Hillary, abortion and the vote.

[Tarheel Baptist]

https://stream.org/since-god-hates-shedding-innocent-blood-can-christian-vote-hillary/?utm_source=https%3A%2F%2Fstream.org%2Freligious-economic-freedom-stand-fall-together%2F&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_term=Newsfeed&utm_content=original+content+&utm_campaign=christianvoteforhillary

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I am opposed to abortion. I am more pro-life than most on this forum because I believe ALL human life is sacred, including those of terrorists and serial killers.

In all honesty, I didn't read the article but did skim over it. It seems to me the problem with this guy's stance (in the eyes of Evangelical Christians) is the term "innocent". If mankind is born "guilty", there is no "innocent" life. David claimed he himself was conceived "in sin".

Another problem is how the abortion rates have dropped under the Obama administration. We obviously don't know what KHillary will do but if you go by party, the Dems have done more to reduce abortion despite their support of legalization. Republicans had the chance to fight Roe v. Wade when they had the majority in Obama's second term, but it was the REPUBLICANS who backed out.

A third problem is that many Dems are opposed to the death penalty, which is also a "pro-life" stance.

So for this guy to judge Christians who vote for Hillary based solely on a "pro-life" stance is ridiculous.

And I WILL NOT be voting for Hillary.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I am opposed to abortion. I am more pro-life than most on this forum because I believe ALL human life is sacred, including those of terrorists and serial killers.

In all honesty, I didn't read the article but did skim over it. It seems to me the problem with this guy's stance (in the eyes of Evangelical Christians) is the term "innocent". If mankind is born "guilty", there is no "innocent" life. David claimed he himself was conceived "in sin".

Another problem is how the abortion rates have dropped under the Obama administration. We obviously don't know what KHillary will do but if you go by party, the Dems have done more to reduce abortion despite their support of legalization. Republicans had the chance to fight Roe v. Wade when they had the majority in Obama's second term, but it was the REPUBLICANS who backed out.

A third problem is that many Dems are opposed to the death penalty, which is also a "pro-life" stance.

So for this guy to judge Christians who vote for Hillary based solely on a "pro-life" stance is ridiculous.

And I WILL NOT be voting for Hillary.

Of course not reading the article doesn't stop you from posting disagreement with it....it being what you didn't read. You really are a good low information democrat.

To credit Obama with low abortion rates is akin to crediting a rooster's crowing for the sunrise...and you know it. But straw grasping is what you must resort to to defend the indefensible. Plus, you don't know what you're talking about.

http://www.lifenews.com/2016/06/27/obama-threatens-to-veto-bill-to-combat-zika-virus-because-it-doesnt-fund-planned-parenthood/

And you don't see the irony in democrats not wanting to punish rapists and murders with the death penalty while seeking to fund killing INNOCENTS, DEFENSELESS unborn babies. Your ignorant reference to being conceived in sin is not only ignorant but reprehensible....

You really are a naive, low information, desperate, liberal socialist democrat apologist.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I am opposed to abortion. I am more pro-life than most on this forum because I believe ALL human life is sacred, including those of terrorists and serial killers.

In all honesty, I didn't read the article but did skim over it. It seems to me the problem with this guy's stance (in the eyes of Evangelical Christians) is the term "innocent". If mankind is born "guilty", there is no "innocent" life. David claimed he himself was conceived "in sin".

Another problem is how the abortion rates have dropped under the Obama administration. We obviously don't know what KHillary will do but if you go by party, the Dems have done more to reduce abortion despite their support of legalization. Republicans had the chance to fight Roe v. Wade when they had the majority in Obama's second term, but it was the REPUBLICANS who backed out.

A third problem is that many Dems are opposed to the death penalty, which is also a "pro-life" stance.

So for this guy to judge Christians who vote for Hillary based solely on a "pro-life" stance is ridiculous.

And I WILL NOT be voting for Hillary.

Of course not reading the article doesn't stop you from posting disagreement with it....it being what you didn't read. You really are a good low information democrat.

To credit Obama with low abortion rates is akin to crediting a rooster's crowing for the sunrise...and you know it. But straw grasping is what you must resort to to defend the indefensible.

http://www.lifenews.com/2016/06/27/obama-threatens-to-veto-bill-to-combat-zika-virus-because-it-doesnt-fund-planned-parenthood/

And you don't see the irony in democrats not wanting to punish rapists and murders with the death penalty while seeking to fund killing INNOCENTS, DEFENSELESS unborn babies. Your ignorant reference to being conceived in sin is not only ignorant but reprehensible....

You really are a naive, low information, desperate, liberal socialist democrat apologist.

Nope. Calling it out as it really is. BOTH parties are equally as abhorrent when it comes to life. BOTH parties are equally anti-life, just using different means.

I choose to get off the "vote pro-life" high-horse because it isn't a legitimate "pro-life" issue.

And concerning rapists, murderers, etc., I thought you believe that "ALL lives matter"? I guess not. Only those you deem to see fit; i.e., "innocent". (Again, I thought ALL have sinned so ALL are guilty? So you throw out your Evangelical dogma when it comes to politics? Of course you do.)

Not to mention "collateral damage" of "innocents" overseas. Bomb the heck out of them! Kids and wives of terrorists! Elderly, infants! Who cares? They shouldn't live in a country we want to bomb.

You are not pro-life. NOT pro-life. You may be anti-abortion but NOT pro-life.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I am opposed to abortion. I am more pro-life than most on this forum because I believe ALL human life is sacred, including those of terrorists and serial killers.

In all honesty, I didn't read the article but did skim over it. It seems to me the problem with this guy's stance (in the eyes of Evangelical Christians) is the term "innocent". If mankind is born "guilty", there is no "innocent" life. David claimed he himself was conceived "in sin".

Another problem is how the abortion rates have dropped under the Obama administration. We obviously don't know what KHillary will do but if you go by party, the Dems have done more to reduce abortion despite their support of legalization. Republicans had the chance to fight Roe v. Wade when they had the majority in Obama's second term, but it was the REPUBLICANS who backed out.

A third problem is that many Dems are opposed to the death penalty, which is also a "pro-life" stance.

So for this guy to judge Christians who vote for Hillary based solely on a "pro-life" stance is ridiculous.

And I WILL NOT be voting for Hillary.

Of course not reading the article doesn't stop you from posting disagreement with it....it being what you didn't read. You really are a good low information democrat.

To credit Obama with low abortion rates is akin to crediting a rooster's crowing for the sunrise...and you know it. But straw grasping is what you must resort to to defend the indefensible.

http://www.lifenews.com/2016/06/27/obama-threatens-to-veto-bill-to-combat-zika-virus-because-it-doesnt-fund-planned-parenthood/

And you don't see the irony in democrats not wanting to punish rapists and murders with the death penalty while seeking to fund killing INNOCENTS, DEFENSELESS unborn babies. Your ignorant reference to being conceived in sin is not only ignorant but reprehensible....

You really are a naive, low information, desperate, liberal socialist democrat apologist.

Nope. Calling it out as it really is. BOTH parties are equally as abhorrent when it comes to life. BOTH parties are equally anti-life, just using different means.

I choose to get off the "vote pro-life" high-horse because it isn't a legitimate "pro-life" issue.

And concerning rapists, murderers, etc., I thought you believe that "ALL lives matter"? I guess not. Only those you deem to see fit; i.e., "innocent". (Again, I thought ALL have sinned so ALL are guilty? So you throw out your Evangelical dogma when it comes to politics? Of course you do.)

Not to mention "collateral damage" of "innocents" overseas. Bomb the heck out of them! Kids and wives of terrorists! Elderly, infants! Who cares? They shouldn't live in a country we want to bomb.

You are not pro-life. NOT pro-life. You may be anti-abortion but NOT pro-life.

You really claiming moral equivalence for convicted rapists and murderers in the criminal justice system and INNOCENT, HELPLESS unborn babies? Are you really claiming the same for those killed in war?
Your 'conceived in sin...no one is innocent' reference is ignorant and reprehensible by the way.

I guess Lenin was right, after all.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

I am opposed to abortion. I am more pro-life than most on this forum because I believe ALL human life is sacred, including those of terrorists and serial killers.

In all honesty, I didn't read the article but did skim over it. It seems to me the problem with this guy's stance (in the eyes of Evangelical Christians) is the term "innocent". If mankind is born "guilty", there is no "innocent" life. David claimed he himself was conceived "in sin".

Another problem is how the abortion rates have dropped under the Obama administration. We obviously don't know what KHillary will do but if you go by party, the Dems have done more to reduce abortion despite their support of legalization. Republicans had the chance to fight Roe v. Wade when they had the majority in Obama's second term, but it was the REPUBLICANS who backed out.

A third problem is that many Dems are opposed to the death penalty, which is also a "pro-life" stance.

So for this guy to judge Christians who vote for Hillary based solely on a "pro-life" stance is ridiculous.

And I WILL NOT be voting for Hillary.

Of course not reading the article doesn't stop you from posting disagreement with it....it being what you didn't read. You really are a good low information democrat.

To credit Obama with low abortion rates is akin to crediting a rooster's crowing for the sunrise...and you know it. But straw grasping is what you must resort to to defend the indefensible.

http://www.lifenews.com/2016/06/27/obama-threatens-to-veto-bill-to-combat-zika-virus-because-it-doesnt-fund-planned-parenthood/

And you don't see the irony in democrats not wanting to punish rapists and murders with the death penalty while seeking to fund killing INNOCENTS, DEFENSELESS unborn babies. Your ignorant reference to being conceived in sin is not only ignorant but reprehensible....

You really are a naive, low information, desperate, liberal socialist democrat apologist.

Nope. Calling it out as it really is. BOTH parties are equally as abhorrent when it comes to life. BOTH parties are equally anti-life, just using different means.

I choose to get off the "vote pro-life" high-horse because it isn't a legitimate "pro-life" issue.

And concerning rapists, murderers, etc., I thought you believe that "ALL lives matter"? I guess not. Only those you deem to see fit; i.e., "innocent". (Again, I thought ALL have sinned so ALL are guilty? So you throw out your Evangelical dogma when it comes to politics? Of course you do.)

Not to mention "collateral damage" of "innocents" overseas. Bomb the heck out of them! Kids and wives of terrorists! Elderly, infants! Who cares? They shouldn't live in a country we want to bomb.

You are not pro-life. NOT pro-life. You may be anti-abortion but NOT pro-life.

You really claiming moral equivalence for convicted rapists and murderers in the criminal justice system and INNOCENT, HELPLESS unborn babies? Are you really claiming the same for those killed in war?
Your 'conceived in sin...no one is innocent' reference is ignorant and reprehensible by the way.

I guess Lenin was right, after all.

If YOU believe in the depravity of man from the womb, there is no such thing as "innocence". It is YOUR theology at risk here as it conflicts with your politics. But then again, you don't care. Don't let your theology get in the way of some good ole politic'n!

 

[FSSL]

Smellin' you are confusing US legal innocence with man's natural condition.

Scripturally an infant is not innocent.
Legally, an infant is innocent and not a candidate for the death penalty or infanticide.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Smellin' you are confusing US legal innocence with man's natural condition.

Scripturally an infant is not innocent.
Legally, an infant is innocent and not a candidate for the death penalty or infanticide.

So in the eyes of the law, there is a difference. In the eyes of God, no.

Nice to put on the secular cloak when it suits you, isn't it?

Then one should not be using the "moral high-ground" throwing God's intentions around when dealing with the secular position. To vote "pro-life" is different than to vote "anti-abortion". Get God's name off of your (speaking to Religious Right Republicans as a whole) political standard and don't claim moral superiority. And don't claim Hillary is the 'queen of death' when your position is just as secular as hers. And to drag naive Christians along for the ride, appealing to their spiritual morality...

And quit the lie that "All Lives Matter". You guys throw that around in opposition of BLM, but you don't really believe it. In fact, you don't believe in the right to life for ALL unborn. If so, you all would be against war and your "innocent" children, even UNBORN children used as collateral damage.

So stop displaying piety through politics. Both sides are completely evil and corrupt to the core when it comes to the unborn.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I am opposed to abortion. I am more pro-life than most on this forum because I believe ALL human life is sacred, including those of terrorists and serial killers.

In all honesty, I didn't read the article but did skim over it. It seems to me the problem with this guy's stance (in the eyes of Evangelical Christians) is the term "innocent". If mankind is born "guilty", there is no "innocent" life. David claimed he himself was conceived "in sin".

Another problem is how the abortion rates have dropped under the Obama administration. We obviously don't know what KHillary will do but if you go by party, the Dems have done more to reduce abortion despite their support of legalization. Republicans had the chance to fight Roe v. Wade when they had the majority in Obama's second term, but it was the REPUBLICANS who backed out.

A third problem is that many Dems are opposed to the death penalty, which is also a "pro-life" stance.

So for this guy to judge Christians who vote for Hillary based solely on a "pro-life" stance is ridiculous.

And I WILL NOT be voting for Hillary.

Of course not reading the article doesn't stop you from posting disagreement with it....it being what you didn't read. You really are a good low information democrat.

To credit Obama with low abortion rates is akin to crediting a rooster's crowing for the sunrise...and you know it. But straw grasping is what you must resort to to defend the indefensible.

http://www.lifenews.com/2016/06/27/obama-threatens-to-veto-bill-to-combat-zika-virus-because-it-doesnt-fund-planned-parenthood/

And you don't see the irony in democrats not wanting to punish rapists and murders with the death penalty while seeking to fund killing INNOCENTS, DEFENSELESS unborn babies. Your ignorant reference to being conceived in sin is not only ignorant but reprehensible....

You really are a naive, low information, desperate, liberal socialist democrat apologist.

Nope. Calling it out as it really is. BOTH parties are equally as abhorrent when it comes to life. BOTH parties are equally anti-life, just using different means.

I choose to get off the "vote pro-life" high-horse because it isn't a legitimate "pro-life" issue.

And concerning rapists, murderers, etc., I thought you believe that "ALL lives matter"? I guess not. Only those you deem to see fit; i.e., "innocent". (Again, I thought ALL have sinned so ALL are guilty? So you throw out your Evangelical dogma when it comes to politics? Of course you do.)

Not to mention "collateral damage" of "innocents" overseas. Bomb the heck out of them! Kids and wives of terrorists! Elderly, infants! Who cares? They shouldn't live in a country we want to bomb.

You are not pro-life. NOT pro-life. You may be anti-abortion but NOT pro-life.

You really claiming moral equivalence for convicted rapists and murderers in the criminal justice system and INNOCENT, HELPLESS unborn babies? Are you really claiming the same for those killed in war?
Your 'conceived in sin...no one is innocent' reference is ignorant and reprehensible by the way.

I guess Lenin was right, after all.

If YOU believe in the depravity of man from the womb, there is no such thing as "innocence". It is YOUR theology at risk here as it conflicts with your politics. But then again, you don't care. Don't let your theology get in the way of some good ole politic'n!

You really are clueless sometimes...or just desperate to defend the indefensible.

Innocent - not responsible for or directly involved in an event yet suffering its consequences. (i. e. "an innocent bystander")

 

[sword]

Smellin' you are confusing US legal innocence with man's natural condition.
Scripturally an infant is not innocent.
Legally, an infant is innocent and not a candidate for the death penalty or infanticide.

So in the eyes of the law, there is a difference. In the eyes of God, no.
Nice to put on the secular cloak when it suits you, isn't it?
Then one should not be using the "moral high-ground" throwing God's intentions around when dealing with the secular position. To vote "pro-life" is different than to vote "anti-abortion". Get God's name off of your (speaking to Religious Right Republicans as a whole) political standard and don't claim moral superiority. And don't claim Hillary is the 'queen of death' when your position is just as secular as hers. And to drag naive Christians along for the ride, appealing to their spiritual morality...

And quit the lie that "All Lives Matter". You guys throw that around in opposition of BLM, but you don't really believe it. In fact, you don't believe in the right to life for ALL unborn. If so, you all would be against war and your "innocent" children, even UNBORN children used as collateral damage.

So stop displaying piety through politics. Both sides are completely evil and corrupt to the core when it comes to the unborn.

That being said you clearly prefer the freebies and handouts of the Dems. no matter how immoral their platform to the somewhat moral & scriptural, though inconsistent, policies* of the right.

* If you think the anti-death penalty position & the welfare position for those who refuse to work are biblical you better dig a little deeper in your bible. You will not find social programs paid for by taxes in the bible. Charity should always be out of love not legislation. I am for a safety net but not a generational hammock. This country is split down the middle regarding abortion and I don't see that changing.

 

[Liberty1]

Hillary is a genocidal maniac!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3w-AxfVlLI&feature=player_embedded

 

[Ransom]

So in the eyes of the law, there is a difference. In the eyes of God, no.

Nice to put on the secular cloak when it suits you, isn't it?

You mean to say the Old Testament law prescribed the death penalty for every infraction since in God's eyes there was no difference between committing murder and touching a dead animal?

 

[FSSL]

So in the eyes of the law, there is a difference. In the eyes of God, no.
Nice to put on the secular cloak when it suits you, isn't it?

The absurdity is all yours.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Many Christians don't think the Bible teaches life before birth. To some it's a gray area.

(and many Christians think birth control is a form of abortion but you don't see them calling people names for disagreeing with their position - even though it is literally murder in their eyes)

God had several chances to support the death penalty and never did it. Many Christians would say that God is clearly against the death penalty.

Just because you may disagree does not mean it's black and white. No one has a monopoly on Bible understanding.

 

[FSSL]

Just because you may disagree does not mean it's black and white. No one has a monopoly on Bible understanding.

Life before birth is either a human life or not. This is an either or. I will stick with the biblical, scientific, logical and the only sensible idea that a baby developing in the mother is still a human baby when it exits.

 

[FSSL]

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Just because you may disagree does not mean it's black and white. No one has a monopoly on Bible understanding.

Life before birth is either a human life or not. This is an either or. I will stick with the biblical, scientific, logical and the only sensible idea that a baby developing in the mother is still a human baby when it exits.

And I agree with you , but I wonder at people who get so astonished that someone else can have a different belief. I'm not so arrogant to assume that my understanding of the Bible is right. I've looked at the verses that the pro-choice crowd believes in and I can totally see their point of view.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Just because you may disagree does not mean it's black and white. No one has a monopoly on Bible understanding.

Life before birth is either a human life or not. This is an either or. I will stick with the biblical, scientific, logical and the only sensible idea that a baby developing in the mother is still a human baby when it exits.

And I agree with you , but I wonder at people who get so astonished that someone else can have a different belief. I'm not so arrogant to assume that my understanding of the Bible is right. I've looked at the verses that the pro-choice crowd believes in and I can totally see their point of view.

I am astonished that anyone who could read scripture....determine that abortion is not killing a baby and that homosexuality is not sexual perversion...would have the mental capacity to dress themselves in the morning.

 

[FSSL]

And I agree with you , but I wonder at people who get so astonished that someone else can have a different belief. I'm not so arrogant to assume that my understanding of the Bible is right. I've looked at the verses that the pro-choice crowd believes in and I can totally see their point of view.

I have seen people use Scripture to allow for all sorts of evils. That does not mean that I can "see their point of view." What I see is they are misusing Scripture to accommodate their twisted, evil point of view. Even Peter stood firmly against those who had a "different point of view" on Scripture. 2 Peter 3.16

IMO, you give these individuals too much latitude. Your posts indicate that you are more troubled at a perceived arrogance among those of us who have an absolute sense of biblical ethic on very clear Bible issues (i.e., abortion) than you are with those who twist the Scriptures to their own destruction.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

So in the eyes of the law, there is a difference. In the eyes of God, no.

Nice to put on the secular cloak when it suits you, isn't it?

You mean to say the Old Testament law prescribed the death penalty for every infraction since in God's eyes there was no difference between committing murder and touching a dead animal?

My point isn't about arguing for/against capital punishment. It is about perspective of what "pro-life" and "ALL Lives Matter" really means. So to beat Christians who are of liberal persuasion with the "spiritual stick" when the issue is determined based on secular values, it is that scapegoating and hypocrisy to which I am pointing.