Skip to comments.
Ann Coulter: Party of Adultery and Abortion Takes A Hit
Human Events ^
| 11/8/02
| Ann Coulter
Posted on 11/08/2002 3:06:20 PM PST by Jean S
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 301-320 next last
To: JeanS
Another Homerun by Coulter. She never misses, some are just better than others, and this is decidedly one of the better.
To: All
"In Usenet usage, a "troll" is not a grumpy monster that lives beneath a bridge accosting passers-by, but rather a provocative posting to a newsgroup intended to produce a large volume of frivolous responses. The content of a "troll" posting generally falls into several areas. It may consist of an apparently foolish contradiction of common knowledge, a deliberately offensive insult to the readers of a newsgroup, or a broad request for trivial follow-up postings."
Source.
To: Tom Bombadil
There is a problem however, If you try to enumerate personal moral reasons for opposing abortion, and at the same time try to leave the door open for other people to have a so-called choice. You may in effect be saying that you believe in an objective moral code for yourself while also trying to say that there is no such thing as an objective moral code. Not necesarily. You can be pro-choice and still consistently believe abortion is wrong if you also believe that God is the only one entitled to punish or prevent a decision to abort because He has not given man the tools to prove that abortion is wrong.
To: ravinson
Even if you could prove that abortion is evil, I don't suppose it can be proven. You either know that killing humans is evil or you don't.
To: ravinson
Not necesarily. You can be pro-choice and still consistently believe murder is wrong if you also believe that God is the only one entitled to punish or prevent a decision to murder because He has not given man the tools to prove that murder is wrong.Weird huh?
To: uncbuck
Why must we believe that the soul enters at conception?
To: ravinson
Not really. I believe in a soul but also believe that there is pretty strong evidence suggesting that the soul does not enter the fetus until shortly before birth. 138 posted by ravinson Hey, that's something to give thanks for ... you were arguing that a prenatal doesn't become human until birth, not too long ago. I'll have to keep prayin' for ya, rav, since something's changing there!
147
posted on
11/08/2002 7:46:20 PM PST
by
MHGinTN
To: meat skinner
Don't know if you want some input, but here's an argument for soul entering at conception: there is the possibility that the soul IS connected to the spacetime universe, to the organism that is alive, and is disconnected from the organism at death of the organism; as such, the connections between the intangible and the tangible would be a 'building process', with perhaps the organ systems being infused with the soul of life as they develop, thus 'dis-infused' at death; the whole of an organism is 'arrived at' by a process of developing complexity so the degree of soul connection would likely follow thew same building process.
148
posted on
11/08/2002 7:51:16 PM PST
by
MHGinTN
To: ravinson
"My point was that taking the position that abortion should be legal is not equivalent (morally or otherwise) to participating in an abortion, just as taking the position that adultery should be legal is not equivalent to participating in adultery."
Depends on what you mean by "participate." Legalization certainly encourages action. And taking a life is not a Constitutional right. Abortion has yet to be proven void of taking human life, so the assertion that what the woman is doing is not affecting another's life, cannot be made.
"I don't think the state is entitled to do either myself."
Maybe not, but I must be forced to pay for state schools that do not allow one to chose freely to worship God by praying to Him publicly, or to conduct Bible studies on school grounds while every other belief and offensive anti-Christian, socialist doctrine under the sun but Christianity is vocalized and represented publicly.
"Another nonsequitur. Coulter didn't limit her remarks to Bush and Clinton. Had she done so it appears that she would have been on much firmer ground."
I was merely demonstrating the differences in idealologies by reference to two popular icons of both camps. You tried to assert that both parties accept each other's morality, which is simply not true.
"I do know that plenty of Republican and Democratic office holders commit adultery."
No denial of that fact here, but which party champions paying for both multiple children out of wedlock and abortion? Conservative Republicans tend to want to see the mother take responsibility and care for the baby rather than live a lifestyle of adulterous affairs.
" Republicans and Democrats both seem to be quite willing to vote for candidates with deep character flaws, as their respective senatorial nominations in Arkansas vividly demonstrate."
Yes, I know scum exists on either side. Some don't mind, but most of the moral conservatives are Republicans. Are you trying to assert that no moral differences exist between Republican and Democrat idealologies?
To: ravinson
I'd bet that you're doing nothing to actively prevent murders happening all over the world, yet that doesn't make you "pro-murder".So murder should be legal? We wouldn't want to interfere with anyone's choices now would we?
To: ravinson
Sorry to interrupt, could you cite "strong evidence" that the soul doesn't enter until shortly before birth? I'm intrigued, as I am with uncbuck's assertion that we must assume that it (soul)enters at conception.
To: ravinson
Guess you'd have to convince us that you were a conservative of any standing to throw stones at Ann Coulter in the first place. Most, I would suppose, are persuaded that were you and she to engage in an intellectual battle of conservtive wit, she'd have your frilly pantaloons wrapped around your powdered wig in no time.
To: ravinson
ravinson: "My point was that taking the position that abortion murder should be legal is not equivalent (morally or otherwise) to participating in an abortion murder, ..."
To: JeanS
Why is this woman not on the air?
To: churchillbuff
Moreover, being pro-choice is not the same as being pro-abortion.
Hopefully, adoption could also be one of those choices. It happens, eh.
Liberals dont want to go to war with Saddam Hussein, but they do want to go to war to protect Roe v. Wade.
That about sums it up.
To: MHGinTN
Interesting. Yes, there is that possibility, but isn't sperm "alive"? It is motile.
To: meat skinner
Sorry to interrupt, could you cite "strong evidence" that the soul doesn't enter until shortly before birth? I'm intrigued, as I am with uncbuck's assertion that we must assume that it (soul)enters at conception.Pardon me for interrupting as well but...I don't think this theological debate on the arrival time of the soul is really necessary.
A human sperm joins with a human egg, becomes one cell with a unique DNA and has the vitality of spontaneous growth thereafter. It is undeniably alive and provably a unique individual. What kind of individual lifeform could it possibly be other than human?
To: meat skinner
Of course it's alive; life arises only from life.
158
posted on
11/08/2002 8:16:28 PM PST
by
MHGinTN
To: MHGinTN
...the whole of an organism is 'arrived at' by a process of developing complexity so the degree of soul connection would likely follow thew same building process.Perhaps 'the whole of an organism' is arrived at when two incomplete copies of parent DNA fuse together to make one complete, unique and viable copy of DNA. Perhaps that is the magic moment when the immortal soul of a human joins its biological shell.
Comment #160 Removed by Moderator
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180 ... 301-320 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson