« Ravi on the Web | Main | Judas, Christmas, and the Inauguration »

January 17, 2009

Comments

And all of God's children said...AMEN!

Wow

Brilliant declaration by our President as he exits

I love it!

Very nice.
To be compared, I would presume, with his successor's intended first act as president.
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=pf0XIRZSTt8

While no doubt the above proclamations are squarely on target,we should take into account all of the other things that aren't. The following YouTube video by NBC News is worth considering.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtnE4C9Gv5U

What does one expect from the media that is convinced that being a rock star is something more than being the president of the United States. I've heard them say it in just those words.
What do you expect from a media that hides the fact that Cass Sustein, Obama's "regulatory czar" believes that "A nimals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives."
If this is any indicator of the kind of administration Obama will be running for the next four years, BOY ARE WE IN TROUBLE!!!

To Louis Kuhelj: Can you dig up a reference for that quote?

A few months ago, I read on news.google.com that Spain's parliament was arguing whether to extend some form of governmental rights to primates other than the man-kind. After reading that, it occurred to me that the Great Apes have been under-represented at the various Tennis matches around the world, so therefore perhaps the Spanish Open should write up an Affirmative Action plan to interview and bring in a few worthy apes to compete. What do you think?
After all, if an ape wants to compete in a tennis match, they should certainly not be prevented from realizing their full potential, should they! Hee hee hee.

Nice parting shot. I wonder if there will be political ramifications to the incoming President because of this, and if so, what they are?

I saw this yesterday.

What a horrifying realization it is to know that our new president does not share this view of life.

Pro Life -

Please explain to me which of the points in the proclamation you disagree with, and what Keith Olberman has to do with any of it.

Real science proves unborn babies are human beings.

Dr. Bernard Nathanson says that real-time ultrasound, which gives a moving picture of the child in the womb, electronic heart monitoring,which detects fetal heartbeats, brainwave monitors,which measure brain activity, fetoscopy,which allows a physician to actually eyeball the baby,simply astounded him.

Such techniques as cordocentesis even allow medical diagnosis,treatment and surgery in utero.

"There was nothing religious about it I finally came to the conviction that this was my patient. This was a person! This was purely a change of mind as a result of fantastic science and technology." Our universites teach us that it is alright to kill unborn babies.

Dr. Nathanson fastened an ultrasound machine to a woman undergoing an actual abortion, and produced " SILENT SCREAM",a film that justly horrified most people who saw it. It showed the fetus trying desperately to move away from the vacuum, and then her body parts were successively sucked off. The film produced a massive campaign of defamation agaist Dr. Nathanson from liberal thinkers.

This only made him more determined, so he decided to show an abortion from inside the womb. He attached a camera to a fetoscope and inserted it during a D&E abortion. The resulting film was "ECLIPSE OF REASON". That is exactly what abortion is.

Abortion is the murder of unborn babies! Please stop killing them Obama. Please put and end to the so-called FREEDOM OF CHOICE ACT. It is the Freedom of Murder Act OBAMA. Unborn babies deserve our protection not capital punishment.

>Pro Life -

Please explain to me which of the points in the proclamation you disagree with, and what Keith Olberman has to do with any of it.

>>I agree with all of the points of the proclamation. I said "While no doubt the above proclamations are squarely on target". I then went on to say "we should take into account all of the other things that aren't."

Keith shows us the things that aren't squarely on target. To me, the "target" is obviously morality and integrity.

I see hypocrisy in Bush and his supporters when they condemn abortion on the one hand while fully supporting all or most of the actions Keith condemns in the video on the other.

James,
I hope that this link will not be cut off when I paste the link here, but the reference was on the Center for Consumer Freedom website.

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/3807

"All human life is a gift from our Creator that is sacred, unique, and worthy of protection."

This from the same guy who supports the death penalty; in other words, he's ending his presidency with a proclamation containing a sentiment that he doesn't believe in. Weird.

Daniel, supporting the death penalty honors human life. Murdering a human demands the ultimate penalty because it is the most serious crime. A lifetime in prison is not equal to the value of a life.

It's because of God's valuing of human life that He demands the death penalty for murder in one of the very first commands He gives mankind:

Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man's brother I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man. (Genesis 9:5-6)

Note that it's because human life is so valuable, because we're made in the image of God, because we're worthy of protection, the death penalty is demanded. Government is supposed to protect innocent life and punish those who take it.

And one more thing Daniel

"The most basic duty of government is to protect the life of the innocent."

How is supporting the death penalty a contradiction of that? Are murderers innocent? Honest question.

And in the statement you quoted, you may have overlooked the word, "And worthy of protection".

"Daniel, supporting the death penalty honors human life."

I would agree with that sentiment if there was no other alternative, but there is (life in prison without the possibility of parole).

"How is supporting the death penalty a contradiction of that?"

If you read my initial post again, I never said that supporting the death penalty contradicts the quote you indicated, but the "All human life..." (Notice the key word "All") part of the proclamation. That's a very broad sentence that applies to the death penalty just as much as it does to abortion.

And in the statement you quoted, you may have overlooked the word, "And worthy of protection."

Which, if you actually read the full sentence from which those four words came from, you would see that it indicates that it applies to "All human life..." (again, notice the key word "All").


"This from the same guy who supports the death penalty; in other words, he's ending his presidency with a proclamation containing a sentiment that he doesn't believe in."

With all due respect, it certainly sounds like you are implying a contradiction on his part.

So by your logic, if All human life is worthy of protection, the police should stand idle if they see someone on the street being beaten to death. Yes, the man on the ground is certainly being taken from him, but if we attack the beater we are violating the clause, "All human life is worthy of protection". Sounds like you were being nitpicky with verbatum than pointing out an actual fallacy.

"With all due respect, it certainly sounds like you are implying a contradiction on his part."

Yes, I was, because, in the context of the "All human life..." part of the proclamation AND the fact that President Bush supports the death penalty, the implication is an accurate one.

Allright then. Your reasoning is a bit funny, but if thats what you think, so be it.

Daniel,

Are you likewise a hypocrite if you are against any form of the death penalty but not against any form of abortion?

What is an equivalent alternate substitute for abortion (as life imprisonment is to the death penalty)?

Is it also weird for someone believing in the sanctity of all human life to proclaim against the death penalty while being for abortion? Wouldn't that proclamation be "containing a sentiment that he doesn't believe in."

The comments to this entry are closed.