Skip to comments.
The Pro-Life Movement's Problem With Morality
The Washington Dispatch ^
| June 6, 2003
| Cathryn Crawford
Posted on 06/06/2003 10:32:33 AM PDT by Cathryn Crawford
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300, 301-320, 321-340 ... 641-643 next last
To: Clint N. Suhks
I don't think that's what he meant. He was talking about you specifically, not Christians.
Even if you disagree, you didn't even bother to ask what he meant.
301
posted on
06/06/2003 2:02:06 PM PDT
by
Cathryn Crawford
(Save your breath. You'll need it to blow up your date.)
To: patton
7) QED, No date can be picked. 8) So we have to find another criteria - brain activity, or some such. First cellular division. That indicates life.
302
posted on
06/06/2003 2:02:09 PM PDT
by
ShadowAce
(Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
To: Lazamataz
I'm pretty ambivalent about that. The whole concept just fills me with ennui. LMAO!
303
posted on
06/06/2003 2:03:16 PM PDT
by
Cathryn Crawford
(Save your breath. You'll need it to blow up your date.)
To: Mr. Silverback
Where's the ping list, or is just Carolyn on it now?
304
posted on
06/06/2003 2:03:34 PM PDT
by
Sparta
(Tagline removed by moderator)
To: Cathryn Crawford
I don't know what NRL is, lobbying is good, comdoms are bad for kids and agian you've put words that I did not say in my mouth.
I maintain that moral relativists will find ways to get around arguments that don't pertain to simple right and wrong. Logic is changable, morality isn't.
To: aristeides
Dred Scott v. Sanford Can you give a quick synopsis of what went down? Believe it or not, I don't know; although it gets talked about all the time, what it was about remains a mystery.
306
posted on
06/06/2003 2:04:25 PM PDT
by
RightWhale
(gazing at shadows)
To: Mr. Silverback
Should've been Cathyrn
307
posted on
06/06/2003 2:04:37 PM PDT
by
Sparta
(Tagline removed by moderator)
To: tpaine
Your whole argument relies on two very weak presumptions, first the argument that the baby is not "viable". The basis if "viable" is basically that a human must be able to breathe and have a hearbeat on their own. The logical extension of that argument is that as soon as a person is unable to feed and care for him/herself (such as a serious brain injury) or temporarily needs a ventilator in the case of an illness or injury then they are no longer "viable" and therefore have no rights under the Constitution.
The second weakness is the screwy definition of "personhood". Only by twisting the definition to say that a an unborn baby is not a person though it is undeniably both human and alive is insane.
308
posted on
06/06/2003 2:04:48 PM PDT
by
Blood of Tyrants
(Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
To: Sparta
LOL - That's my mom's name. Wrong Crawford. ;-)
309
posted on
06/06/2003 2:05:53 PM PDT
by
Cathryn Crawford
(Save your breath. You'll need it to blow up your date.)
To: MHGinTN
Whatever..
As usual, your silly comments add nothing to the debate. -- Counter my positions, or hush up..
310
posted on
06/06/2003 2:06:10 PM PDT
by
tpaine
(Really, I'm trying to be a 'decent human being', but me flesh is weak.)
To: Clint N. Suhks
I maintain that moral relativists will find ways to get around arguments that don't pertain to simple right and wrong. So let's just not bother, right?
311
posted on
06/06/2003 2:06:54 PM PDT
by
Cathryn Crawford
(Save your breath. You'll need it to blow up your date.)
To: Cathryn Crawford
I would have no idea if you were a man, woman, Christian, Muslim, hedonist, or homosexual.Both all and none of the above;^)
312
posted on
06/06/2003 2:08:36 PM PDT
by
Blood of Tyrants
(Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn’t be, in its eyes, a slave.)
To: Ohioan
I fear that too many on our side simply seek a feel good sense of their own moral superiority, to want to actually approach the issue tactically, as opposed to emotionally. (Maybe that is being unkind, but some of them sure do not understand the art of persuading the not already committed.) Exactly right. You said it better than I.
313
posted on
06/06/2003 2:09:46 PM PDT
by
Cathryn Crawford
(Save your breath. You'll need it to blow up your date.)
To: Blood of Tyrants
LOL - I wasn't asking. :-)
314
posted on
06/06/2003 2:10:22 PM PDT
by
Cathryn Crawford
(Save your breath. You'll need it to blow up your date.)
To: cspackler
>>There are a great many couples out there just waiting to take care of a baby if only someone could be inconvenienced to carry him/her to term and have the courage to let them go.<<
I agree only it is not courage, it is love. The best gift a mother can give her child is a good mommy and daddy. If she personally cannot give that, there are millions of couples waiting to do it.
315
posted on
06/06/2003 2:11:13 PM PDT
by
netmilsmom
(God Bless our President, those with him & our troops)
To: Sparta
Thank you. I'm glad you enjoyed it. Would you like to me to put you on my ping list?
316
posted on
06/06/2003 2:11:20 PM PDT
by
Cathryn Crawford
(Save your breath. You'll need it to blow up your date.)
To: Cathryn Crawford
He was talking about you specifically, not Christians. BS! Here he said I'm just pointing out that any link between breast cancer and abortion is not a done deal. A lot of conservatives get happy and excited when they read things suggesting a link," and are disappointed when it looks like abortion might not cause cancer.
How could you interpret THAT any differently? You are a hypocrite or just selective for your condemnation. Either way youre wrong.
To: Cathryn Crawford
As long as there is a strong Pro-Bush movement the Pro-Life movement will thrive.
To: Cathryn Crawford
So let's just not bother, right? Is hyperbole the best you got? It appears so.
To: Cathryn Crawford
It is so essential that the right-to-life movement in America galvanize behind the idea the logic, not morality, will be what wins the day in this fight, because sometimes, despite the rightness of the intentions, morality has to be left out of the game. Morality doesnt bind everyone together.
Everyone is obligated to adhere to the kindness of religious morality, regardless of their beliefs. Why not advocate that people not use beliefs when arguing against murder or rape or robbery? After all, not everyone agrees that murder or rape or robbery are wrong.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300, 301-320, 321-340 ... 641-643 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