Home - List All Discussions

What to do now?

Do we quit or fight harder?

by: BossMomma

Obama has been elected and abortion has for the moment prevailed, all that is left to do now is continue to promote life for the unborn. Research on contraception should be doubled to find better and more effective birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancy and the supposed need for abortion. Ministries and pro-life spokes persons should keep doing what their doing and hopefully the people will stop denying the unborn child it's rights as a human being. To quit now would be to tuck tail and turn our backs on the innocent.

reply from: lukesmom

We lived through Bill and Hillary and their proabort mentality and we can live through this administrration and it's proabort mentality too. We have lost this battle but not the fight.

reply from: fetalisa

True that. Yall had a GOOD TIME bombing clinics and killing and maiming people back in the good ol' days.

reply from: BossMomma

No kidding, what's funny is that Fecalisa bothered to reply even after I made it known she's on ignore lol. And I'll have me a beer after I'm done breast feeding, I've never craved a good stout drink more lately.

reply from: ChristianLott2

Bossmomma, it's still refreshing to see your pro life posts. Keep up the good work!

reply from: ProInformed

When a pro-abort gets into the White House it wakes up the sleepy conservatives and brings backlash against the liberal agenda and pro-abort politicians.
Carter led to Reagan.
Clinton led to Bush.
Obama will lead to somebody like Palin or Huckabee being the next president.
We'll roll up our sleeves and work even harder, and we'll have a bunch of new pro-lifers, and formerly inactive pro-lifers joining in.

reply from: sheri

I really need a good stout brandy, beer etc. What is up with craving booze when your pregnant? Its so unfair, and with the election going so badly ive never needed a drink more!
We need to fight harder, and i think we need to put the pressure on the Catholic bishops to reform their flocks, it is an atrosity that the proabortion candidate got the catholic vote. Im so mad i could spit nails. It is the fault of the church that abortion will go on for many more years , the blood of the babies is on our hands.

reply from: Nulono

Ah, good. It was a rhetorical question. I was worried.
I think we need to secularize the pro-life message more.

reply from: fetalisa

You have that backwards. Obama's victory is a backlash and repudiation of the last 8 years of his Republican presidency.
Bush led to Obama and there you have it.
Doubtful. The voters made their position quite clear on forced birth nonsense in THIS election. Ask Colorado or South Dakota.

reply from: fetalisa

Knock yourself out. Colorado put this unborn=person nonsense where it belonged, with their 75% vote against it.
Go ahead and blame anything but the pathetic nature of the forced birth arguments. That's the real reason you got the results in the elections you did.

reply from: BossMomma

lol maybe it's because you can't have the booze. When it was readily available and safe to drink I rarely wanted it. I don't let the election get to me, Obama will do his damage and then we'll vote in someone else. It sucks for the unborn who'll die between now and then but the powers that be didn't smile on us this time.

reply from: BossMomma

Thank you and will do. Recently I joined a Christian women's group called AGLOW that speaks against abortion among other things which is another reason I chose to ignore the pro-choicer's deceitful ranting. Pro-lifers might as well beat their heads against brick walls than try to talk sense into someone in such deep denial. I'm just glad no one has responded to Fetalisa or Vexing, I'm not interested in their intrusion.

reply from: SRUW4I5

I agree, we need to do ALOT of work to eliminate the reasons for abortion. We should also do some work to help make giving birth/"C" sections even safer, since there are still women that are at high risk for complications.
I disagree about ministries and pro-life spokes people keeping doing what they're doing. They need to try harder, and seem less "extreme"/"crazy" (I've heard/seen too many people say Pro-Lifers are crazy because of people like the woman behind the Colorado Personhood Amendment)...

reply from: lukesmom

Prolifers extreme and crazy? Obviously they haven't meet some of the proaborts here!
A toast to the wonderful prolifers here, esp Boss!

reply from: fetalisa

That is as likely to happen as Colorado accepting the unborn as persons. Pigs will fly before that happens.
Well what else could you expect? You take some 19 year old bimbo who doesn't have a clue about life, who just so happens to attend an unaccredited Christian Law school, which probably teaches the earth is flat and it is ok to execute gays because god says so, and put her in a state like Colorado where it is easy to get all manner of nonsense on the ballot, and who could possibly be surprised at the result?

reply from: fetalisa

Isn't it funny how they HAVE to put us on ignore, then write posts TO BE SURE WE KNOW WE ARE ON IGNORE?
Is this high school or what?

reply from: SRUW4I5

Prolifers extreme and crazy? Obviously they haven't meet some of the proaborts here!
A toast to the wonderful prolifers here, esp Boss!
Yeah, there are crazy people on both sides of it.

reply from: SRUW4I5

That is as likely to happen as Colorado accepting the unborn as persons. Pigs will fly before that happens.
Well what else could you expect? You take some 19 year old bimbo who doesn't have a clue about life, who just so happens to attend an unaccredited Christian Law school, which probably teaches the earth is flat and it is ok to execute gays because god says so, and put her in a state like Colorado where it is easy to get all manner of nonsense on the ballot, and who could possibly be surprised at the result?
True, I see why people would think she was crazy, but they shouldn't judge all pro-lifers based on a few people like her. Just like people shouldn't judge all pro-choicers based on what the crazy ones do.
I know this is totally off topic, but what'd you think of that woman that wanted an abortion 4 days before her due date? Are you for that, too? (Those questions are for fetalisa)

reply from: ChristianLott2

It is the Catholics fault. I could tell in grammar school and high school that their hearts weren't into what they were teaching, probably because I knew what they were teaching was right. They've done a disservice to themselves and others. I thought Pope Benedict would really fight but he's done nothing except talk. Maybe he's waiting for a specific turning point to begin the excommunications which should have happened decades ago. What's really the hold up?

reply from: ChristianLott2

Thank you and will do. Recently I joined a Christian women's group called AGLOW that speaks against abortion among other things which is another reason I chose to ignore the pro-choicer's deceitful ranting. Pro-lifers might as well beat their heads against brick walls than try to talk sense into someone in such deep denial. I'm just glad no one has responded to Fetalisa or Vexing, I'm not interested in their intrusion.
Well said. I'm hoping personhood ballots should be in every state. There's a good chance they may get through in strong red states. I'm excited about that

reply from: lukesmom

Come again? I hope I am not reading this right.

reply from: ChristianLott2

Come again? I hope I am not reading this right.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/obamas_culture_of_death_and_th.html
In the comments section:
and this excellent response:

reply from: ChristianLott2

The strength of the Catholic vote could put our politicians and their special interests in check by being staunch moralists and not bending on fundamental issues. This could have happened long ago. Yet it continues as before. If these 'catholics' are attending mass I wonder what it is the priest is saying..

reply from: JRH

Come again? I hope I am not reading this right.
Heh. Come again.

reply from: fetalisa

Since when have pro-choicers bombed clinics to kill and maim people with whom they disagree politically? Since when did pro-choicers block anyone from exercising their constitutional right to reproductive freedom by blocking clinic entrances or chaining themselves to furniture in clinics? We know who the crazies are.
First of all, I bet there are zero statistics to prove abortions this late ever happen, unless it is a problem pregnancy or fetus.
My answer is absolutely not, I can not and would not support abortion 4 days before birth, at least, not for elective abortion, although I find it absurd to even suggest anyone would decide 4 days before birth she didn't want to give birth. Now, if there is a risk to the mother's life that late, then yes, I could support it in that case. In cases of rape or incest, no I could not support aborting 4 days before birth, because in those cases, I think it logical to know one wishes not to birth progeny of either rape or incest, well before that late in the third trimester.
Obviously, I disagree with the idea the unborn are persons. I also disagree that personhood begins at conception and here's why, or one reason why. At conception, you have only a few cells, no brain, nothing resembling a human body, etc. This is why we can't distinguish between various mammalian embryos and pick out which one is human. Before birth, that is not the case. You have something that is so very near to being a person, there is practically no difference other than legally. And if it was a 4 days before birth preemie, it would in fact be a person.
So yeah, I am totally behind the trimester divisions existing in abortion law. I am totally behind stricter limits on abortion post viability, as decided by Roe. I do not support later revisions of the Roe principles which allow states to impose restrictions on abortion, because they are used for no other reason than to restrict access to abortion. We do not make men wait 24 hours before picking up a Viagra prescription to exercise their reproductive rights, so how can we discriminate against women by making them wait 24 hours before exercising their reproductive rights by having an abortion? It's sexual discrimination plain and simple and I absolutely can not wait for such a case to hit the courts. I do not support the ban on D & X, and any reading of the text will easily demonstrate why.
This also explains my argument in support of abortion which states abortion kills a non-sentient, non-conscious, non-person, no different than killing a weed or a mosquito. Given that 88-90% of all abortions occur by the 12-13th week after the last menstrual cycle, we can be sure brain development is nowhere near complete, so we can be sure sentience & consciousness does not exist.
So no, aborting 4 days before birth I can not support. Any late term abortions make me queasy actually, but only because I know, as the pregnancy progresses, we come ever closer to personhood via progress of fetal development.

reply from: fetalisa

The popes are still pissed off they no longer can destroy the world with their monstrous theocracy as they did in the Dark Ages. This entire forced birth movement begins and ends with Catholic theology, because it was the Catholics who first posed the idea that life begins at conception, in the late 1600s, I believe it was. Since the Catholics know their theocracy is a thing of the past because they fumbled government by church so horribly, and would so desperately like to have that power again, they seek to achieve that power in effect, if not name, by forcing the Catholic idea that life begins at conception on ALL.

reply from: lukesmom

Of course "we" do. While a few unstable people who call themselves prolife who have killed a few abortionists and blown up a few buildings, proaborts kill or support the killing of 4000 unborn humans DAILY. Where is the greater wrong? I ask: Who is crazy? You proaborts have become depraved, wallowing in your own selfishness and willing to kill lives to supposably better yourself. You come here with your excuses and your justifications and your programed lies and you try to insinuate people who value human life are crazy? Time to look in the mirror. Look very close and see the ugliness you have allowed yourself to become. There will be a reconning. There always is. Can you face it? You have become a disgrace to your ancesters, to the people who have made you who you are and to the future generations in your family. I have no doubt, in time, abortion will occupy the history books as a time of shame, just as slavery does. Makes you proud to be a supporter of killing our future generation. Makes me proud to be a prolifer.

reply from: lukesmom

Little hard to read your rant when your first two words show such ignorance. There is only one Pope living at a time. After reading that didn't finish 'cause I knew then someone hasn't educated herself on the topic and it wasn't worth my time.

reply from: lukesmom

this is all "easy" rhetoric but the Catholic church doesn't have enforcers to police it's ordinary citizens. Funny, a couple months ago a gay man in an active gay relationship was fired from his job as the music directer of a local Catholic church. He wasn't fired because he was gay. He was fired because he was in an active relationship. You should have heard the backlash from noncatholics! Evidently enforcing our own church laws (known to this gay Catholic man) was not "what Jesus would have done", not compassionate, love the sinner, not the sin, etc. Now you want to play a blame game and blame the Catholics? Right. Every bible thumper voted for McCain but that's ok because they aren't Catholic. Sorry buddy, doesn't wash and your statement is very insulting to me.

reply from: fetalisa

Forced birth rhetoric led to their actions.
Bombing clinics and killing and maiming people is the greater wrong, not destruction of property as in the case of abortion.
On sure, the majority of voters in Colorado and South Dakota are all depraved because they do not consider unborn property to be persons. Whatever. And you can't figure out why abortion is legal 35 years after Roe? The voters of Colorado and South Dakota certainly know why.
You value property more than you value women.
Why because you say it, it must be true. It must be true the majority of Colorado and South Dakota voters are morally depraved and ugly solely because you say so and they do not view abortion as you do. That makes perfect sense.
We just had that at the ballot box. Guess whose BS was tossed out on its behind?
Solely because you say so. That makes perfect sense.
Robbing women of the right of bodily autonomy would take us to a dark time of shame in history. You religious whackos had your shot at government in the Dark Ages. We learned exactly how you governed then, which is why we won't let you govern now.
Why because you say it, it must be so. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?
Makes me proud our society gets exactly where you people are coming from and we have no doubts whatsoever on which side evil lies.

reply from: SRUW4I5

Since when have pro-choicers bombed clinics to kill and maim people with whom they disagree politically? Since when did pro-choicers block anyone from exercising their constitutional right to reproductive freedom by blocking clinic entrances or chaining themselves to furniture in clinics? We know who the crazies are.
First of all, I bet there are zero statistics to prove abortions this late ever happen, unless it is a problem pregnancy or fetus.
My answer is absolutely not, I can not and would not support abortion 4 days before birth, at least, not for elective abortion, although I find it absurd to even suggest anyone would decide 4 days before birth she didn't want to give birth. Now, if there is a risk to the mother's life that late, then yes, I could support it in that case. In cases of rape or incest, no I could not support aborting 4 days before birth, because in those cases, I think it logical to know one wishes not to birth progeny of either rape or incest, well before that late in the third trimester.
It wasn't cuz she didn't want to give birth, she just didn't want to wait. She didn't actually have the abortion (which is good). I just thought I'd ask 'cuz some Pro-Abortion people see nothing wrong with that even though it's disgusting and creepy.

reply from: fetalisa

There is only one president ruling at the time. That does not make it illegal to discuss presidents in the plural.

reply from: 4given

The true are not going anywhere. The reality is that our children- the future leaders, are fighting earlier and stronger than you and I have. I plead the blood of Christ over 50+ million babies. A revival is coming!

reply from: lukesmom

There is only one president ruling at the time. That does not make it illegal to discuss presidents in the plural.
Dah, there may be several presidents living at the same time but only one Pope is alive therefore it is incorrect (and ignorant) to use the pleural form in a sentence.

reply from: fetalisa

How else do you suggest I discuss the popes when discussing their rule throughout periods of history? In the schools I attended, I was taught to use the plural. Do you have a better idea?

reply from: BossMomma

Prolifers extreme and crazy? Obviously they haven't meet some of the proaborts here!
A toast to the wonderful prolifers here, esp Boss!
LOL I guess I can be a cyber drunk, Sue's getting me all liquored up over here!

reply from: Nulono

lol maybe it's because you can't have the booze. When it was readily available and safe to drink I rarely wanted it. I don't let the election get to me; Obama will do his damage and then we'll vote in someone else. It sucks for the unborn who'll die between now and then but the powers that be didn't smile on us this time.
Fix'd

reply from: Nulono

Thank you and will do. Recently, I joined a Christian women's group called AGLOW that speaks against abortion among other things which is another reason I chose to ignore the pro-choicer's deceitful ranting. Pro-lifers might as well beat their heads against brick walls than try to talk sense into someone in such deep denial. I'm just glad no one has responded to Fetalisa or Vexing; I'm not interested in their intrusion.
Fix'd

reply from: Nulono

I agree, we need to do ALOT of work to eliminate the reasons for abortion. We should also do some work to help make giving birth/"C" sections even safer, since there are still women that are at high risk for complications.
I disagree about ministries and pro-life spokes people keeping doing what they're doing. They need to try harder, and seem less "extreme"/"crazy" (I've heard/seen too many people say Pro-Lifers are crazy because of people like the woman behind the Colorado Personhood Amendment)...
Like I said, we need to secularize ourselves more. Meaning less focus on churches.

reply from: Nulono

Thank you and will do. Recently I joined a Christian women's group called AGLOW that speaks against abortion among other things which is another reason I chose to ignore the pro-choicer's deceitful ranting. Pro-lifers might as well beat their heads against brick walls than try to talk sense into someone in such deep denial. I'm just glad no one has responded to Fetalisa or Vexing, I'm not interested in their intrusion.
Well said. I'm hoping personhood ballots should be in every state. There's a good chance they may get through in strong red states. I'm excited about that
?...
I KNOW personhood ballots should be in every state. I don't hope that they should.
I'm hoping personhood ballots will be in every state.
OR
I think personhood ballots should be in every state.

reply from: Nulono

Little hard to read your rant when your first two words show such ignorance. There is only one Pope living at a time. After reading that didn't finish 'cause I knew then someone hasn't educated herself on the topic and it wasn't worth my time.He clearly was referring to all popes throughout history.

reply from: Nulono

There is only one president ruling at the time. That does not make it illegal to discuss presidents in the plural.
Dah, there may be several presidents living at the same time but only one Pope is alive therefore it is incorrect (and ignorant) to use the pleural form in a sentence.
Wrong. There can be one president alive at a time, and many FORMER Presidents. Former, as in, not president any more.
And I can still talk about Lincoln even though he's dead.

reply from: jujujellybean

True that. Yall had a GOOD TIME bombing clinics and killing and maiming people back in the good ol' days.
Sure we did. You go on in your proabort mentality thinking that we all love bombing people.....never mind if its the truth or not, you go ahead and believe it.

reply from: Nulono

Of course "we" do. While a few unstable people who call themselves prolife who have killed a few abortionists and blown up a few buildings, proaborts kill or support the killing of 4000 unborn humans DAILY. Where is the greater wrong? I ask: Who is crazy? You proaborts have become depraved, wallowing in your own selfishness and willing to kill lives to supposably better yourself. You come here with your excuses and your justifications and your programed lies and you try to insinuate people who value human life are crazy? Time to look in the mirror. Look very close and see the ugliness you have allowed yourself to become. There will be a reconning. There always is. Can you face it? You have become a disgrace to your ancesters, to the people who have made you who you are and to the future generations in your family. I have no doubt, in time, abortion will occupy the history books as a time of shame, just as slavery does. Makes you proud to be a supporter of killing our future generation. Makes me proud to be a prolifer.
I think it's 4400, actually. And that's just in the US.

reply from: Screaminlke

give up. definetly. give up.

reply from: yoda

Give up what? Who should give up? And why?

reply from: Screaminlke

you read thread topics before posting in them?

reply from: BossMomma

I agree, we need to do ALOT of work to eliminate the reasons for abortion. We should also do some work to help make giving birth/"C" sections even safer, since there are still women that are at high risk for complications.
I disagree about ministries and pro-life spokes people keeping doing what they're doing. They need to try harder, and seem less "extreme"/"crazy" (I've heard/seen too many people say Pro-Lifers are crazy because of people like the woman behind the Colorado Personhood Amendment)...
Like I said, we need to secularize ourselves more. Meaning less focus on churches.
So because you're an aethiest everyone should be? Sorry, I like my spirituality.

reply from: fetalisa

It won't work. It is so blatantly obvious religion is behind the forced birth movement, there is no way the courts will ever recognize 'life begins at conception." (It is obvious the word 'life' really means 'personhood,' otherwise personhood amendments would not make that very point.) It's a purely Catholic idea and none in this society can be forced to live under Catholic religious belief. So you can dress your religious idea all you wish with science. None are fooled.

reply from: socratease

It won't work. It is so blatantly obvious religion is behind the forced birth movement, there is no way the courts will ever recognize 'life begins at conception." (It is obvious the word 'life' really means 'personhood,' otherwise personhood amendments would not make that very point.) It's a purely Catholic idea and none in this society can be forced to live under Catholic religious belief. So you can dress your religious idea all you wish with science. None are fooled.
It's not "purely Catholic," though the Catholic Church is very much concerned about all life from conception until natural death, and opposes the injustice of abortion, infanticide and euthanasia.
Because the Catholic Church is a staunch defender of life in the womb, doesn't change whether the fetus has an objective moral worth, and doesn't make it a matter of Catholic faith. Many believe similarly who have different faiths or no faith at all.
When do YOU say what we ought to consider "personhood" to begin, and if you say at birth, do you believe a woman has total ownership of the fetus until that point, and should have the right to an elective late-term abortion?

reply from: fetalisa

The unborn lacks an objective moral worth, which is why in the case of proposed abortion bans, exceptions are made for rape, incest or the life of the mother. The worth of an unborn is purely situational and in divorce custody cases, they are community property, no different than furniture or vehicles.
You say at birth, which is why you, your kids, your friends, your co-workers and everyone you know counts their age from their date of birth and NOT their date of conception. You yourself prove personhood begins at birth.
I agree wholeheartedly with the limits at viability and beyond, as laid out in the Roe decision.

reply from: lukesmom

It won't work. It is so blatantly obvious religion is behind the forced birth movement, there is no way the courts will ever recognize 'life begins at conception." (It is obvious the word 'life' really means 'personhood,' otherwise personhood amendments would not make that very point.) It's a purely Catholic idea and none in this society can be forced to live under Catholic religious belief. So you can dress your religious idea all you wish with science. None are fooled.
I understand scientific and medical facts may be beyond your programming but religion has nothing to do with the fact that life begins at conception. That is scientific fact which the proabort leaders actually agree on. Must have been a glitch in your programming that made you miss this.
http://www.nebcathcon.org/Medical%20Science%20Clearly%20Reveals.pdf

Fertilization
If sperm does meet and penetrate a mature egg after ovulation, it will fertilize it. When the sperm penetrates the egg, changes occur in the protein coating around it to prevent other sperm from entering. At the moment of fertilization, your baby's genetic make-up is complete, including its sex. Since the mother can provide only X chromosomes (she's XX), if a Y sperm fertilizes the egg, your baby will be a boy (XY); if an X sperm fertilizes the egg, your baby will be a girl (XX).
http://www.webmd.com/blood-pressure-control-center/default.htm
I could go on and on, but why? You don't care anyway so my words are fruitless. You have become a waste of my time. Pity.

reply from: lukesmom

double post, sorry. Crappy computer.

reply from: yoda

Sure, but after a few pages, it helps to say exactly what it is that you are responding to, ya know? Is that really too much trouble?
Not to mention, you didn't say "why" you think we ought to give up. Why do you?

reply from: Nulono

I am a pro-life atheist. 'nuff said.

reply from: Nulono

I agree, we need to do ALOT of work to eliminate the reasons for abortion. We should also do some work to help make giving birth/"C" sections even safer, since there are still women that are at high risk for complications.
I disagree about ministries and pro-life spokes people keeping doing what they're doing. They need to try harder, and seem less "extreme"/"crazy" (I've heard/seen too many people say Pro-Lifers are crazy because of people like the woman behind the Colorado Personhood Amendment)...
Like I said, we need to secularize ourselves more. Meaning less focus on churches.
So because you're an aethiest everyone should be? Sorry, I like my spirituality.
No. There's a difference between atheism and secularism. My point is we'll convince more people, and people will have a harder time portraying us as just fundamentalist nutjobs.

reply from: whydeath

Yes WE lived through it but so many did not.

reply from: sheri

Nolo, if the media wants to portray us nutjobs, they will, there is nothing we can do about that. Our tactics during the rescue days were as harmless and peaceful as anything that the cival rights movement did, and yet if you respond to this post you will probably talk about how unhinged the rescue movement was. The media decides who is right or wrong in this world.

reply from: fetalisa

It's not about life beginning at conception, but personhood, which is the point of every unborn=personhood amendment. So drop the lie that it has anything at all to do with life beginning at conception. It is about personhood beginning at conception, as all unborn personhood amendments point out. The fact you loons can not even be honest enough to call it 'personhood begins at conception' reveals how dishonest you are. We might wish to notice the Colorado voters did not fall for this scam, but a retarded 5 year old would have been able to see through the scam.
Science can not prove personhood begins at conception.
The lies of the forced birth movement have been understood for 35 years now. Repeating them will not help your case. Ask Colorado.

reply from: Nulono

...?
OpResc FTW!
And I fixed a punctuation mistake.

reply from: fetalisa

The media only reveals who you are by exposing your tactics. It's no secret the forced birth movement is lawless and have proven themselves willing to shoot, bomb, kill and maim any who do not agree with them. It has been the case since the 80s. Randall Terry and his thugs made fools of themselves at the clinics. We didn't need the media to tell us this. We saw it with our own eyes. You have no idea how many possible supporters you lost back in those days, because first impressions are long-lasting. Of course, when acting like jackasses at clinics persists for years on end, it only served to reinforce the thuggish and buffoonery views society has of you.
Do you seriously think society will ever accept that lie that shooting, bombing, killing and maiming is 'harmless and peaceful?'
It is so funny how the blame always lies somewhere else with forced birthers. It's the medias fault you look like utter jackasses, buffoons and lawless thugs and could not possibly have anything at all to do with lawless protests, shootings, bombings, maimings and killings of those who did not agree with you.

reply from: CharlesD

Rescue had nothing to do with the people who were shooting doctors and bombing clinics. You can't paint everybody with that broad brush. Are all Muslims terrorists? You know the answer to that, a small percentage. Maybe 10% of Muslims are radical terrorists, which leaves 90% that aren't terrorists. If you try to paint all Muslims that way, people will call you a bigot, but you can lump all pro lifers in with a few misguided radicals? Get a clue.

reply from: CharlesD

Let me take a stab at what I think you're driving at. Maybe pro choicers view the pro life movement as a religious movement, so if we use secular arguments, we take that argument away from them. That's why I don't argue the right to life from a Christian perspective, even though I am a Christian. Christian arguments won't have any weight with unbelievers anyway and the secular arguments make it impossible for them to try to discredit our views because of them being faith based.

reply from: fetalisa

The exact same tactic was used to strip creationism of religion and present it as ID. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District It won't work now. Judges aren't that stupid. Really, they aren't.

reply from: fetalisa

Forced birth rhetoric is exactly what led to the shootings, bombings, maiming and killings.

reply from: sheri

Nolo, I think we could learn a lot from one another. You could teach me how to keep from butchering grammer and i could let you know why it is wrong to butcher babies.
Or are you prolife?

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Let me take a stab at what I think you're driving at. Maybe pro choicers view the pro life movement as a religious movement, so if we use secular arguments, we take that argument away from them. That's why I don't argue the right to life from a Christian perspective, even though I am a Christian. Christian arguments won't have any weight with unbelievers anyway and the secular arguments make it impossible for them to try to discredit our views because of them being faith based.
You have always been very good at this, Charles. I too may be Christian, but I now there's no point arguing with a non-believer about it. Just like how many atheists feel about arguing religion with the faithful. There's just no point to it.

reply from: CharlesD

How do you explain atheists who are pro life? You're not going to find too many atheists who buy into ID.
Even ID isn't exclusively Christian. Plenty of ID scientists aren't Christians these days, but just support the idea that the universe appears to have been designed. They don't all agree on who or what the designer is. Creationism focuses on the Christian God with a heavy use of the book of Genesis, while ID simply looks at the scientific record and comes to the conclusion that there appears to have been a causal agent behind it.
The same thing was the case during the slavery days. Many abolitionists were Christians, but there were many who were not Christians but who just recognized the inherent wrongness of slavery and fought against it. There are many beliefs Christians hold that mirror similar beliefs among secular people, but the fact that a Christian believes something does not automatically make that a religious issue. The Bible tells me that I shouldn't steal. I would imagine that you believe it's wrong to steal as well. Is opposition to stealing a religious issue?

reply from: fetalisa

An atheist could also propose an intelligent designer that were aliens. That doesn't remove the religious nature of the argument. You'll see, just as the Dover, Pa. school board saw.
None of the above changes the fact ID is creationism stripped of all religious mumbo-jumbo, just as 'life begins at conception,' is a Catholic idea, masquerading as science.
It's still religiously based. The Jews believe life begins at first breath, as the fable of Adam illustrates. Why should they be forced to live by a Catholic view, which states 'life begins at conception?' http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist1.htm at this list of religious groups, both prochoice and forced birth. That alone proves the idea of when personhood begins is not settled. And that's an issue that science will NEVER be able to answer.
Laws against theft and murder existed in all human societies. That's completely different from attempting to pass off a religious view of creationism as science or the religious idea that 'personhood begins at conception' as science, on the entire population.

reply from: joe

Rhetoric??? The one that states that the unborn are human beings.

reply from: fetalisa

Perhaps you've heard of abortion=murder or abortion=holocaust or abortion=baby-killing?

reply from: joe

Perhaps you've heard of abortion=murder or abortion=holocaust or abortion=baby-killing?
You mean that might lead someone to defend human life???

reply from: fetalisa

I guess, if you define shooting, bombing, killing and maiming REAL, ACTUAL LIVE PEOPLE.

reply from: joe

I guess, if you define shooting, bombing, killing and maiming REAL, ACTUAL LIVE PEOPLE.
You mean: "I guess, if you define shooting, bombing, killing and maiming REAL ACTUAL LIVE KILLERS".

reply from: CharlesD

Life beginning at conception is a fact verified by science, not just a religious doctrine taught by the Catholic church. What we have after conception is a new being that is either alive or dead. It is one or the other. If it is growing, it is alive, therefore it has life. That's not a religious argument.

reply from: fetalisa

That's not your argument. Your argument is personhood begins at conception, which science can never prove.

reply from: ProInformed

Hi SRUW415,
The pro-life side has committed only a few very rare cases of violence;
the pro-abort side commits thousands of fatal acts of violence per day.
The pro-life side chastises those in their ranks that commit the extremely rare incidents of violence;
the pro-abort side never questions, let alone chastises, the crazy and violent amongst their ranks.

reply from: BossMomma

I agree, we need to do ALOT of work to eliminate the reasons for abortion. We should also do some work to help make giving birth/"C" sections even safer, since there are still women that are at high risk for complications.
I disagree about ministries and pro-life spokes people keeping doing what they're doing. They need to try harder, and seem less "extreme"/"crazy" (I've heard/seen too many people say Pro-Lifers are crazy because of people like the woman behind the Colorado Personhood Amendment)...
Like I said, we need to secularize ourselves more. Meaning less focus on churches.
So because you're an aethiest everyone should be? Sorry, I like my spirituality.
No. There's a difference between atheism and secularism. My point is we'll convince more people, and people will have a harder time portraying us as just fundamentalist nutjobs.
Some don't use religion to promote pro-life ideals, I use science, a fetus is a living human being whose right to life should be recognized. However if one's faith helps them further the pro-life cause then I say kudos to them. It's not for you to say how the pro-life ideal should be promoted to the public.

reply from: SRUW4I5

Hi SRUW415,
The pro-life side has committed only a few very rare cases of violence;
the pro-abort side commits thousands of fatal acts of violence per day.
The pro-life side chastises those in their ranks that commit the extremely rare incidents of violence;
the pro-abort side never questions, let alone chastises, the crazy and violent amongst their ranks.
Did you know that sometimes women go to abortion clinics just to find out about it, and a lot of abortion clinics provide other services? Like, I get my prescriptions for birth control pills from an abortion clinic because I'd feel too weird talking about that with my regular doctor.
There are non-violent Pro-Lifers that seem crazy, too. Some of the extremists come off as crazy to some when they write things poorly and try to get them added as laws or amendments to constitutions...
You told about the pro-life and pro-abort sides... But, what about those people that aren't pro-life/pro-fetus or pro-choice/pro-abortion? I'm curious.

reply from: Hosea

True that. Yall had a GOOD TIME bombing clinics and killing and maiming people back in the good ol' days.
Yeah , the PP Margaret Sanger Clinic in Cincinnati was bombed right when they were being sued. The bomb was placed in the records room. Don't you think a pro-lifer would blow up the equipment that is used to perform the abortions and not the records that were about to convict them. Just like a choicer to use others for their own success.

reply from: Hosea

I really enjoy your comments boss momma. I usually just skip over fetalisa because she just calls names and makes false claims. There is nothing to learn from her. I do learn from you Boss momma. Please continue to post.

reply from: SRUW4I5

I really enjoy your comments boss momma. I usually just skip over fetalisa because she just calls names and makes false claims. There is nothing to learn from her. I do learn from you Boss momma. Please continue to post.
I've learned from her and some of the other people here, too. I almost hate to say this, but I've even learned somethin from fetalisa.

reply from: Hosea

I couldn't agree more . There are some brave priests but they are few and far between. The need to have some guts and tell the trruth like Fr. Pavone and Fr,. Corapi. Did you see the Father copapi videos on You tube.....excellent!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCC8SGfCGd8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VkDVzLAdtZE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACm5BRK0OiA&feature=related

reply from: LiberalChiRo

That's not your argument. Your argument is personhood begins at conception, which science can never prove.
Your argument is that you can ethically kill human beings, but not "persons."
Wow... that argument sounds really dumb to me now... And I used to think it was true!!

reply from: ProInformed

I know what you mean - amazing isn't it?
I knew all the sassy pro-abort arguments to chant too...
but I actually KNEW so little about abortion and never really allowed myself to THINK too deeply about it when I was a choicist.
And at the time I tought I was so much more informed and logical than the pro-lifers... The mortifying embaressment I suffered when I learned and FACED the truth was immense - but not nearly as bad as my guilt and grief.
I thank God - literally - that there is forgiveness, understanding, and healing.

reply from: BossMomma

I really enjoy your comments boss momma. I usually just skip over fetalisa because she just calls names and makes false claims. There is nothing to learn from her. I do learn from you Boss momma. Please continue to post.
Thanks, I feel far more confident in my position as a pro-life advocate than I ever did in my erroneous support of abortion. You might want to just ignore the trolls, if they don't feel as though their being acknowledged they generally leave.

reply from: CharlesD

That pretty much sums it up. This is not a religious issue. It is a human rights issue.

reply from: CharlesD

The difference is really night and day. You used to tick me off on a daily basis.

reply from: fetalisa

It's a religious issue entirely, with the religious idea being pushed that personhood begins at conception.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I know what you mean - amazing isn't it?
I knew all the sassy pro-abort arguments to chant too...
but I actually KNEW so little about abortion and never really allowed myself to THINK too deeply about it when I was a choicist.
And at the time I tought I was so much more informed and logical than the pro-lifers... The mortifying embaressment I suffered when I learned and FACED the truth was immense - but not nearly as bad as my guilt and grief.
I thank God - literally - that there is forgiveness, understanding, and healing.
I was very informed about pregnancy and development etc, and thought I was informed about abortion. I'd seen all of the gory baby pictures. And the woman had a face to me. But I just felt late terms were wrong; I always felt that abortion was an insult to the process of nature.
For me it has been empowering to become pro-life. I have to say that being pro-life is far simpler than being pro-choice, and even in science we know that simplicity is on top. If it seems to complicated to be true, it probably is.

reply from: SRUW4I5

It's a religious issue entirely, with the religious idea being pushed that personhood begins at conception.
I know people that aren't religious that think that... so it can't be a totally religious issue

reply from: fetalisa

It is. It's Catholic through and through. We all know what is meant by 'life begins at conception.' It really means 'personhood begins at conception.' That's not something science can prove, but it IS a religious idea.

reply from: SRUW4I5

It is. It's Catholic through and through. We all know what is meant by 'life begins at conception.' It really means 'personhood begins at conception.' That's not something science can prove, but it IS a religious idea.
Then why do people that aren't religious believe it?

reply from: BossMomma

The difference is really night and day. You used to tick me off on a daily basis.
lol well the first time you got ticked off at me was because you thought I was dissing infertile women.

reply from: fetalisa

That answer could be shown in the statistics of the prolife. I am sure the overwhelming majority have religious belief. You'll see. Sooner or later it will hit the courts, because the prolife do not give up, no matter how much the public rejects their views. They will stumble into a case sooner or later and the issue will be resolved once and for all.

reply from: lukesmom

The difference is really night and day. You used to tick me off on a daily basis.
lol well the first time you got ticked off at me was because you thought I was dissing infertile women.
LOL! Boss, you ticked my off royally too. I am sorry I so relentlessly attacked you. I am also sorry it was the horrible loss of your son that caused you to rethink your abortion stance. You are one of the most couragous women I know and am blessed to "know" you. This forum is better because of you.

reply from: cracrat

You might be alright with a small glass of something.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7699579.stm

reply from: BossMomma

The difference is really night and day. You used to tick me off on a daily basis.
lol well the first time you got ticked off at me was because you thought I was dissing infertile women.
LOL! Boss, you ticked my off royally too. I am sorry I so relentlessly attacked you. I am also sorry it was the horrible loss of your son that caused you to rethink your abortion stance. You are one of the most couragous women I know and am blessed to "know" you. This forum is better because of you.
lol we ticked each other off relentlessly, I walked away from my computer fuming on several occasions trying not to expell a barrage of abuse. Things happen for a reason, what ever powers that be took Aidan back, perhaps as a warning or a message to help me see but what ever the case it was an eye opener. But I'm glad to be on the right side now and letting bye gones be bye gones.

reply from: lukesmom

The difference is really night and day. You used to tick me off on a daily basis.
lol well the first time you got ticked off at me was because you thought I was dissing infertile women.
LOL! Boss, you ticked my off royally too. I am sorry I so relentlessly attacked you. I am also sorry it was the horrible loss of your son that caused you to rethink your abortion stance. You are one of the most couragous women I know and am blessed to "know" you. This forum is better because of you.
lol we ticked each other off relentlessly, I walked away from my computer fuming on several occasions trying not to expell a barrage of abuse. Things happen for a reason, what ever powers that be took Aidan back, perhaps as a warning or a message to help me see but what ever the case it was an eye opener. But I'm glad to be on the right side now and letting bye gones be bye gones.

reply from: BossMomma

It's a religious issue entirely, with the religious idea being pushed that personhood begins at conception.
I know people that aren't religious that think that... so it can't be a totally religious issue
The religious idea is that LIFE begins at conception which is a fact. Personhood is a political term. I believe personhood begins at birth but human life begins when sperm penetrates egg and creates a new human being.

reply from: nancyu

True that. Yall had a GOOD TIME bombing clinics and killing and maiming people back in the good ol' days.
Yeah , the PP Margaret Sanger Clinic in Cincinnati was bombed right when they were being sued. The bomb was placed in the records room. Don't you think a pro-lifer would blow up the equipment that is used to perform the abortions and not the records that were about to convict them. Just like a choicer to use others for their own success.
Interesting. And that got blamed on crazy pro lifers?

reply from: RiverMoonLady

That is as likely to happen as Colorado accepting the unborn as persons. Pigs will fly before that happens.
Well what else could you expect? You take some 19 year old bimbo who doesn't have a clue about life, who just so happens to attend an unaccredited Christian Law school, which probably teaches the earth is flat and it is ok to execute gays because god says so, and put her in a state like Colorado where it is easy to get all manner of nonsense on the ballot, and who could possibly be surprised at the result?
True, I see why people would think she was crazy, but they shouldn't judge all pro-lifers based on a few people like her. Just like people shouldn't judge all pro-choicers based on what the crazy ones do.
I know this is totally off topic, but what'd you think of that woman that wanted an abortion 4 days before her due date? Are you for that, too? (Those questions are for fetalisa)
Could you supply a link to that story? I'd LOVE to hear her reasons for such a ridiculous request!

reply from: ProInformed

Under the status quo, which pro-aborts defend no-questions-asked, she doesn't have to give a reason. Read Doe v Bolton. 'Maternal health excuses to abort throughout the entire nine months of pregancy include anythign the mother wants to pretend is a 'health' excuse: finances, relationship, career, emotions...WHATEVER her reasons, pro-aborts defend her right to abort up until the moment of birth AND even if her baby survives the abortion, pro-aborts defend her right to have the baby killed by either an act of violence or by fatal neglect even after her baby is no longer inside her body.
Pro-aborts do NOT require that the mother give ANY reason for wanting to kill her baby; that's why its' called "abortion on demand" - the mother can abort for ANY reason whatsoever and does not have to in any way explain or justify her reasons for wanting to kill her baby.
Sheesh trying to talk to you choicist cultists is like trying to talk to somebody who has been hypnotized or is sleep-walking! We KNOW you've been informed of the same facts over and over and over again... but you presist in never LEARNING a thing! To pro-aborts abortion is some fuzzy, vague concept that you make sure never gets clarified into a specific reality in your closed little minds. The vastness of pro-abort ignorance regarding abortion is amazing and inexcusable.

reply from: BossMomma

Under the status quo, which pro-aborts defend no-questions-asked, she doesn't have to give a reason. Read Doe v Bolton. 'Maternal health excuses to abort throughout the entire nine months of pregancy include anythign the mother wants to pretend is a 'health' excuse: finances, relationship, career, emotions...WHATEVER her reasons, pro-aborts defend her right to abort up until the moment of birth AND even if her baby survives the abortion, pro-aborts defend her right to have the baby killed by either an act of violence or by fatal neglect even after her baby is no longer inside her body.
Pro-aborts do NOT require that the mother give ANY reason for wanting to kill her baby; that's why its' called "abortion on demand" - the mother can abort for ANY reason whatsoever and does not have to in any way explain or justify her reasons for wanting to kill her baby.
Sheesh trying to talk to you choicist cultists is like trying to talk to somebody who has been hypnotized or is sleep-walking! We KNOW you've been informed of the same facts over and over and over again... but you presist in never LEARNING a thing! To pro-aborts abortion is some fuzzy, vague concept that you make sure never gets clarified into a specific reality in your closed little minds. The vastness of pro-abort ignorance regarding abortion is amazing and inexcusable.
Rivermoon is hardly ignorant, all she asked was a link to provide the story on the woman who wanted to abort 4 days from delivery.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

Thank you BossMomma, and booooooooo to you, ProInformed, because I am trying to learn why people are pro-life from an INTELLIGENT point of view and most of what I read here is utter garbage.
When you can make some sense and not insult me, I'll be happy to read your posts without having to discredit everything you say.

reply from: BossMomma

People are pro-life for as many reasons as people are pro-choice, religion, personal belief..etc. I'm pro-life because I personally believe that a human being's life should be respected. The unborn are not persons under the law but they will be if allowed to be born. The fact that they are not persons does not take away from their humanity.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

And thankfully, BossMomma, you are rational and intelligent. That really helps your believability. You are one of the people I listen to.

reply from: Antibigot

It's a religious issue entirely, with the religious idea being pushed that personhood begins at conception.
How so? I'm ATHEIST, yet I believe it is a human being starting at conception.
And if it's such a religious issue then there wouldn't be any religious pro-choicers.

reply from: Antibigot

It's a religious issue entirely, with the religious idea being pushed that personhood begins at conception.
I know people that aren't religious that think that... so it can't be a totally religious issue
The religious idea is that LIFE begins at conception which is a fact. Personhood is a political term. I believe personhood begins at birth but human life begins when sperm penetrates egg and creates a new human being.
I agree!

reply from: scopia19822

The Catholic Church in its 2000 year history has always taught that an embryo or fetus is a live human being. It has always proclaimed the abortion of an embryo or a fetus is a grave moral offense.

reply from: scopia19822

Oh really? You are so smart than how long has it been around? The orgins of the Catholic Church are stated in Matthew 5 when Christ entrusted Peter with his Church. Peter was the 1st pope vextroll, but since you are not a religious person you would not know or understand that. Also a little piece of advice vextroll if you want to be a female, you need to learn to act like a "lady".

reply from: BossMomma

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

A little history on the Catholic church.

reply from: Banned Member

I feel energized after a week of feeling down. Great things have small beginnings and I feel that we shall rise from the ashes of defeat and overcome these setbacks and win a greater victory in the long run.

reply from: 4given

I have hope and faith that the above is true.

reply from: ProudDadX2

We need to keep going. It's all we can do.
The best thing we can do is try to expand the base by reaching out to hispanics. My wife is from Mexico and was raised Catholic. Unlike many American hispanics, abortion is a make or break issue for her when it comes to politicians.
Sadly, when we went down to Guanajuato this summer to visit her family, none of them knew Obama was pro-abortion. They were, of course, appalled when we told them. The Mexican press has done a great cover job for Obama by not telling the people down there how his views on pro-life stand opposed to those of the Catholic Church.
We need to shore up support here for the pro-life cause. There are millions of us out there. However, there are also millions of American hispanics voting against their true beliefs. Somehow, we've got to get the pro-life message out to them. Since most are Catholics, or were Catholics at some point, it's a message they are more apt to receive.
Pick you battles, and pick them where you can win. Here, we can win. Bush carried over 45% of the hispanic vote. McCain barely broke 30%. The message has got to be there.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

"The best thing we can do is try to expand the base by reaching out to hispanics. My wife is from Mexico and was raised Catholic. Unlike many American hispanics, abortion is a make or break issue for her when it comes to politicians."
Nearly all Latinos were raised Catholic but many have become "Americanized" and no longer are as devout as they may once have been. Despite this, Latinos (especially those of Mexican descent) are responsible for the recent increase in birth rates in this country.
How much support do you think there will be from non-Latinos for any increase in the Mexican-American population if so many people are already against immigrants from Mexico and doing there best to not only stem the tide of immigration, but to also send Mexican natives BACK to Mexico?

reply from: Rhiannontex

RML, please don't try and be deceptive. Few people are against LEGAL immigration. It's ILLEGAL immigration that is the problem, and not just from Mexico.

reply from: ProudDadX2

RML-
That's the crux of the problem. Although John McCain has been a friend to hispanics throughout his political career, just a George Bush has, he didn't do enough to stem the vileness that came from the hardcore Right in 2006 and 2007 about illegal immigration.
Through my wife, who came to the U.S. legally, I've met illegals. The vast majority are harmless. And, having been to real Mexico where my wife's family lives as opposed to tourist Mexico, I understand that hard ecomonic and social conditions there are part of what drive them to risk coming across the border.
(The other part is economic on our part...but, that's a whole different topic).
The problem is that many of those who came here legally, or who were born here, also know illegals in their social circles and are put off by the attacks on them to the degree that they abandon their spiritual notions when they hit the voting booth.
I went to law school with a fellow who keeps company with Karl Rove. We discussed the hispanic vote and it's approximate 15% decline between Bush in 2004 and McCain in 2008. The problem, we suppose, is clearly that the national GOP made a terrible tactical error in 2006 by letting the most strident opponents of illegal immigration be the mouthpieces of the party in front of the national media.
Now, McCain wasn't one of those. Like Bush, he sought middle ground on it because he comes from a state where dealing with it is day-to-day reality. However, he didn't convey that well (or, much else other than he was a "Maverick" in the campaign - another reason the GOP base wasn't excited about him...but, again, that's another story for another time).
The important thing is this: Bush had the highest percentage of hispanic vote by a GOP candidate. Taking the heated immigration debate off the table in 2006 and 2007 and continuing to focus on family issues such as abortion would have allowed the percentage to approach 50% in 2008.
And, McCain had such a history of goodwill with American hispanics. It's a shame he didn't rely more upon it. However, he chose the advisors he chose (something also discussed and dissected by Rove and not really a topic for here...let's just say Rove was telling us in August that the McCain campaign was rudderless).
So, after my long-winded answer, the long and short of it is that the GOP must go back to the Bush/Rove playbook of 1994-2004 and get hispanics on board. They are a natural pro-life constituency. But, you can't ask them for a vote about one thing when you've spent two years kicking them in the teeth about something completely unrelated to it.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

For the record, I am bilingual English-Spanish and love the Hispanic culture. I believe that ALL immigrants, legal and illegal, should be allowed to obtain citizenship. I do understand the economic and social reasons for immigration, especially from Hispanic countries, and believe that ALL immigrants should be not just allowed here, but WELCOMED.
I brought up the point because there is such a horrible, evil wave of hatred against illegals, especially Mexicans, and I think it's just plain wrong.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

During the election there was a bill on the Florida ballot to disallow immigrants from owning property, and I voted for it. I have NO problem with them owning propety once they are a citizen, but I don't feel non-citizens should be allowed to own propety. It's American soil.

reply from: JRH

During the election there was a bill on the Florida ballot to disallow immigrants from owning property, and I voted for it. I have NO problem with them owning propety once they are a citizen, but I don't feel non-citizens should be allowed to own propety. It's American soil.
Are you too much of an idiot to realize you also screwed over non citizen legal immigrants who are working their way up?

reply from: CharlesD

Do you mean illegal immigrants, or all immigrants. My wife is a legal immigrant with a green card. She's not a citizen yet. Should she be allowed to own property?

reply from: RiverMoonLady

For a group who is dedicated to fighting prejudice against a certain particular group (the unborn), I find it quite odd that anyone would vote for such a horrid law. I know people who have lived in this country for many years without becoming citizens, and they had very good reasons (such as the love of their native country and the inability to become dual citizens.) However, they owned property, worked, paid taxes and LIVED like any other citizen.
To remove the ability to own property from someone based solely on their citizenship is not fair. And gee, what would we do about multinational and foreign companies that own property here? Make them become citizens or tell them to get out????

reply from: LiberalChiRo

I think it's stupid that America doesn't allow dual citizenships, actually.
How can you pay taxes if you're not a citizen? You're not even on the census; you don't have a social security number. I literally can't understand how that would even be possible.
Foreign companies are a completely different issue from a private immigrant.

reply from: LiberalChiRo

Do you mean illegal immigrants, or all immigrants. My wife is a legal immigrant with a green card. She's not a citizen yet. Should she be allowed to own property?
I would have to look at it again, but I believe it is illegal immigrants.

reply from: RiverMoonLady

I think it's stupid that America doesn't allow dual citizenships, actually.
How can you pay taxes if you're not a citizen? You're not even on the census; you don't have a social security number. I literally can't understand how that would even be possible.
Foreign companies are a completely different issue from a private immigrant.
Please see the following for IRS info:
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/international/article/0,,id=96414,00.html

reply from: LiberalChiRo

My father managed to answer this for me.
1. Legal immigrants get social security numbers.
2. The bill only applied to illegal immigrants.

reply from: ProudDadX2

RML-
I understand the plight of the Mexican people. But, it is the responsibility of their government to improve their country so that their people can stay there.
There problem is that PRI ruled for seven decades straight. They've only had eight years of non-PRI rules, beginning with Vicente Foc in 2000 and continuing with Calderon in 2006.
I love Mexico and the Mexican people. But, any country opening up it's border to all comers without some measure or standard is folly.
The topic at hand is "What To Do Now." My answer was to reach out to hispanics in America using something they have in common with the GOP, a spiritual pro-life background. Nowhere do I suggest creating a freeflow of illegal immigrants into the country.
My wife came legally and so should those seeking to come here.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics