pajarito

Christianity declares only one God. It is monotheistic just like Judaism or Islam. The Trinity does not signify “division” as you state. It simply expresses that God has shown himself to us in three different forms (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). It is true that Islam, Judaism, and Christianity share some of the same religious text; however, the religions are not compatible based on that. Christians believe that God became the man Jesus, and that belief, trust, and obedience to him alone is the only way for salvation. Muslims don’t accept that Jesus was crucified, killed, or rose from the dead. Muslims don’t believe that Jesus is the only way for man to experience God, Jesus is equal with God, or that Jesus is God. These were all claims made by Jesus. Either: - Jesus is who he claimed to be. - He was deceived as to whom he believed himself to be. - Or he was a liar. Christian God: - If Jesus did not die on a cross, the Christian God is a false God. - If God did not raise Jesus from the dead after 3 days, the Christian God is a false God. - If Jesus is not the only way to God, the Christian God is a false God. - If Jesus is not coequal with God, the Christian God is a false God. - If Jesus was deceived as to whom He was, the Christian God is a false God. - If Jesus was a liar, the Christian God is a false God. Muslim God: - If Jesus did die on a cross, and God raised Him from the dead after 3 days, the Muslim God is a false God. - If Jesus is the only way to God, the Muslim God is a false God. - If Jesus is coequal with God, the Muslim God is a false God. - If Jesus was not deceived as to whom He was, the Muslim God is a false God. - If Jesus was not a liar, the Muslim God is a false God. Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet of God and pay reverence to him in their texts as such but that Mohammed was the final prophet. If Jesus made false claims of this magnitude and isn’t in fact who he claims to be, then how can he be considered a good prophet of the Muslims? If Jesus is who he claims to be and what he said is true, then: - The god of Islam is not the same as the God of Christians. - All roads do not lead to god. Jesus is “the way, the truth, and the light” and no one comes to God except through him. - The god of Islam is a false god and Mohammed is a false prophet. Saying that God and Allah are one and of the same is too simple a view and it is inaccurate.

You're exactly right. That's the way it was.

Progress in Iraq. I don't know dude. I agree that much progress is being made in Iraq, however, those "weapons turn-in programs" aren't worth a damn. They never turn in their workable weapons. They just turn in rusted out artifacts that wouldn't be off any use anyway just to get money or privilages. I've participated in organizing many of those in Afghanistan. They were very disappointing and frustrating. However, I can't really blame them. If I lived in a place as dangerous as that, I wouldn't want to give up my only protection. They'd have to come and take my weapons. I would't willingly hand them over. I have mixed feelings about this. It's something we've got to do because there's just too much shit out there. On the other hand, I can sympathize with the ordinary man there. I wouldn't feel much safer if the militia's making a show and giving up some weapons. I certainly wouldn't let my guard down.

She said, No problem.

My wife is responding to this one. First of all, if the fetus is already dead then it is not an abortion. I do procedures all the time on women who have a missed abortion. That is not what we are talking about. It is not unusual for women to develop complications in the third trimester. However, she is not at any greater risk from delivery of a live infant than from a partial birth abortion. Why do you have to kill the infant to remove it? I have had to deliver infants prior to viability knowing that they would most likely not make it for the health of the mother. However, delivering that child alive did not put her at any more increased risk than what you are proposing. In a partial birth abortion, you still have to deliver the infant to a point so that the head is against the cervix so that you can then crush the skull and remove the contents. Either way, she still has to undergo a partial delivery, hence the name “partial birth” abortion. I disagree with your statement. I have done these procedures (D&E-dilatation and extraction procedure) on people who have had a missed abortion (dead baby) in the second trimester. These are not usually done in the fifth or sixth month as they get more dangerous the further along you are. They are usually done around 12-16 weeks give or take a little. These procedures usually cause quite a bit of bleeding. That is why most people that I know then deliver them by prostin or cytotec induction. Either way, it does not usually work as smoothly as you describe. In a D&E, you often remove the dead fetus in multiple parts that must then be re-approximated to make sure you have removed all the parts. Ever wonder why an abortion is so cheap in the first trimester, but markedly more expensive as the baby gets bigger? ($300-$500 in 1st trimester but several thousand in the 2nd trimester). Again, this is not the same as a partial birth abortion. That is not true at all. We still do D&X procedures all the time. Like I described before, sometimes parts get missed and the patient will pass parts of the fetus later (should never happen but it does).

Just because I'm male doesn't mean I don't have a stake in this. We're talking about the partial birth abortion procedure in particular. I can see you arguing the whole "Pro Choice" abortion thing with me but I don't see how most people could argue the validity or necessity of partial birth abortion. Not given the facts of what it entails and the reasons why it is performed. There may be gray area with abortion at earlier stages but, once it reaches this point, it becomes very black & white (or right & wrong rather). They are most assuredly "killing" a baby human being for the sake of someone's convenience. I would argue that it is clearly "murder" rather than just killing at that point. John Kerry “deeply respects people’s beliefs concerning this.” He really “understands” because he’s Catholic and was an alter boy.” Whatever the bloody hell that means. However, I guess it didn’t bother his conscience too much because he voted against the ban of it. How utterly disgusting!

These are reasons you’re giving why “partial birth abortion”, in particular, should remain legal? They are not valid. In your first example, “The fetus is dead”, why would you need to perform a partial birth abortion? If the fetus is already dead, why would you need to then stab it in the back of the head and suck its brains out? To kill it again? The mother can deliver a dead baby just the same as a live one. In your second example, “Continued pregnancy could kill the mother”, how is killing the fetus during delivery going to rectify that? They would have done something about it prior to the stage where partial birth abortion would be considered. Again, how is waiting until the baby is partially delivered and then stabbing it in the back of the head to suck out its brains going to alleviate any more danger to the mother’s life once she’s reached that stage in her pregnancy? In your third example, “The fetus is malformed so badly that it would never gain consciousness and die immediately after birth”, how is a partial birth abortion going to do any good. If abortion was a viable option in this case, why would it be necessary to wait until the point of birth and to end its life in this way? If the baby is going to die after birth, then it’s just going to die after birth. Partial birth abortion is just not an appropriate solution. Its only purpose is to end a baby’s life for the convenience of the mother. Not for any medical purpose. Because there is NO VALID MEDICAL REASON why this procedure should ever be performed. EVER. Assuming that you agree with abortion (which I don’t except for when the mother’s life is at risk), something should be done earlier in the pregnancy. There is no reason whatsoever for partial birth abortion. The bill is justified in being absolute and without exception. That’s not just coming from me but also from a medical doctor’s opinion.

Selective reduction is not the same thing as a partial birth abortion. In a partial birth abortion, the baby is delivered completely except for the head. The skull is then punctured and the contents of the skull removed. In a twin gestation, this would put the second twin at HUGE risk from infection, abruption, preterm delivery, etc. The reason is that you would have to leave the placenta intact for that twin and thus even when you cut the cord at the cervix; there is still a route for infection. This would NEVER (or should NEVER) be used in the situation that you described. AGAIN!!! Kerry's decision to oppose a ban on this brutal procedure is a glaring example IMO of his radical left leaning liberal stance, if he truly believes his bullshit, or he's just a no backbone, easily influenced, scared to piss off anyone in his party, puppet.

Your statement is completely false. Your example might have some merit with earlier term pregnancy abortions, however, it is irrelevant with regards to "partial birth abortion" the ban of which John Kerry voted against. Partial birth abortion involves the abortion of the baby during the delivery process. The life of the mother, whatever her condition, is not put more at risk whether the baby being delivered is dead or alive. Neither is the risk of life put at additional risk for any additional fetuses. Whether you agree with abortion or not, this type of scenario should have been done at an earlier stage in the pregnancy. Again, there is no reason to abort a baby at this stage other than the personal selfish convenience reasons of the mother. My OB/GYN Physician wife approves this message. Give me an example in the case of partial birth abortion where it would increase the survivability of a twin. Again, John Kerry voted against the ban of this procedure. Very sad, disturbing, and disappointing IMO.

I love to see Florida get beat! That was a good game. Very interesting day in college football. This is shaping up nicely! WAR EAGLE!!! GO AUBURN TIGERS

Homecoming Game Time to whup up on somebody. Louisiana Tech has stepped up to the plate. Let the BEAT DOWN commence! WAR EAGLE! #6 AUBURN TIGERS Still movin' on up. Just like the Jeffersons!

No worries. I haven't perceived that from you.

I’m talking about elemental design of the marital structure. I tried to add an example but I guess that one might not have been very good. Comparatively speaking, a rental contract would be a higher level than what I’m trying to describe with more workable components. I’m talking about the fundamental requirements for the basic human partnership. The only one which can in and of itself reproduce beyond itself to the next generation is one consisting of a man and woman. As I stated before, it won’t have a direct and immediate tangible effect on my marriage, except in principle. The fundamental requirement for what marriage is will not be grounded or specifically expressed. It will be a loose and open ended contract that could include anything within its organization that the individual can come up with. Maybe not immediately but I see it as being eventually inevitable. How about this one… A water molecule consists of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. If you add one more oxygen atom to the bond, it ceases to be water and becomes hydrogen peroxide. It’s a very subtle change and it is still very similar to water but it has changed to a different substance altogether. The root definition of marriage, makeup, or fundamental reality will also have changed. Blurring the lines for what marriage is and allowing it to consist of whatever the changing winds of opinion say it should be at the time will destroy the fabric that makes it up. It will not be seen as the necessary “rock” of civilization that it has been proven to be for thousands of years in any long lasting culture. This is a very dangerous trend that we’re witnessing.

This isn't necessarily directed at you, Jimbo. Just making an observation on the debate. The President looked 100% better than the last time and handled himself very well. However, you've got to wonder, with all of his obviously well trained debating coaches, why they wouldn't be prepared for a question like the last one that was given directly to Bush. The one asking him to name 3 mistakes that he's made along with 3 successes. What the bloody hell!?? He's been asked that same question in other recent speeches and he didn't have anything prepared then. It caused him to stumble and look bad. This question was obviously designed for that very purpose. It was a trap, just like the last time, and a pretty pathetic one in my opinion. It served no other purpose other than to bash Bush. On the other hand and regardless of its intent, the President should have been prepared for it by now and I can't figure out why he was not.

John Kerry voted against a ban on partial birth abortions. There is no medical reason whatsoever that would justify a procedure such as this and at this time in the pregnancy. Even "life of the mother" wouldn't come into play. Usually, a baby at that time is fully capable of performing life functions on its own. Even if you agree with abortion at earlier stages, partial birth abortion is legalized murder, plain and simple. You're trying to compare it to other ethical dilemmas such as capital punishment; however, that doesn't justify partial birth abortion. My tax dollars should not go to funding this brutal and horrific procedure.

We're not going to hear anything new in these dog and pony shows. It's all fluff and puff and how you look to the audience. Whether you can influence the swing voters out there. Again, I just don't understand how any non-retarded person could not make up their mind on who to vote for before now. That's beyond me. Granted, my opinion is somewhat biased and I was pulling for Bush but I sincerely thought he did an excellent job tonight. I thought Kerry did well too. If Bush did win, however, it was very close. I said last time that I thought he completely blew the last one. This one, however, coupled with Cheney's performance should widen the gap. I was impressed!

MAN!!! Kittens are dyin wholesale according to this poll! Awsome!!!

Thanks for all that deep insight Roy! I can tell you did your homework. It was very thought provoking.

My religious views don’t reflect my actions some of the time. I can party with the best of them. Well....at least I used to could.

I guess I feel like the dumbass. I don't understand either. I just didn't want to admit it. I understand the conceptual "auto-masturbate" part but don't really understand the options. I guess I'm just getting old or something.

Gotta go for a while. Let me think about that one. Later! Jay

YOU SUCK! (no pun intended! ) Damnit! ......

People keep trying to tell you you're mistaken but you won't listen Sheesh I disagree but nothing personal..brother. Don't confuse my dislike of a lifestyle for dislike of a person. I realize this is a heated topic. Most here are.

Thanks...but ain't it fun! I accept that everybody here doesn't agree with me. I'll defend my island till the end, though, damnit!!!

1. My still physically, mentally, emotionally developing child needs to be of an age where he/she can handle a concept such as this. 2. I would want my child to recognize it for what it is. It is in fact not normal and, therefore, abnormal. It is also not healthy in regards to family, marriage, and children. I would not want them to view someone of that preference as a lesser person any more than I'd want them to look at a person with a disease or debilitation of any kind in a demeaning way. I do think that there is the possibility of an environmental component in homosexuality and children are very influential. That is why I stated that I'd want them to be of an age where they could handle that kind of emotionally charged topic before it's forced upon them. That’s not to say that I think, if they’re “exposed”, they’ll all turn into homosexuals.