people have been killing in God name as long as there has been a God

Brewha wrote:

It is a dirty job but somebody's got to do it.

HockeyDad wrote:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A contrarian is a person who takes up a position opposed to that of the majority, no matter how unpopular. Contrarian styles of argument and disagreement have historically been associated with radicalism and dissent.

wheelrite wrote:

Negro please,

Abortion is in issue people have always had a split decision on. That would equally make you a contrarian  .

You might have accused me a being an Iconoclast. Then at least the dart would have hit the board . . . .

Brewha wrote:

Pro Abortion opinion is a minority in America...

wheelrite wrote:

So the law errors on the side of reason despite the common will? Hell, checkers sells more than chess . . . . what is your point?

Maybe your right wheel - Maybe it should be murder to kill a sacred cow. Maybe music outside of the church should be illegal. Maybe condom should be illegal along with stem cell research. Maybe the infidels should be put to death along with people who have seen 'The Sound of Music' more than four times.

Nah, I'd rather live in America.



That reminds me . . . .Did you hear about the plastic surgeon who hung himself?

Brewha wrote:

Um,,,
a minority is NOT "Common Will"

wheelrite wrote:

The reason it won’t get settled is that someone is always using it to push their beliefs. Note that the above “murder is murder” dogma does not come with an “IMO” – it given as though the US law is summarily wrong - as it does not meet with Papal degree.

It is really tough to shoot down 1st trimester abortions with logic or reason. You have to go to religion and personal mortality. And that is why the law is the way it is.

I guess we could make our all our laws base on religious doctrine – if only there were one that was common religion. No hope of that though, people have been killing in God name as long as there has been a God and still no unity – Hummmmm…..

Brewha wrote:

That's a truly uneducated remark.
I've got pictures of my little girl when she was 9 to 10 weeks.
You can fight for your right to make a "choice", but you'd be factually incorrect if you said she wasn't a person yet.

This only boils down to "religion versus logic" when the person making the case hasn't any ground to stand on.
.

tailgater wrote:

OH !
Like Man Made Global Warming for which there is no evidence ?

wheelrite wrote:

CHANGE OF TOPIC FOUL!

Shifting from abortion to global warming – Oh, the shame! You have no game! A Fox Noise lame! (hay the rhymes . . . ).




Know what you call in Irish quadriplegic laying on your back porch?
Patty-o-Furnature

Brewha wrote:

I think you kind of made my point, since you offered no logic beyond an emotional plea.

Nine to ten weeks a person makes? Why not say two cell should have the right to vote, or that it is murder to cut of a foot? You look at beginnings and see the end – before the end is at hand.

I agree with the reverence for life. But lets not call people 'people' before their time.




Do you feel your values are uniquely correct? Would you force them upon your peers?

Brewha wrote:

Civil discourse, on C-Bid. Now I have seen it all. Well played gentlemen.

herfidore wrote:

I think you kind of made my point, since you offered no logic beyond an emotional plea.

I agree with the reverence for life. But lets not call people 'people' before their time.

Brewha wrote:

My response was based on emotion, to be certain.
But that doesn't make it any less true. That's the beauty of facts.

I understand that your position comes from a perspective of simply not knowing. And that's OK.

As for my values? They are hardly unique, yet I wouldn't force them upon anyone.

I would never push to make abortion illegal.
Quite the opposite, in fact. I would push to EDUCATE those who make that "choice".

Crossing one's arms and closing eyes tight while chanting "I"m pro CHOICE" is a position of ignorance when the one making that choice doesn't even know what the procedure entails. Yet, this is what the pro-choice crowd is pushing for: to make abortions more readily available and at little or no cost. To allow children to get abortions without adult consent. To make an abortion easier to get, while failing to provide information about all the other options. These are facts.

I make no claim to knowing when "life" begins.
But I do know that at 10 weeks an abortion is the stilling of a beating heart. This is a fact. Indisputable.

One could argue that at 10 weeks the child wouldn't survive outside the womb. And that may be true in 2012, but what about in 2020? Does the 10 week fetus suddenly become a person because of technology?

And what about the infant child? Can they survive without assistance simply because they're already born?
If their dependence doesn't deny them the right to be called a "person", then why does the 10 week old's dependence get used as "proof" that they're not yet a living creature?

What I find most appalling about the pro-choice crowd is that they're so busy fighting for the RIGHT to get an abortion that they never take the time to consider IF they should get one.

tailgater wrote:

#-o

I don't know if you have kids or ever want kids, but I hope you never find yourself in a position where your emotions get in the way of your logic.

daveincincy wrote:

My position may seem to you as one of 'simply not knowing'. But I would remind you that the fool is the twin of the wise.

There are many days when a man with a 'beating heart' has his plug pulled because his mind is no more, and he is no longer a person. It takes more than an organ to make a person.

The full picture is the woman who has an unwanted pregnancy, by carelessness, mistake, rape, you name it. Does she loose rights to her body and future life because SOME find the early termination unpalatable? No 'morning after pills'? If this is to be the law, then would it not be better for all to make accidental conception a crime? Or is it better to bring an unwanted child into the world by legislation of those who bare no responsibility for it?

I never met someone who had an abortion that did not spend their life with the 'if' arrow in their heart wondering 'if ' they made the right decision. You seem to have no companion for those would have to make such a hard decision. An yet you would accuse me of 'simply not knowing'.

It is sooooo much easier to just reduce life to black and white, the 'good' people and the 'bad' people, and then cast stones.

It is true you know; good must have evil that it might demonstrate its virtue.

Brewha wrote:

My position may seem to you as one of 'simply not knowing'. But I would remind you that the fool is the twin of the wise.

There are many days when a man with a 'beating heart' has his plug pulled because his mind is no more, and he is no longer a person. It takes more than an organ to make a person.

The full picture is the woman who has an unwanted pregnancy, by carelessness, mistake, rape, you name it. Does she loose rights to her body and future life because SOME find the early termination unpalatable? No 'morning after pills'? If this is to be the law, then would it not be better for all to make accidental conception a crime? Or is it better to bring an unwanted child into the world by legislation of those who bare no responsibility for it?

I never met someone who had an abortion that did not spend their life with the 'if' arrow in their heart wondering 'if ' they made the right decision. You seem to have no companion for those would have to make such a hard decision. An yet you would accuse me of 'simply not knowing'.

It is sooooo much easier to just reduce life to black and white, the 'good' people and the 'bad' people, and then cast stones.

It is true you know; good must have evil that it might demonstrate its virtue.

Brewha wrote: