that will take over the 'market'...maybe the soi-disant pro-life movement can acheive these things. And I am not opposed to any of it. How commendable... You support is duly noted... quote: WHAT THEN? What are you going to do about the thousands - millions? - of unwanted, unplanned, family-crippling babies that a prohibition is going to bring into this world? Shouldn't you be asking those who make the choice to bring these children into the world first? I wasn't aware that as a Christian my support for what is right in the sight of God was predicated on me personally supplying the needs to everyone that would rather sin than do right by God's word... quote: I haven't heard any useful ideas on how to deal with that. Does anyone HAVE any ideas? For starters how about that term you used prior in this thread, ah yes.... personal responsibility Should I also consider paying the bills of those who steal so they might stop? John 'Forced parenting', then. Ever see victims of child abuse? Ever see what kids grow up to be when they are raised in a household that resents their presence? Forcing people to be responsible doesn't work - and you are expecting people to be responsibile who were irresoponsible in the first place, to get into their situation. By the way - are you seriously equating 'robbery' - a criminal act - with 'unwanted pregnancy'? Do I read your post correct?

SwedishCovenant -> RE: Awwwww....Michelle just wants to be Mom! (8/12/2008 4:24:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Peter_Gunn quote: ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant Ten percent of my income goes to a denomination which runs a local shelter for runaways, abused spouses, and others at risk due to pregnancy (and other causes). In other words, you're tithing to your church and they're giving monetary support to a half-way house. No, the amount I identified is what I give to my denomination for this purpose BEYOND my basic tithing to the denomination.

Jhud -> RE: Awwwww....Michelle just wants to be Mom! (8/12/2008 4:25:01 PM)
quote: Ten percent of my income goes to a denomination which runs a local shelter for runaways, abused spouses, and others at risk due to pregnancy (and other causes). I'm too old to adopt, but I've sponsored two other families named guardians of at-risk children, and footed the bill for my sister's adoption of a lovely girl whose mother was considering abortion but was willing to bear the child to term once she was assured that somebody would be able to give a damn. You see, some of us are doing something constructive to cure the problem - something beyond mere jawbone. I forgot to brag about my tithe, sorry. But I don't think support for pregnant mothers, and opposition to legalized abortions are at all mutually exclusive. One would hope everyone would do both, just as an abolitionist might help slaves escape as well as opposing legalized slavery.

Rufas2000 -> RE: Awwwww....Michelle just wants to be Mom! (8/12/2008 4:29:27 PM)
quote: A little education - Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation. Ironically, this seems to have been the totality of your argument since you joined us on this forum. Can you imagine? An entire discussion that is one rambling logical fallacy. Thank you Jack. The new knowledge is much appreciated. [:)] Time to rephrase to see if I got it. So if I was say an Obama supporter and John wondered how I could support the murder of the unborn and I responded to John (assuming he supports McCain, I guess because they both have the same first name) that McCain supports it too that would be a Tu Quoque, correct? Because I'm accusing John of supporting a pro abortion candidate in response to being accused of supporting a pro abortion candidate. And when John said I'm not voting for McCain either he would have successfully defended my Tu Quoque and actually strengthened his own position. Kinda like a Judo practitioner uses the force of his enemy against him. But if John chose to attempt to defend McCain's record on abortion then he falls into my trap. He has allowed himself to be put on the defensive instead of advancing his own point against me.

SovereignIsHe -> RE: Awwwww....Michelle just wants to be Mom! (8/12/2008 4:37:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant 'Forced parenting', then. I figured your mention of personal responsibility was a hollow one... quote: Ever see victims of child abuse? Ever see what kids grow up to be when they are raised in a household that resents their presence? At least a child allowed to be born has a fighting chance... quote: Forcing people to be responsible doesn't work - Really... So I take you are going to drop your demands on those who believe abortion to be wrong? quote: and you are expecting people to be responsibile who were irresoponsible in the first place, to get into their situation. Expecting them to ever change by giving them a way out every chance you get? quote: By the way - are you seriously equating 'robbery' - a criminal act - with 'unwanted pregnancy'? Do I read your post correct? The murder of the child is a criminal act and in many cases the reason for having an abortion is rooted in sin... And of course the point is that you want one group to cover the responsibility of others so why stop with abortion? John

Jhud -> RE: Awwwww....Michelle just wants to be Mom! (8/12/2008 4:45:14 PM)
quote: Time to rephrase to see if I got it. So if I was say an Obama supporter and John wondered how I could support the murder of the unborn and I responded to John (assuming he supports McCain, I guess because they both have the same first name) that McCain supports it too that would be a Tu Quoque, correct? Yes, that is correct � and it�s fallacious because Obama�s support for abortion has nothing to do with McCain�s supposed support for abortion. It might be hypocritical if it was in fact the case, but hypocrisy itself does not mean a statement is wrong. Like I said, the fact that a smoker says smoking is bad for people doesn�t diminish the truth of the statement. The only time calling someone a hypocrite is really warranted is when the person is holding themselves up as superior and emulatable � much as the Pharisees did. Jesus didn�t criticize them for saying certain things were right and wrong, but because they claimed they were somehow in and of themselves morally superior, and worthy of praise from men. quote: Because I'm accusing John of supporting a pro abortion candidate in response to being accused of supporting a pro abortion candidate. And when John said I'm not voting for McCain either he would have successfully defended my Tu Quoque and actually strengthened his own position. Kinda like a Judo practitioner uses the force of his enemy against him. But if John chose to attempt to defend McCain's record on abortion then he falls into my trap. He has allowed himself to be put on the defensive instead of advancing his own point against me. Well yes, by not voting for McCain John avoids perceptions of hypocrisy, which in a public discussion is often more important than actually logically advancing ones postion on a matter. In John�s defense, it�s not so much a matter of winning the argument as it is the fact that he simply can�t in good conscience vote for a candidate who doesn�t fully support his position on abortion, and that is admirable � and he has to answer to his own conscience, not someone else�s, as we all do.

henny -> RE: Awwwww....Michelle just wants to be Mom! (8/12/2008 6:06:01 PM)
LOL It's kind of comical how nearly every thread turns into a debate on abortion and it's always the same poster who brings the issue up. You people need to learn not to take the bait (although there's always a fresh supply of newbies around that seem to fall for it just because they don't know any better). Word to the wise: Unless the thread is specifically about abortion, just ignore any attempts to turn it in that direction, as there are a few posters who will respond with "abortion is horrible!" no matter what the topic of the thread. I imagine you could ask them what day it is, or their Mother's Maiden name, and their reply would be "Abortion is horrible!" or "Baby Murderers!" It'd be easier having a discussion with a broken record.

saved9201 -> RE: Awwwww....Michelle just wants to be Mom! (8/12/2008 6:14:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: henny It'd be easier having a discussion with a broken record. Like the record that will be broken by the baby slaughterers this year when they murder 100,000 gadzillion more precious little innocents. - Julius

saved9201 -> RE: Awwwww....Michelle just wants to be Mom! (8/12/2008 6:16:19 PM)
What does any of this have to do with M. Hussein O. and her claim she wants to be just a mom? - Julius

garsyt -> RE: Awwwww....Michelle just wants to be Mom! (8/12/2008 6:29:02 PM)
Isn't there a one stop abortion issues thread somewhere? Garsy

davemiller7 -> RE: Awwwww....Michelle just wants to be Mom! (8/12/2008 6:38:14 PM)
Oh NO!!! John, now that you've mentioned that, the socialists are going to jump on that bandwagon. -Dave quote: ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe Should I also consider paying the bills of those who steal so they might stop? John

garsyt -> RE: Awwwww....Michelle just wants to be Mom! (8/12/2008 6:43:33 PM)
quote: M. Hussein O. Why the Hussein? I mean is it really necessary? I think the fact that the Obama's are not well liked here is quite obvious. Hussein is a name that MANY folks share. I'm pretty certain that there may well be CHRISTIANS who have Hussein in their name some where. It's just old and quite silly in my opinion. It's quite childish actually. It would be like someone associating some one with a mass murderer simply because their name was Jeffery. Garsy

Rufas2000 -> RE: Awwwww....Michelle just wants to be Mom! (8/12/2008 6:57:21 PM)
quote: Well yes, by not voting for McCain John avoids perceptions of hypocrisy, which in a public discussion is often more important than actually logically advancing ones postion on a matter. In John�s defense, it�s not so much a matter of winning the argument as it is the fact that he simply can�t in good conscience vote for a candidate who doesn�t fully support his position on abortion, and that is admirable � and he has to answer to his own conscience, not someone else�s, as we all do. It was intended as a complement. I think people make the assumption that John brings up Obama's support on abortion because John's is a Republican. But as you say its really because John abhors abortion. His point is reinforced by the fact that he holds all candidates responsible, not just Democratic ones. I do think he is aware that it helps his case but his main passion is wiping away abortion. Your point about conscience is well taken. Thanks for the response.

earthless -> RE: Awwwww....Michelle just wants to be Mom! (8/12/2008 9:15:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: garsyt quote: M. Hussein O. Why the Hussein? I mean is it really necessary? I think the fact that the Obama's are not well liked here is quite obvious. Hussein is a name that MANY folks share. I'm pretty certain that there may well be CHRISTIANS who have Hussein in their name some where. It's just old and quite silly in my opinion. It's quite childish actually. It would be like someone associating some one with a mass murderer simply because their name was Jeffery. Garsy Want to know why it is even an issue? Because the media and the Democratic party made it one. They slapped the hand of a talk show personality that merely mentioned his full name. Made a huge stink about it and do not want it to be used. That is why..

SovereignIsHe -> RE: Awwwww....Michelle just wants to be Mom! (8/12/2008 10:45:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: henny LOL It's kind of comical how nearly every thread turns into a debate on abortion and it's always the same poster who brings the issue up. You people need to learn not to take the bait (although there's always a fresh supply of newbies around that seem to fall for it just because they don't know any better). Word to the wise: Unless the thread is specifically about abortion, just ignore any attempts to turn it in that direction, as there are a few posters who will respond with "abortion is horrible!" no matter what the topic of the thread. I imagine you could ask them what day it is, or their Mother's Maiden name, and their reply would be "Abortion is horrible!" or "Baby Murderers!" It'd be easier having a discussion with a broken record. When Christians stop supporting the murder of the unborn I will stop... John

SovereignIsHe -> RE: Awwwww....Michelle just wants to be Mom! (8/12/2008 10:47:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: saved9201 quote: ORIGINAL: henny It'd be easier having a discussion with a broken record. Like the record that will be broken by the baby slaughterers this year when they murder 100,000 gadzillion more precious little innocents. - Julius Strange response from a person who speaks so often to the injustice directed at Mr. Obama... John

SovereignIsHe -> RE: Awwwww....Michelle just wants to be Mom! (8/12/2008 10:58:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rufas2000 quote: Well yes, by not voting for McCain John avoids perceptions of hypocrisy, which in a public discussion is often more important than actually logically advancing ones postion on a matter. In John�s defense, it�s not so much a matter of winning the argument as it is the fact that he simply can�t in good conscience vote for a candidate who doesn�t fully support his position on abortion, and that is admirable � and he has to answer to his own conscience, not someone else�s, as we all do. It was intended as a complement. I think people make the assumption that John brings up Obama's support on abortion because John's is a Republican. But as you say its really because John abhors abortion. His point is reinforced by the fact that he holds all candidates responsible, not just Democratic ones. I do think he is aware that it helps his case but his main passion is wiping away abortion. Your point about conscience is well taken. Thanks for the response. For the record... I abhor it because my sister had at least four of them... I begged for the two children she murdered ( I didn't know about the other till after the fact...) I think of my four kids, and the two my sister didn't murder and I can't fathom how anyone can simply go in and have child murdered like they are having a wart removed... And I can't imagine what is in the mind of a person who claims Christ and thinks it ok that 3500 children are murdered daily... I just can't... Christ spoke of it being profitable for one that a great millstone should be hanged about his neck, that he should be sunk in the depth of the sea for one who simply caused a little one to stumble... What does He have in mind for those who have even less regard for them... I wonder... Where is the healthy fear of God? It's not a joke, yet some folks find humor in it... Strange... Every word and deed... Nahum 1:2 God is jealous, and the Lord revengeth; the Lord revengeth, and is furious; the Lord will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies. I for one don't wish anyone to ever have to deal with the reserved wrath of God... John

huangshan -> RE: Awwwww....Michelle just wants to be Mom! (8/12/2008 11:46:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: garsyt quote: M. Hussein O. Why the Hussein? I mean is it really necessary? I think the fact that the Obama's are not well liked here is quite obvious. Hussein is a name that MANY folks share. I'm pretty certain that there may well be CHRISTIANS who have Hussein in their name some where. It's just old and quite silly in my opinion. It's quite childish actually. It would be like someone associating some one with a mass murderer simply because their name was Jeffery. Garsy I thought it was brilliant political commentary on the childish nature of political discourse in America. If "X. Hussein O." weren't ironic, it would break my heart.

SovereignIsHe -> RE: Awwwww....Michelle just wants to be Mom! (8/12/2008 11:57:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: huangshan quote: ORIGINAL: garsyt quote: M. Hussein O. Why the Hussein? I mean is it really necessary? I think the fact that the Obama's are not well liked here is quite obvious. Hussein is a name that MANY folks share. I'm pretty certain that there may well be CHRISTIANS who have Hussein in their name some where. It's just old and quite silly in my opinion. It's quite childish actually. It would be like someone associating some one with a mass murderer simply because their name was Jeffery. Garsy I thought it was brilliant political commentary on the childish nature of political discourse in America. If "X. Hussein O." weren't ironic, it would break my heart. What's ironic is that the person who keeps posting his middle name is a defender of Mr. Obama... John

wing2000 -> RE: Awwwww....Michelle just wants to be Mom! (8/13/2008 12:04:55 AM)
quote: I thought it was brilliant political commentary on the childish nature of political discourse in America. .....yes, but America hardly is alone when it comes to chidish political discourse...perhaps the big difference is the absurd amount of money and time we spend doing it.

Rufas2000 -> RE: Awwwww....Michelle just wants to be Mom! (8/13/2008 12:09:32 AM)
quote: For the record... I abhor it because my sister had at least four of them... I begged for the two children she murdered ( I didn't know about the other till after the fact...) I think of my four kids, and the two my sister didn't murder and I can't fathom how anyone can simply go in and have child murdered like they are having a wart removed... And I can't imagine what is in the mind of a person who claims Christ and thinks it ok that 3500 children are murdered daily... I just can't... Christ spoke of it being profitable for one that a great millstone should be hanged about his neck, that he should be sunk in the depth of the sea for one who simply caused a little one to stumble... What does He have in mind for those who have even less regard for them... I wonder... Where is the healthy fear of God? It's not a joke, yet some folks find humor in it... Strange... Every word and deed... Nahum 1:2 God is jealous, and the Lord revengeth; the Lord revengeth, and is furious; the Lord will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies. I for one don't wish anyone to ever have to deal with the reserved wrath of God... Ouch about the beginning, thanks for sharing.

saved9201 -> RE: Awwwww....Michelle just wants to be Mom! (8/13/2008 2:18:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SovereignIsHe quote: ORIGINAL: huangshan quote: ORIGINAL: garsyt quote: M. Hussein O. Why the Hussein? I mean is it really necessary? I think the fact that the Obama's are not well liked here is quite obvious. Hussein is a name that MANY folks share. I'm pretty certain that there may well be CHRISTIANS who have Hussein in their name some where. It's just old and quite silly in my opinion. It's quite childish actually. It would be like someone associating some one with a mass murderer simply because their name was Jeffery. Garsy I thought it was brilliant political commentary on the childish nature of political discourse in America. If "X. Hussein O." weren't ironic, it would break my heart. What's ironic is that the person who keeps posting his middle name is a defender of Mr. Obama... John [;)]

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI