PDA

View Full Version : Obama on His Faith and Abortion



Pendragon
02-23-2012, 04:10 PM
What our deliberative, pluralistic democracy demands is that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals must be subject to argument and amenable to reason. If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons and seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or invoke God's will and expect that argument to carry the day. If I want others to listen to me, then I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1546298,00.html#ixzz1nEuBJKvv

Some of you gentlemen could serve with a refresher concerning the freedoms of religion which your Founders held so dear.

wingrider
02-23-2012, 04:15 PM
well lets see, how do you stand on scientific evidence.??

try this:

When Does Human Life Begin? & When Does a New Individual Being Come Into Existence? Gregory KouklIn some of your studies you might have heard about some gentlemen named Spallenzini, Louis Pasteur, or Reddy. These were nineteenth century scientists who developed a notion called the Law of Biogenesis.
How do you know when life begins? Clearly what is in there is alive, it is not dead. So the question of when life begins is kind of a non- question because there is no end of life. Mom and Dad get together. One contributes a sperm, the other an egg. Both the sperm and the egg are alive. The sperm and egg get together and form a zygote. The zygote is alive. There is no death at any point. There is continuous life from beginning to end, so the question isn't when does a thing become alive. There is life throughout.
The question is: When does a new individual being come into existence?

This always happens at the point of fertilization because at the point of fertilization something remarkable takes place. In the case of human beings, an egg with 23 chromosomes unites with a sperm with 23 chromosomes and creates a zygote with--guess what—46 chromosomes. Not all the chromosomes of the mother, not all the chromosomes of the father, but a unique chromosomal match. In other words, at that point, by scientific assessment, we have a living thing that does not have the chromosomal makeup of either of his parents, but a combination of the two. In other words, it has its own unique chromosomal pattern of 46 chromosomes that are its own as a living being. That's how we know the zygote is not mom and is not dad. It is something different and it is alive. If it is alive, and it is not mom and is not dad, it must be a separate organism--living in mom, sure enough, but a separate living entity. It is a living being.
So it is always alive. Sperm and egg are alive. The zygote is alive. But the zygote is not the same as the sperm and the egg. That is why every single biological textbook that deals with the origin of life, the beginning of biological life, will identify the beginning of individual life at the time of conception. That's when individual life does begin for these reasons.
•For example: “The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte form the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote. In preparation for fertilization, both make and female germ cells undergo meosis and cytodifferentiation.” Source:T.W. Sadler, Langman’s Medical Embryology (London:Williams & Wilkins, 1995)pp.3-4
•All life comes from life and all life reproduces after its own kind. Mommy and Daddy are human beings. They reproduce another individual thing. It is a living being. The question is what kind of being is it? Answer: According to the Law of Biogenesis, it is a human being. Why? Because Mom and Dad can't produce any other kind of being.
By using biology, laws of science, and some fairly straight-forward common-sense, to point out that an unborn child at every stage of its development is a separate individual human being from its parents, even though it is domiciled in its mother.
•Now the question becomes, how do we treat human beings? If we are poor, do we kill human beings so they don't strain our economy?
•You said, "Why don't you believe in birth control and stuff like that? Well, I personally believe in contraception. I believe in population control. But the question is, how do we control the population? Is it legitimate for us to kill existing human beings to control the population? My response is no. We have a moral obligation to care for existing human beings as best we can when they are here. Before they are here we can prevent them from coming into existence, but once they are in existence--whether they are a two- year-old child or a two-day-old zygote--we still have a living human. Therefore, we have a responsibility to protect them

http://realweb.ifastnet.com/articles/lifebegin.html

now I am not a proponent of murder ( which is what abortion really is) but in Obamas case,, yeah his momma should have exercised that option

Mister D
02-23-2012, 04:21 PM
What our deliberative, pluralistic democracy demands is that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals must be subject to argument and amenable to reason. If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons and seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or invoke God's will and expect that argument to carry the day. If I want others to listen to me, then I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1546298,00.html#ixzz1nEuBJKvv

Some of you gentlemen could serve with a refresher concerning the freedoms of religion which your Founders held so dear.



Some of you clowns need to retire this strawman. Opposition need not and often does not have anything to do with religion.