Mourdock Down Double Digits in New Poll

[Trooper]

The idea that our judicial system is based on the ten commandments is laughable. You really, really, really need to take a history class or something.

I note that there is no prohibition against rape in the ten commandments, although you are toast if you say Mr. Big's name with a bad attitude.

Where is adultery addressed in our judicial system? Or coveting?

You can't be serious.

Ever read Blackstone's commentary on the law?

We did use a lot of the Torah as a starting point when making laws back in the early 1800s. The Puritans did read the Talmud, did not believe in Christmas (it was nearly the Civil War before Christmas was accepted in the northeastern parts of the US) and Thanksgiving has religious roots. The fight in the Civil War came out of the evangelicals opposing slavery. Washington and many of the others who helped write the constitution were men of faith (though most of the Freemasons did not believe in the Trinty).

For the 200 years before we were a constitutional republic the American people were ruled by their pastors as much as the governors of their colonies. Even the concept of a federal republic has its roots in the book of Judges as ancient Israel was the first constitutional republic (Rome was the second). Our constitution was based in part on the structure of the Judges and part on how the Masonic lodge was ruled.

But, after 1805, the US became less of a people under G-D and more of a people filled with greed. And the Freemasons were marginalized. Most of this is due to Jefferson's desire for power.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Life comes in many forms, but surely you do not consider single cell organisms to be on par with fully developed human life.

Life does come in many forms, thank you for that.

And thank you again for proving my second point. If a simple bacterium with its limited DNA and function can be considered life, how can a fully fertilized egg with the complicated human DNA not be considered life?

 

[CarmelHP]

How is a percentage at a given number of weeks not a bright line?

How do you write, "those of you within 1 standard deviation of the mean time of viability must not have an abortion" into law, and how IS it a bright line? As I said, you don't know what a bright line is. It has to be able to guide conduct. "Life begins at conception" is a bright line.

 

[ATOMonkey]

How do you write, "those of you within 1 standard deviation of the mean time of viability must not have an abortion" into law, and how IS it a bright line? As I said, you don't know what a bright line is. It has to be able to guide conduct. "Life begins at conception" is a bright line.

Not just viability, but a percentage of viability.

So..."Those of you within one standard deviation of 50% viability must not have an abortion."

 

[Solitaire]

Life does come in many forms, thank you for that.

And thank you again for proving my second point. If a simple bacterium with its limited DNA and function can be considered life, how can a fully fertilized egg with the complicated human DNA not be considered life?

Depends on your definition of life, really. A chemically active organic group of cells can be considered life for the purposes of scientific definition, but that hardly makes it human. It certainly may evolve into a human if conditions are right and barring any complications, but that doesn't mean that it's the same thing as a viable human being.

 

[Solitaire]

Ever read Blackstone's commentary on the law?

We did use a lot of the Torah as a starting point when making laws back in the early 1800s. The Puritans did read the Talmud, did not believe in Christmas (it was nearly the Civil War before Christmas was accepted in the northeastern parts of the US) and Thanksgiving has religious roots. The fight in the Civil War came out of the evangelicals opposing slavery. Washington and many of the others who helped write the constitution were men of faith (though most of the Freemasons did not believe in the Trinty).

For the 200 years before we were a constitutional republic the American people were ruled by their pastors as much as the governors of their colonies. Even the concept of a federal republic has its roots in the book of Judges as ancient Israel was the first constitutional republic (Rome was the second). Our constitution was based in part on the structure of the Judges and part on how the Masonic lodge was ruled.

But, after 1805, the US became less of a people under G-D and more of a people filled with greed. And the Freemasons were marginalized. Most of this is due to Jefferson's desire for power.

I will not argue that religious influence had no part in the development of our government and system of laws, but the assertion was that it is based on the ten commandments, which is completely erroneous. It's a bit more complicated than that.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Depends on your definition of life, really. A chemically active organic group of cells can be considered life for the purposes of scientific definition, but that hardly makes it human. It certainly may evolve into a human if conditions are right and barring any complications, but that doesn't mean that it's the same thing as a viable human being.

It seems we need an agreed up definition of certain terms, before we can go much further.

I define life as any single celled organism (or greater) capable of replication.

I define human life as an single celled organism (or greater) capable of replication, containing human DNA. The most common of which is the result of a human egg combining with a human sperm. It could also include human eggs implanted with human DNA.

Viable human being - This doesn't really hold any significance to me, so I'll allow you to define it. My only caveat being, that you define the factors that make the life viable. (interventions, supplied nourishment, etc.)

 

[mlzoiss]

No, it's not a cop out. Your amazing level of ignorance regarding the establishment of our government and judicial system leads me to believe that a conversation with you would be annoying at best. Opinions can differ over the beginnings of life, but to actually believe that the founding fathers based our government on the ten commandments, despite actual recorded statements and writings to the contrary, is mind-bogglingly ignorant to me. This is not something which is subject to opinion.

Again, I am not ignorant on the founding of our country. And you are still changing my words to suit your argument. I did not say that our GOVERNMENT was based on the ten commandments. Our JUDICIAL system and our laws have incorporated them and our creator into the founding documents of our country. There are many writings to support these statements. Do you honestly think the courts use the 10 commandments as decoration because they look pretty? It is still very possible for re-writes to happen in our history texts, and "factual" history is re-worded and changed every day to suit an agenda.

Have you ever seen two history books with different accounts of the same event? How about the myth of Spanish inquisition? Or the fact that Queen "Bloody" Mary did far less damage than her revered sister Queen Elizabeth?

And actually you can have an OPINION on the beginning of life, but science has already defined the answer. Just crack open any modern text on embryology.

Every new life begins at conception. This is an irrefutable fact of biology. It is true for animals and true for humans. When considered alongside the law of biogenesis – that every species reproduces after its own kind – we can draw only one conclusion in regard to abortion. No matter what the circumstances of conception, no matter how far along in the pregnancy, abortion always ends the life of an individual human being. Every honest abortion advocate concedes this simple fact.

 

[mlzoiss]

Still voting for Murdock!!!!!!!

And his defense of human life, I would take it a step further though.

September 10, 2012 International Symposium on Maternal Health held in Dublin, Ireland, with 140 medical professionals, including experts in obstetrics and gynecology, mental health, and molecular biology in attendance, have confirmed that abortion of a preborn child is not a medical necessity to the preservation of a mother's life. These experts presented new research on maternal healthcare focusing on high-risk pregnancies, cancer in pregnancy, fetal anomalies, mental health, and maternal mortality. The conclusions blow the whistle on what abortion industry propagandists and their bought-and-paid-for politicians have always known: There is no medical condition that requires the direct termination of one life to preserve the other.

 

[Stickfight]

Still voting against. Still not sure for whom.

Name still on a list of Internet pseudonyms under the heading "Not voting for Mourdock". Still awaiting what bravery will come from that.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

So I heard on the radio today that Harry Reid has already said he won't cooperate with a Romney Administration. Looks like if the Republicans win the White House and hold the House, they will still need to win the Senate to accomplish anything. Or get a budget passed. Or have a budget submitted by the Senate. . .

 

[mlzoiss]

 

[SaintsNSinners]

I got my Mourdock Literature and Yard Signs delivered to day... Gonna be Working the Polls tomorrow....


Woot Trying to save America 1 vote at a time

 

[mr hucky]

Yeah, well, there's a lot of morons out there.

murdock may be an idiot but hes the only choice we got

 

[hornadylnl]

murdock may be an idiot but hes the only choice we got

If that's the case, the senator portion of my ballot will be blank.

 

[U.S. Patriot]

I pay no attention to polls.

 

[Survivalcookie]

Voting Mourdock, still have his sign out front..

Same here...and his bumper sticker on my truck!

 

[bwframe]

Mourdock FTW. Let the others swim against the current of the toilet water.

 

[jfw46544]

I have had the chance to meet Mr. Mourdock on a few occasions. I am impressed with him. He believes in what he is doing and I agree with most of it. I shook his hand right after a speech in front of a small crowd. Sweating... He is not a natural at this and not comfortable in my estimate. I feel that he is running because he knows he can help get this country back on the right path. I don't think that he is doing this for himself, rather he is doing in for the U.S. My 2 cents.....

 

[Survivalcookie]

But unlike your other examples (infant, child, etc.), it is not, in itself, a human being quite yet. Any suggestion that it is comes from religion, not science. And therein lies the problem.

So why is it that only 1 sperm out of millions finds it way to the egg and this does not happen every time. That little sperm that makes it through hell and high water creates life inside the egg. I believe life begins at conception...as do many, and that every baby is a gift from God. Even the egg fertilized in a dish in a lab is a gift from god...because it does not work 100 percent of the time. If that fertilized egg is not nourished and taken care of it will die...how can something die that is not alive? It is just the first name in many in the chain of being a human conceived to dying of old age.