F
Freddy
Guest
Protecting people? Yes. But I don’t consider what a woman is carrying shortly after conception to be a person. A week before birth? Yes. A week after conception? No.
Democratic politician angry that letters on his pro-abortion voting record distributed by private group at local Catholic parishes
- Status
J
jeannetherese
Guest
The personhood argument is very convenient for getting rid of those seen as problematical.
In Rwanda, during the genocide, those to be killed were described as cockroaches.
The personhood arguments which I have seen tend to involve the more powerful refusing to honor the right to life of the less powerful.
In Rwanda, during the genocide, those to be killed were described as cockroaches.
The personhood arguments which I have seen tend to involve the more powerful refusing to honor the right to life of the less powerful.
J
Jbrady
Guest
So did the US Supreme Court. Unanimously.
D
dochawk
Guest
No, not in the same way as Pruneyard, which found that the owners couldn’t remove trespassers, or avoid being a public forum.
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
That scares me.
J
Jbrady
Guest
Yes, in the same way. The Pruneyard decision itself was unanimously upheld in its entirety by the US Supreme Court in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980).
You also seem to be under the impression that the decision means that owners cannot remove trespassers, which is not the case. It found that they could not justify the removal of the high school students in question on the basis of California trespassing law, or on the basis of California or US constitutional law. And there was ample precedent for that decision based on previous cases from decades prior in Pennsylvania and Alabama.
Last edited:
J
jeannetherese
Guest
Evidentally the contents of the letter encouraged the reader to examine the voting record of a candidate in regard to his support for abortion. this might enable the reader to make a more fully informed vote.
The person who was supporting the contents of the letter (although he and his campaign were not involved in its creation and distribution) is the pro life candidate.
The person who was supporting the contents of the letter (although he and his campaign were not involved in its creation and distribution) is the pro life candidate.
F
Freddy
Guest
I agree. Those arguments have been used for millenia. Once you remove someone’s personhood then it’s easier to commit atrocities. But note the word ‘remove’. All those killed in such circumstances were obviously people in their own right to begin with. You and I wouldn’t argue that point.
But you will have an argument if you try to convince me that what a woman is carrying after conception but before the pregnancy even begins is a person.
A
Annie
Guest
Why does that scare you?
G
goout
Guest
So it’s very sad that people dehumanize one another, and to justify your position…you are willing to dehumanize others.jeannetherese:
I agree. Those arguments have been used for millenia. Once you remove someone’s personhood then it’s easier to commit atrocities. But note the word ‘remove’. All those killed in such circumstances were obviously people in their own right to begin with. You and I wouldn’t argue that point.
But you will have an argument if you try to convince me that what a woman is carrying after conception but before the pregnancy even begins is a person.
As was noted: inconsistent. (I’m not going to invoke hypocrisy, because that would be a little too morally charged for today’s sensibilities)
Your position makes no sense. Above all else, you ought to claim a position that is coherent.
Your position would be more logically respectable if you simply admit that you dehumanize small children. Still morally reprehensible, but at least coherent.
Last edited:
1
1cthlctrth
Guest
I have an easy answer for pro-choice politicians who are offended when their voting and other history is revealed:
stop being pro-choice, and become pro-life, instead.
stop being pro-choice, and become pro-life, instead.
Last edited:
A
Annie
Guest
It would seem that this candidate was trying to appeal to Mass-attending Catholics on the basis that he was Catholic, and to others on the basis of voting in favor of continued legalized abortion.
For him to claim that his position was misrepresented because on one of the bills he didn’t vote to restrain abortion because there were no exceptions for the mother’s health and for rape and incest victims is disingenuous.
His complaint is that his double-facedness was exposed.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
If you feel that you can class a zygote as a small child then I’m afraid there’s not much chance of us reaching agreement, goout.Freddy:
So it’s very sad that people dehumanize one another, and to justify your position…you are willing to dehumanize others.jeannetherese:
I agree. Those arguments have been used for millenia. Once you remove someone’s personhood then it’s easier to commit atrocities. But note the word ‘remove’. All those killed in such circumstances were obviously people in their own right to begin with. You and I wouldn’t argue that point.
But you will have an argument if you try to convince me that what a woman is carrying after conception but before the pregnancy even begins is a person.
As was noted: inconsistent. (I’m not going to invoke hypocrisy, because that would be a little too morally charged for today’s sensibilities)
Your position makes no sense. Above all else, you ought to claim a position that is coherent.
Your position would be more logically respectable if you simply admit that you dehumanize small children. Still morally reprehensible, but at least coherent.
Last edited:
D
dochawk
Guest
Not in the way you suggest, it wasn’t.
The CASC found a state law right to access that went farther than the federal first amendment. The USSC found that that state law ruling, which found a right to access, did not intrude on federal fifth amendment property rights. It did not find a federal first amendment right to do so.
uhh, no, I’m not; that’s just wrong.
Pruneyard found a CA right to access that exceeds the first amendment. States can do that.
J
jeannetherese
Guest
A zygote is just the name for a particular stage of human development-a very small child to be sure, but then so is a 5 months along fetus and a 2 year old toddler.
F
Freddy
Guest
‘A very small child’? The theory of homunculli disappeared in tbe 18th century. I’m sorry, Jean. We’re not going to be able to agree on this.Freddy:
A zygote is just the name for a particular stage of human development-a very small child to be sure, but then so is a 5 months along fetus and a 2 year old toddler.
J
jeannetherese
Guest
You might double check dictionary for the definition of homunculli-in mine it means:
" Homunculus | Definition of Homunculus at Dictionary.com
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)https://www.dictionary.com/browse/homunculi
Homunculus definition, an artificially made dwarf, supposedly produced in a flask by an alchemist. See more."
This doesn’t quite compare to the human life we were discussing, which, of course, begins at conception…,
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
I was referring to this:Freddy:
You might double check dictionary for the definition of homunculli-in mine it means:
" Homunculus | Definition of Homunculus at Dictionary.com
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)https://www.dictionary.com/browse/homunculi
Homunculus definition, an artificially made dwarf, supposedly produced in a flask by an alchemist. See more."
This doesn’t quite compare to the human life we were discussing, which, of course, begins at conception…,
Science is clear: Life begins at fertilization | Human Life | Abortion
‘The homunculus was the fully formed individual that existed within the germ cell of one of its parents prior to fertilization and would grow in size during gestation until ready to be born.’ Homunculus | The Embryo Project Encyclopedia
A
AloysiusBologna
Guest
Which is worse leaving a pamplet or supporting abortion by not doing so …What is more important than life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? This years Democrat platform declares that abortion, taxation and forced toleration are most important even more so truth. Has forced toleration become a direct first step to condoning? What is greater evil than condoning and supporting the killing of innocents? I cannot support those who would kill for monetary gain and do not understand the journey taken by those who do not admonish such wrong. What were the rules when Jesus told the truth @ the temple?
P
pnewton
Guest
I went grocery shopping. I left no pamphlets. This action was not a support of abortion. There is no logic here. There is a false logic that admonishment of sin must take place in a certain manner. The Church condemns abortion. Constantly. The Church has never supported abortion. This does not mean the spreading of pamphlets must also be allowed. Moreover, disobedience to the Church is its own sin.
Jesus was the literal son of the owner. He never did this sort of action at a pagan altar.
- Status