The Town Hall Archives

Sydney Bristow Vaughn

Now with Clinton out of the way, who knows? Everyone, go stalk your House Representative. Wink

Jared · Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2003 1:08 pm Post subject:

Okay, let's just phone or email them instead of stalking them! :)

Really, DO write your representative an email! You WILL get a reply and they DO note how many people write in to support and oppose bills.

If you know your representative's email address, use it. If not, you'll probably find it on your representative's website, which you can locate from the drop-down menu at www.house.gov

Barring that, you can use this form: http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Ask your representative to support the ban of partial-birth abortion! The tough part is done -- getting it past the Senate. And by a substantial 64-33 margin, no less! The House should be easy -- but don't take chances. Write to your congressman. The bill in question is H.R. 760, the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

If it passes the House, as I believe it will, President Bush is sure to sign it.

One thing to mention if you write: By a narrow margin (52-45), the Senate included an amendment to the partial-birth abortion bill that states that the Senate affirms the necessity of abortion. Now, this is non-binding. It means absolutely nothing. (Abortion's already legal and a bare majority of Senators saying they like it that way doesn't truly matter.) But it's wrong. And Congress should not affirm it to be otherwise.

After the House passes the bill, the House and Senate have to meet jointly to go over any differences between the bills. If you write to your representative, why not ask him to work to strike down this amended provision?

And... praise the Lord! It's a small step, but it's a long-awaited one. Partial-birth abortion may soon come to an end!

DrBlackgaard · Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2003 2:10 pm Post subject:

Praise God! Smile

E87M2 · Senior Member Joined: 11 Jan 2003 Posts: 1106

That is wonderful! Keep praying... Smile

smurfs · Guest

Who came up with the idea of haveing an abortion in the first place *Ill kill the guy*

Jared · Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2003 8:41 pm Post subject:

I know you weren't serious when you said that, but some unfortunately are, not quite realizing that killing an abortionist is still murder... and murder is the whole thing that we want to stop here!

Those few who have decided that murder is okay in dealing with abortionists have really given the entire pro-life movement a bad name... after all, it is MURDER...

As for who legalized abortion nationally, well, that would be the Supreme Court justices who were on the bench in 1973.. and when it was challenged in 1993.

Currently, Justices Breyer, Souter, Kennedy, Ginsburg, O'Connor and Stevens are in favor of abortion on demand, while Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Thomas and Scalia are strongly opposed to the terrible practice. O'Connor and Rehnquist are widely expected to retire this year. If they do and President Bush replaces both with conservatives, there would be a net gain of one pro-life vote (Rehnquist's chair would be retained for the position and O'Connor's would swing pro-life). Then, it's a 5-4 court in favor of abortion... the gap closing.

And John Paul Stevens is in his eighties. While he does not want to retire during Bush's administration as he wants to be replaced by a liberal, if Bush is reelected, he will have little choice. So, if Bush makes good nominations (and it is imperative that he does), Roe could be overturned during his presidency.

Could be.

But the key thing here is that he doesn't do what so many Republican presidents have done before him and nominate a "moderate" (which is, of course, a liberal in sheep's clothing). John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor were all appointed by Republicans... but notice anything strange about them? Yep... they all are in the pro-abortion column. Seven of the nine justices on the court are GOP appointees, but because of presidents afraid to make a tough pick that will cause fights and filibusters (and one complete surprise in "stealth nominee" David Souter), we have a liberal, pro-choice (to murder unborn children) court.

That's why Bush needs to be looking past his friend Gonzales and on to more conservative justices. On the campaign trail, he cited Scalia and Thomas as his favorite justices. When it comes time to do so, I hope he picks men (and women) that all conservatives can be proud to number among their favorites on the bench.

The Top Crusader · Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2003 8:48 pm Post subject:

To play the abortionist killer advocate...

Is it wrong to kill a person if you know for a fact that they have killed other innocent people, and will continue to do so, never facing legal action?

You see a guy shoot some innocent people along the street... he goes on and is reloading his gun... you can stop him from killing more. Wouldn't that be the right thing to do?

Jared · Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2003 8:59 pm Post subject:

It is not our job to carry out judgment... that's up to the law. And unfortunately, the law allows this atrocity.

You bring up a tough argument. But consider this, and I know it's not a great argument, but this isn't an issue I've debated much:

If a man is reloading in order to shoot another man and you kill man number one before he can kill man number two, you have saved a life.

If you kill an abortionist, you haven't stopped any deaths... any women who wanted an abortion will just go find another abortionist.

It's a weak argument, I know... as I said, it's not something I really have debated. I just know that taking a life here is murder and doesn't save any other lives... It's definitely the wrong thing to do.

The Top Crusader · Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2003 9:59 pm Post subject:

Well, it may be "illegal" but wouldn't it fall under law of man VS law of God? At that point it becomes something you can't ignore. And, true... there ARE other abortionists to go to, but the more that are strung up in the streets, the fewer doctors will be doing it, and women willing to go. Scare tactics, sure, but if it saves innocent lives...

Again, I'm just sort of giving the other view... I'm not a psychotic killer...

Twisted Evil

Gandalf · Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2003 10:41 pm Post subject:

Interesting discussion here. I would have to say that the Bible never says you are to kill/stop potential killers (as far as I can remember), therefore, I don't think you can back up the abortion doctor killing stance on that view. The Bible also states that it is wrong to rebel against ANY God given authority unless they tell you to do something that is against God's law.

Here's where the differences come in now. Legal precedent (SP?) states that it is NOT illegal to kill someone trying to murder others. In some states, there are actually laws that say that if you had the chance to stop the murderer and didn't then you can be charged as an accomplice.

I personally think that the Bible teaches that taking the life of ANYONE is a very last resort. If there are absolutely no other ways to save the potential victims and you are sure they will be saved if you take action, then it's morally right for you to kill the killer. However, I think the best thing to do would be to try to stop him by knocking him out, getting the gun away from him, etc. and allowing the government to deal with him (yes, even though he may not get the justice we think he deserves).

I would probably say that the above, coupled with the fact that you really aren't saving any more lives by killing an abortion doctor but only killing one more, make an okay case for what the differences are.