You're describing yourself. I never get angry, especially when I'm laughing so hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
|
You're describing yourself. I never get angry, especially when I'm laughing so hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Imitation. The sincerest form of flattery.
And when those fatherless, maybe motherless too, perhaps very ill, dependent babies are born, where will you be?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I won't be casting my vote to have them killed for the crime of being inconvenient. Will you?
I'll be doing what I'm doing now, which is helping those who need help.
Hope you are VERY wealthy.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I find it much preferable to just having them killed.
What is your point?
The U.S. NEEDS "a domestic supply of infants"???
As opposed to killing them?
If you had looked up the passage you posted, you would have noted that it was not part of the text of the draft decision. It was simply reference 46 being used to support the portion of the decision found on pages 33 and 34 which was making the point that there is a demand for adoptive babies in our country. Is that some sort of controversy?
https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...-initial-draft
Adoptive babies in our country are legion!
If you had read your own post, you would have found that over a million women were seeking to adopt, but the number of domestic children available for adoption was virtually non-existent.
At any rate, my objection to abortion centers around the fact that unborn children are still living human beings and deserving of legal protection. Western culture has long held that the taking of a human life could only be done by a court for a heinous crime such as murder or by a person in self defense or in defense of another person's life. The pro-abortion position has done very little to do away with the idea that the unborn child is a living human being, and so are really attempting to introduce a third justification for the taking of life which is the convenience of the mother.
Now there are some situations which should be discussed. A 12 year old pregnant girl could easily face death with a full-term pregnancy. There are likely some other very rare situations which should be considered, but aside from that it needs to be established that the unborn child is NOT a living human being. I'd love to hear some discussion of that, for after all, if the unborn child in not a living human being, then abortion is of no more significance than the removal of the gall bladder. But if it is, then it deserves all the legal protection we can afford him or her.
That's a bunch of hooey!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Uhm...it was your post.
Quote:
At any rate, my objection to abortion centers around the fact that unborn children are still living human beings and deserving of legal protection. Western culture has long held that the taking of a human life could only be done by a court for a heinous crime such as murder or by a person in self defense or in defense of another person's life. The pro-abortion position has done very little to do away with the idea that the unborn child is a living human being, and so are really attempting to introduce a third justification for the taking of life which is the convenience of the mother.
Now there are some situations which should be discussed. A 12 year old pregnant girl could easily face death with a full-term pregnancy. There are likely some other very rare situations which should be considered, but aside from that it needs to be established that the unborn child is NOT a living human being. I'd love to hear some discussion of that, for after all, if the unborn child in not a living human being, then abortion is of no more significance than the removal of the gall bladder. But if it is, then it deserves all the legal protection we can afford him or her.
Yes, it shows the idiocy of anti-abortionists. C.f. my post #172.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Says the lady who did not realize she was posting a notation to a court decision and not part of the decision itself. Even worse, the article came from the CDC. So if there was idiocy, it was idiocy from the CDC which is scarcely pro-life. It would be from (drum roll) the pro-abortion side!!!
Nope, we, the LGBTQ+ community, will not surrender our rights! Jesus said, "Love one another," not bash one another physically, emotionally, and politically.
It's a shame they don't choose to stand up for the rights of unborn children to live.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:27 PM. |