The most atrocious holocaust in the history of the United States

That quote is included in this brief wikipedia bio of Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the founders of NARAL and a former abortion doctor. And yes, Dr. Nathanson, who stopped doing abortions on MORAL grounds, and later became a Christian - did believe that the pro-life stance is morally superior to the kill-the-bablies-at-will stance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Nathanson

I didn't realize until recently that Dr. Nathanson had passed away last year. It took a great man to ADMIT wrong, and then spend so much of his life fighting the evil of abortion. You never saw him on the View chatting with Barbara Walters who is proudly pro-abortion. You never saw Diane Sawyer interview him, nor Katie Couric. Because they are not concerned with broadcasting truth - they broadcast only their agenda, which agenda factors out God at every turn.

RIP Dr. Nathanson.

No votes yet

... that I had not seen before today:

http://catholicexchange.com/the-best-kind-of-abortionist/

Sorry there, FG, but you're only a person if you're born alive, which includes C-section at the appropriate time. Our national Constitution implies this by conferring citizenship upon birth, not pregnancy.

Before then, you're just a part of a woman's body, and she may do with you as she pleases, subject to medical law. You can be excised, hence aborted.

Stop running ahead of the game by defining a fetus or blastula as a person. There's no such real definition of such in the law of the United States. Even following the federal model, states should not overturn that definition. But at worst, if the SCOTUS got all weak sister on us and left it to the states to determine (which again should not be the case, since states can't determine national citizenship), then each state can decide. And Ohio has decided, with some restrictions (it gets rather confusing; smells like lawyers in there).

But I can make you the following absolute guarantee:

Scripture says there are 2 final judgements in our future. The Judgment Seat of Christ, which will involve Christian believers only (yes, we are going to face our Saviour to account for our lives, redeemed though we may be)

and the Great White Throne Judgement - which will be for non-believers, where we are told in Revelation "the books" will be opened.

At either judgment, I can absolutely guarantee you that you will not face a Holy God and defend - in any way, including your above post - the murders of the unborn. I guarantee you, when face to face with your Creator, you will not utter a word in defense of these baby murders.

Get government out of this issue entirely. Let the final judgment reign! And pray for all of the lost souls like me and GZ. It is, as you say, "an absolute guarantee." Don't foist your religious beliefs onto the rest of us here on earth. If you're right, we'll pay dearly for all eternity!! You'll be in heaven with all of those souls of the aborted! You get the last (VERY LONG) laugh!
Congratulations!

Because nobody in their right mind would deny that these are human babies:

http://www.100abortionpictures.com/Aborted_Baby_Pictures_Abortion_Photos/

There's also no logic in your stance, because government is always involved in murder (as in against the law). The only murders for which a special [godless] exemption has been made - is the murder of the unborn - little babies who cannot defend themselves or run away before they are pulled to pieces or burned to death with saline solution, or worse (again, see above photos, if you have the guts). You are very conveniently ignoring anything Dr. Nathanson has revealed. He came to the understanding that abortion was murder while he was still an atheist.

The very idea that you know more than, just for starters, Norma McCorvey (the "Roe" in Roe v Wade), Dr. Nathanson, and God Himself on the topic of killing the unborn, is ludicrous on its face.

See, your problem with wanting the God-fearing to be quiet in public about right and wrong is this. I, personally, would like Diane Sawyer, Barbara Walters, and Katie Couric , et al., to shut up, too. Their views are disgusting to me, and they have a very unfair advantage of access to the public airwaves. BUT - that's not the way it works. They have free will, granted by God (as are our inalienable rights in this country, as mentioned in our founding documents). They also have the legal right to present their views in the public square - as do I, and all other believing Christians. As a further example, it would have been pleasant for me if Katie Couric, for one, had not "foisted" her godless views on the tv-viewing public during the 2008 election campaign - but "foist" she did, because she has the God-given and legal right to do so.

In other words, what you are really saying is that you do not want to view pictures that will challenge your liberal views, and you do not want to hear the truth from a former abortion doctor that will challenge your views. Well, nobody is forcing you out of your personal pop-culture-inspired cocoon. But challenge I will, now and in future. I pray for you, btw, I don't laugh at the misguided.

One last item. There is a common misconception that scripture does not speak to the issue of the unborn. Not so:

(Jeremiah 1:4 & 5):

"Then the word of the Lord came on to me, saying, Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."

I believe in the "wall of separation" between religion and government first articulated by Thomas Jefferson. Obviously, you do not. The Founding Fathers were very well educated by standards of the time. They knew history well, especially the history of Europe, and European history was dripping with the blood let during religious wars. Many of the ancestors of the Founding Fathers came to America precisely to be able to practice religion without government interference. FG -- compared to our Founders, you're about 220 years behind!
On the other hand, not only do I support your right to practice your religion the way you want. Not only do I not want you to "be quiet in public" about your religious views, I encourage you to articulate your views. I am willing to literally fight to the death your right to hold and express these views. I do not support limiting your freedom of speech in this area.
Now, what I don't like. I don't like your wanting federal laws which reflect your religious views. I don't like your speaking for all Christians, when you speak for many, but probably not even a majority of Christians, at least on the topic of abortion. I do believe that you speak for a majority of Catholics on this issue, but a majority of Protestants, especially those who do not identify themselves as "fundamentalist," or, "born again," support a pro-choice position.
I am not going to debate Christian scripture with you. That is not the point of my posts. My grandparents came to America primarily to escape The Pograms in the Russia of their times. They wanted to practice their religion without government interference. You want government interference in religion, but only the way you want it. I can never support that. Neither could Jefferson, and most of the other Founding Fathers.
About abortion, once again, I articulate my personal opposition to abortion. Even though my opposition is based, not on religion, but on physiology, I may feel as strongly about it as do you. Unlike you, I do not feel morally superior to anyone on this issue. I understand that others have a right to hold a different view on this very controversial issue. Furthermore, you totally ignore the issue of rich folks ALWAYS being able to get abortions, even when abortions were outlawed in this country. This is a big deal to me. Why should the rich have rights that common folks do not?

You make it too easy Dale.

First of all, I didn't ask you or anyone else to "debate Christian scripture". I simply post what I know to be the truth. It is my right (at least for the time being) to state my views in the public square. That is what you can't handle - hearing any unapologetic views that oppose your own. You characterize that as "foisting" my views on you. And yet, all I'm doing is what liberals do on tv [the PUBLIC airwaves] all the time. How come they get to "foist" if you want to use that word.? How come YOU get to "foist"??

The pictures, of course, speak for themselves, and you do not address them because you CANNOT address them, because the horrors speak for themselves. In the face of the pictures of actual murdered babies, you have no answer. You also cannot address or "top" anything Dr. Nathanson has had to say, or any truths he has told about the lies and duplicity of NARAL, for instance. Again - he understood that abortion was murder while still an atheist. You conveniently ignore that fact, and seek to make yourself look MORALLY SUPERIOR to anyone who tries to protect these babies, and/or who fears God.

What you do is try to make yourself look "saintly" - a liberal debate ploy that dates back decades in debating anything regarding abortion [the killing of the unborn].

The only way I could summarize your views would be something like:

****If mothers want to kill their babies, then they should be able to kill their babies, and people who claim that this is ungodly (in other words God disapproves of murder) are bad people, because God and morality have nothing to do with murder, and liberals should never be reminded that there are moral absolutes. (It hurts our little feelings to be reminded that we are siding with evil.)***

Sorry Dale, but we live in a MORAL universe. Time & space prohibit enumerating all our laws that trace back to scripture... but, for example, our anti-murder laws can be traced right back to the 10 Commandments. It's God who taught us that adultery is wrong. Any number of legal precedents in divorce cases are based on adultery being a sin. Why is Jerry Sandusky in prison? Because what he did is evil and wrong. Why would you personally (as would I) want anyone who harmed you or a family member prosecuted? Because deliberate harm to you by another human being would be MORALLY WRONG. Otherwise, why call the criminal to account? If what he/she does is not MORALLY WRONG???

We live in a moral universe, whether you like it or not. Whether the pictures of dead babies offend you or not (when it's their murders that should offend you in the first place). Again, nobody is forcing you out of your liberal-pop-culture-inspired cocoon. But, again, y ou don't get to tell others what to "not talk about". I mean, seriously, you were a teacher in the public schools. Grow up.

You clearly don't understand what the word "guarantee" means.

But I guarantee that I go through each day without care for what's printed in the Bible, Koran, Talmud, Upanishads, or the writings of the Buddha or the practices of Shinto. I'm sure something's written inside the holy writ of Stephen King that condemns me, but it's equally unimposing on my life. According to his Pet Semetary, chapter 4, paragraph 7, for my sins I will be brought back to hellish life in some arcane graveyard to stumble around like a zombie, but in practice this has never happened to anyone, ever, so there's nothing to actually worry about.

expressing yourself fully in any public or private forum you choose, FG? When I used the word "foist" it was in reference to your wanting to make your strongly held religious views into law. If, in the public forum, your view on this issue becomes dominant and the majority of Americans want laws which reflect that, it will happen. That's how democracy works. That's how we use our freedom of speech to influence others. I have great concern with religiosity as a basis for making laws in this country. So did Thomas Jefferson, and most of the other Founding Fathers. You seek to tear down the "wall of separation" between church and state which they and I believe to be so important. That's foisting your religion on to others, FG!

Are you the last person on America who doesn't know that Jefferson's "wall" which the left has been pretending means something it doesn't, since the 1940's - was an assurance by Jefferson to one church denomination that another church denomination would not be the official church of the U.S.?? Seriously, you haven't gotten that memo yet?

This is my last answer to you on this thread (although I WILL continue to post on the evils of abortion in future). You haven't provided one scintilla of evidence or logic on why some murders, in your opinion are ok, and other murders are not o.k,. You certainly have not demonstrated that godless or secular views are superior to godly views. Not once. You are just going around in circles, snatching at any goofy liberal dogma you have heard on tv, to try to prove the unprovable. Demonstrating deference to those who wish to kill babies, but no compassion for those murdered babies is completely irrational. But you have a legal right to be irrational. You DO NOT have the right to tell me or anyone else what I may or may not say. So get over it.

You can have the last useless word on this thread - no problem, doesn't bother me. But you WILL still be wrong, and abortion WILL still be murder.

want to say. Your statement to me that, "You DO NOT have the right to tell me or anyone else what I may or may not say," is ludicrous. In fact, I have stated clearly that I would fight to the death for your right to say or write whatever you want to say or write wherever you wish to say or write it. Now, if you're equating free speech with enacting laws based upon your religious beliefs, you have a serious problem.

For the record, here is the complete statement Jefferson made about the separation of church and state. You have a right to disagree with Jefferson's position, but I will leave it up to those who read it here to decide what was Jefferson's intent.
"Believing like you that religion is a matter which resides solely between a man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
Again, for the record, these words were in a letter responding to a religious leader about why Jefferson felt that it was wrong to do, as Washington and Adams had done, and declare national days of fasting and thanksgiving. Jefferson felt that such declarations would violate the "wall of separation" between church and state.
FG -- If your Catholic faith is so strong that you want Catholic doctrine to be adopted as law, I respectfully suggest that you move to one of the innumerable nations which have the Catholic Church as its official church and official religion. I truly believe that you would be much more comfortable in a country where your and their religious views also comprise the laws of the land. A multi-cultural state just doesn't seem to fit you well.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.