Fahrenheit 9/11

[Colleen]

[quote name='shelly_freak' date='Jul 13 2004, 10:28 PM']
well think of how many people are being killed in a war we dont have to be in versus what kerry might do to stop it, yes abortion is wrong but more innocent lives are dying in this war than would with abortion.

i didnt take everything moore said as hard fact, it raised some points that alot of people were oblivious about.[/quote]
shelly_freek, you should really check out this thread:

[url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=14039&hl=the+numbers"]http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showt...&hl=the+numbers[/url]

So far, 887 soldiers have died in Iraq, but every single year, over a million innocent babies are aborted.

[track2004]

I haven't seen the movie, but I talked to my mother about it and she said it was politically charged and propaganda, but it also made her reconsider how the events of the last few years have unfolded. I'm not sure I am going to see this because I'm not really interested in paying to have Michael Moore's politics shoved down my thoat, but I'm not interested in having anyone's politics thrust upon me, liberal, conservative or otherwise. I did watch Bowling for Columbine with some friends and although I really don't like MM in the movie (he's just annoying) I didn't dislike the movie as a whole.

I am under the impression that movie should make you think for yourself, but at least let you know there are (at least) two sides. He takes people and ideas and molds them into what he wants to show you (which we all do), but then tries to pass it off as wholy factual.

[DancesforLove]

I don't agree with Michael Moores opinion of our president or the troops in Iraq, but I understand his wanting to show another side to the whole story but he glorifies Iraq by showing little kids flying kites and playing (as he said in an interview the bad side was shown enough it is time to show the better side). I think what he is trying to do is just to make people think but there are some things he has done in my opinion are out of line and could have been handled in a better way.

[Aloysius]

what exactly is John Kerry going to do to stop the war in Iraq?

nothing. he can't.

Abortion has killed more people than all American wars combined since 1776.

Abortion is priority. Abortion is ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE evil and immoral, whereas wars are not necesarily immoral and the death penalty is not necesarily immoral. If Abortion is not stopped, we will never have peace.

[crusader1234]

A few things here.

First of all, this isnt a right-wing left-wing battle.

Don't let your political patronage woo you in either direction: The war on Iraq and the Bush administration have made quite a few mistakes, this is a fact (regardless of whether the war is injust or not there have been mistakes). Abortion is wrong, this is another fact. Facts don't cancel eachother out, they connect together to make the truth, and we can't ignore any parts of the truth otherwise we don't get a balanced view of where the world is today.

And if anybody here read the Time article on Mr. Moore, his closing words were something to the effect of "I went after Mr. Bush and you can bet anything that if Mr. Kerry is elected I'll be going after him from day 2".

Peace,

Rich

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='Someguynamedmatt' date='Jul 13 2004, 12:49 PM'] I hate to break it to everyone, but Bush really doesn't give a carp about abortion. He's not going to try to stop abortion because it would be political suicide, so that really shouldn't even factor into your vote this november. [/quote]
Hi Matt,

I agree that Bush certainly could be doing more for the pro-life movement. He's not 100% pro-life, and I'm very disappointed in that; however, he doesn't support the unabashed murder of millions of babies without limitation, unlike John F. Kerry. Did you watch the March For Women's Lives on TV, where many pro-"choice" speakers lashed out at Bush for being "anti-choice"? ([url="http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/000493.html"]Here's[/url] a tiny tidbit about that.) It's no secret that the pro-"choice" industry views Bush as a threat. Visit the Planned Parenthood, NOW, NARAL, etc. websites, and do research on this. You'll see for yourself. (You can start [url="http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/bushvchoice/"]here[/url], [url="http://www.plannedparenthood.org/library/facts/030114_waronwomen.html"]here[/url], and [url="http://www.now.org/eNews/may2004/051704march.html"]here[/url].) Compare this to John Kerry's stance. (You can read about him and abortion [url="http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/"]here[/url] on his own site.)

[quote]As for gay marriage, regardless of its morality or immorality, it would be unconstitutional to continue its ban. It is not the government's job to protect the sanctity of marriage... after all, 50% of marriages end in divorce, so clearly they are not protecting marriage in the first place.[u] It is the CHURCH'S job to protect the sanctity of marriage, and it has done so well.[/u] So let the courts marry all the gay people they want, their marriage won't be valid in the eyes of the church anyway.
[/quote]

See, I don't buy this. Your statement would hold true if society wasn't affected by governmental decisions, but that's not the case at all. The State began recognizing marriages because of their benefit to the State. How does marriage benefit the State? By providing children, future citizens. Gays, by the very nature of their unions, can never sire their own children as a result of their unions. Their unions do not benefit society and should not be recognized by the State. In opposition to this argument, gay "marriage" advocates argue that some heterosexual couples cannot have children, or choose not to, so they shouldn't be able to marry if gays aren't allowed to marry. That is logical folly -- an argument on individuality rather than collectivity. Collectively, heterosexual marriage brings forth children. Collectively, gay "marriage" does not and, emphatically, can [b]never[/b] bring forth children.

It should also be noted that the State has the obligation to uphold the Natural Moral Law. Allowing legalized murder, for example, would be unjust in that murder goes against the Natural Moral Law. Homosexual activity goes against the Natural Moral Law -- and homosexual "marriages" shouldn't be legally recognized because of this. If gay "marriages" are allowed, that also means that polygamy, bestiality, incest, pedophilia, etc. "should" be allowed as well. After all, if gay "marriages" are allowed, why shouldn't the rest be allowed as well? Logically, what'd stand in the way of their legalizations if the State took a completely libertarian view towards marriage?

I'm also concerned about the religious freedom of those who disagree with gay "marriage." Will government officials who refuse, on the basis of their religion or morality, to recognize gay "married" partners lose their jobs? From what I've been seeing in this news with other countries that allow gay "marriage," I'd have to answer in the affirmative. I, for one, think that people's [b]constitutional right[/b] towards religious freedom should take priority over gay "marriage." After all, there's no "right to marry whoever [i]or whatever[/i] one pleases" in the Constitution.

Two men, or two women, cannot produce a child together. Whether one believes in God or not is irrelevant -- human beings are created in a way in which homosexual procreation is impossible. If two women were meant to procreate, and to therefore raise children together, why wouldn't God, or "evolution," have provided the natural means to do so? If men and women have been procreating together, and if they've been raising children together by extension, it'd follow that both a man and a woman raising a child together would be the natural, most beneficial way to raise a child (or children).

God bless,

Jennifer

[crusader1234]

By the way, on the whole 'war kills more than abortion' front.. thats totally (and unfortunately) inaccurate. Also, its important to note that the 800 soldiers killed was the AMERICAN count. Countless Iraqi's have been killed as well, and if the war is unjust, they were innocent.

[crusader1234]

[quote]Some argue that some heterosexual couples cannot have children, or choose not to, so they shouldn't be able to marry, either, if gays aren't allowed to marry. That is logical folly -- an argument on individuality rather than collectivity.[/quote]

Hey Jen, I think Pio Nono said something about this in the Q & A. It is, in fact, invalid if a couple gets married with the knowledge they cannot (note: sterility is different from impotence or low sperm count) have kids or they chose not to. Thats contrary to being open to life which is what marriage is all about. So yeah, heterosexual couples who can't have kids aren't allowed to marry according to Catholic natural law.

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Jul 14 2004, 02:39 AM'] Hey Jen, I think Pio Nono said something about this in the Q & A.  It is, in fact, invalid if a couple gets married with the knowledge they cannot (note: sterility is different from impotence or low sperm count) have kids or they chose not to.  Thats contrary to being open to life which is what marriage is all about.  So yeah, heterosexual couples who can't have kids aren't allowed to marry according to Catholic natural law. [/quote]
Hi Rich,

I know that. I was just arguing from a governmental standpoint. Proponents of gay "marriage" usually say that sterile couples shouldn't be able to marry. I just wanted to point out that heterosexual marriage, collectively, brings forth children -- unlike gay "marriage" which, collectively, cannot.

Could the government stop couples who choose not to have children from marrying? I'm not sure. Maybe. Anyone know about this? It seems it'd be hard to enforce, though.

God bless,

Jen

[BeenaBobba]

For the record, I wouldn't have a problem with the government refusing to recognize the "marriage" of couples who choose not to have children. Like I said, I know very little about this, but if someone here (more knowledgeable about this than I am) could show me that these governmental "marriages" (where the heterosexual couple refuses to have children) should be outlawed, I'd gladly and willingly modify what I said regarding this.

God bless,

Jen

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='shelly_freak' date='Jul 14 2004, 12:28 AM'] well think of how many people are being killed in a war we dont have to be in versus what kerry might do to stop it, yes abortion is wrong but more innocent lives are dying in this war than would with abortion.
[/quote]
Hi Shelly,

Statisically, more people have died from abortion in a day than they have during the [b]entire[/b] Iraqi War. According to [url="http://www.iraqbodycount.net/editorial_feb0704.htm"]this site[/url], around thirteen thousand civilians have died during the Iraqi War. According to [url="http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/"]this site[/url], 2,093 American soldiers have died due to the Iraqi War; there have been 129 military deaths in Afghanistan; there have been 117 deaths in other coalition troops, and anywhere from 4,895 to 6,370 Iraqi soldiers have died. For the sake of this argument, I'll take the larger number. Added up, the total death toll for the Iraqi War (and keep in mind that this sum is probably exaggerated) is around 21,709 [u]at the most[/u].

Now, let's take a look at abortion. There are 1.6 surgical abortions done each year, which means that 1.6 children are put to their deaths each year from surgical abortions. That's about 4,000 children killed each day by this method. But that doesn't even include chemical abortions (i.e., abortions that result from the Morning After Pill and other abortifacients). An estimated 14 million children die each year from chemical abortions -- about 38,000 each day. Added up, 42,000 children die from abortion [b]every day[/b]; 294,000 die every week, and 532 million children are killed each year in the United States! (This information was taken from the [url="http://www.all.org"]American Life League[/url] website.)

What does that leave us with? Iraqi death toll: 21,709/[b]Daily[/b] abortion death toll: 42,000.

God bless,

Jennifer

[BeenaBobba]

Hi Shelly (again),

It should also be noted that John Kerry hasn't been consistent (John Kerry inconsistent? There's a shocker! LOL.) regarding the Iraqi War. [url="http://www.georgebush.com/KerryMediaCenter/Read.aspx?ID=2694"]Click here[/url] to read some John Kerry quotes.

God bless,

Jennifer

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='Someguynamedmatt' date='Jul 13 2004, 12:50 PM'] by the way, i didn't type the word "carp" [/quote]
Haha. The phorum does that automatically when you type the c-word. LOL. I found that out a few weeks back. I was like, "Ah, a typo! Wait, no... That's not a typo."

God bless,

Jen

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='BeenaBobba' date='Jul 14 2004, 03:47 AM'] 294,000 die every week, and 532 million children are killed each year in the United States! [/quote]
Correction: 532 million children have died from abortion in the United States. The 532 million figure is not a yearly figure. That should have read, "15.6 million children die each year from abortion."

God bless,

Jen

[Jake Huether]

[quote]and if the war is unjust, they were innocent.[/quote]

Not that it makes any difference, a death is a death, but if you sign up to be in the military, then even if the war is unjust or whatever, you may be innocent, but you have signed your life away to the whim of the government. So, in essence, when you sign up for the military you go into it knowing that you might die. That's just a part of the job. Bush is a human, he can make mistakes. Maybe the war was a mistake, but the deaths are legally acounted for. Take for example the fool who waves a plastic gun in front of a cop. He may be innocent, but he knew the risks, and if the cop shoots and kills him, it may be a mistake, but there is no comparing this to the slaughter of a child in the womb.

In abortion we have truly innocent humans dying. They didn't sign any papers. They didn't go into some contract knowing that by mistake or otherwise they might die. They were formed by the actions of their parents, and they are being destroyed by the actions of their parents.

There is no comparison. Even if this war killed 1 million soldiers, combined with all other wars it pales in comparison to the 45 million babies that die every year worldwide. That's 45 x 30 years of abortion = 1350 million babies that have died (estimate recoreded).

And even if this war alone could top the abortion figures, we're talking about adults who have made the desicion to be a part of the military knowing their risks as aposed to unborn innocents who are killed before they have a chance to know what the light of day looks like.