Really great discussion that most churches wouldn't touch. Thanks for providing the opportunity, CT.

Really great discussion that most churches wouldn't touch. Thanks for providing the opportunity, CT.

TSD, those are just more lies from obama, as you can read at this article. Sorry that your version is not true. The wording of the bill was identical to the bill in the US Senate. According to this article here (and many others) http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=28732 here is the info regarding the Obama infanticide votes: "Obama's opposition to bills in the Illinois state Senate from 2001-03 that would have required medical attention be given babies who survive botched abortions and that would have given them legal rights. On several occasions he was the leading opponent. A nurse at Advocate Christ Medical Center in Chicago testified that she saw babies who had survived abortions left unattended to die, but surviving on their own for several hours. It shocked her so much that she is now a pro-life advocate. Ever since he ran for U.S. Senate in Illinois in 2004, Obama has defended his opposition to the various bills by saying he would have supported them if they had contained "neutrality clause" language stating -- as a federal version did -- that the bills would not weaken abortion law. The federal version passed the U.S. House and Senate in 2002 by voice vote, with Senate passage coming unanimously. But public documents released by National Right to Life Aug. 11 show that Obama, as committee chairman in the Illinois Senate in March 2003, voted against a version of the bill (S.B. 1082) that contained a neutrality clause identical to one in the federal bill, leading to its defeat on a 6-4 vote. In fact, the neutrality sentence was copied word for word from the federal bill. National Right to Life charges Obama was part of a "cover-up" and for years has "blatantly misrepresented" the truth. The news is significant not only because it conflicts with Obama's own stated reasoning behind his opposition to the bill, but also because the federal bill had the support of the U.S. Senate's most pro-choice members, including Democrats Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy. Even NARAL Pro-Choice America -- a leading supporter of abortion rights -- didn't oppose it. Pro-lifers charge that if Obama in fact opposed a federal version of the bill on the state level, then he's further to the left on abortion than anyone in Washington. FactCheck.org, a non-partisan website sponsored by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, has backed National Right to Life's version of the story, saying that Obama did vote against a bill he said he would have supported. "We now know Barack Obama as state senator voted against identical Born Alive Infants Protection Act legislation that was passed overwhelmingly on the federal level and accepted by even NARAL," the aforementioned nurse, Jill Stanek, wrote on her blog. "For 4 years Barack Obama has misrepresented his vote and must answer for that." Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, called Obama "the most radically pro-choice nominee ever nominated by a major party." "Barack Obama voted against the born alive infants protection act in the Illinois state senate and against the ban on partial-birth abortion, which means that Sen. Obama has never met an abortion he couldn't live with," Land told Baptist Press. In 2004 Obama told the Chicago Tribune he opposed the state bill because it "lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade." He has repeated that claim, with his campaign telling The New York Times in an Aug. 6 story that Obama would have supported a similar bill as the federal one. Obama himself told CBN's David Brody Aug. 16, "I have said repeatedly that I would have been ... fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported.... That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade." In the same interview, Obama said of National Right to Life, "I hate to say ...

In the interview with Relevant, conducted on Tuesday, Obama also defended his opposition to restrictions on induced abortions where the fetus sometimes survives for short periods. Obama voted against such a bill when he was in the Illinois Senate. He has said he supported a federal version of the law that contained more specific language because he feared the Illinois proposal would have applied to all abortions. Here is an article on Obama's lack of support for the bill in question from:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/04/obama-on-late-abortion-me_n_110884.html "There was a bill that came up in Illinois that was called the 'Born Alive' bill that purported to require life-saving treatment to such infants. And I did vote against that bill," Obama said Tuesday. "The reason was that there was already a law in place in Illinois that said that you always have to supply life-saving treatment to any infant under any circumstances, and this bill actually was designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, so I didn't think it was going to pass constitutional muster." As you can see, nothing is ever as simple as it may seem. I don't think this needs to turn into a discussion on Obama. The discussion is that women use PP because they have no other choice and too many good prolife Christians are not stepping in to give them any other choice.

@NK: re: Planned Parenthood (oxymoron alert!) "II Cor. 7:14 Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? 16 Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “I WILL DWELL IN THEM AND WALK AMONG THEM; AND I WILL BE THEIR GOD, AND THEY SHALL BE MY PEOPLE. 17 “Therefore, COME OUT FROM THEIR MIDST AND BE SEPARATE,” says the Lord. “AND DO NOT TOUCH WHAT IS UNCLEAN; And I will welcome you."

"So today, cut organizations off because they perform abortions, TOMORROW, cut organizations off because they offer birth control contraceptives. Where does it end?" This is a joke right? Can you name anything in real life where things are moving to a higher plane of biblical or moral values? Anything?? Obama took the next step by making partial-birth abortions available to women as one of his very first actions. And while in the Illinois senate, he voted 3 times for infanticide. The exact same bill in the White House was voted down by Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer, but Obama voted not once, not twice, but three times to kill a live-born infant. Now he and the Dept of Justice have illegally decided not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. Illegal, because they took an oath of office to uphold the laws and the Constitution. Now he is forcing other countries to have abortions before they receive any money from the US. Also, he is very pro-homosexual, gay, and transgender. And now, others are pushing for polygamy (muslims, mormons), after all they are adults, and they "love each other", and it's "best for them". Then you have the pedophiles who think it is wrong to discriminate against youth solely based on their age, and then you have those who think they should have the right to have sex with horses, cows, etc because they are in a loving "relationship" and who are we to judge? It is an absolute joke to think that things will move to a higher moral standard until our Lord returns. But, believe me, there are those of us who will follow our conscience and follow God, and will not participate in performing abortions, or prescribing or dispensing abortifacients, despite the law requiring us to. Like someone else said, that, along with his ability to name ANY American citizen a terrorist, strip them of their citizenship, and detain them for an unspecified time, has made THIS president a fascist, and you don't have to worry that someone with higher moral standards will be able to stop you from your "right" to kill an infant. If he has another term, with his obamacare, I wouldn't be surprised to see that certain babies, who for example, they find out will be born with Down's Syndrome, will be required to get an abortion. It's happened in the past, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen again.

"So today, cut organizations off because they perform abortions, TOMORROW, cut organizations off because they offer birth control contraceptives. Where does it end?" This is a joke right? Can you name anything in real life where things are moving to a higher plane of biblical or moral values? Anything?? Obama took the next step by making partial-birth abortions available to women as one of his very first actions. And while in the Illinois senate, he voted 3 times for infanticide. The exact same bill in the White House was voted down by Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer, but Obama voted not once, not twice, but three times to kill a live-born infant. Now he and the Dept of Justice have illegally decided not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. Illegal, because they took an oath of office to uphold the laws and the Constitution. Now he is forcing other countries to have abortions before they receive any money from the US. Also, he is very pro-homosexual, gay, and transgender. And now, others are pushing for polygamy (muslims, mormons), after all they are adults, and they "love each other", and it's "best for them". Then you have the pedophiles who think it is wrong to discriminate against youth solely based on their age, and then you have those who think they should have the right to have sex with horses, cows, etc because they are in a loving "relationship" and who are we to judge? It is an absolute joke to think that things will move to a higher moral standard until our Lord returns. But, believe me, there are those of us who will follow our conscience and follow God, and will not participate in performing abortions, or prescribing or dispensing abortifacients, despite the law requiring us to. Like someone else said, that, along with his ability to name ANY American citizen a terrorist, strip them of their citizenship, and detain them for an unspecified time, has made THIS president a fascist, and you don't have to worry that someone with higher moral standards will be able to stop you from your "right" to kill an infant. If he has another term, with his obamacare, I wouldn't be surprised to see that certain babies, who for example, they find out will be born with Down's Syndrome, will be required to get an abortion. It's happened in the past, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen again.

@Dan I didn't say we should commemorate them. But providing abortions is a limited portion of their budget, and we should acknowledge the good they did - much as I do, in fact, acknowledge the scientific advancements the Nazis made. Incidentally, the Nazis are directly responsible for humanity reaching the moon, and for a large part of the massive advance of transplant technology in the 20th century. What they did was evil, a crime against humanity and God, and they should be reviled for the rest of the universe's existence for doing it, but they did have some excellent scientists. But we're not talking about them. We're talking about Planned Parenthood, an organization that offers the completely legal service of murdering children pre-birth. I believe that it is wrong on multiple levels, but the laws of this nation disagree - and while I would prefer it be banned, if it's available for some it should be available for all. When combined with the fact that they spend a small portion of their money on abortion, that makes the organization worthwhile... for now. And again: If we (the anti-abortion/pro-life crowd) believe it's so wrong... why don't we create our own, pro-life, pro-women organization to perform counseling and medical services on a national level? "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" doesn't just apply to standing up against evil. It applies equally to helping those that would otherwise succumb to that evil. Not that I'm not as guilty of that as anyone else, mind.

@Dan I didn't say we should commemorate them. But providing abortions is a limited portion of their budget, and we should acknowledge the good they did - much as I do, in fact, acknowledge the scientific advancements the Nazis made. Incidentally, the Nazis are directly responsible for humanity reaching the moon, and for a large part of the massive advance of transplant technology in the 20th century. What they did was evil, a crime against humanity and God, and they should be reviled for the rest of the universe's existence for doing it, but they did have some excellent scientists. But we're not talking about them. We're talking about Planned Parenthood, an organization that offers the completely legal service of murdering children pre-birth. I believe that it is wrong on multiple levels, but the laws of this nation disagree - and while I would prefer it be banned, if it's available for some it should be available for all. When combined with the fact that they spend a small portion of their money on abortion, that makes the organization worthwhile... for now. And again: If we (the anti-abortion/pro-life crowd) believe it's so wrong... why don't we create our own, pro-life, pro-women organization to perform counseling and medical services on a national level? "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" doesn't just apply to standing up against evil. It applies equally to helping those that would otherwise succumb to that evil. Not that I'm not as guilty of that as anyone else, mind.

I cannot express how strongly this whole Komen/PP dustup has put a bad taste in my mouth from both the pro-life and pro-choice sides. Few things make me feel as hopeless about our country's politics as this so-called abortion "debate." My Facebook news feed has been filled with anger, vitriol and misinformation from friends on both sides--and in both cases certainty that they are absolutely right in God's eyes and the other side is absolutely wrong. As a result, I neither want to speak in favor of nor listen to either side anymore. Will we ever find common ground? Also I think "bailey"s comment on the Quran crosses the line.