Lest you think this is fiction - these signs started to appear in the Philadelphia area just before the election, paid for by Arlen’s former campaign manager. This particular picture originially appeared in the Philly Daily News.
Posted on 11/13/2004 6:05:41 AM PST by cpforlife.org
How dense can you get kid? -- States that decree early term abortion to be murder violate due process for the women so accused.
And when you insist that you have a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of that woman, Jefferson frowns.
Wow, it is clear you aren't Catholic. Atheist like your namesake?
I was confirmed Catholic, but soon realized that I didn't know it all. I'm agnostic, and you're getting personally offensive. Take such BS to the backroom.
How is a civil inquiry "getting personally offensive"?
In the context of the above you were getting offensive.
It's nice to see I struck a nerve.
-- Perhaps you can learn self control.
Abortion isn't a 'moral' issue to me, first and foremost.
It was the abortion issue hitting home on a cognizent level that was part of the process that I personally went through coming to faith in Christ.
I don't trust a single person that believes baby-butchering is an acceptable behavior. Not for a second...
You guess a lot.
"In the context of the above you were getting offensive."
Really? How? When is a civil question "offensive"? And since you answered, how can you argue that it is even an issue of privacy? As for "hitting a nerve", what are you talking about?
Lest you think this is fiction - these signs started to appear in the Philadelphia area just before the election, paid for by Arlen’s former campaign manager. This particular picture originially appeared in the Philly Daily News.
Gee, - sniffle- you're getting me all choked up at the sheer unfairness of life..
Since the GOP Platform is congruent with his post, why isn't the onus on you to answer that question?
You don't understand cr@pola...
And my feelings have little to do with the facts of baby-butchering abortion...
Those of *YOU* that make it up as you go are the really scary ones IMO...
So you can't (or won't) explain what offended you in the question I asked that you answered?
bttt - GREAT post.
Let's call murder something it isn't and make it legal, shall we? That sword would cut deep, wouldn't it?
Dear tpaine,
"'Do you accept the fact that the instant after conception, a woman still has basic human rights, and that her just fertilized human egg arguably does not?
"I accept the first clause, not the second.'
"Your rejection of the reality that the argument exists is irrational. We have no way to resolve it, so would you lose by default."
No, you are asserting the second clause as fact, that unborn human beings have no rights.
I don't accept your assertion. Rights inhere to humans. The unborn human has rights.
If you wish to deny that the the conceived human being within the woman is not an individual member of the human species, unique from any other human being that ever existed, that is a point of philosophy or theology that you may wish to debate.
If you wish to debate when a member of the human species is sufficiently cognitively or psychologically developed to be granted status as a person, that is a philosophical debate. Within that argument is the hidden assumption that rights are not inalienable and do not inhere to human beings.
If you wish to argue about when "ensoulment," if you believe in such a thing, occurs, that is a theological debate.
Similar philosophical and theological arguments were made about the humanity of Africans, to justify slavery.
From a scientific point of view, each human being came into existence at conception. Only pro-aborts deny the obvious. With these, there is no rational argument.
sitetest
I gotta come down with AFE on this one, Clorinox. Religion aside, a civil society depends upon the constituents thereof deciding upon rules and regulations, aka laws, by which they will abide. Society is allowed to say, "This is wrong, and you will be punished if you do it." Otherwise, I could decide what is good for me is killing you, and who are you to say otherwise? Carrying it to an extreme, of course.
I found a couple of your comments offensive, but I'm not inclined to hit the abuse button just because I disagree with someone.
Where are the lies?
All men are required to follow the dictates of the moral law, including men collectively grouped as states. You are right tho,it's all in the translation. Flawed translations of the scriptures and bad theology lead to the current state of affairs
Now you want an argument just for its own sake.
Cool off. Get some rest.
Ok, the VP only has a cold so I can get on with my day... :O
Be blessed and do unto others, and all that...
No, I simply want to underrstand why you claim that a question I asked you - that you answered - is "offensive"? Is religion a tabu topic here?
As for your weird attempt to tell me what to do, well, it is laughable. N.B. I find your odd psuedo-constitutional argument just as laughable. Is there ANY authority anywhere that makes the odd assertions regards the constitution that you do, or is that odd view unique to you?
So, if your child was dying, and the only chance of a cure was a treatment derived from fetal stem cell research, you would decline the treatment and let your child die?
And would you also decline a needed transplant, if one were available?
Howlin claimed at 271 that I had "trashed" the GOP. He later claimed I had said his sister had "lived too long" or some such nonsense. Neither is true.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.