Comments for 'Radical cleric' Mike Huckabee »
Posted By ZiegfeldGirl 1 year, 9 months ago in NewsMike Huckabee's proposal Monday night to rewrite the U.S. Constitution in the words of his God got virtually no mention in mainstream media today. But it's all over the web, and it won't go away because it captures the radical lurking behind the aw-shucks demeanor.
Read Full Story at arktimes.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 318 of 440 Comments
-
Neutral
ZiegfeldGirl1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I submitted this under "Religion" rather than "Politics" because it is more about religion. Mike Huckabee puts his Religious views over the sanctity of the Constitution.
"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."
He sealed his fate with that statement. I will NEVER vote for that man.
Reply-
Neutral
Spadecaller1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ziegfeldgirl
Thank you for posting this story and inviting me to review it. I applaud your stance, "I will NEVER vote for that man."
We live in a free country, but those who promise NOT to defend our constitution because of their personal religious convictions do not belong holding offices in our government.
Reply-
Neutral
toph19731 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I wonder what his new constitution would say about Atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Patafarians, Agnostics and anyone else that did not believe in his version of god. Everyone should be terrified of this kind of zealotry.
As someone on here astutely said, Fascism will come wrapped in a flag carrying a cross.
There is only one word to describe this man: Traitor. He is advocating the violation of the document that protects our freedom
Reply-
Neutral
earthlingerer1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What's so different with Huckleberree than who's in office now?
A guy that claims "god" talks to him?
Do you think in a minute Romney would go against the teachings of the mormon church before he went against the Constitution? That Constitution went against his people in war. mormons still consider themselves quite separate from everybody else in the USA
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." Ain't no one here "astute" enough to say that here... It was Sinclair Lewis in the 1930's.
Enough talk of traitors and people who advocate violating the Constitution... we already have a president who does that, seemingly on a daily basis.
Get a grip on reality. Deal with the here and now, not with the "what ifs" tomorrow.
Reply-
-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Deliberate Obtuseness -- a trademark of the new Repugnicans. No one even HINTED that men and women of faith should be barred from politics. The issue is that we do not want a government here that intrudes INTO our faith and dictates at pain of arrest and imprisonment how we must pray, what religion we must subscribe to, how much we must give to what church.
If you can't see the difference between a democracy and a theocracy you are most likely deliberately blind, or lusting for a theocracy so much you choose to pretend the ignorance your post displays.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
This is about two amendments. One to send abortion back to the states. The other to make a marriage be between a man and a woman. In other words putting the constitution back to where it was before judges read between the lines and created law that creates so much hate.
Reply-
-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Incorrect. He was talking about his opponents for the Republican presidential nomination. Specifically, he is differentiating himself from others that do not support amendments to protect the unborn from abortion or to define marriage as between a man and a woman. It's that simple, when you understand the context. Attempts to generalize beyond those things, such as you do here, are untenable, wildly speculative, and lead to fear-mongering.
Reply-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Again, here are his exact words from his speech in Michigan.
"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view." http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Huckabee_Amend_Co...
As far as I know, he hasn't disavowed a word of that, and those words are light years broader than the two issues you are trying to confine them to.
Reply-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Keep up with the news, ET. Huckabee spoke definitively of this situation the day after and all you have to do is understand the context. The "opponents" who do no want to change the Constitution are those Republican candidates who do not want a Constitutional amendment on the issues of marriage and abortion. Visit Huckabee's website and you'll see he his very clear on support for Constitutional amendments on marriage and abortion.
Pretty straight-forward stuff, really. Instead of inventing your own interpretations, why not find out more about the candidate, the context of the remarks, etc.
Reply
-
-
-
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: Retracted by user1 Reply
-
Neutral
mesodude1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"This is about two amendments. One to send abortion back to the states. The other to make a marriage be between a man and a woman."
--Cut! This is about you and your radical right wing cult/klan being self-appointed sex police of America and refusing to admit that gay people have SQUAT to do with the non-stop parade of dead white chicks FOX parades in front of you every night. They were killed by their STRAIGHT husbands. Clean up your own house before trying to take away someone else's rights. This is why the GOP will NEVER be in power again. EVER. Thanks, Huck. We owe you one...
"In other words putting the constitution back to where it was before judges read between the lines and created law that creates so much hate."
--Yeah...While we're at it, we should repeal the Emancipation Proclamation and strip women of their voting rights. That "reading between the lines" crap is getting out of control...
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Dave591 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
He doesn't say anything about defending the Constitution he speaks of changing it to reflect his beliefs. His beliefs are not mine. As such I resent his attempt to shove his beliefs into my Constitution. What he proposed has no place there. Try checking Constitutional Law and see.
Don't try to spin it to make it look like he is "Defending" the Constitution and anyone who might disagree does not.
I will defend the Constitution to my death, even against people like Hukabee and George W. Bush.
My hope is that we are not stupid enough to elect another right wing religious freak to our highest office.
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Look at his speech and others that talk about what it is about. Lets get everything you say and take something you say to the extreme and you will look worse than him.
Keep in mind that a recent pole found only 22% of the people who had not been to a place of worship in the previous 6 month. Meaning the 78% of us are sick and tired of the hate speech generated by this minority and the laws created by judges who are part of the very biased atheistic super liberal view.
Several people like to rant that way on this site. Come on you hate speech people. Neg me.
Reply-
doggammitComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
Neutral
MisterX1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I hope everybody else wakes up to this dude. I was afraid he was looking to shove his personal beliefs down our throats. We don't need anymore religious fanatics running the country. They think God gives them authority beyond the Constitution, and they go nuts.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
xlegultx1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well my kind sir, you donate your money here!
https://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Contri...
Reply -
-
-
-
-
Neutral
MisterX1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Endoscopy, I have no issues with who people worship, how they worship, or where they worship. I have moral and religious beliefs of my own, but I don't feel the need to have them forced on to other people. If I were even able to do so, I would make alot of people very miserable, and I would never care to do that. It would go against my moral and religious beliefs. I believe that everybody is entitled to their own.
There are lobbying organizations out there that are dedicated to forcing their religious and moral beliefs on to me and everybody else. When they succeed, they make me and alot of other people very miserable. Huckabee just claimed that he is in sync with these organizations. In effect, he will be out to make me miserable as well.
Does this explain my stand?
:)
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Justice4All1 year, 9 months ago
-
Neutral
splitrch1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Frankly I think he is nothing more than a 2 bit politician talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time. If he lasts long enough to reach Super Tuesday, what will he be saying to voters in more cosmopolitan areas? He will try to distance himself from these remarks. Huckabee is a Huckster.
Good thing he exposed himself early on. Stick a fork in him, he's done.
Reply-
Neutral
RedRiverJ1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The HUCKABOOM strikes again. Something about him bothers me. I heard Fred say Mike is a liberal on many things so many he could be a Democrat. I don't have a problem with liberals or democrats. What bothers me is if you are liberal, say so.
Reply-
-
Neutral
scott42611 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The other man from Hope, Bill Clinton, will be remembered as one of our best presidents. I didn't agree with him about 30% of the time while he was President - or Governor - for that matter, but I do believe he has a genuine interest in the welfare of the American people.
I have met him twice and I greatly admire him, though I wish he had stood on principle more than he did in either office.
He p***ed me off with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which is responsible for the corporate stronghold on television news reporting and media in general. We used to have a media that was more objective and strove to operate in the public interest. Today, the market decides, thanks to companies like NewsCorp and Clear Channel, among others.
...more...
Reply -
Neutral
scott42611 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I thought he shouldn't have caved on lifting the ban on gays in the military. We have been in, we are in, and we will always be in the military. So why not be honest about it?
So don't expect all liberals to be in Clinton's pocket. We are not.
But we do recognize that - on many of our core issues (and despite criticisms like those cited above) - he was a very good President.
Certainly light years better than George W. Bush, the moonbat we have been living with for the past 7 horrible years!
Reply-
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROFLMAO
"Bill Clinton, will be remembered as one of our best presidents."
Oh yes. Rolling disclosures, lying under oath, conspiracy to lie under oath, lots people associated with him including a governor went to jail over Whitewater, pressure put on women who talked about sexual misconduct including rape, the list is long about his accomplishments. Everybody remembers the Oval Office cigar.
On political issues he held his finger in the wind and went that direction. A real man of integrity.
Reply-
doggammitComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
Neutral
scott42611 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Mike Huckabee IS NOT a liberal.
He may have compassion for the poor to a certain extent... ...and I write "too a certain extent" because his idea to abolish the IRS and to collect all of our taxes through a flat sales tax will soak the poor the most! I'm middle class and I've done the math and I'm certain it would not be easy for me either. The rich would be better off, but few others would be.
Huck does have a strange mixture of compassion for the poor and religious conservatism - which may be what Bush called "compassionate conservatism" (too bad Bush didn't really put it into practice).
Republicans love to call him a liberal because he "allowed" the Democrats in legislature here to drag him kicking and screaming to make ARKidsFirst , a Medicaid expansion, to become law. He fought school district consolidation (a very hot issue here), until the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled he had no choice....then he was its biggest champion.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Raiderwall1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Great story, ZiegfieldGirl. Huckabee is certainly playing up to his base to win the nomination. It's his only chance of winning, and he's making the most of it, after languishing in the lower tiers of the race. However, rewriting the constitution is a deal breaker with most voters and will end Huckabee's campaign, hopefully before it really gains momentum.
Reply -
-
lovermanComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If you're not afraid of Mike Huckabee, you're not paying attention. I'm reminded of the theme song to "Monk" every time I hear Huckabee speak or see his name.
"It's a jungle out there
Disorder and confusion everywhere
No one seems to care
Well I do
Hey, who's in charge here?
It's a jungle out there
Poison in the very air we breathe
Do you know what's in the water that you drink?
Well I do, and it's amazing
People think I'm crazy, 'cause I worry all the time
If you paid attention, you'd be worried too
You better pay attention
Or this world we love so much might just kill you
I could be wrong now, but I don't think so
It's a jungle out there"
Because that's EXACTLY what he (and in my opinion all of the contenders except Obama) wants us to believe. If we're scared, he wins.
Reply -
-
Neutral
rightwingliberal1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
want to stop constitution realignment to god
be a strict interpitation of it
not to read and change it like both do on both sides strict constructionist reading of it is only way to protect both sides from themselves it is not a living thing to change over time keeep doing that and wait and see what problems u have in the world
Reply-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I disagree with you completely. The Constitution was meant to be changed or there would not be a process in the document for doing so. It's really that simple. If we couldn't change the Constitution, for instance, African Americans would still be slaves and women wouldn't have the right to vote. Also, the popular vote would not determine the vote of the electors for the electoral college in your state. The Constitution can and should be changed if there is a need.
However, in this particular case, Huckabee is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Reply -
Neutral
Charlson1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If you want to change the Constitution, there is already a process to do it called Amendments. It's a long laborous process and not something to take lightly. Huckster can try but will fail in the attempt. He was pandering to the religious evangelical right in SC.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 9 months ago
-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 9 months ago
-
Neutral
scott42611 year, 9 months ago
-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What is a horrible idea? Asking Charlson to further explain what he said to clear up some confusion? Pointing out that Huckabee said he would "Amend" the Constitution?
Theocracy, where did he say that he would turn America into that?
Reply-
Neutral
splitrch1 year, 9 months ago
-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So because you think he was implying that he would make the nation a theocracy, that must be what he is doing? Have you ever thought of how retarded it is to think that a president could turn this into a theocracy? The president does not have that power. So now I will ask all of you, if elected president, how would he go about making this a theocracy? By working towards giving the states the power to decide whether abortion should be legal? By doing the same with marriage? How would that make this a theocracy? If anything, it would put us right where our founding fathers intended. It would give the states, and the people the power. As opposed to nine morons sitting on a bench.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
splitrch1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Again I ask you how? Not only that, but what part about it is BS?"
He's pandering to people who want to change the country into something it is not. Of course he can't do it. He is just a piece of ****** lying to people who don't like the way the country is constituted. Thus by claiming he wants to change the document we operate by he will appeal to them. Hence he is pandering to a small group of voters who will be sorely disappointed if he - God forbid - becomes President.
Personally, if the States want to deal with the issues you mention, I think they have every right to do so. Changing the Constitution for everyone is more problematic - practically as well as philosophically. Let me ask you something. Assuming you support what Huckabee says he wants to do, do you think you have a right to tell me how to live?
If you do, why?
Reply-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I do not think I have a right to tell you how to live. However, I stand behind the decision to amend the Constitution so that the states can decide on these two topics. In 2006 Ga voted on making an amendment to our Constitution banning same sex marriage. Over 3/4 of the state voted to ban it, yet the aclu was able to overturn it. That is Bullsht. The states should have these rights, not the supreme court.
I would like to think that you could agree with giving the states the power.
Huckabee is not pandering to anyone, he is speaking his mind and standing up for his beliefs. I for one applaud him for it.
Reply-
Neutral
splitrch1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Tanglang, I'm enjoying our conversation. It's nice to have a friendly debate. Thank you for your interest and for your civility. It's very refreshing.
If you read my post you will see that I believe that the States have the right to do as they see fit regarding the issues you mention. In fact I would welcome it. It's time to settle these issues once and for all. There are more pressing problems facing our country that need to be addressed.
Issues such as economic equity, affordable health care, the War, future sources of energy, etc. If the price to move on to these issues in a meaningful way is gay marriage and abortion then I say let the States decide. If this actually happens I would predict major movements of our citizens into States that more closely mirror their views. If this is a good thing or a bad thing I don't know.
continued below
Reply-
Neutral
splitrch1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As for applauding Huckabee, good for you. That's why we have elections. I still think he is a snake oil salesman. I won't be voting for him, but then again, I can't. I'm a Democrat.
BTW, the best shot at "social legislation" coming out of the Supreme Court - that you might favor - is right now. The fact that you don't favor this tells me you are honest as well as passionate.
Reply-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thanks, and let me apologise for the late reply. This weekend has been very hectic. Topped off by the fact that right now I am watching the NFC championship.
The way I veiw the Supreme Court and legislating is kind of like a bad penaly that comes out in your favor during a rivalry game and results in your team winning. Yeah, you're happy that you won, but you did not want it like that. It's not only tainted but it the issue will not be settled until a rematch takes place.
May I ask you who you will be supporting this year?
Reply-
Neutral
splitrch1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Being a Giants fan is awesome! What a win! I still can't believe we are going to the Super Bowl! Look out N.E. - we're coming for ya!
As for who I'm supporting, I'm not sure. Right now I'm leaning towards Edwards because I think his progressive views most closely align with my own. I can support Hillary and Obama. It'll be interesting. I think Edwards is getting short shrift in the media because his candidacy is less sexy than either Clinton or Obama. We'll see. I change my mind regularly on this topic. I might not know until I actually vote.
Reply-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Good deal. It does seem as though Edwards is getting screwed.
I still can't believe that the freaking Giants pulled it off. Being the last Falcon fan, I had no ties to the game. Yes I wanted to see Brett retire on a SuperBowl win, and yes I wanted a Green Bay/New England SuperBowl, but after seeing how the Giants did against the Pats a few weeks ago, I would love to see a re-match.
Hopefully the Giants win. The Pats remind me of Ohio State. I just can't stand em.
Reply-
Neutral
splitrch1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The Pats remind me of Ohio State. I just can't stand em."
You're too much! My neighbor one door to the East is a BIG Ohio State fan. My neighbor one door to the West is from New England and is a HUGE Patriots fan. I'm originally from the Bronx so it makes for interesting conversations. Mr. East stopped talking college football on Jan 8th. I'm hoping Mr. West will experience the same emotion on Feb. 3. Anyway it goes, I'm in great shape because nobody expected the Giants to get past the wild card game.
Good luck with your Falcons. The coach who left has ZERO class. You're better off with out him. BTW, in case the Giants didn't make it I was pulling for Brett too. How can you not love the guy?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
scott42611 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution," Huckabee told a Michigan audience on Monday. "But I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view."
If that's NOT a theocracy, then what the HELL is it?
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
ZiegfeldGirl1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There was always something about him I didn't like, apart from his crappy record on illegal immigration, maybe the emphasis he put on being a preacher? I have no problem with my President being a religious guy, but he HAS to know where to draw the line. And Mike Huckabee obviously does not. He is as dangerous as the radical Muslims, both want to co-opt the government to fit their religious views. The difference, they do it with bombs, he wants to do it with legislation. If we vote for him, we are giving him a tacit "okay".
Reply-
Neutral
AnteUp1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ZiegfeldGirl ~
I'll agree with everything you said up to, "they do it with
bombs", re: radical Muslims. If I take a look around the
globe of late - I'm hard pressed to find a place where
anyone's been using the olive branch - and that certainly
includes us.
They may strap a bomb belt around their ribs instead of
firing a payload from the barrel of a tank or dropping it
from a jet - but ultimately, the result is the same. I don't
believe radical Muslims are the MOST violent group on the
face of the earth - they're just part of the club.
For a Palestinian state? Democracy & Liberty? Whatever label
the leaders choose to tack on it's the same. As president,
when it was time for Huckabee to start his war - I guess
we could call it the Crusades Redux!
Separation of church and state - it's the only way to go!
Reply -
-
-
AlphaGnosisComment removed: Hard Banned
-
Neutral
ZiegfeldGirl1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And to anyone who thinks, "Well, at least he's a Christian. I am too so it won't bother me." I encourage you to think for a minute about the differences from sect to sect, from synod to synod, from church to church, from preacher to preacher. The things he believes, while "Christian" may not be the things you believe. Look at how different churches treat Communion. To some, it is symbolic of the last supper, they serve unleavened bread and wine. Others serve grape juice and crackers. Others view it as being the actual body and blood of Christ, and while some feel it happens when you receive it, others believe it is transfigured from the moment it is blessed by the priest. Can you imagine the kinds of issues that would arise if religion was used as a gauge in every aspect of government? And then you have to put yourself in the shoes of those who do not worship the same God, or any god. The variations are endless. You absolutely CANNOT allow religion into government.
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your awareness on this issue is refreshing. Many people do not see the problem with this and I applaud you for your insight.
What we've done is made many things in this country about religion and not about rationalism. When a candidate is asked if they "believe" in evolution, you know the country is going to hell in a handbasket. You know that when a candidate has to spend an hour long speech explaining that his religion isn't going to try and take over the country if he becomes President, you know the country is in it's descent phase. When the conservatives encouraged support from the religious right and the religious right realized they had the numbers to swing elections, everything came to be about religion.
Ladies and Gentleman, this is your pilot speaking. This country is in its descent phase, please put your seat backs in their full upright position, put your seat belts on and kiss your asses good-bye, because ladies and gentleman, we're screwed.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
Teech1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yikes is not a Christian prayer. You must do better than that. Perhaps put some incense in the fire, or light a candle, or send your donation to...and we'll send you your Christian American I.D card, good in the contiguous 48 states plus Alaska and Hawaii.
If you choose our premier membership, we'll include a sub-cutaneous implant that will enable you to use the express, no wait lane at all check points.
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
From what I understood, all I had to do to get these fantastic benefits was have half of my brain removed, write my name on a piece of paper, then throw it away and send $10,000 to the religious zealot of my choice. Was I wrong about that?
Reply-
Neutral
Teech1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's called our "executive membership" and will do nicely. Don't forget to send for your free catalogue of gifts and soveniers. Your free holographic bumper sticker is in the mail.
Your $10,000 donation has guaranteed your salvation up to the year 2025. Should you plan on living and sinning beyond that point, you may want to consider our lifetime-eternal membership for only $25,000. This will insure salvation not only for you, but for your entire family no matter how long you may live.....and continue to sin!
And if you act now, we'll include any two friends of your choice, even Jews or Catholics! However, this offer does not apply to Muslims, or Democrats. Call now, our operators are standing by!
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
splitrch1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
food for thought: http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2005/tle333-20050821...
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Wolfie20071 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What does the author mean that it wasn't covered by the main stream media just the net? The first time I saw this story, with a direct quote from Huckabee was on Fox. Also, I think you guys are really overreacting. I'm not a Christian and his statement didn't make me grab my chest and go into these kind of spasms. If you don't like him don't vote for him but, geeze, you are sounding like liberals. Take a break!
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am a liberal.
If he wins, you don't think that he'll try to do exactly what he says he'll do? I think he will and so rather than dealing with immigration or energy independence we'll have to have a Constitutional brawl between the hyper-religious, the moderates and the non-religious.
Does that sound like something we need or want? I don't think so.
Reply -
Neutral
AnteUp1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wolfie2007 ~
Hah! Trying that old "L" word fear factor - eh?
If conservatives and icky neocons can declare themselves
proudly? Then it's time for LIBERALS to "out" themselves.
Use it as a slur anytime you want - I will compliment you on
an apt identification. I am a liberal,liberal,liberal!
Ahhhhhh - that feels better.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, I'm a Huckabee fan, and I agree with his statement. Does that make me a zealot? (Lots of heads nod yes, here, I'd bet).
Did Huckabee say that the Constitution should be amended to ensure that everyone is a Christian? No, he said it should be held to God's "standards" rather than changing God's standards to fit the Constitution. Well, what exactly might that mean? He's talking about values. How about, life is precious, therefore abortion should be illegal. I'm behind that 100%. How about, marriage should be between and man and a woman. Yup, I'm 100% behind that too. Those are values. Just because value systems are informed by religious beliefs doesn't mean that those values are invalidated. If abortion were reversed back to being illegal, that doesn't impose Christianity on anyone. However, pro-abortionists will try to tell you very differently.
Reply-
Neutral
ZiegfeldGirl1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Okay, I'll accept your argument that Huckabee is talking about values and morals rather than Christianity in general. What happens when he says the Constitution should ban dancing or drinking, because those are values and morals that he believes come from his "living god"?
Reply-
-
Neutral
ZiegfeldGirl1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Just because he hasn't done it in Arkansas doesn't mean he won't try as Pres. He may be as calculating as Hillary, biding his time until he is in a higher position of power. I am very concerned.
From the Southern Baptist website:
"The Christian & the Social Order-
All Christians are under obligation to seek to make the will of Christ supreme in our own lives and in human society... in the spirit of Christ, Christians should oppose racism, every form of greed, selfishness, and vice, and all forms of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexuality, and pornography."
Not everyone agrees that pornography is immoral. And "sexual immorality" could be used to define sex before marriage, another thing that people don't agree on. He has not set parameters on the extent of his vision, you seem to be assuming he wouldn't "cross the line", but he has given no indication that he even sees a line.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
markmawn21 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That "will of Christ" line has me concerned. Who truly knows the will? It can be interpreted in many ways, yet the one that seems to stick is the one that comes from psychodynamic programming, not from personal revelation. So naturally a collectivist programming version would be applied. This was the very thinking Jesus was warning us about in his message, and is what got him crucified.
Reply-
-
Neutral
markmawn21 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Not from what I have had revealed. I think it's more that you get your own house in order so that you can be an example to others. Also to live abundantly (in spirit) so you can help the poor realize their value as a child of God and not just a poor hungry sap from the southside of nowhere. Impart to your fellow man food for mind body and soul that they too may live abundantly.
Those kind of things.
I think you are more closely talking about Ghandism, or Bhuddism.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
crespi1 year, 9 months ago
-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Violence against people, except in special cases (military, police, self-defense, for example), is illegal and should be prosecuted. If a Christian commits violence against a homosexual, he/she should be prosecuted accordingly. Same for a non-Christian.
I don't see any merit in "hate laws" to supposedly protect specific groups. If a KKK idiot (and anyone who is in the KKK is an idiot) drags a black man to death behind a car, the punishment should be the same as any other person that commits such a heinous crime.
Reply-
Neutral
walden31 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hate crime laws aren't to protect specific groups. They're to protect against targeted attacks. If a bunch of gays were to beat up a straight they would apply. If a bunch of blacks beat up a white the laws would apply.
We ascribe punishment based on state of mind. There are many laws written that contain the word "intent."
Reply-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I beg to differ Walden. The very first "hate crime" to be committed in Ga after we passed a hate crime law was one where a black man beat a gay man to death with a bat after he hit on him at school. Was he charged with a hate crime? Nope. The naacp and sclc threatened to boycott the state. They said that black men cannot committ hate crimes.
Then you have the case of the young white couple in Tenn who was kidnapped, raped, tortured, mutilated and killed by five black men. This case never even made the national news. That brings me to Jena. Six blacks beat a white student because he was white, and when they were arrested, the nation protested. We were told that those black youths were the victims even though the boy they beat up had nothing to do with the nooses that were hung at the school earlier that week.
From what we have seen in recent years, hate crime laws are only there to punish white people.
Reply-
-
Neutral
walden31 year, 9 months ago
-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My point is that there is no way for them every to be fair. If blacks are going to boycott a state because the state said that a black man killing a gay man because he is gay is a hate crime, and because of that the state drops the hate crime charge, how can they be enforced fairly?
Reply-
-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Did you not read the post that you responded to? I guess I'll have to do thisagain. Several years ago a Morehouse college student was taking a shower after working out. Another student who happened to be gay supposedly hit on the man in the shower. The man then left the showers, got dressed, went into the gym and got a baseball bat. He then returned to the showers and beat the gay man to death. This took place right after Ga passed our hate crime law. (I should not that the reason the Ga House first adopted the hate crime legislation was because of pressure from groups like the naacp and the sclc) When the man was charged with a hate crime those same groups protested and threatend o boycott the state. The hate crime charge was dropped and Ga later repealed our hate crime law saying that there was no way for it to be fairly enforced.
Reply-
-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why? If we dealt with all criminals the way we should it would not matter. You commit murder, you die. You show intent to take the life of an innocent person while committing a crime(such as armed robbery), you die. You rape a child, you die. You try to kill someone because they are gay, black, white, asian, hispanic, fat, skinny, old, young, whatever, you are punished severely for your crimes.
The point is not to make one murder more heinous than another. It is to make the punishment so swift and so severe that no one dare commit the crime.
Reply-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
scott42611 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No evidence is available to prove that point. Quite the opposite. The death penalty is not a deterrent to those who would commit heinous crimes and more money is spent in litigation to keep the inmate alive than if he/she were simply incarcerated for life. And in light of DNA evidence, more than a few have been exonerated for the crimes for which they were accused.
This just scratches the surface, but for these reasons and many more - not the least of which is the morally repugnant practice of state sponsored executions - I am opposed to the death penalty.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
jovial1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What a crock! You bring up a couple of cases and cry unfair. Yet blacks, hispanics, jews, gays and other groups got bashed and attacked at a much higher and alarming rate. White people have had the majority in almost every niche of the business world, education, and almost every other area for decades. Now you want to scream foul on a few isolated cases. Go cry elsewhere, I'm not interested.
Reply-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Are your feelings still hurt from the way I Pwned you on that Barack thread two days ago Jovi? They must be. Why else would you think I am 1:crying, 2:to you about anything. I could have sworn that I started off my comment with "I beg to differ Walden", not Waa Waa Jovi.
Now, having said that, I will address your comments. What do hate crime laws have to do the business world? Are you saying that these unfair laws are ok because it's about time that whitey gets screwed? Because that's how you come off with your rediculous statements.
Reply -
Neutral
markoller1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Who do you think commits almost all of the violent crime in black and Hispanic neighborhoods. What you delicately refer to as "gays" are almost always murdered by other gays.
I never heard that Jews are more likely to be victims of violence. What is the source of this information? In low crime neighborhoods, most violence is domestic.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I don't know if it makes you a zealot, but it does make me question your judgment.
Here's what he said:
""I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God," Huckabee said Monday night in Warren, Mich. "And that's what we need to do, is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards, rather than try to change God's standards.""
What he said was that he wants to amend the Constitution so that it's in "God's standards" whatever those are. He may be talking about values, but he's talking about imposing those values, making those values the law of the land by placing them in the Constitution.
Does he want to ensure that everyone is a Christian? No. Does he want to make everyone live under his particular Christian values? Yes.
Reply-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Question what you want, I've certainly questioned your judgment many times.
I know what he said, I read it too. But thanks for the reiteration.
As far as values, I've had values that contradict my own imposed on me by the government. I think that abortion is despicable, but right now that is the law of the land and I'm bound to honor it. Someone sure imposed that "value" on me, now didn't they? So don't speak disingenuosly about values being imposed on people. As long as there isn't a violation of separation of state and religion, meaning no one is forced to worship in a particular way, I'm quite pleased to have "Christian" values being supported by a presidential candidate.
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Don't get all upset.
I posted it so that everyone could look at it, I realize that you'd read it.
No, you haven't had values not your own imposed on you by the government. Let's use abortion as an example. Two women. One wants an abortion and the other does not. Currently, they can both get what they want. In Mike Huckabee's America (and yours) one of them can not.
As you can see from this example, currently no values are being imposed on anyone. If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. Don't want to marry gay, don't.
It's not disingenuous and you know it. The difference is oppressive verses permissive mindsets. You don't like abortion so you feel that it should be illegal. You feel that your values give you the right to choose for someone else who may not share those values.
On the other hand, if it's left permissive, then people whose values support abortion can have abortions and those who don't, won't.
Reply-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Oppressive" vs "permissive" is a matter of perspective. It's where you draw the line. For example, on abortion, you want it drawn in one place and congratulate yourself that your definition is "permissive". You label where I want it drawn "oppressive". But that's simply your viewpoint.
Why should we allow anyone to kill a fetus for convenience? You're happy with your definition. I'm not. My value places life over personal convenience. Your value does not. I think saving the utterly helpless unborn is worthwhile. You'd rather leave it as a "personal" choice. Is killing an incipient human life really a personal choice? It's certainly not a choice once they are born, is it?
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No, it isn't. The line is drawn at the gates of personal liberty. If we were to pass a law forcing women to have abortions for certain circumstances no matter their personal feelings that would be opressive, yes? If we were to pass a law forcing women to not have abortions under any circumstances that would be oppressive, yes? If, on the third hand (lol), we allow a person's personal values to come into play, is that not liberty? Is that not permissive?
Your values suggest to you that an unborn fetus is worthy of protection at the expense of any other consideration. My values suggest that there is no such thing as black and white and that leaving up to the person best able to make that determination is the best course of action.
Don't play the 'you'd kill babies' card because it's not true.
Reply-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"If we were to pass a law forcing women to have abortions for certain circumstances no matter their personal feelings that would be opressive, yes?" First, that's ridiculous. Second, it doesn't change any point that I made.
"If we were to pass a law forcing women to not have abortions under any circumstances that would be oppressive, yes?" Do we have laws that make it illegal to kill another person? Sure do. Is that oppressive? Shouldn't I have the personal choice to decide to kill someone if I want? No, obviously that's ridiculous, almost as ridiculous as your counter-argument here.
"My values suggest that there is no such thing as black and white and that leaving up to the person best able to make that determination is the best course of action." Fallacious for the same reasons noted above.
I'm not playing any cards. Abortion is the purposeful killing of an incipient human life. It should be proscribed except for specific situations.
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why is it ridiculous? It is the flip card of what you're suggesting. You are suggesting that abortions should be illegal. Right? That means that all women would be forced to not have an abortion (I'm assuming, like most people you have exceptions, which makes no sense, but whatever) under almost every circumstance. They are two sides of the same coin and as such, both EQUALLY ridiculous.
And yes, technically, it is an oppressive law to tell someone they can't kill another person. However, the test for that must be whether or not it benefits society. Does it benefit society to have a law that makes it illegal to kill another viable human being? It does. Therefore, although it is oppressive, it must be enforced. Does it benefit society to have hundreds of thousands of babies born to mothers that are forced to have them? I don't think so.
Reply-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No, it is not the flip card to what I said. But, I doubt someone who thinks that having a law that makes murder illegal is "technically oppressive" can see the issue clearly. Lauding personal liberty as exculpatory for abortion on the one hand and then suggesting instead that abortion should be excused as beneficial to society at large suggests an unbalanced view on the subject.
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Explain to me how it isn't the flip card to what you're saying.
Further, explain to me, in small words because you're so much smarter than I am, how what I said is unbalanced in any way.
Does it benefit society to have hundreds of thousands of unwanted children? Does it?
You love to try and shift the subject, but the subject is clear. Either abortion should be wrong under all circumstances because it is taking a human life or it isn't. Full stop.
Anything other than that is hypocrisy.
Reply-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"You love to try and shift the subject, but the subject is clear. Either abortion should be wrong under all circumstances because it is taking a human life or it isn't. Full stop.
Anything other than that is hypocrisy."
WRONG. Abortion should be illegal except for those cases I have consistently cited.
You're just full of contradictions today, bkumm. For someone to say "My values suggest that there is no such thing as black and white" and then say "Either abortion should be wrong under all circumstances because it is taking a human life or it isn't." is beyond comprehension. You don't believe in absolutism, but my argument fails because it isn't absolute. LOL, take a breather and regroup my friend...
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Breather taken.
What I'm saying to you is that if you want abortion to be illegal you are looking at it from a black and white perspective. Either you are for it or not. If you have circumstances where abortion would be legal, then you are pro-choice, not pro-life. If your argument, rather, is based on the idea that an incipient human life is precious and must be protected, then it should be protected under all circumstances. That's what I meant. I apologize if it was unclear.
Your position is not consistent. For instance why can incestuous rape lead to an abortion, but "regular" rape can not? Is it the fault of either child in either circumstance? And if your argument is about genetics then what you're advocating is eugenics. Personally, I think that if a woman chooses to abort a fetus that is somehow badly disabled, that should be her choice. But, you want to put that choice in the hands of the state. I've got a problem with that.
Reply-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And, I'm saying to you, bkumm "No, it is not black and white". It is not inconsistent to permit abortions in limited cases while prohibiting it in general. I've described my views in great detail on this exact subject elsewhere in this thread.
What IS inconsistent is for you to say that you don't believe in "black and white" values, but then to insist my argument fails because it does not frame abortion as a black and white issue. What?
"Either you are for it or you are against it" you say? Wow, sounds a lot like President Bush "Either you are with us or you're against us". I know you're his biggest fan...are you stealing catchphrases from him?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And what is this:
"Abortion is the purposeful killing of an incipient human life. It should be proscribed except for specific situations."
If your argument is that a fetus is a helpless, incipient human life that must be protected under what circumstances would abortion be allowed?
Life of the mother in danger? If you're honest about that, then if the mother is dying from lung cancer and needs a lung transplant, should she take it from her child? Life of the mother is in danger.
If the child is somehow deformed or will have a birth defect? What's the difference between killing them in the womb and dropping them off a cliff after they are born?
Rape? A pregnancy from a rape would be an unwanted pregnancy right? Soooo, logically, if you are willing to concede that an unwanted pregnancy from a rape is acceptable to abort, why not an unwanted pregnancy from an error in judgment?
Reply-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I've stated what I feel are situations in which an abortion would be legal.
Your arguments are ill-advised. A pregnancy that puts the mother's life in danger is not analogous to a mother taking an already-born child's lung against their will (I assume that is what you meant).
"What's the difference between killing them in the womb and dropping them off a cliff after they are born?" Right now, the first is legal (unless beyond legal trimester) and the second is murder.
Rape is an unwanted pregnancy forcibly perpetrated on the woman against her will. An error in judgment is not even remotely similar.
Any further not-really-analogous examples?
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why is it not? Just because you don't find them analogous doesn't mean they aren't.
From what you've said, an incipient human life is precious. So, if that life is precious then what right do we have to take that life to save the life of the mother? If we do have that right, why do we not have the right to do so once the child is born? Your argument is based on the idea that the unborn have rights that are equal to a viable, already born person, if this is the case and we have the right to end the life of the unborn to save the mother, then we have that right once the child is born.
This is why your argument is inconsistent. What I've stated is consistent if you believe that the rights of a person begin at conception. It is only inconsistent if you don't believe that to be the case.
Rape is similar. It's an unwanted pregnancy. An error in judgment can cause an unwanted pregnancy. Same, same. The cause of the pregnancy is different, but not the result.
Reply-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"So, if that life is precious then what right do we have to take that life to save the life of the mother?" Let's not be disingenuous. Each of us have the right to protect our own life. The circumstances wherein trying to carry an unborn to term places the mother at risk of dying are unique. In those cases, if doctors cannot save the child and the women is likely to die, it is her right to save her own life. Once again, not analogous to a woman who decides to abort a child, for example, because she thinks she doesn't have enough money to provide for it.
Reply -
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Your argument is based on the idea that the unborn have rights that are equal to a viable, already born person, if this is the case and we have the right to end the life of the unborn to save the mother, then we have that right once the child is born." My argument is that a woman does not have the right to purposefully end the unborn's life by abortion except in specific cases which I've iterated multiple times. Examine those exceptions. To save her own life and in instances of rape. And, my hope would be that many woman (as Puffin notes elsewhere) choose to keep the babies in cases of rape.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Dicax_Maximus1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
SOTM - I don't often disagree with your mindset, but on this one, I most certainly do.
Try dealing with a 22 year devout catholic who had been raped by her uncle, and whose family wouldn't let her do anything about it !!!
I got to attempt to pick up the pieces....
I also got to be the lucky one who took her to a clinic....
That was not the most wonderful experience of my life, BUT, it DID give HER, her life back.....
Life may indeed be "sacrosanct", BUT, there are times, places & situations when that doesn't hold true. Should the law NOT be flexible (which it isn't) and something is legislated against, it covers ALL situations regardless, unless an exception is written into said law.... Which is rarer than teeth on a chicken !!!
Sorry, but I feel your stance is just wrong, given current legal methodology.
Abortion by "choice" as a method of birth control, no argument, that's simply wrong.
Reply-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Then you misunderstood my mindset, Dicax. Your last sentence is my focus. I've consistently stated that there are situations in which an abortion should be permissible. A blanket prohibition on abortion is not what I'm seeking or suggesting.
There isn't a blanket prohibition on killing someone, either. If you kill someone in self-defense, it's not murder. If a drunk steps out into traffic right in front of you and you can't NOT hit him and he dies, that's not murder or even manslaughter. Context is apparent throughout our laws and would be for laws making abortion illegal as well.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
kedirian1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's kinda odd we work ourselves into all states of excitement over "babies being killed" when we don't rise en masse against the government blithely sending young ALREADY-BORN Americans into a bottomless pit, even though that pit's bottom appears to have 'surged' into view ....
Reply
-
-
Neutral
cherev1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Why should we allow anyone to kill a fetus for convenience?"
Because you can't stop it. People got abortions when it was illegal to do so, remember?
"Is killing an incipient human life really a personal choice? "
Currently, it is. What does it say about our society that we would have individuals in it that view it as "just a choice"? Focus on changing that attitude and you won't have to make abortion illegal.
"It's certainly not a choice once they are born, is it?"
Actually, it's close. We had a case here in NJ a few years ago, where these kids managed to conceal the pregnancy. They went to a hotel and had the baby, then left it to die. They were tried and convicted, but there were a significant number of people who had the attitude that "they were just kids and made a mistake".
The reality is that life isn't always precious to everyone. You can't legislate that attitude away.
Reply-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Because you can't stop it. People got abortions when it was illegal to do so, remember?" Laws against murder don't prevent murders either. Should we abolish those laws?
"Currently, it is. What does it say about our society that we would have individuals in it that view it as "just a choice"? Focus on changing that attitude and you won't have to make abortion illegal." Agreed. But, it should still be illegal.
"they were just kids and made a mistake". Sigh...
Reply-
Neutral
cherev1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Laws against murder don't prevent murders either. Should we abolish those laws? "
No, but abortion is currently legal.
"Agreed. But, it should still be illegal."
Except in cases of rape, right? What else?
""they were just kids and made a mistake". Sigh... "
Agreed, but think for a moment about the people who felt that way. And it wasn't just a few people - there was a vocal movement for leniency based on this...editorials and letters to the editor. That is the society we live in. Scary, isn't it?
Reply-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Cherev, you seem to be focusing on this idea that any instance of permitting abortion would somehow undermine or invalidate having it illegal in any case. A lot of laws have nuances. Being the cause of someone's death may be murder or negligent homicide or no crime at all. Having a law against murder doesn't invalidate capital punishment. My point is that permitting abortions in a few specific situations doesn't invalidate that casual abortions should be illegal.
Reply
-
-
-
AlphaGnosisComment removed: Hard Banned1 Reply
-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 9 months ago
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Why should we allow anyone to kill a fetus for convenience?" You're using 'convenience' as a pejorative here. While I do not doubt there are people who look at an abortion as similar to removing a hangnail, these are the exceptions rather than the rules. Most women agonize over the decision. They may not have the maturity or money to raise a child. They may not have a participatory father. They may be chemically dependant. And yes, they may be thinking of their career first in order to be able to have the family life they want when they want it.
No one will deny an abortion ends a life, but whether that life has 'rights' comes down to a matter of belief about the soul. The current consensus of law places protections on the unborn at the point of viability, when the child can survive outside the mother's womb even (or if there is intention to bring the child to term). Prior to that point, any law prohibiting abortion is making a determination regarding the soul.
Reply-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, I am using convenience as a pejorative and deservedly so.
If "most" women agonize over the decision, why do you think it is such agony?
In all of the cases you mention, what makes it "right" that those things "validate" an abortion?
The doctrine of "viability outside the womb" disregards the basic fact that the fetus will grow into a viable human life if not for the abortion (disregarding natural miscarriage or death during labor). Viability outside the womb imposes an artifical timeline. Isn't it just as ridiculous as saying it would be okay to kill kids 2 and under because they haven't reached a certain arbitrary point in their growth as a human life?
Reply-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your example is ridiculous. The point of viability is not 'arbitrary', but medically determined based on current technologies. If the developing fetus is wholly dependent on the mother, then it is reasonable for medicine and the law to consider it part of her body, subordinate to her wishes, however selfish those wishes may appear. To your point, yes, it is a potential child, yet not a realized one. If 'potentiality' becomes a matter of law, then all birth control should be illegal as well, since, in the absence of the prophylactic, a child is likely to develop. Either that, or all non-procreational coitus should be illegal.
These are painful decisions. Regrets are common. Do you suggest women are incapable of making a moral decision based on their current circumstances, and therefore it is up to the Government to take the decision out of their hands?
In an ideal world, abortions would be an extreme rarity. Not through prohibition, through education and adequate social support.
Reply-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Propeller ate my first reply.
My example IS ridiculous and that was the point. Putting an arbitrary date on when an unborn is "viable outside the womb" is ridiculous. A newborn infant is as dependent on others for its survival as an unborn is to its mother. So, dependence doesn't make an unborn more "expendable" than a newborn.
The point, which you eventually acknowledge and concede is valid, is that the unborn WILL BE a child if the abortion is not permitted (disregarding natural miscarriage or other natural reasons).
Your discussion on "potentiality" ignores conception. Abortion is not birth control.
What I really can't understand is how so many pro-abortion people can find abortion repugnant personally, but want to make it available as a "choice"? Even you, tangent001, see abortion as an extreme rarity in an "ideal" world. Why? Because you don't want it to happen, right? Why not?
Reply-
Neutral
puffin1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Regarding conception and inception:
One of the functions of The Morning After Pill, emergency contraceptive, is that it prevents a fertilized egg from attaching itself to the wall of the uterus. Would you consider a fertilized egg to be an incipient human life?
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
amazed1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
((No one will deny an abortion ends a life))
If you really believe that, you haven't been listening to many of the pro-choice arguments. Many of the arguments that have been used on these threads (and elsewhere) to justify abortion on demand feature some variation of the position that the fetus is "just a lump of tissue" and not "really" alive.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
scott42611 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So are we going to remove the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" from the First Amendment? Would the wall between church and state implicit here finally be ripped to shreds in a Huckabee Administration? More importantly, would EVEN YOU want that?
Truth is, the United States is a pluralistic society. Some choose to NOT even believe in a God. Of those of us who claim faith, the landscape is as diverse as our population (and BTW, NOT ALL people of faith are pro-life. Not all are anti-gay). Do we really want a particular brand of religious belief enshrined in the Constitution? Would EVEN YOU want that?
The U.S. Constitution is fine just as it is.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
markoller1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The idea that fetuses are people was invented by frustrated inquisitors and witch burners. They can no longer burn heretics and witches, so they call abortion murder. This provides an excuse for genuine murder, which is a different thing entirely from the murder of fetuses.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
cherev1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Did Huckabee say that the Constitution should be amended to ensure that everyone is a Christian? No, he said it should be held to God's "standards" rather than changing God's standards to fit the Constitution."
There's a great danger here; who's to say that Huckabee or you are the best judge of what G-D's standards are? Amending the Constitution for any reason needs deep consideration and it would be wise not to say anything that might be misinterpreted.
"abortion should be illegal."
Why? The reality is that, while life should be precious, it's not and we see the evidence of that every day. I'm all for changing people's values by example so that we all agree life is precious but it's not something you can legislate.
"Just because value systems are informed by religious beliefs doesn't mean that those values are invalidated."
We all have to be careful about the slippery slope.
Reply-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree with your first comment. An amendment does need deep consideration. Certainly, they don't come about by Presidential fiat. In fact, the President plays no formal role in the process at all.
Abortion should be illegal because it the purposeful ending of an incipient human life.
Reply-
Neutral
cherev1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"In fact, the President plays no formal role in the process at all."
So what does it say about the wisdom of a presidential candidate who makes statements about modifying it?
"Abortion should be illegal because it the purposeful ending of an incipient human life."
So the death penalty should be illegal as well? I disagree with that. I don't disagree with you about abortion being the purposeful ending of an incipient human life. But, as I said earlier, human life is generally not viewed as precious, all lip service to the contrary notwithstanding.
Reply-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I said the President plays no formal role. The President can certainly support a Constitutional amendment. My point, perhaps not well-stated, is that even though Huckabee makes a comment about Constitutional amendments, he could not simply bring one into being as President through his own "powers".
Don't compare the death penalty to abortion. The unborn has not committed any crimes. The comparison is invalid.
Reply-
Neutral
cherev1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"My point, perhaps not well-stated, is that even though Huckabee makes a comment about Constitutional amendments, he could not simply bring one into being as President through his own "powers". "
Again, where is the wisdom in saying anything about it?
"Don't compare the death penalty to abortion. The unborn has not committed any crimes. The comparison is invalid."
Although I agree that the unborn hasn't committed any crime, if we take the attitude that "human life is precious" then the comparison is indeed valid. It is only when you qualify that statement that the comparison becomes invalid. And once you qualify it, you've undermined it.
Reply-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Human life is precious, especially innocent, helpless, unborn life. I do not agree that there is any comparison between abortion and the death penalty. Executing someone for having comitted heinous crimes in no way validates abortion.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
Tangent0011 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
More to the point, the President nominates justices to the Supreme Court. It seems likely Huckabee would nominate those who share his Domionist/Reconstructionist leanings. Again, the Supreme Court cannot rewrite the Constitution, but they can 'interpret' it based on their personal religious convictions.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
cherev1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I have a daughter. If, G-D forbid, she was raped, got pregnant, and wanted an abortion so she wouldn't give birth to her rapist's child, I would support her decision. It is true that I would be participating in purposefully ending an incipient human life, but my daughter's life is much more precious to me.
Under President Huckabee, what would happen? Would my daughter be forced to bear the child and then given the option of giving it up for adoption? What if the mental strain during those 9 months was too severe for her to bear and she did something unspeakable so as to end her life and the life of the unborn child?
Do you really feel it's as cut and dried as you're making it out to be?
Reply-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 9 months ago
-
Neutral
IcCaRus1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
one problem with that tang.... if the only way a girl could have an abortion was to cry rape, trust me, theyd cry rape...
i guarantee you that under laws like your suggestion, the numbers of "rapes" committed in america yearly would increase 10,000% ....
carried to the next logical step, the number of young men who were convicted of rape, when there was no rape, would skyrocket.
Reply-
-
Neutral
IcCaRus1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
has nothing to do with self respect... has to do with the fact that if they couldnt get an abortion w/o it being rape, MANY would claim it was rape.
many, many girls have abortions without their parents ever finding out. they dont tell their parents because they fear the parents reaction. god help them if the father happens to be of the wrong race or religion... etc, etc, etc. i could type for hours on the sheer naivety of your response, but i fear id be beating a dead horse.
all i can say is, if you dont believe that "rape" rates and wrongful "rape" convictions would skyrocket, then you very naive.
Reply-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I really can't believe that women would cry rape just to get an abortion. How can people agree with that and at the same time say that women don't use abortion as birth control?
That's another thing, minors cannot sign legal documents. So how can a 15 year old girl legally sign the paperwork to have an abortion? That should be stopped too.
Even if you don't think it's about self respect, you can't argue that they would not be immoral and indecent. Right? So, now I will ask, how can someone have self respect and be immoral and indecent at the same time? The only answer is if they are a sociopath. And if that's the case, then they don't respect themselves anyway because they are not capable of doing so.
Reply-
Neutral
IcCaRus1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
tang-
there is a very basic flaw to your logic.
you are assuming that every1 thinks like you do. trust me, they dont. which are you calling immoral and indecent? women who have unprotected sex? stupid, yes, but immoral? or are you calling abortions themselves immoral and indecent? if so, trust me, there are MANY women who disagree with you, the proof is all the abortions that happen yearly.
this whole argument right here ---> " Even if you don't think it's about self respect, you can't argue that they would not be immoral and indecent. Right?"... is ALL based on YOUR values. not every1 agrees with your morals. in fact, there are MANY women who would be very insulted by your calling them immoral and indecent.
i think its immoral and indecent that people STILL support Bush, even after all the lies, all the cronyism and corruption, not to mention all the dead based on LIES. hes killed more people than any abortion doc could in a lifetime. now THATS immoral and indecent
Reply-
Neutral
IcCaRus1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
also, its not just teens that dont want mom and dad to know theyre pregnant. my ex was 18 when we found out. and we decided we were going to abort. and even tho she was not a minor, and needed NO parental consent, we were not going to tell her devout catholic parents about it. she would have been kicked out of the family. you may say, well thats just her family, but again, trust me, thats a LOT of families. as it was we had the baby, shes now 20, and in college.
her family wanted the whole catholic thing and i was gonna go for it, lessons, conversion, the whole bit. but then the priest told us 1. we couldnt be married in a cath church (cuz of sex b4 marrige) 2. baby would not be baptized/christened in cath church 3. baby could NEVER be admitted to heaven, because of OUR sins. i was never more proud of my ex as i was when she told that priest to kiss her a$$
Reply -
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think you misunderstood what I said. I am not calling them immoral for having sex, I was saying that if they had an abortion behind their husbands back that they would be immoral.
Also when I was talking about teenagers, I was not saying that they don't want to tell their parents, but that they should have to. A minor cannot sign legal documents. So how can they sign for an abortion? That is my argument there. Not that they don't want to.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
IcCaRus1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
yeah, now THERES a godly person. lets murder someone, because they murdered someone. people who kill abortion doctors are just as much murderers as they believe the doctors are.
and those that do kill abortion doctors, thinking they are headed for some great reward in the hereafter are NO DIFFERENT than those who murder for the promise of 72 virgins. and those who "cheer from the sidelines" are cheering murder. something tells me they wont be well received by st peter either.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
puffin1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
More than 32,000 pregnancies result from rape every year
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/SV/svp-consequence...
and you would force those women to carry those pregnancies to term?
Nice one.
Reply-
Neutral
Bkumm1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's what Huckabee would do. Why? Because he believes that's what they should do. They don't have the values to make a good decision so Huckabee (and the 37 States that ratified the No Abortions Under Any Circumstances Amendment) will impose his values on them.
Reply -
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 9 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Is it the unborn's fault? Should they have to pay the price for the rapist's crime?
I would support, without qualification, abortion in cases of incestuous rape. I would support, with qualification, abortion in cases of non-incestuous rape. The qualification being that the woman receives state-paid counseling for a brief period of time to discuss the pros and cons of an abortion. The choice would remain with the woman. It would not be contingent on the counselor in any way.
Reply
-
-
-
-
loading ...
