bullets13

        The problem i run into on this site sometimes is that being in the major minority of many issues, i often make one point and end up having to make rebuttals against many different responses. sometimes it makes me come off as more supportive of something than i actually am because i have to reply over and over and over and over again on something to address multiple people. So here it is... I AM pro choice. While some take the view that it is murder, i personally feel that something the size of a walnut inside of a woman's body is still part of her body and her's to do with as she pleases. I understand that many of you will never agree with me on this, and i can respect that. what i have not had a chance to say is that morally, i disagree with abortions. there are certain situations where i don't have a problem with them (such as in rape, known severe mental retardation, and severe health risk to the mother), but i do not agree with abortions as a convenient form of birth control. that being said, i do feel that a mother should have that choice, and i honestly can understand a 15 or 16-year-old making that choice. even though it's a choice i don't like, it's a choice that should be legal... and if you outlaw it, what about women that are raped? What about women who have health issues? I know a woman who became pregnant, then was diagnosed with kidney cancer. she had to choose between taking chemotherapy to survive, or having the baby. she chose to survive (and her husband and child who'd already been born) over an early-term fetus. So despite the fact that morally i disagree with the act, i don't see it as murder, and i feel that it MUST be kept legal for the few circumstances where it is understandable. So while i am in fact pro-choice, i don't want to give you guys the impression that i'm ready to throw parades outside of the clinics or anything like that.

That's the conundrum. The right would like to protect them before they're born, then complain about having to support them once they're born. I respect your beliefs against abortion, but I entirely disagree that if all of these unwanted babies were born and Medicaid, WIC, and welfare all increased dramatically that the right would be okay with that.

Ok, so let the government enforce a tax to ensure they're all buried. Oh wait, the right's not going to go for that.

And many if not most of those would end up in bad situations, leading to increased crime rates, increased poverty, more government handouts, and... Even higher rates of unwanted pregnancies.

    i know you'll disagree, but 55,000,000 extra unwanted children being born into poverty, unloving homes, or orphanages over the last 40 years would've caused a much larger problem for our country than abortions have.

    i agree that she did as well. that being said, what she went through is responsible for the great majority of the "burned babies" that the author of this piece is trying to use to get a gutteral response about abortion, and i also use her situation to show that this practice of "burning fetuses" is commonplace here in the US as well as Great Britain. i don't like the idea of a hospital using medical waste to heat it's buildings, but i don't have a problem with unwanted early-term fetuses, whether miscarried or aborted, being treated as medical waste, in order to prevent possible disease. Regardless of whether you're pro-choice or pro-life, the fact remains that the remains of both aborted and miscarried early term fetuses are often treated the same way. and this article is about their disposal, not about abortion itself. the "article" is presented in such a way that one can be misled to believe that hospitals are somehow encouraging or supporting abortion in order to take advantage of a great heaping pile of fetuses that they will then use to heat their buildings to save money (i apologize for the imagery, but it's what one imagines when they see the titles being used). that, in fact, could not be further from the truth.

    oh, you misinterpret. sorry i wasn't clearer. i think it's kind of creepy to power a hospital with medical waste. tumors and amputations included. fortunately, this was only the case at 2 hospitals, it was not a widespread practice, as some would have you believe.

    in the matter of safety and disease control, there are only a couple of options. it's not practical to embalm and bury an early-term fetus (nor would most mothers want to), so the logical answer is usually incinerating the remains. my pro-life, conservative step-mother chose to have the remains of TWO early-term miscarriages incinerated rather than face the expense of a funeral for a fetus she'd carried less than ten weeks.

it's no surprise that every rightwing "news source" has picked this story up, greatly misrepresenting and distorting the facts. however, if you find the actual facts, it's that aborted babies and miscarriages at a small number of hospitals were treated as "medical waste" and were incinerated along side other medical waste and trash. in a couple of instances, hospitals were using the incinerators to create power for their hospitals. now, thanks to the very misleading title, the image that comes to mind is a big fire with babies being tossed in to create heat for the hospital. what in fact was happening was that hospitals were burning all of the trash, as well as their "medical waste" together in the incinerator that was used to power the facility. the vast majority of this would be the regular trash from the hospital, a much smaller amount would be medical waste such as tumors, amputations, removed organs, etc., and an even smaller amount would be the unwanted remains of either abortions or early term miscarriages. And while i am pro-choice, i do have a problem with this practice. but i also have a problem with the way the story is being portrayed. In the United States, the remains of early term miscarriages are also often incinerated. while some mothers do choose to have some sort of burial or cremation service for an early-term miscarriage, the majority of US early-term miscarriages are also treated as medical waste unless the mother chooses differently. it isn't until a baby is at 24 weeks in the womb that they are considered "stillborn", meaning that either a burial or funeral home cremation is required in the US. so while i'm not a fan of the practice of burning the remains in a fire that is used to provide heat for a hospital- two hospitals in England after the cost of professional cremation became too much for them to afford... from the title you'd think this was a common practice- i don't really understand what you'd have them do. if the mother does not want the remains, what should the hospital do with them? they're basically doing the same thing that a funeral home would do.

  because they should have the same rights to sin and not be judged that you and i do?  and they certainly should not have less rights because of what they legally choose to (are born as) do. i know many homosexuals, and many of them are far better people than other straight, heterosexual Christians that i know. i find it increasingly unfair that Christianity unites against them, often with very unChristian attitudes, and as a general whole ignores other sins that are as big or bigger problems in our society. its not that i don't think that homosexuality is a sin, it's that i know several homosexuals that are great people, and whether or not you agree with their lifestyle, they are NOT the reason that society is failing.

He can afford private care. He doesn't have to get Obamacare. He's merely making a point. It's not a bad point, but he's not affected the way that small business owners will be.

This is the type of biblical based, Christian response that would go a long way in these types of debates. A response that decries ALL sin, and also acknowledges that we should not be hostile or insulting. While you and I are on different sides of the argument, this is a breath of fresh air from the belligerent, often uneducated and hypocritical responses I often face. I'm not directing the more harsh adjectives at those I've gone back and forth with on here, either, so do not take offense. But this is by far the most appropriately worded, and appropriately attituded response I've seen against homosexuality in quite some time.

He's worth more than $100,000,000, but lacks healthcare and is tweeting complaints about paying a penalty for not having healthcare. It would be cheaper for him to pay for a low end plan than to pay the proposed 2015 penalty, yet he goes without healthcare, pays the penalty, and then complains about the penalty. It does not take a brilliant mind to deduce his motivation. That being said, small business owners who pay taxes the same way he does WILL truly be affected by this, which is why I wish the tone of the article was different. I don't see many non-righties seeing past the hate and vitriol to the point of the article, which holds some validity.

there's some meat to this article, but plenty of misdirection as well. when i went to one of the articles that it cited as being an "ignorant, stupid, liberal, moronic, etc." piece about Drudge's tweet,  it actually gives the same explanation that the author of this uber-propoganda piece gave as to what Drudge was referring to.  i guess it wasn't that moronic, unless the author of this piece is a moron as well.  this piece is too heavy on insults and criticism,  which is sad because is that what he's saying is actually true to some extent, although to be fair, Drudge has chosen not to get healthcare for the SOLE reason of being able to gripe about paying a penalty for not getting healthcare.  if it were written as if by a journalist, rather than by a bitter extremist, the message would be a good one for moderates to hear.  but presented this way, it will convince nobody but those that are already convinced. 

Does it not say that God himself gave them over to it?  And AFTER he gave them over to it, men lusted after men and women after women?  at least, that's what the verse said.  Before God gave them over to it, they were fools, and did many bad things, but no mention of homosexual acts was made.

Not Good!  A positive is at least we got a lot of solid pitchers back this year that spent most or all of last season on the DL

we accept plenty of sins.  your statement is very telling, though.  instead of homosexuality falling into the group of sins that are generally accepted by Christians (drinking, lust, unwed sex, etc.), you lump homosexuality in with whoring and beastiality.  that's a very common "Christian" attitude about homosexuality these days.  It's not Christlike, but it's becoming more and more "Christianlike".

  what does divorce have to do with homosexuality? 

 it does not take creative interpretation for someone to read this and come to the conclusion that God made them that way.

   i'm saying lets quit living other sinful lifestyles while putting another sin on a pedestal as somehow a worse sin/lifestyle.

  i have no problem with someone calling gays sinners. i have a problem when people try to say that homosexuality is somehow the worst sin, or the biggest problem in our country.

  we don't have to encourage drunkeness or lustfulness, or have to push it upon our society to accept it. it's already accepted. those sins are no worse than homosexuality, but we have no problem with beer commercials, or the fact that every rated-R (and now often PG-13) movie has an obligatory sex scene or three. are those things not pushing upon our society acceptance of drinking and sex? if you say no, you're a liar. the fact is, those things don't make us uncomfortable, and many of us good Christians still drink or are committing sexual sin, or did in the past, so we don't rail upon those things. that's fine. but when all of the good Christians I know devote half as much time to stopping sex out of wedlock and drinking to excess, i'll maybe respect their opinions on homosexuality a bit more. truth be told, i know MANY Christians who commit these sins, live a lifestyle of these sins. It's easy for them to ignore that, and then rally against homosexuality... perhaps because that's a sin they don't struggle with? for people to come on here and act like acceptance of homosexuality is the downfall of our society, that's bigoted and hypocritical beyond belief. there are many sinful lifestyles that are far more detrimental to our society that Christians don't ever bring up. so if a Christian wants to come on here and say that homosexuality is sinful, i have no problem with that. But for Christians to act like homosexuality is somehow the downfall of our nation, that's utterly absurd.

you can say THAT as many times as you want, but you are still wrong.  or please tell me which homosexuals you've talked to that told you so.  i'd love to talk to them and see how they're different from the probably 2-3 dozen or so i've talked to.  God creates people who are schizophrenic that go crazy and kill people.  God creates people that are mentally retarded, and sometimes because they aren't smart enough to know right from wrong, they commit crimes. These people are born with abnormalities that lead them to sin. How is that different from someone being born with an abnormal sinful sexual impulse? Hell, we're all born into sinful sexual impulses.   but on a more simple note, everyone God creates is destined for a life of sinful behavior.  God created you knowing you would sin, and (I don't know you personally, and cannot talk for you) and knew that many (most?) that he created would not only sin, but would indulge in some form of sinful lifestyle.  maybe you guys know somebody, but growing up active in the church, i had a lot of guys that i was great friends with, and we would talk about sexual sin, thoughts, masturbation, etc. in the context of our religion and sin, and i didn't know a single guy who was born with the ability to control sinful, lustful thoughts.  So why is so hard to understand that the same God who made people incapable of forgoing lustful thoughts (and a vast majority incapable of forgoing lustful actions) might create some who struggle with something a little different?

And Christians are not here to enforce that law, only to tell of it.  We'd do well to remember this.

children are not "made" gay.  you can't be "influenced" into becoming gay.  it's not contagious, and it's not a choice.  you either are or you aren't.  so i'm not really sure how children in a home with two loving dads or moms are worse off than children living in foster care or a state run school or with a crackhead mother who can't take care of them.    but that being said, i'm really curious, unless you were raised by gay parents, how you'd have such a strong opinion on how badly damaged these poor kids would be growing up in that situation.