Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2009 6:52:31 GMT -5
That'd be a broad definition of "religious teachings", I guess. And, yes, I wouldn't consider any such church legitimate.
|
|
|
Post by goGopherBill on Jun 4, 2009 6:56:01 GMT -5
"This guy shot a defenseless man in church. Where are the superior odds in this scenario? Where is this the last recourse?" From R.
R .. Defenseless...of just at a weak and UN prepared moment?
Just as Babies are defenseless and UN able to defend themselves as the doc murders them.
The last recourse?
DEATH.
"And, again, what religious teachings are you referring to? Show me ANY legitimate church that would condone this act.
In debate we are taught to reverse the question..
So " show me any religious teachings that CONDONE ABORTION ON DEMAND ..paid for by taxpayers.."
Seems to me lots of Religious teachings lead their followers to violent and sometimes illegal acts.
Again..Abortion was never VOTED ON by anybody. It will never be allowed to be voted on.. It was allowed by a DEMOCRATIC PARTY... supported by LIBERALS who are in the minority opinion on THIS SUBJECT.
IT IS NOT LEGAL IN OTHER COUNTRIES..I think it is illegal in more than it is allowed.
But we call ourselves PROGRESSIVE..in allowing what religion says we should not do..
THOSE same Progressives say there is NO GOD.. and religion is BAD.
and THEIR alternative is better?
so far it ain't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2009 7:22:09 GMT -5
"This guy shot a defenseless man in church. Where are the superior odds in this scenario? Where is this the last recourse?" From R. R .. Defenseless...of just at a weak and UN prepared moment? Just as Babies are defenseless and UN able to defend themselves as the doc murders them. The last recourse? DEATH. He does not murder them. It is legal, therefore not murder. The problem, if there is a problem, is that it _is legal_. Killing the person following the law accomplishes nothing, unless you are a proponent of terrorism. Are you? Of course you are. As long as it's the side you believe in. Someone wasn't taught very well. You are the one claiming there are churches teaching that murder is the right thing to do. Second, straw man. This is not abortion on demand and not paid for by taxpayers. On top of that, this wasn't your original argument. And?? Non sequitur alert. If you are equating this act to the acts of religious wackjobs, thanks for restating my point. False. Two statements here. The second one contradicts the first. What's your statement? Is it legal or is it just illegal in more countries than it is legal (not sure if that's true either, but it's totally irrelevant -- since when did you care what other countries do?) Again, please cite where religion says this. Are you Catholic? Straw man. Can't really debate someone who doesn't know what the hell he is talking about.
|
|
|
Post by goGopherBill on Jun 4, 2009 7:25:31 GMT -5
spoken like the true comrade you want to become..
EVERYBODY ELSE IS WRONG AND STUPID.
you made my points for me..thankyou
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2009 7:29:45 GMT -5
Yep, you know how to debate alright.
|
|
|
Post by goGopherBill on Jun 4, 2009 7:41:29 GMT -5
Before the scientific discovery in the nineteenth century that human development begins at fertilization,[111] English common law forbade abortions after "quickening”, that is, after “an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb.”[112] There was also an earlier period in England when abortion was prohibited "if the foetus is already formed" but not yet quickened.[113] Both pre- and post-quickening abortions were criminalized by Lord Ellenborough's Act in 1803.[114] In 1861, the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed the Offences against the Person Act 1861, which continued to outlaw abortion and served as a model for similar prohibitions in some other nations.[115] The Soviet Union, with legislation in 1920, and Iceland, with legislation in 1935, were two of the first countries to generally allow abortion. The second half of the 20th century saw the liberalization of abortion laws in other countries. The Abortion Act 1967 allowed abortion for limited reasons in the United Kingdom. In the 1973 case, Roe v. Wade, the United States Supreme Court struck down state laws banning abortion, ruling that such laws violated an implied right to privacy in the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court of Canada, similarly, in the case of R. v. Morgentaler, discarded its criminal code regarding abortion in 1988, after ruling that such restrictions violated the security of person guaranteed to women under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canada later struck down provincial regulations of abortion in the case of R. v. Morgentaler (1993). By contrast, abortion in Ireland was affected by the addition of an amendment to the Irish Constitution in 1983 by popular referendum, recognizing "the right to life of the unborn".
From Wikipedia..
gee I guess History cant be used...
ABORTION was not always legal.. RUSSIA was the first to allow it...
and a BAD Supreme court decision on PRIVACY?
Made it legal to kill babies.
It is only because the citizens cannot vote that allows for it to continue.
Who funded the late term doc..?
Taxpayers? The same ones that by 80-20% don't want late term abortion.
Re write history.. Re educate the dumb...
I can read my caveman drawings on the wall...
you lose.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2009 7:48:23 GMT -5
Again, irrelevant. You can't win because you aren't even playing a real game... You post something that makes no sense. We call you on it. You post something else that makes no sense, _maybe_ related to the first posting, usually not.
This isn't debate. It's herding cats.
Are we now debating tthe USA system of government? Are you now saying that the judicial branch should be lopped off? Sure sounds like it.
|
|
|
Post by goGopherBill on Jun 4, 2009 9:10:23 GMT -5
No..I said abortion had a history and liberals used a 5-4 Supreme court ruling to deny states and voter rights. Here is the most current link to rules and laws the rest of the world lives by.. See for yourself how many countries FUND abortion on Demand and for late term abortion. Just because liberals chose a moment in History to pass it ..does NOT MAKE IT RIGHT. www.pregnantpause.org/lex/world02.jspwe were told we need to win the hearts and minds of the REST OF THE WORLD in regard to QITMO and water boarding... Global warming and loving Muslims... I do think this show we are out of touch with the rest of the world. Except those that have legal drug use and no economy.
|
|
|
Post by goGopherBill on Jun 4, 2009 9:22:22 GMT -5
James Wilson, a framer of the U.S. Constitution, explained as follows: “ With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger.[2]
so tell me how the Supreme court decided upon using the constitution?
Before Roe vs. wade it was legal in 3 states...where the killing occured was not one of those states.
|
|
|
Post by Pirate VB Fan on Jun 4, 2009 9:38:44 GMT -5
Before Roe vs. wade it was legal in 3 states...where the killing occurred was not one of those states. So? Totally irrelevant. Look, I am personally against abortion. I think it should be legal but very, very rarely used (basically only to prevent the death or serious injury to the mother) but I also am against murder and terrorism. There is no doubt in my mind that killing this doctor was murder, and it was murder for political ends, making it terrorism. That is was done in church doesn't make it any more terrorism in my mind, but it definitely raises it on the irony scale. I am tired of jerks like Rush Limbaugh and Randall Terry inciting others to violence and then saying "What? Not my fault." Of course it was, at least partially and maybe in great measure, their fault. I hope the family of the slain doctor sues both for every penny they have.
|
|
|
Post by goGopherBill on Jun 4, 2009 9:45:47 GMT -5
Terror and violence can bring about change..I have shown examples. I show where it is not universally accepted throughout the world.
all you guys argue about is RUSH and me..
great debate.
|
|
|
Post by rhinovb14 on Jun 4, 2009 10:02:53 GMT -5
So what do we do with all of the unloved and neglected children that are born to women that are unwilling or unfit to parent? Do we just hope and pray that they succeed and avoid taxing the welfare system even more? Do we just hope that they take advantage of a free education? Do we force rape victims to conceive so we can remind them every day of that horrific event? The DNA of the attacker present in her child? What do we do with the babies born to teenagers because they think it's "cool" to have a baby? Do we hope their parents raise that child? Because they obviously did a good job the first time around? What do we do with the babies born in the welfare factories for an extra cut?
I know what you're going to say....NO ABORTIONS PERIOD.....GOD SAYS SO!
Alright then, fair enough. I respect your religious beliefs. Then give me your plan for what to do with all the unwanted children.
Foster care? Please....a joke. Adoption....not enough people to adopt the number of unwanted children.
Sex education?? Ha!
Abstinence education? Ha! Can't compete with pop culture.
I'm not attacking....I truly want to hear your plan.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2009 10:34:40 GMT -5
James Wilson, a framer of the U.S. Constitution, explained as follows: “ With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger.[2] so tell me how the Supreme court decided upon using the constitution? Before Roe vs. wade it was legal in 3 states...where the killing occured was not one of those states. I don't know why I bother, since this has NOTHING to do with whether murdering a man in his church is justifiable or not, but... You give me a quote from ONE man who worked on the Constitution. Is what he wrote IN the constitution? No. Is he representative of ALL those who worked on the Constitution? Who knows? Bill, this is not debate! Now, even if we do go off on this tangent, this is something the framers of the Constitution DID include in there. They decided that the legislative branch would make laws and the judicial branch would decide if they were, well, for simplicity's sake, let us say "constitutional". Federal courts enjoy the sole power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases. You may disagree with this framework -- it seems you do. But that's the way it is. Change it if you are that passionate about it. What you don't do is step into a church and shoot someone because you don't like the way our government works. That is not justifiable. Sorry.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2009 10:37:53 GMT -5
Terror and violence can bring about change..I have shown examples. I show where it is not universally accepted throughout the world. all you guys argue about is RUSH and me.. great debate. Terror and violence can bring about change. Abortion is not universally accepted throughout the world. Wow, Bill. Who can argue with such perfect logic? Not only is this not a great debate, it doesn't even qualify as a debate.
|
|
|
Post by Pirate VB Fan on Jun 4, 2009 10:43:23 GMT -5
First, let me add that I forgot about rape when I said only life/health of the mother. I would also add rape, although not incest (at least consensual incest, rape is rape).
Abortion should not be used as a form of birth control. We should make all other forms of birth control free and legal, including RU-234, but especially things like norplant where "user error" is greatly reduced. That abortion is used as birth control underscores how messed up our country is. I think every child should be a wanted child, but sometimes even the best birth control fails. Sorry, but "you pays your money and you takes your chances." For nine months you are, literally, screwed.
We need to greatly increase the availability of adoption services and make it much easier to adopt. There is a lucrative trade in overseas adoptions which is very sad. Those people are going to the expense and hassle of doing that since we make it so tough to adopt in the US.
We need real sex education in this country and not pretend that "abstinence only" programs work. The second major problem I have with a lot of people in the pro-life movement (after their incitement to violence) is their stupid "can't offer contraceptives" stand. Look, people are going to have sex. If they don't use reliable contraceptives then a certain percentage is going to get pregnant and want an abortion. So, if you don't want abortions, then better make contraception widely available.
|
|