“…a large group of pro-life supporters…”? Sounds like human clones to me. Human clones who shouldn’t be saddled with waiting periods for concealed weapons OR coerced abortions.

Chud - Are you taking debate lessons from Tim Hogan?

Coerced? You mean if the doctor explains to the patient her legal options.

Nick,

Bob Onder made his opposition to human cloning one of the centerpieces to his campaign. Is it wrong to expose the hypocrisy of packing an auditorium of cloned “people” in Wentzville while INSIDE the district attacking them?

Would these one-issue politicians please concentrate on religious rights, such as the right to practice the precepts of one’s religion. A good example where this has been taken away is concerning religious adoption agencies being required legally in some places to require them placing children in the homes of same sex couples, against and in violation of the precepts of their religion.

Why don’t politicians fight for the right of children of religious parent(s) to be placed into homes that follow the precepts of the parent’s religion if she/he has one and finds such is an important religious issue?

Politicians and many Christians are fighting battles in all the WRONG ways. I suppose that is because most really do not truly know God or His instructions as disclosed to us.

When a politician makes a claim of being pro-life, moral or Christian. I listen to him/her and watch. Does this politician appear to have a clean heart or is he more of a hypocrite than anything else. Has he been a Christian for a long time or is he pretty new to the faith, which would account for his how maturity or immature the person is in his/her Christian walk and faith, or their plain unfaithfulness to their faith.

This is one of the reasons why I choose Obama, because he appears to have a very clean heart and he is a pretty new Christian in terms of when he came to Christ and accept Christ as his Lord and Savior. It is to be expected that he will be in error about many spiritual matters concerning God and Christianity.

It is a very difficult and almost impossible thing for a faithful and mature Christian to be a politician. Just ask Jimmy Carter. It is almost next to impossible for a politician to live in this world and not become part of it.

Let’s face it; I think there is more of a chance with Obama than any other politician who understands the right fight for Christians and all other religions:

1. Rights and freedom to practice and live by one’s religious precepts.

Obama also understands the God given right for people:

1. To reject God.

2. To live immoral (sinful) lives according to the Christian faith and other faiths.

3. To choose abortion as it stands as a legal procedure today.

3. To live a homosexual lifestyle

4. To not believe in Hell, or

5. To even choose to go to Hell if that is what they choose.

God instructs those who belong to Him how to go about His business. We are instructed to trust Him to handle dealing with the blindness of people in this world. The way Christians are going about the abortion and gay issues are not how God has instructed. I certainly wish Christians and politicians claiming to be Christian would wise up and hear what God has instructed or soon, all religious people of all faiths will lose the right to live by the precepts of their religion in America.

I would imagine all religions here in America appreciate this freedom, Christians, Buddhist, Muslims, Hindu’s, Jewish, or any others that I have not mentioned.

Lastly, the Pandora box has been opened where abortions are concerned and, I do not believe that it will ever be closed. As things stand now, abortions are legal.

Christians are having abortions at just as high a rate as non-believers, just as Christians are divorcing their spouses at just as high a rate as non-believers, not much difference in those one’s proclaiming to be Christians and those who do not believe or follow Christ.

The churches and Christians need to get their houses in order and religious leaders in the church need to get more involved in the lives of their church body and own family members guiding them into perfecting their life in Christ and rebuking their own church members for unchristian and ungodly behaviors, but concentrate on bringing God’s word to the world as has been instructed, and stop trying to control what non-believers in the world are doing. And politicians need to stop playing these stupid games with spiritual and moral matters for political purposes.

“…that would have imposed more restrictions on abortion recipients and providers.”

Well, Jo, it’s not hard to tell exactly which way you lean on this debate, is it? While your definition of the bill is technically true, the spirit of the bill was not to impose restrictions, but rather to provide protections to mothers in the face of potentially threatening situations, and to provide protections to the child. Being a person whose mother had her entire circle of family and friends advising her (not physically coercing her, but still strongly suggesting) that she get an abortion, let me just state that this bill is near and dear to my heart.

And, Chud: While I know you think you are EXTREMELY funny, seeing your ridiculous comments both on here and in the Columbia Daily Tribune (usually just cut-and-pasted right from one to the other) is annoying. Not because you are on the opposite side of the divide, but because your remarks are asinine. Grow up and get something original to say.

D. Walker:

While I disagree with your choice of candidates, that was an extraordinarily well-written and well-thought comment. And, if someone was trying to use public office to advance their religion, I would have to disagree with them.

However, I just want to present another side. Even though I am a Christian, my beliefs in ending abortion don’t stem from my faith, but rather from my understanding, grounded in science, of when life begins; and from my belief in liberty. As I best understand, the definition of death is the absence of brainwaves and a heartbeat. If such a definition is true, logically speaking, the point at which life begins is when brainwaves or a heartbeat is shown to be present. At the point where life is present, I find it revolting that any person could choose abortion, as I believe it to be tantamount to murder-the taking of a life by another human being.

As far as “gay issues” (i.e., gay marriage), that should be considered a religious issue, but only for one reason: the history of marriage is rooted in religion. It wasn’t until the 1920’s that the government started licensing marriage, and the reason for that was to ban interracial marriages. By the time interracial bans were outlawed, the government began using marriages as a way of giving benefits to couples. Much of the hullabaloo stems from the rightly-placed concern of religious people upset at the fact that a religious ceremony, in their eyes, is being stolen and tarnished. My solution, which I’ve always proposed, would do away with state-sanctioned marriages, and give that institution back to the churches, to do with it as they wish. Replacing marriage for the state would be civil unions. Doing such a maneuver would strengthen the institution of marriage (from the church’s perspective), and take the religious narrative off the table with regards to full legal rights for gay couples, making it easier for homosexuals to truly be equal in the eyes of the government.

Once again, though, great comment. It would be outstanding if more people came here with well thought-out positions like yours.