emarine

Oh come now Proud... the guy never claimed to know it all... but it seems he knows enough to think clearly & independently...

Morgan

So when it comes to the mother's life, you feel you have the moral right to snuff out the mother's life for the unborn, even though she may possibly be a mother of say, three other children? Where do you feel anyone has the supreme right to make those moral judgments for someone else, especially the government? Do you have any idea of the power, right, and freedoms you would be giving away to them?

Morgan

And offers a credible argument, not just one based on opinion and insults.

alabuck Loc: Tennessee

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

Hello Morgan, I would imagine you know that a unborn can listen to his or hers parents talk...there is awareness in the womb...from what I can tell, a common defense of termination of this aware unborn is...if the womb holder is not capable of providing and caring for this baby after giving birth..so it's the proper thing to terminate... I don't agree with this philosophy of disposal of life.. Allow me to make an analogy...if someone assaults a occupied womb..or let's say shoots a occupied womb and the unborn doesn't make it...the one who fired the gun will be charged with causing a death even if the womb holder survives...it is death no matter what...and it's just not right...

Morgan

Good Morning byrong, Yes I understand what you're saying, let me clarify if I may, I personally I am not for abortion, period, I had my last child at 43, which was a substantial risk to me for medical reasons and my unborn child and with the nudging from my husband not to go through with it. But in the end, it was my choice, my body, that's just the way it is. We are the ones to bear the burden. I told my husband we would have this baby, he was somewhat frustrated and upset, to say the least. Because of my age they wanted to do an amniocentesis, but here's the fun part, during the process, we watched the little guy on the tv monitor, this was still fairly early on, he had one hand on his nuts while sucking his thumb, eveyone in the room began to laugh, as this is when the doc told us it was a boy...but as we watched, along with this long needle being seen, this tiny infant stopped sucking his thumb reached up and poked the needle with his finger, I'm not making this stuff up, I have wittnesses, LOL. It was amazing.

I was anti-abortion since I did a research paper on it ...in high school! So now you know exactly where I stand personally. But I still cannot make a decision for anyone else and neither can the government. It really has to come from a raised consciousness and awareness. It can't be forced by anyone, the girl or woman has to become more aware of the life and less afraid of taking the child to term and giving the child up for adoption. I believe most of the fear stems from feeling financially incapable and being alone to deal with it all.(As far as a young single girl) but they are not the only ones.

There is also a pill now, the does not abort a baby but stops the fertilization, called the day after pill. I'm not sure of the cost or availability. By this fact alone we should not be seeing abortions at all.

We have to look at the big picture and giving a government the power over anyone's body is a BIG mistake.

PS my son is such a gift and my husband loves him so much and sees that he was also thinking out of fear at the time.

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

Good morning, I applaud your decision to let your son be born and hope for a life of blessings for your family, I do not agree with termination for convenience but everyone is allowed to make their own decisions... right or wrong... immorality is the cause behind most abortions... reckless abandoned toward life and the heat of passion eliminates self control...and it all gets a nod by uninvolved parents...our whole family structure has been under attack for too long...

alabuck Loc: Tennessee

—————
Morgan, if I may interject, I, too, want to congratulate you in keeping your last child. As long as everything went alright and he’s doing well. You were running a huge risk, though.

However, and just so you know where I’m coming from, while I’m not Pro-Abortion, I am Pro-Choice. As a man, I don’t think it’s my right, unless it’s my own wife, to try to pressure a woman to either carry a pregnancy to term or to abort it. I simply believe that it’s a woman’s body and she should have the final say in want she wants to do with it. I believe you said that yourself.

That said, I don’t believe that any government should try to exercise any control over a woman's body, either. We don’t need to return to the days of back-alley abortions where women died by the hundreds, depending upon your timeframe for counting the deaths, because of botched abortions. To remove the option of an abortion, to me, is the same as authorizing the killing of women. And, to think that by outlawing abortions, that we’ll stop them, borders on the insane.

It would be nice if girls, once they decide to become sexually active, were put on birth control pills. That would be one way to stop unwanted pregnancies. Or, to be allowed more access to the “morning after” pill. But, on the flip-side, these actions could be putting the wrong message out there to girls - and boys - that it’s okay to have sex at too early an age.

We’ve all gone through the “raging hormone” days. So, we all should remember what it’s like for our adolescent kids. Stopping kids - or adults - from having sex is like trying to stop a locomotive by pushing it from the front while it’s traveling down the tracks at 80 mph. It ain’t gonna happen. As such, we need to be realistic when we talk to our kids and adults about sex and all of its ramifications. And, we needn’t outlaw a particular means of stopping an unwanted pregnancy. It boils down to one set of people trying to force their moral beliefs onto another set of people. Lord knows, there’s too much of that going-on right now.

Many Christians want to say that it’s against God’s commandments to abort a child. But, how many of them actually know that to the ancient Jews - and many modern ones - that a child wasn’t considered a “person” until it’s head had exited the mother’s body? Or, that when counting their census, that no children younger than 7 were counted? Why? Because too many children died before their 7th birthday due to various reasons.

Also, how many Christians have read the following passage in their Holy Bible? In it God demands the killing of an unborn child if the mother is found guilty of becoming pregnant by someone other than her husband. He even provides the method by which the unborn is aborted. BTW, I’m a Christian, too.

From BibleGateway.com
Numbers 5:11-31 NIV

Numbers 5:11-31New International Version (NIV)

The Test for an Unfaithful Wife:
11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure—or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure— 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah[a] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour olive oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder-offering to draw attention to wrongdoing.

16 “‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the Lord cause you to become a curse[b] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”

“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”

23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[c] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.

29 “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and makes herself impure while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the Lord and is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.’”

After reading this passage, Morgan, tell me, as a woman, do you feel that God is treating the man who impregnated her, and her husband, the same as He treats the woman and her baby? I sure don’t. And, allowing just the “FEELING” of jealousy to be the only reason to justifiably put a wife through such an ordeal?

But, I’m not God and don’t want to be, either. Too much blame and not enough praise goes with the job. But, in this case, it the blame legit?

Just saying ...

RETW Loc: Washington

Hello E.


Say, I don't mean to step between you and Peter, but you must know by now, he is either working for

the democrats, or the left socialist progressives.

To most on here, you're straight forward and honest posts are very in-lighting. And I believe I can speak

for a lot on 1PP, when I yell you, you are correct in your assessment of peter.


Peter is very repetitive in his/her post. It's the same thing over, and over again. Day after day, with out

change. White is black, red is green, left is right, and up is down. On and on it goes.

Strange I do not find anyone in real life associations, that have this same kind of mind set as peter.

Not even close. Only on the internet does this happen. Troll, is a more than likely scenario.

That is what I will be referring to peter is, in any response, if at all.

You have a good day sir.

RETW

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

Lil peter could be a radical muhammedest doing the work of the devil..aka Allah..

archie bunker Loc: Texas

I believe he is. He never has a negative word to say about a child raping, woman beating, goat humping, head lopping muslim, but will bash anything remotely considered Christian with every other word.

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

Yes, he is a Christian hater.. could it be jealousy...after all, his god has no mercy..."just murder"..

Nuclearian Loc: I live in a Fascist, Liberal State

Woman harasser? Lets try this.....

Here’s A List Of Trump’s Accusers And Why They Are All Full Of Crap

Democrats, who don’t care about sexual assault when it’s one of them doing it, forced perverts Rep. John Conyers and Sen. Al Franken to resign so they could go after Donald Trump for sexual misconduct. Democratic Senators like Cory Booker and Kristen Gillibrand have called for the President to resign due to numerous allegations of harassment and assault. Liberals throw out these accusations as proof that Trump has done something wrong, but when you look at the women making these allegations, their stories and credibility are complete garbage.

New York Magazine made a list of the women accusing Trump of sexual misconduct, totaling 19, but left out lots of important information. Here are those women and why they shouldn’t be believed:

1 – 6: Temple Taggart McDowell, Cathy Heller, Jennifer Murphy, Juliet Huddy, Rachel Crooks, Jessica Drake – All of these women have accused Trump of kissing them either while greeting or saying goodbye. Right off the bat we 6 accusers who aren’t actually accusing him of sexual assault. It’s a normal thing to greet people or bid them farewell in this manner. In the case of Rachel Crooks, she is a Hillary Clinton supporter who came out with her accusation just weeks before the election.

7 – 9: Victoria Hughes, Samantha Holvey, Cassandra Searles – These 3 woman were contestants in various beauty pageants owned by Trump. They are accusing him of looking at them, which again is not sexual assault and probably a pretty regular thing for beauty contestants.

10: Ivana Trump – Yeah, liberals are including Trump’s ex-wife as being one of his accusers. For the record, Donald and Ivana are on friendly terms, so let’s move on.

11: Jessica Leeds – This woman says that Trump grabbed her vagina on an airplane in the early 1980’s. Not only did she wait until just before last year’s presidential election to make her claims, but she is also a huge Hillary Clinton supporter and donor. Blowing her story out of the sky, a witness came forward from that flight to say Leeds is lying.

12: Kristin Anderson – She claims that Trump reached under her skirt in a crowded nightclub in the early 1990’s. This was witnessed by no one including Anderson who didn’t actually see Trump do this.

13: Jill Harth – This woman accused Trump of attempted rape in 1993. She filed a lawsuit, but then dropped it. Recently she revived her claim with the help of feminist attorney Lisa Bloom who was busted for shopping Harth’s story around in search of money. Bloom got several outlets to give Harth cash to tell her story.

14: Lisa Boyne – She claims that Trump talked about women he had slept with in her presence. He didn’t do this directly to her, she just heard him. Even by liberal standards this does not qualify as sexual harassment. Mind your own business, lady.

15: Karena Virginia – This woman claims that in 1998 Trump grabbed her arm and may have brushed up against the side of her breast. Her story is so completely out of context, it’s impossible to say what actually happened, other than this doesn’t seem like anything at all.

16: Mindy McGillivray – In an ever-changing story, this woman claims that Trump either touched her butt or her side. She has offered up Ray Charles, who is dead and was blind, as her only witness.

17. Natasha Stoynoff – She claims that Trump forcibly kissed her at Mar-a-Lago in 2005. There were no witnesses to this and like many accusers she only came forward as part of a coordinated attack right before the presidential election last year.

18. Ninni Laaksonen – This former Miss Finland says Trump grabbed her butt while being photographed before an appearance on David Letterman in 2006. Believe it or not, no such photograph exists.

19. Summer Zervos – She was a contestant on The Apprentice. She claims that Trump twice forced himself on her and that she rejected his advances. Despite this, she still tried to get a job with him, which is not something you’d expect a victim of sexual assault to do. When she didn’t get the job, she sued him, not for sexual assault, but rather defamation. Whatever.

The next time you see some hysterical liberal scream that Trump is a sexual predator and should resign, keep in mind that none of the accusations have a shred of evidence to support them, nor do any of the accusers have any credibility. All of these claims are very clearly motivated by politics or money or both.

Ranger7374 Loc: Arizona, 40 miles from the border in the DMZ

Hey Nuclearian, I like this statement you wrote:


I agree with you. We in the Public must quit condemning people with "No Evidence". What I mean is simply this, the accused is always innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, by a jury of their peers.

Roy Moore was never tried or convicted of the crimes he was accused of. Remember a person is innocent until proven guilty.
Lesson should be learned that the public committed character assassination against Roy Moore. Just like the media did on Trump and any one that aligns with Trump. And Trump didn't want Moore anyways.

The system does work slow however, and to get a case into court one must accuse. That is understandable, but that is up to the accuser and the one being accused and a court of law, it is not up to public opinion. By taking it to the court of the "mob" or even the "court of public opinion", you taint the jury box, so there would be no trial, and at the same time you commit character assassination. By doing this you are not honorable.

Now granted, it is true that Moore fed into the media reports, while claiming to be innocent. And frankly, that is dishonorable anyways, but self-incrimination is not a charge that can be held against a person, for any legal or government reasons. We have a fifth amendment for a reason. So, "dirty politics" like character assassination is an example of crooked people doing what they do. The Democrats really need to do some soul searching if they truly want to come out of all of this as "angels" and not bearers of the dirty.

And for anyone running in public office to stoop to such levels and/or tactics, Shame on you! Some people would call that harassment. Plain and simple, and due to the fact that it is coming from "an organization or group", that form of harassment can also be discrimination also. The ACLU should be on Trump and Moore's side, because of all the harassment and discrimination they are enduring through character assassination. This alone is the reason, the sole reason, why the ACLU was formed in the first place, to prevent character assassination, looks like the ACLU is hypocritical, huh?

We all know, how dirty politics can get, but do we have to make it worse? Come on folks, do you really want to live in this type of atmosphere?

PeterS

You do understand that Fascism is a right wing ideology don't you? Do you really think Rachel Maddow is a right wing conservative? Marxism is part of a left wing ideology. If you are going to denigrate people use the correct terminology.