If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
"darwin smith" wrote in message hlink.net... It was a question asked in such a way as to imply that the "answer" was completely obvious - there is no fight against gay marraige. There isn't. Gays marry regularly and have done so for quite some time. I therefore treated the comment as a statement being expressed in the form of a rhetorical question. Now, I would guess that to you the answer to your "question" is perfectly obvious - there is no fight against gay marriage. If this is so, then could you please explain to me why the Republican efforts in Massachussetts to ban same-sex unions, and "Bush the Lesser's" proposed constitutional amendment are not "fights against gay marriage"/ Gay marriage is not the same as same-sex marriage. I disagree, obviously, but as I say below I can understand your view. All abortion procedures performed today cause the deliberate death of the child. That is murder by any reasonable definition. Even when there is no exception to save the life of the mother? By the way, I see that you didn't bother to address my comments about birth control, sex education, and generally being around when Suzy really needs the help. Let me know when you're ready and willing to discuss the _complete_ topic of abortion, and have moved beyond just casting judgement on those who happen to disagree with you. Those things are not abortion procedures. We were discussing abortion procedures. |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
|
#83
|
|||
|
|||
darwin smith wrote:
Steven P. McNicoll wrote: "Pete" wrote in message ... Then why the fight against gay marriage? What fight against gay marriage? You've just gone a long way toward's blowing whatever credibility you might have with this statement. Why the fight against abortion? Because all current abortion methods kill a child. When an abortion procedure is developed that does not kill the child the fight against abortion will end. Actually, there are several methods available that already are acting to prevent abortions, with Planned Parenthood being one of their leading proponents. The fall under the general category of "birth control procedures", and people generally learn about them through something called "sex education". While I am firmly pro-choice, I am willing to admit that the anti-abortion side (which is not necessarily pro-life, so I won't call it such) does have a point. Yes, just like pro-choice sounds a lot better than pro-death, which is what the position really is. Most anti-abortionists I've encountered, though, have absolutely no interest in preventing the procedure. What they want to do is _stop_ it, because prevention is much harder and involves other things that the anti-abortionists are uncomfortable with - things like making sure that teenagers know the "facts of life", or that all women have affordable access to birth control and health care. If you've waited until little Debbie is pregnant, you've lost your chance to prevent an abortion, period. All you can do now is stop it, but don't call it prevention. Abstinence is strongly supported by all pro-life groups that I'm aware of and it is the only 100% means to prevent Debbie from getting pregnant. Matt |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
darwin smith wrote:
Steven P. McNicoll wrote: Anti-abortion IS pro-life. Even when there is no exception to save the life of the mother? Many conservatives have agreed to this exception. However, it isn't all that clear as very few cases are such that the mother's life is guaranteed to be at risk. The baby's life IS guaranteed to be at risk in an abortion. So even with this exception, you are still guaranteeing a death to save the possibility of a death. I'm still not sure that is a good moral position to aspire to, but at least it is better than most abortions which are simply murder for the sake of convenience. That isn't morally acceptable. Matt |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other people's assets?
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in link.net: "Judah" wrote in message ... Correct. They want to just take other peoples assets and keep them. Wrong. Conservatives don't want to take other peoples assets at all. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
What, exactly, then, do conservatives want?
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in link.net: "Judah" wrote in message ... Correct. They want to just take other peoples assets and keep them. Wrong. Conservatives don't want to take other peoples assets at all. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
"Judah" wrote in message ... How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other people's assets? By applying themselves and earning what they accumulate. If you are smart and work hard you win. If you are dumb and sit at home waiting for the welfare check you lose. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Judah wrote:
How, exactly, do the rich get richer without taking other people's assets? You have to be kidding. Have you read any economics aside from Marx? |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
"C J Campbell" wrote in message ... So now you have 'conservatives' running around talking about property rights and states' rights Republicans have always supported States' rights, as that is the basis of a republic. (originally created to protect slavery) Democrats wanted the 3/5 law and Republicans were not willing to go to war over it and as long as libertarins could control the purse everyone was willing to leave things be for a while. and protecting large corporations while espousing populist principles. The libertarian wing (once Federalists) of the Republican Party insistthey address the issues of fiscal responsibility and a small central government, but libertarians are out of favor now due to their isolationist tendancies. And you have the 'liberals' running around trying to limit free speech and press, disarming the public, and supporting the worst thugs and despots imaginable in other countries in the name of 'diversity' and 'tolerance.' Racism has always been the Democrats' product. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
"darwin smith" wrote in message hlink.net... Steven P. McNicoll wrote: You are firmly pro-murder, for that is what abortion is at present. I disagree, obviously, but as I say below I can understand your view. Here are some 9nteresting comments from the founder of Planned Parenthood: It [charity] encourages the healthier and more normal sections of the world to shoulder the burden of unthinking and indiscriminate fecundity of others; which brings with it, as I think the reader must agree, a dead weight of human waste. Instead of decreasing and aiming to eliminate the stocks that are most detrimental to the future of the race and the world, it tends to render them to a menacing degree dominant [emphasis added].11 Margaret Sanger "To give certain dysgenic groups in our population their choice of segregation [concentration camps] or sterilization", advocated the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger in April 1932 ("A Plan For Peace") I thing even you can see how applied Darwinism is murder, Smith. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
Juan Jiminez is a liar and a fraud (was: Zoom fables on ANN | ChuckSlusarczyk | Home Built | 105 | October 8th 04 12:38 AM |
Bush Pilots Fly-In. South Africa. | Bush Air | Home Built | 0 | May 25th 04 06:18 AM |
AOPA Sells-Out California Pilots in Military Airspace Grab? | Larry Dighera | Instrument Flight Rules | 12 | April 26th 04 06:12 PM |
Photographer seeking 2 pilots / warbirds for photo shoot | Wings Of Fury | Aerobatics | 0 | February 26th 04 05:59 PM |