2004 RNC
- Thread starter Gonz
- Start date
Freako, I think chic knows what abortion is. TO say that abortion is baby-killing is quite different than saying abortion is the killing of a fetus. Get it? Fetus, unborn organic matter that will develop into a baby. Baby, child that has left it's mother's womb. Baby-killing is imflammatory, abortion is not. Anyway...
I think the only thing I can come away with here is that as long as you agree with what the pres is doing, it's all good. If you don't, you're a threat to society. As IC pointed out however, we have the RIGHT to peacably assemble. We have the RIGHT to say we don't like the current administration, even if we don't say why. Please Gonz, you were against the Patriot Act, right? Think about what you are saying here. Wartime or not we have the right to speak our mind. Take that away and we might as well have Saddam for President.
I think the only thing I can come away with here is that as long as you agree with what the pres is doing, it's all good. If you don't, you're a threat to society. As IC pointed out however, we have the RIGHT to peacably assemble. We have the RIGHT to say we don't like the current administration, even if we don't say why. Please Gonz, you were against the Patriot Act, right? Think about what you are saying here. Wartime or not we have the right to speak our mind. Take that away and we might as well have Saddam for President.
I think it would be safe to say that ALL pro-lifers consider the fetus a baby. But that wasn't really the point of Chics argument.freako104 said:
That statement is inflammatory, and suggests that the person speaking it is Pro-Life.
Just as this statement is suggestive of the person being pro-choice.
Hmm... Perhaps the person saying it is waffling?
chcr said:I said I understand how you think, because even though we don't agree, we are kind of alike in the way we see certain things. On the other hand, I have no idea what you're thinking. These two statements are irreconcilable.
Why? Baby killing is exactly what it is. Have those combinations of genes/cells ever manifested themselves into anything else? Sure, they sometimes die without help & ocassionally they malfunction to some lesser or greater degree but given their natural course a baby is what happens every time.
If (when) I become Supreme Ruler of the All I'll have a committee of xx doctors (I'll worry about how many then) come up with a set time for viability. 12, 15, 20 weeks, whatever they, the experts, find to be a point of no return given equal circumstances. After that point, no abortions. A case by case can be made for the "life of the mother claims". No psych claims. If momma can't handle her pregnancy & ending her life is her choice, then so be it.
:rolf3:PT said:
fetus is an unborn child.
baby is a born child
abortion is stopping the fetus from being born, thus it's baby killing.
That is not some sanitized way of making the woman feel less guilty for actions that had damned well better be more humane than birth control. It is what it is no matter how dressed up it is.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons for abortion. It's the illegitimate, selfish reasons I despise.
catocom
Well-Known Member
Professur said:
That reminds me of what Zell Miller said last night on fox.
and I too remember when the Dems. use to be the conservative group.
That's the way I was raised. I too, like Zell, still have those values.
It matters not to me whether it be Dem., or Rep, or some other, I'll
be voting Conservative, mostly.
Professur
Well-Known Member
chcr said:
Gonz, you missed the point. That some things should or shouldn't be changed quickly becomes irrelevant. It's all in the outlook. I personally feel that thousand of years of moral, social behavior shouldn't be just chucked asside without a good reason. Others feel that nothing should be kept, unless there's a good solid modern reason for it. Logically, we can both say we're right. But we'll still come up with different answers.
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
Professur said:
Replace modern with relavent and now we're talking. There are laws which should've been mothballed years ago.
in Mass.
Times change...if the laws don't change to fit the times and morals of the people they're meant to control...they become humerous at best and degrading at worst.
MrBishop
Well-Known Member
On topic - This one seems to have two seperate topics..one related to Abortion and the other to the morality of protest.
On Abortion. It's legal...these people don't want that law changed...the see a threat to that law...they're making their voices heard.
I somehow doubt that terrorists and/or the enemies of America are looking specifically at protests to guage when they should attack, how they feel about their 'war', or how successful their past actions have been. The fact that these people are allowed to freely and peaceably assemble would seem more like a thorn in the side of terrorists who's main task seems to be trying to remove these rights from citizens. It doesn't matter what the protest is about...the fact that they can happen and the protestors aren't shot on sight or tear-gassed shouts rather loudly about the strength of America's freedoms in action.
On Abortion. It's legal...these people don't want that law changed...the see a threat to that law...they're making their voices heard.
I somehow doubt that terrorists and/or the enemies of America are looking specifically at protests to guage when they should attack, how they feel about their 'war', or how successful their past actions have been. The fact that these people are allowed to freely and peaceably assemble would seem more like a thorn in the side of terrorists who's main task seems to be trying to remove these rights from citizens. It doesn't matter what the protest is about...the fact that they can happen and the protestors aren't shot on sight or tear-gassed shouts rather loudly about the strength of America's freedoms in action.