Catholic Leaders Threaten Obama With 100% Chance of Civil Disobedience Read more

[LP1]

Wasn't the Catholic vote for Obama 50%? Seems like half the Catholics are OK with abortion. Where am I wrong on this?

No, it means that 50% (or whatever) of the Catholics are not one-issue voters. They remember the "social justice" elements of Catholicism, and voted for the lesser of two evils.

 

[Justin Case]

No, it means that 50% (or whatever) of the Catholics are not one-issue voters. They remember the "social justice" elements of Catholicism, and voted for the lesser of two evils.

Can you give me some examples of what is more evil than killing a baby?

 

[kenjb]

Can you give me some examples of what is more evil than killing a baby?

Not just killing an unborn baby, but killing the baby after a "failed" abortion. The Big O is a big fan of that--voted for it several times in the IL senate.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Can you give me some examples of what is more evil than killing a baby?

Some might say: voting for a republican.

 

[LP1]

Can you give me some examples of what is more evil than killing a baby?

First, unless you flunked biology class, it's not "killing a baby". Whether or not the abortion of a partially-formed potential human is taking a life is a matter of disagreement among people. It's wrong to base legislation on a religious belief that many people don't share. It's a matter of personal conscience, and it's an act of arrogance to force one person to obey the superstitions of another.

Second, what's worse - allowing an individual to make their own decision about what may or may not be the taking of a life, or promoting policies that deny basic rights to people who have already been born? Pulling the rug out from under retirees and the poor will create unconscionable suffering - that is far worse.

 

[mrjarrell]

When religion and medicine mix the results can be catastrophic. The US could become like Ireland. And that would not be a good thing.

BBC News - Woman dies after abortion request 'refused' at Galway hospital

 

[TheDude]

Can you give me some examples of what is more evil than killing a baby?

Maybe years and decades of sexual abuse against children by ranking members of the church go unanswered?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

First, unless you flunked biology class, it's not "killing a baby". Whether or not the abortion of a partially-formed potential human is taking a life is a matter of disagreement among people. It's wrong to base legislation on a religious belief that many people don't share. It's a matter of personal conscience, and it's an act of arrogance to force one person to obey the superstitions of another.

Second, what's worse - allowing an individual to make their own decision about what may or may not be the taking of a life, or promoting policies that deny basic rights to people who have already been born? Pulling the rug out from under retirees and the poor will create unconscionable suffering - that is far worse.

Interesting that destroying Eagle eggs is a crime, but killing unborn human babies isn't.

Since we're allowing individuals to make their own decisions about what may or may not be the taking of a life, let's do away with all laws having to do with killing. After all, I may believe you need killing and who is to say I'm wrong, especially after you're dead? I'm sure we all know people who "jist need killin'"; since we've set the precedent with the demographic group least able to defend themselves, why not extend the principle all the way through all demographic groups?

 

[Bunnykid68]

First, unless you flunked biology class, it's not "killing a baby". Whether or not the abortion of a partially-formed potential human is taking a life is a matter of disagreement among people. It's wrong to base legislation on a religious belief that many people don't share. It's a matter of personal conscience, and it's an act of arrogance to force one person to obey the superstitions of another.

Second, what's worse - allowing an individual to make their own decision about what may or may not be the taking of a life, or promoting policies that deny basic rights to people who have already been born? Pulling the rug out from under retirees and the poor will create unconscionable suffering - that is far worse.

My son is 18, he would be dead if his mother had chosen to abort him 7 months into the pregnancy

Retirees? Not my problem, they should have taken care of themselves.

The poor? Get another job and quit expecting me to feed you.

 

[foszoe]

So its ok to force a private institution to do something against its core value system because its belief id irrational?

 

[Bunnykid68]

So its ok to force a private institution to do something against its core value system because its belief id irrational?

Are you asking someone specifically?

 

[foszoe]

Are you asking someone specifically?

Those who don't view abortion as murder.

 

[foszoe]

When religion and medicine mix the results can be catastrophic. The US could become like Ireland. And that would not be a good thing.

BBC News - Woman dies after abortion request 'refused' at Galway hospital

Do you favor private hospitals being forced to provide a service that is morally objected to by the institutions financing the hospital?

 

[foszoe]

First, unless you flunked biology class, it's not "killing a baby". Whether or not the abortion of a partially-formed potential human is taking a life is a matter of disagreement among people. It's wrong to base legislation on a religious belief that many people don't share. It's a matter of personal conscience, and it's an act of arrogance to force one person to obey the superstitions of another.

Second, what's worse - allowing an individual to make their own decision about what may or may not be the taking of a life, or promoting policies that deny basic rights to people who have already been born? Pulling the rug out from under retirees and the poor will create unconscionable suffering - that is far worse.

I am against people taxing me to fund a practice I object to and forcing a private hospital to provide a service they morally object to. Do you feel they should have to provide such services?

 

[Survivalcookie]

First, unless you flunked biology class, it's not "killing a baby". Whether or not the abortion of a partially-formed potential human is taking a life is a matter of disagreement among people. It's wrong to base legislation on a religious belief that many people don't share. It's a matter of personal conscience, and it's an act of arrogance to force one person to obey the superstitions of another.

Second, what's worse - allowing an individual to make their own decision about what may or may not be the taking of a life, or promoting policies that deny basic rights to people who have already been born? Pulling the rug out from under retirees and the poor will create unconscionable suffering - that is far worse.

From the moment I found out I was pregnant with every child, I called it my baby...have never known a woman to loving place her hands on her flat belly and say I am having a fetus. Even a dog who is pregnant it is called having puppies not fetuses.

 

[Survivalcookie]

Yet Muslims sue the government because the meat packing plant they took a job at sells pork or store they work in has pork and alcohol they have to ring up.

 

[poptab]

First, unless you flunked biology class, it's not "killing a baby". Whether or not the abortion of a partially-formed potential human is taking a life is a matter of disagreement among people. It's wrong to base legislation on a religious belief that many people don't share. It's a matter of personal conscience, and it's an act of arrogance to force one person to obey the superstitions of another.

The real question is:
Is killing a partially-formed potential human murder?
What kind of question is the former? Is it a scientific question? Is it a religious question? Is it a philosophical question?

What is murder? Is murder wrong? What kind of questions are those? Can science answer those questions? David Hume would say that you can not derive ought from is.

You say it is wrong to base legislation on a religious belief that many people dont share. Why do you assume it is a religious belief?

Exactly what do you base legislation on? Do you base
legislation on science? Is it right to base legislation on philosophy? If not, why?

Have you given serious thought into answering any of these questions?

 

[poptab]

I also have one more question. I ask this seriously. It is not a joke. Seriously, I am not joking. Answer this question:

Why is the sky blue?

 

[Bunnykid68]

I also have one more question. I ask this seriously. It is not a joke. Seriously, I am not joking. Answer this question:

Why is the sky blue?

Has to do with sunlight and the atmosphere which causes the light waves to refract/reflect... something like that

 

[ThrottleJockey]

I also have one more question. I ask this seriously. It is not a joke. Seriously, I am not joking. Answer this question:

Why is the sky blue?

I'll bite. It isn't. Do you want the technical explanation for why it APPEARS blue to the human eye? Why do you assume that it is blue in appearance to all creatures? Why don't dogs see color? Why do cats see people as just BIGGER cats?