US Elections 2004

[sincereheart]

I'm glad you answered sincereheart. Since anduril2, thinks a guy wouldn't know nothing about rape, or abortion.

'Cept for him, of course.....

[sincereheart]

It's strange to me how 'discussions' on abortion always end up being focused on the women who were raped. Seems to be the justification for allowing them. But I never can understand why since those abortions only account for (rounded UP) 1% of all abortions performed!  

Some interesting thoughts:

"From his own research and the work of others, (Dr. David)
Reardon reports some results most people would find surprising:

For example, it is commonly assumed that rape victims who become pregnant would naturally want abortions. But in the only major study of pregnant rape victims ever done, Dr. Sandra Makhorn found that 75 to 85 percent chose against abortion. This evidence alone should cause people to pause and reflect on the presumption that abortion is wanted or even best for sexual assault victims.

Several reasons are given for not aborting. First, approximately 70 percent of all women believe abortion is immoral, even though many feel it should be a legal choice for others. Approximately the same percentage believe abortion would be just another act of violence against their bodies and their children.

Second, some believe that their child's life may have some intrinsic meaning or purpose which they do not yet understand. This child was brought into their lives by a horrible, repulsive act. But perhaps God, or fate, will use the child for some greater purpose. Good can come from evil.

Third, victims of assault often become introspective. Their sense of the value of life and respect for others is heightened. They have been victimized, and the thought that they in turn might victimize their own innocent child through abortion is repulsive.

Fourth, at least a subconscious level, the victim may sense that if she can get through the pregnancy, she will have conquered the rape. By giving birth, she can reclaim some of her lost self-esteem. Giving birth, especially when conception was not desired, is a totally selfless act, a generous act, a display of courage, strength and honor. It is proof that she is better than the rapist. While he was selfish, she can be generous. While he was destroying, she can be nurturing.

By contrast, Reardon notes, women who go through with abortion find that abortion itself is the real revictimization.

"Many women report that their abortions felt like a degrading and brutal form of medical rape," he writes — involving "a painful examination of a woman's sexual organs by a masked stranger who is invading her body … while she lies there, tense and helpess, the life hidden within her is literally sucked out of her womb. The difference? In a sexual rape, a woman is robbed of her purity; in this medical rape she is robbed of her maternity."

Moreover, "after any abortion, it is common for women to experience guilt, depression, feelings of being 'dirty,' resentment of men, and lowered self-esteem … these feelings are identical to what women typically feel after rape. Abortion, then, only adds to and accentuates the traumatic feelings associated with sexual assault."

http://www.boundless.org/regulars/kaufman/a0000848.html

[sincereheart]

I like this quote; kinda sums it all up!

"But in fact, the welfare of the mother and child are never at odds, even in sexual assault cases. Both the mother and child are helped by preserving life, not by perpetuating violence."

http://www.afterabortion.org/PAR/V2/n1/RAPESUM.htm

[sincereheart]

From The Alan Guttmacher Institute (closely aligned with Planned Parenthood and FOR abortion )
PRCH & AGI ã 2003
Most Important Reason Given for Terminating an Unwanted Pregnancy

Inadequate finances 21%
Not ready for responsibility 21%
Woman’s life would be changed too much 16%
Problems with relationship; unmarried 12%
Too young; not mature enough 11%
Children are grown; woman has all she wants 8%
Fetus has possible health problem 3%
Woman has health problem 3%
Pregnancy caused by rape, incest 1%
Other 4%
Average number of reasons given 3.7

http://www.agi-usa.org/

[sincereheart]

"It doesn't matter how I began. What matters is who I will become."
~Julie Makimaa, conceived by an act of rape

[Evangelist]

BTW, I don't believe in the devil either, it wouldn't like my stubborn attitude or my self determination

Rofl.....it's that stubborness and "self" determination that he absolutely loves!

[Melody]

But seriously, She scares me.  If she ever got into power, I could see her making religion illegal.

And that is what scares the non-Christians about Bush.

We all should be worried that any president makes his religious values a voting point because the shoe could just as easily be on the other foot.   Christians are a minority.  Do we really want to set precedent for letting our president have such an influence on making laws that are based on a particular faith?    If you said "yes", then put the shoe on the other foot....what if an atheist were in power and wanted to push their brand of "faith" and beliefs.    How about a Muslim...a Hindu....etc.?

I want separation of church and state as much as can be and laws made on secular not religious beliefs.  For example, we don't need to bring faith into a discussion on abortion.  We've always known that murder is wrong and it's political fence sitting to decide that just because we call it a fetus that it's not human.    I think it's great that George Bush is anti-abortion but when I go into that voting booth, I'm going to look at all the issues such as his domestic policy and his foreign policy.  I'm going to look at the truths he's told, the lies he's told and the things he's just not answer to.  I'll do the same with Kerry or any other candidate but I will not vote for one candidate based on one issue.  I hope that nobody will.

I've seen a lot of posts where people are planning on voting for George Bush just because they agree with what he's doing in Iraq and the fact that he's a Christian.  Let's look at the rest of his promises from the election 4 years ago and see how he measured up.

I'm sure my view is very unpopular so fire away.

[Melody]

DW, with all due respect you are turning a blind eye. I have an open mind to everything, not just one aspect or one religion. As I mentioned before I think everyone is right. Whatever 'belief system' works for you is best.

BTW, I don't believe in the devil either, it wouldn't like my stubborn attitude or my self determination  

Actually, I think the devil is absolutely thrilled with your stubborn attitude and self-determination....because it's keeping you from God.

Melody

[Melody]

>>1. A woman is raped and gets pregnant; who wants a baby from this method?<<

A woman of faith who knows that God will take even this horrible event and turn it to something good.  There are many people who are enlightened enough to know that the child of a rape is not inherently evil just because the father was a rapist and who very much want a child.


>>2. A woman finds out in the early stages that the fetus is not going to have a chance at a normal life; it's either got a disease or defect, etc.<<

A woman of faith who knows that there must be some reason that this little life was created by God and trusts in God to see her and the child through whatever difficulties arise.  Killing children because they have a disease or defect is a little too close to what Hitler did in Germany and what Nicolai Ceaucescu did in Romania.


>>It is her choice to decide what to do. She has to carry the baby to term, she has to go through major changes in her own body.  Its her body, nobody elses.<<

Propoganda by prochoice advocates.  Here's the truth:

"Do you not know that you are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?  If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are."
Corinthians 3:16-17
 
My husband's first wife discovered she had breast cancer 6 weeks into her second pregnancy.  The doctors told her she needed to abort so she could get chemotherapy.  In her mind she had no choice because her faith said abortion was murder.  They took Bryan 6 weeks before his due date, and as soon as his little lungs were developed enough.  However, it was still too late for his mother as the cancer had metastasized.  She died a year and a half later when her boys were 3 and 1-1/2 years old.  Bryan is now 19 years old and in his final year at the university.  He is a very loving, gentle young man who brings a smile to the faces of those who know him.

Yes, those who knew his mother still grieve for her but everytime they look at Bryan's face, they are reminded of just how much love this woman was capable of and she isn't forgotten.  

[nChrist]

Oklahoma Howdy to All,

I apologize for some messed up subject lines in recent posts. That happened while trying to deal with several banned users. I have fixed the subject lines.

There are some people who can commit murder with no guilt or remorse at all. They are called psychopaths. I've met quite a few of these folks in police work, and they are thankfully rare.

Normal people suffer guilt and other emotional problems for the rest of their lives when they commit murder. If you are wondering, those who do abortions and those who have abortions do suffer these emotions for the rest of their lives. It really doesn't matter that abortion is currently legal and involves an accepted medical procedure. The only way to avoid the guilt and emotional problems would be to have a brain transplant at the same time. Otherwise, there is no amount of logic or medical terms to avoid the reality of murder. Yes, there is pain and guilt for all involved in abortion, and there should be. It's simply a natural process for anyone with a heart and conscience.

Love In Christ,
Tom

[Sulfurdolphin]

What does everone think about the 13 democrats of U.S. Congress asking the UN. Kofi Annan to  send election monitors for the 2004 elections this November.

This sounds little fishy to me. As a republican we do not need foreigners to monitor the elections this could turn out to be a bigger mess than 2000 elections.

Also they need hold the elctions someplace else other than Florida why not texas?

But anyways there are going to be 55 countries at our elections Now, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the largest regional organization in the world with 55 participating nations, will monitor the U.S. election on Nov. 2. Members include Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Russia, Spain and the United States.

I am wondering if this is a stepping stone in one day of allowing the U.N. to monitor our every presidential elections? But this could be of one way of socializing america's political system where it is no longer controlled by the American people.

As americans this should outrage us we are going to have these countries in our land over seeing the elections what scares me is these 55 countries could be allowed to vote Illegally in our country without the public awareness and whom who they vote? we know these countries probably except for Germany and Spain hate our president and or any repulic president(s) we have had in the past.They would prefer to have a democrat in office so these countries could socalize america and dismantle more of the military and they would try to socalize our health care like HIllary which was a joke nobody wants canadian healthcare in america or any type of foreign healthcare system.

We should be aware of this because as far as i know this was not on the news but i could be wrong because i dont watch tv very much anyone can correct me on that.

Anyways i just wanted to get this off my chest.

What is everyone elses thoughts on this?

Here is the source

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39861

[nChrist]

Hello Sulfurdolphin,

You asked for opinions, but I'm very shy about the UN. I think that the buildings used by the UN would be much better used as pig farms. Something good would come of it, and they already have an abundant supply of slop there.  

I don't think the UN should be in charge of anything, much less our security or elections. As an American, I would state very shyly that I want them out of our business completely. Further, I wouldn't trust them to be in charge of the pig farm at the previously used UN buildings. Maybe I can study the issues some more and come up with a firm opinion of some sort.  

Love In Christ,
Tom

[Shammu]

Hello Sulfurdolphin,

Further, I wouldn't trust them to be in charge of the pig farm at the previously used UN buildings.  

Love In Christ,
Tom

[Shammu]

See you are right about the U.N Brother Tom.

Report links U.N. to Iraq bribes


NEW YORK (AP) -- The top U.S. arms inspector has accused the former head of the $60 billion U.N. oil-for-food program of accepting bribes in the form of vouchers for Iraqi oil sales from Saddam Hussein's government.

The report by Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, alleges the Iraqi government manipulated the U.N. program from 1996 to 2003 in order to acquire billions of dollars in illicit gains and to import illegal goods, including acquiring parts for missile systems.

The alleged schemes included an Iraqi system for allocating lucrative oil vouchers, which permitted recipients to purchase certain amounts of oil at a profit.

Benon Sevan, the former chief of the U.N. program, is among dozens of people who allegedly received the vouchers, according to the report, which said Saddam personally approved the list.

The secret voucher program was dominated by Russian, French and Chinese recipients, in that order, with Saddam spreading the wealth widely to prominent business men, politicians, foreign government ministries and political parties, the report said.

The report names former French Interior Minister Charles Pasqua, Indonesian president Megawati Sukarnoputri, and the Russian radical political figure Vladimir Zhirinovsky as voucher recipients, for example, and other foreign governments range from Yemen to Namibia.

The governments of Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Egypt did a brisk illicit oil trade with Iraq as well -- more than $8 billion from 1991 until 2003, the report said.

"These governments were full parties to all aspects of Iraq's unauthorized oil exports and imports," it said.

The officials whose names have emerged in the face of multiple ongoing investigations of corruption in the U.N. oil-for-food program have previously denied wrongdoing. The program was designed to allow limited oil sales to pay for humanitarian goods.

Asked about the fresh allegations against Sevan, U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard said the organization wouldn't talk about specifics and noted Paul Volcker, the former chief of the U.S. Federal Reserve, was conducting an independent investigation at the U.N.'s request.

"We are not going to comment on any specific allegation against Mr. Sevan or anyone else," Eckhard said.

"This is in the hands of Paul Volcker. We are cooperating with him fully. Benon Sevan is cooperating with him fully, and we will wait for Volcker's judgment. Benon, meanwhile, stands by his statement that he's done nothing wrong."

According to the Duelfer report, which got its information from the former Iraqi oil ministry, Sevan allegedly received vouchers for 7.3 million barrels of oil through various companies and representatives recommended to Iraqi ministries by Sevan. The financial take would have been in the range of $700,000 to $2 million, depending on oil prices.

Critics of the oil-for-food program and U.S. congressional investigators have long alleged that administration of the program was rife with corruption and failed to prevent illicit business deals and massive kickbacks to the Iraqi government.

The report said, "Saddam was able to subvert the UN OFF (oil-for-food) program to generate an estimated $1.7 billion in revenue outside U.N. control from 1997-2003."

And it said the voucher program, "provided Saddam with a useful method of rewarding countries, organizations and individuals willing to cooperate with Iraq to subvert U.N. sanctions."

"Once the oil for food program began, it provided all kind of levers for him (Saddam) to manipulate his way out of sanctions," Duelfer told Congress on Wednesday.

Congressional investigators praised Duelfer's report.

"Mr. Duelfer's conclusions show the full breadth of Saddam Hussein's corruption and manipulation of the U.N. Oil for Food program," said Henry Hyde, R-Ill., who chairs the House International Relations Committee.

Reports that Sevan had received oil vouchers first emerged in January when the Iraqi daily Al-Mada newspaper published a list of alleged recipients. But Duelfer's report provides new details and a new degree of credibility.

In April, the United Nations appointed Volcker to head the independent investigation of the growing scandal.

Four congressional panels have also been investigating the corruption and accusations that Saddam used leverage from the program to influence foreign governments and particularly members of the Security Council, who would vote whether to maintain sanctions.

[digme]

Hello Sulfurdolphin,

You asked for opinions, but I'm very shy about the UN. I think that the buildings used by the UN would be much better used as pig farms. Something good would come of it, and they already have an abundant supply of slop there.  

I don't think the UN should be in charge of anything, much less our security or elections. As an American, I would state very shyly that I want them out of our business completely. Further, I wouldn't trust them to be in charge of the pig farm at the previously used UN buildings. Maybe I can study the issues some more and come up with a firm opinion of some sort.  

Love In Christ,
Tom

if you make any thing that a man says and does, or mock an institution as ridiculous and useless, chances are you have not completely understood it.  If you really were to tell the truth, and i asked you, have you ever been outside of the United States of America and gone to any country where the UN has been? Chances are, i would guess, you would say no.  But sure, you do know how to pass judgment on something colossal as the UN.  That just shows a tongue that wants to speak fast before it listens clearly, or on the other hand the other choice- which is worse off in my opinion- two ears who listen and yet, even with truth entering the mind, a heart that still is set in its old ways from ever changing.  Read Romans 1 & 2. DREAMWEAVER,  I want to ask you one question, and all of you Republican Christians:

How come an enormous majority of African-Americans would never ever vote for the Republican party? Has that ever crossed your mind why so, or is that out of your comfortable socio-political radar?  do you realize that if there were ever a stat compiled, i would guess about 70-80% of the African-American population goes to church every sunday?