Hypocrites!

[Felicity]

Because that woman is carrying around half of me. It's 50% mine (at least). But if someone else wants to abort their child, then that's their mistake/gain (however you want to view it). If they want to destroy their creation, fine. But don't force me to do it. Do you stop painters if they try to destroy a painting they don't want, but you like the painting?

So do you believe parents have the power of life and death over their children and however they choose--it's their choice if "they want to destroy their creation?"

 

[Felicity]

What?!?!?!

Do you really want me to explain it? It has to do with the relationship God establishes with His people--the "law" was the old covenent and the Word (Jesus) is the new covenant. If you want me to 'splain it--PM me and I'll do it tomorrow....it's getting late and I'm tired...but truly--I'd be happy to...

 

[Donkey1499]

So do you believe parents have the power of life and death over their children and however they choose--it's their choice if "they want to destroy their creation?"

Sure. Just like God has the power to snuff us out, or to let us live. Have you ever held a roach in your hands and thought, "Gee, I have the power to crush the juices out this thing or to let it go and crawl under the fridge." But remember what Spiderman's uncle said to him, "With great power comes great responsibility."

 

[Donkey1499]

Do you really want me to explain it? It has to do with the relationship God establishes with His people--the "law" was the old covenent and the Word (Jesus) is the new covenant. If you want me to 'splain it--PM me and I'll do it tomorrow....it's getting late and I'm tired...but truly--I'd be happy to...

Alright, tell me. I think I've heard it before, but refresh my memory. Maybe Sissy-Boy and the others could learn something from it, if it's what I think it is.

 

[Felicity]

But remember what Spiderman's uncle said to him, "With great power comes great responsibility."

Ummmm...I think the Bible said it first: "To whom much is given, much will be expected."

 

[Felicity]

Alright, tell me. I think I've heard it before, but refresh my memory. Maybe Sissy-Boy and the others could learn something from it, if it's what I think it is.

I will post it tomorrow and try to be brief...I'm just too tired tonight and I'm going to bed...:2wave:

 

[Donkey1499]

Ummmm...I think the Bible said it first: "To whom much is given, much will be expected."

So if someone gave me a 24 pack of beer, am I expected to drink it all? LOL

 

[Donkey1499]

I will post it tomorrow and try to be brief...I'm just too tired tonight and I'm going to bed...:2wave:

Good. That'll make me happy! OH JOYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!

But like the black & white dude says in Clooney's new movie, "Good Night, and Good Luck."

 

[Felicity]

Good. That'll make me happy! OH JOYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!

Your sincerity just warms my heart.... :roll:


If you're not interested--I wasn't forcing it on you...I said I'd explain it if you like. Whatever...

 

[Felicity]

Sure. Just like God has the power to snuff us out, or to let us live. Have you ever held a roach in your hands and thought, "Gee, I have the power to crush the juices out this thing or to let it go and crawl under the fridge." But remember what Spiderman's uncle said to him, "With great power comes great responsibility."

Parents have the power of life and death over their children without consequence--moral or legal?

To what age is this life/death right extended? There are many people in prison for killing their children--You could right a wrong if you could make us all understand....

 

[tecoyah]

To what age is this life/death right extended?

Currently....this right is extended to any Human after the third trimester of gestation. In most states.

 

[Felicity]

Currently....this right is extended to any Human after the third trimester of gestation. In most states.

So you agree it's legal killing of children?

 

[tecoyah]

So you agree it's legal killing of children?

No...as usual you attempt to place your own words into the text . I fail to see how you come up with my agreement that there are children being killed, or the legality of it....from the mere statement of current Law. While I do realize how very much you enjoy debating this issue, I really dont want to become involved in another pointless conversation about what you believe. I also love debate, but have learned from experience those who actually have a skill ( able to listen and ponder the other side), do not tend to remove context from a statement, let alone totally misinterpret what is said.
Unfortunately Felicity, you are what is refered to as a "One Topic Wonder", this is someone who works debates just to hear themselves Opine on a subject that is very important to them. Experience dictates you will NEVER consider opposing thought on the one subject you post about here, which pretty much kills any chance of actual debate.

I do not wish to create offense by stating the above, but I do think you need to hear it.

 

[Felicity]

No...as usual you attempt to place your own words into the text . I fail to see how you come up with my agreement that there are children being killed, or the legality of it....from the mere statement of current Law.

because the question was posed to Donkey--who believes the not yet born are children. YOU answering a direct question to him without clarification on your part--makes my question to you rational and reasonable. I'm giving you the opportunity to clarify your point since you weren't clear--in context of the discussion.

While I do realize how very much you enjoy debating this issue, I really dont want to become involved in another pointless conversation about what you believe.

Then ignore me as you have before--geez...I'm not badgering you to talk to me.

I also love debate, but have learned from experience those who actually have a skill ( able to listen and ponder the other side), do not tend to remove context from a statement, let alone totally misinterpret what is said.

See above. I addressed the question to donkey--if you want to be a part of it--make sure you make your stance clear.

Unfortunately Felicity, you are what is refered to as a "One Topic Wonder", this is someone who works debates just to hear themselves Opine on a subject that is very important to them. Experience dictates you will NEVER consider opposing thought on the one subject you post about here, which pretty much kills any chance of actual debate.

And again--if you feel the only opponent you wish to engage are those that are not confident of their conviction..go for it...that would not be me...

BTW...are YOU willing to consider the opposing thought? I don’t recall seeing you budge toward the pro-life side anywhere....When I consider the opposing position and find it wanting...that is not a tunnel vision..it is discriminating the truth.

I do not wish to create offense by stating the above, but I do think you need to hear it.

You seem to enjoy critiquing my personal debating style--not sure why???, but anyway...I've heard you. But to be perfectly honest with you, I have seen nothing from your posts that indicate you are any sort of authority on "good debate" and relevant or convincing argumentation--so...you will understand if I don't heed your "constructive" criticism.

 

[Donkey1499]

Your sincerity just warms my heart.... :roll:


If you're not interested--I wasn't forcing it on you...I said I'd explain it if you like. Whatever...

No, please do explain it. I WANT to hear your side of the story, or whatever it is. I didn't mean to be sarcastic.

 

[Donkey1499]

Parents have the power of life and death over their children without consequence--moral or legal?

To what age is this life/death right extended? There are many people in prison for killing their children--You could right a wrong if you could make us all understand....

Most likely legal. Even tho God told Abraham to sacrifice his son, but then God sent an angel to stop Abraham right before he was about to slice open his son. But God was merely testing Abraham's faith, and Abraham proved to be faithful to God. Am I right or wrong on this?

 

[Donkey1499]

So you agree it's legal killing of children?

Whoa, wait a minute. God told the Jews to kill ALL of the Canaanites; even the children. I haven't been able to ask my pastor about that yet, but maybe you could explain it better than I could in another thread I was on.

 

[sissy-boy]

Actually, you make a good point for once. I'm gonna consult my pastor on this issue and I'm gonna make it a "No Spin" situation. Then I'll report the results to you, if you care to see them.

SO! What was the Pastor's opinion? Is it ok to crush your newborn's skull like the bible prescribes, or should we ABORT it before it learns to cuss?

 

[sissy-boy]

Whoa, wait a minute. God told the Jews to kill ALL of the Canaanites; even the children. I haven't been able to ask my pastor about that yet, but maybe you could explain it better than I could in another thread I was on.

Wow. You'r pastor sure's got his hands full now. You've got to have him explain why 'God' wants us to murder so many people.


The RATIONAL response, (the one that even your PASTOR most likely recognizes) is that God and the BIBLE have NOTHING in common. God doesn't make 'laws' about killing. God does not kill, nor does God have any opinion on death other than 'Death happens'.

Pretty simple, eh??

 

[Repubteen]

Since the title of this thread is hypocrites.I thought I would bring up another liberal hypocrisy.Two actually. The first being gun control you See most liberals ,Michael morre and Kennedy to name a few who say that no one should be allowed to own a gun because they're dangerous. But about a year and a half ago Kennedy's bodyguard was found to be carrying a semi automatic gun with 147 rounds of ammo.
Also inheritance tax. Ted Kennedy who has always enforced that we raise inheritance tax(currently around 40%), when actually he doesn't want to pay it. The Kennedy family which has exchanged some 300-500 million dollars has only paid around 145,000 dollars because they put it all in trusts.The Rules only apply to some in a Liberal World

 

[FutureIncoming]

Repubteen wrote: "Since the title of this thread is hypocrites.I thought I would bring up another liberal hypocrisy..."

Heh, don't think for a moment that the conservatives exhibit no hypocrisy themselves. Remember Freedom of Speech? Your cowardly President thinks only HIS speech should be unrestrictedly free.
http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html
ONLY cowardice can explain such a hypocritical violation of the Constitution.
{I'm tempted to write a new tagline for myself: "The Secret Service should LET the President get shot once in a while, just to discourage cowards from seeking the Office."}

Then there are the conservatives who oppose abortion using the claim that "human life is valuable' -but they also oppose Minimum Wage Laws designed to ensure that workers are paid enough to be able to stay alive! Why don't conservatives want to put their money where their mouths are?

 

[Saboteur]

Anyone else think it's just a bit hypocritical of these liberals that are for animal rights, ("Oh, oh, you can't hurt the defenseless little animals") to be for abortion of Human Babies?!?!
This has been stuck in my mind since I heard someone bad-mouthing Bill O'Reilly (who's ok in my book, don't love him, don't hate him), for being OK with the Pit Bull ban in several states. I said "Bill O'Reilly's ok, I don't agree with him on this issue, but I do on many others."
They replied with "any man who thinks it's OK to take away my "right" to choose (referring to abortion) will never be on my good list....Yet, she was there to voice her opinion against the "murder" of puppies.....So it's OK to kill unborn Human Babies, but not unborn puppies? I cannot follow this logic, someone please enlighten me!

Um.... Puppy abortions? Mandatory puppy abortions? What are you talking about?

Pit Bull ownership is banned because that breed of dog has been inaccuratley associated with being a threat. Animals are like people... a product of their environment. Treat a dog bad and you get a bad dog. Anyway it is the ownership of these dogs that is banned not the breed of dog.

Though an irresponsible person that knows the law in communities where the dog is banned and owns a Pit Bull anyway will, if/when caught, be forced to find another home for the animal in a community that allows the breed or it will be taken and destroyed. I don't like it either but there are some idiots out there that like to make these dogs fight. And there are idiots out there that like to make people fight but nobody is banning us.

Anyway animal rights and animal owners' rights are separate issues from abortion rights. Abortion has to do with a person not wanting to carry out a pregnancy. People also have a right to not have a life saving surgery. And to unplug their family members if they're being kept alive by machines and that family member has given that right to their other family members.

Animal rights are that they should not be treated cruelly or killed inhumanely. Animal owners' rights are limited though, if your dog bites someone, even if it's a nice dog, it will probably be taken from you and destroyed. Despite the fact that the dog doesn't have the ability to reason. Meanwhile a human does have the ability to reason and is not usually destroyed for commiting a crime. Well at least not for heanous crimes like defending your owner.. eeg, I'm losing it.

I don't like Bill O'Riley either I think he's a hot air bag. But he has the right to his opinions like we all do.

 

[Saboteur]

Anyone else think it's just a bit hypocritical of these liberals that are for animal rights, ("Oh, oh, you can't hurt the defenseless little animals") to be for abortion of Human Babies?!?!
This has been stuck in my mind since I heard someone bad-mouthing Bill O'Reilly (who's ok in my book, don't love him, don't hate him), for being OK with the Pit Bull ban in several states. I said "Bill O'Reilly's ok, I don't agree with him on this issue, but I do on many others."
They replied with "any man who thinks it's OK to take away my "right" to choose (referring to abortion) will never be on my good list....Yet, she was there to voice her opinion against the "murder" of puppies.....So it's OK to kill unborn Human Babies, but not unborn puppies? I cannot follow this logic, someone please enlighten me!

Oh yeah and one more thing.

Don't YOU think it's just a bit hypocritical that the same people who oppose abortion rights also believe that animals are not god's higher beings and do not have an eternal soul; therefore they have no feelings and are expendable?

BTW those same people who are anit-abortion will and have used the lives of children as justification for the Pit Bull's demise. Remember how all those Florida children kept getting attacked in the '80s and '90s?

 

[AK_Conservative]

What a friggin' liar you are. It is NOT the Democrats who push for Government control over womens bodies, over who can marry or whatnot. THAT is all pushed by conservative repugnicans who want to impose state-control over people's private lives. Does GESTAPO ring a bell with you?

LMAO.. WTF.. What did i lie about? Nothing....

You might have misinterpreted what i said drastically wrong, so i say u reread what i said!

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Repubteen wrote: "Since the title of this thread is hypocrites.I thought I would bring up another liberal hypocrisy..."

Heh, don't think for a moment that the conservatives exhibit no hypocrisy themselves. Remember Freedom of Speech? Your cowardly President thinks only HIS speech should be unrestrictedly free.
http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html
ONLY cowardice can explain such a hypocritical violation of the Constitution.
{I'm tempted to write a new tagline for myself: "The Secret Service should LET the President get shot once in a while, just to discourage cowards from seeking the Office."}

Then there are the conservatives who oppose abortion using the claim that "human life is valuable' -but they also oppose Minimum Wage Laws designed to ensure that workers are paid enough to be able to stay alive! Why don't conservatives want to put their money where their mouths are?

Free speech is not invitation to interrupt public events this is not a violation of the constitution in the remotest of terms.

And as for your abortion minimum wage comparison they are two totally unrelated items so I'll take them one at a time; abortion first:

I oppose abortion because it is a violation of the constitution, amendment X in the Bill of Rights clearly states that any and all powers not expressly granted or denied to the federal government in the constitution shall be left up to the individual states (not to activist judges legislating from the bench). Furthermore; for the sake of argument, let's say that an abortion bill was put to a vote by the American people, and it passed, well this would still be an unconstutional law in that it is in direct violation of amendment 14 of the Bill of Rights which clearly expresses and guarantees that no one can take away your life, liberty, or property without due process.

You know it's funny that you would bring up the First amendment by claiming that Bush is violating the constitutional right of free speech which it is clearly not and yet you support a clear cut violation of at least three amendments in the Bill of Rights (can you hypocrit children? I knew that you could).

Now onto the second point the minimum wage:

While it seems on the surface that the Republican blocking of a raise in the minimum wage is a ploy for greedy evil conservatives to screw the down trodden masses but in reality nothing could be further from the truth. Historically minimum has only served to hurt the unemployment rate especially those of the poor due to the fact that companies will be far less likely to hire unskilled unexperienced workers if the minimum wage is increased. So in effect an increase of the minimum wage will only serve to hurt the poor in that they will be unable to make any money at all because no one will hire them. I for one would rather have a job paying $5.25 an hour than no job at all.