Abortion

TRILINGUAL wrote:

>>>Yeah. Uh-huh. Whatever! You've certainly made your viewpoint clear. >>>

If I made my point, then why do you continue to make a fool of yourself Catholic-bashing?

You, again, fail in your attempt to label all anti-abortion believers as: "moral, religious wackos, shoving their opinions down peoples throats in their religious crusade"?

>However, you DO cite your Catholicism as the

>source of your belief in the impermissibility of abortion.

I said I was a Catholic.

It is a GIFT.

I will not apologize for it,; rather, I embrace it.

My Catholicism has nothing to do with the abortion issue anymore than being an Atheist does.

You continue to aggressively, and viciously, Catholic-bash anything you disagree with.

If I beleive picking your nose is wrong, its because i'M cATHOLIC...ACCORDING TO YOU.

iF i beleive killing is wrong, its because "im catholic"

if i beleive "not wiping your ass" is wrong, its because "im cathloic".

how conveneint for you to have this "label" at your disposal.

My catholicism has nothing to do with my view on abortion. I did not cite my Catholicism as the source of being anti-abortion... any more than I cited my catholicism as for my being gay.

Many secualr atheist are anti-abortion; therfor, youre a simple Catholic-bashing liberal.

>That seems to be because you accept Catholic teaching that any

>form of fertilized human cells constitutes a full human being

>and is therefore a person or a "baby."

AGain, this is like your 10th FAILED attempt to link Catholicism and religion with abortion.

Many Atheist are anti abortion.

Your argument , therfor, is DEAD! (no punn intended)

?From that belief comes

>the conviction that abortion is murder.

Wrong again. Many atheist and "non-religious people" beleive abortion is murder. You just dont give up on your "religious" Catholic-bashing bandwagon, do you?

>Those beliefs are

>shared by many conservative Protestant Christians.

Also shared by many Atheist!!!! and decent "non-religious" Americans. You Catholic-bashing biggott!

However,

>millions of other Christians, as well as millions of Jews,

>Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists don't accept the view that an

>embryo or fetus is a full human being and entitled to the same

>protections as a child that has actually been born.

Like John Kerry, who beleives in abortion, some will say he can NOT trully call himself a Catholic. Some would say that would be like calling himself an African-American when he's white. Some don't.

I find it reprehensible that YOU , a secular progressive, will tell someone how to be a Catholic. You preach from, your secualr throne to Catholics that they "can't cherry pic" HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Comedy Central baby!!

Rather,

>they believe that in cerrtain circumstances (like pregnancies

>resulting from rape or incest, or danger to the life or health

>of the mother) it is morally permissible to abort a pregnancy

>and they don't consider such an action to be murder, either in

>terms of morality or legality.

HAHA! Again, this is the 12th time you insert "morals" and "religioin" in your failed attempt to label anti-abortion believers as "forcing their religous beleifs" down everyones throats.

Their religious and moral

>beliefs are as deeply and sincerely held as yours.

Dude, do you have obsessive-compulsive disorder or something? If I believe abortion is wrong, it doesnt make me any more of a "religious moral crusdader" than YOUR belief that abortion should be legal.

Sounds like youre a "SECUALR PROGRESSIVE militant left-wing looney liberal"

If you believe that abortion is

>sinful, or murder, you shouldn't have one. But you don't have

>the right to impose your religious views on people who don't

>accept your beliefs.

Did you totaly skip over my initial response adressing your nonsense? Perhaps you should re-read it.

As I said, YOU can repeatedly label me "RELIGIOUS, MORAL CRUSADING" and "shoving my opinion down your throat" 10 MILLION MORE times......... however, being anti abortion makes me no more religious than you.

GET IT!!!

>

>By the way, not even all Catholics agree on abortion being

>murder, or that it should be made illegal by a secular state.

Maybee i should go around calling myself a Democrat.

If you want to CATHOLIC BASH some more, why dont you start a new thread. This thread is on ABORTION.

>And as a "twink boy lover" you certainly aren't in a position

>to be a moral spokesman on behalf of all Catholics.

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA!!!! It's so hilarious, again, to see a flaming pro-abortion, Catholic-bashing liberal tell me how to be a Catholic.

Were you in "special education" classes as a child?

For the 15th time, Catholicism and reliigon have nothing to do with my argument on abortion, as much as your liberal Howard Dean buddies would like to make it a "religion" issue.

After

>all, the Catholic Church teaches that you are "intrinsically

>disordered," which would seem to disqualify you.

Dude, were you raped by a Priest or something. Get off the Catholic bashing!!!

Sorry 'bout

>that, but if you're going to be a truly observant Catholic you

>can't cherry-pick the teachings you're going to follow (and

>try to impose on all the world) and those you're going to

>ignore.

HAHAHAHHAHAHA!! This is like your 16th FAILED ATTEMPT to link Catholicism with the abortion issue. HAHAHAHAHHA!! A flaming lib telling me how to be a catholic. I love it!!!

Why do you insist on bringing Catholicism into this debate?

Why dont I bring HOMOSEXUALITY into this debate and link it with abortion?

I know why, because homosexuality has nothign to do with abortion!!

Unless you simply don't care about the fate of your

>immortal soul.

You are one seriously sick MOFO to CATHOLIC BASH on such a degree! Perhaps you find being racist also entertaining?

>But hey, if eternity in Hell doesn't phase

>you, keep on loving those twink boys! }( Party on!

Again, you're mixing apples with oranges and failing to discuss the issue of abortion.

A true liberal tatcic, when youre losing an argument, simply attempt to character assassinate your opponent... just like your idol Howard Dean.

Enjoy continuing the fight for cracking skulls of babies and vacuuming their brains out.

Its a simple question. Stop playing this dodging game and answer my question.

What if the life of the mother is endangered? Does she lose all rights to live then? Should she die because you don't see her as innocent as a baby? Does the mother lose the right to her life when she becomes pregnant?

Although you might not LIKE my answer, I answered your question.

You're not a politician. You're not trying to run for election. You're not some public affairs person at a news conference. You're not a reporter. You're not at a highschool debate competition. Stop playing games and answer the question.

What if the life of the mother is endangered? Does she lose all rights to live then? Should she die because you don't see her as innocent as a baby? Does the mother lose the right to her life when she becomes pregnant?

Are you Judge Judy?

You're playing games while I'm talking about lives.

Answer the question.

What if the life of the mother is endangered? Does she lose all rights to live then? Should she die because you don't see her as innocent as a baby? Does the mother lose the right to her life when she becomes pregnant?

I did answer your question. The "mothers-life-is-endangered" loop hole is a loop hole which has been used for years in order to facilitate abortions on demand.

I will repeat my answer and let it stand: the vast majority of abortions are abortions on demand. Women have claimed "headaches" as a reason to use "mothers health/life" to have an abortion.

I suppose you support abortions on demand?

>What if the life of the mother is endangered? Does she lose

>all rights to live then? Should she die because you don't see

>her as innocent as a baby? Does the mother lose the right to

>her life when she becomes pregnant?

Personally, I hate when pro-life people (of which I am one, and NOT on religious grounds, but instead, I believe that abortion should be illegal for the same reason that murder is) say that abortion should be banned except in cases of rape and incest. Those exceptions make no moral or legal sense.

Our laws do not allow one innocent person to kill another innocent person in order to save their life. If you are dying of a fatal liver disease and need a liver transplant to survive, you do not have the right to kill your neighbor in order to take his liver so that you can live. It will not be a defense for you to say that you had to kill him because it was the only way you can live.

Similarly - identically, really - if a woman creates another human life, she does not have the right to slaughter it just because doing so is necessary to save her life. If the fetus is a human life, as it so plainly is, then there are no good excuses for murdering it.

Having said all of that, it is true what TwinkLover said - the percentage of abortions performed in order to save the life of the mother is exceptionally small, and this is really just a red herring which pro-abortionists use in order to distract attention from the massive slaughtering of human life which they advocate.

People can argue about abortion forever, but ultimately, science is answering all of these questions. Although liberals love to pretend that they believe in the sanctity of science and rationality, science is showing more and more that what liberals call non-human fetuses have every attribute of what makes us human - from complex brain activity to the capacity to feel great pain.

The more those scientific facts are developed and established, the more apparent it will become that we have been murdering innocent human beings by the millions.

Commonly referred to as the "Silent Holocaust."

Stop avoiding the question and answer it.

What if the life of the mother is endangered? Does she lose all rights to live then? Should she die because you don't see her as innocent as a baby? Does the mother lose the right to her life when she becomes pregnant?

ReturnOfS Handbook

>Stop avoiding the question and answer it.

Hey TwinkLover - here is some information I thought you should have before you decide whether to spend time responding to this ReturnOfS thing again. ReturnOfS is characterized by the following attributes:

(1) He is incapable of expressing himself in more than 2-sentence spurts completely devoid of any substance.

(2) On every political topic about which he "opines" (really, on every non-political topic, too) he is capable of doing nothing beyond posting the most common liberal platitudes, buzz phrases and slogans without including a single actual thought or idea.

(3) Once he posts his political cliches, his tank is empty, and he will never respond to, engage or even recognize a single substantive thing you write (which, incidentally, makes his petulant demands that you answer his question rather ironic, doesn't it).

I just wanted you to be fully informed before making the decision as to whether you will take more time from your finite life and spend some of it responding - again - to someone like him.

RE: ReturnOfS Handbook

Leaving food out attracts roaches.

Cascading threads attract trolls.

Looks like from the title of the above thread that Doug69 has returned to stalking me.