If you do not support killing, why would you support the choice to do so?No, sir. I have said all along that I support a woman’s right to choose from the vast array of options available to her should she experience an unexpected/unwanted pregnancy. I do not support killing.
Precisely.I suspect pro-abortion folks would encourage this kind of argument and discussion.
I do not appreciate the implication that everyone in the pro-life movement is a religious zealot or government pundit. This is not true, matter of fact I know a number of atheists that are pro-life.**
No, sir. I have said all along that I support a woman’s right to choose from the vast array of options available to her should she experience an unexpected/unwanted pregnancy.** I do not support killing. I support a woman’s unencumbered exercise of God-given free will, without government pundits or religious zealots keeping tabs on her every move, without their insistence on attempting to manipulate her choice through the media, through group efforts as assembled by church members, or one-on-one. I contend that no one is entitled to know any detail about a woman’s reproductive life except those in whom she places her absolute trust.
Limerick
Perhaps it is as I suspect.I also do not understand why you would seek to limit other people’s right to peaceful protest?
Additionally, I do not know why you would take offense at people talking to one another about all options available and what those options entail.
yup yupOne of the worst ways to re-educate people is to insist they have positions which they know they do not have. Then the re-educator spends his time and effort arguing against something that doesn’t exist, and few pay any attention to what he says.
That is why we must pay careful attention to what they say and how they say it.One of the worst ways to re-educate people is to insist they have positions which they know they do not have. Then the re-educator spends his time and effort arguing against something that doesn’t exist, and few pay any attention to what he says.
Then why are you on this Catholic site with your opinions?One of the worst ways to re-educate people is to insist they have positions which they know they do not have. Then the re-educator spends his time and effort arguing against something that doesn’t exist, and few pay any attention to what he says.
If the re-educator cares about succeeding, he will pay attention. But they guy who is the target of the re-education doesn’t care.That is why we must pay careful attention to what they say and how they say it.
Which particular opinion?Then why are you on this Catholic site with your opinions?
So, I went back in this particular thread and saw that this is something you asked long ago, did anyone ever answer you?Can you elaborate? Are you under the impression that some fertilized egg is destroyed in the cloning process?
The old saying goes the truth will only be received to the degree one is open to what is true. No argument will change a closed mind. Grace is needed.One of the worst ways to re-educate people is to insist they have positions which they know they do not have. Then the re-educator spends his time and effort arguing against something that doesn’t exist, and few pay any attention to what he says.
There are two basic parts needed for a clone.So, I went back in this particular thread and saw that this is something you asked long ago, did anyone ever answer you?
If not, perhaps you will find this interesting …
Public policy, I would think, should be based on accurate science. Scientifically we know
that the immediate product of human cloning is an already existing, unique, individual,
human being - the single cell human embryo - regardless of whether it is implanted or not.
It is not a potential or possible human being or human embryo, nor is it a "pre-embryo; nor
is it a drug. These are the correct scientific facts. Thus human cloning research
essentially involves destructive human embryo research. Since research using and
commercialization of human cloning uses human beings solely as illegitimate means to someone else’s ends (no matter how lofty those ends), necessarily harming and destroying them, such research and commercialization is unethical, and should be totally banned.
source:
www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_133cloningissues19981.html
I also looked into it further and found this:
From the Pontifical Academy for Life
www.lifeissues.net/writers/doc/doc_04notescloning.html
Judie Brown, on EWTN provided this information here:
ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=560455&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2008&Author=&Keyword=cloning&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=19&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=
Grace is needed to accept an argument? I doubt it. Grace is what makes people accept arguments for tax hikes?The old saying goes the truth will only be received to the degree one is open to what is true. No argument will change a closed mind. Grace is needed.
To accept the truth in many cases.Grace is needed to accept an argument?
So, when a racist refuses to accept truths regarding the dignity of all people does that mean the arguments are invalid or weak? Is there one argument that will finally make the person see what is true?I doubt it. Grace is what makes people accept arguments for tax hikes?
What’s an example of an argument that demands grace for acceptance?To accept the truth in many cases.
So, when a racist refuses to accept truths regarding the dignity of all people does that mean the arguments are invalid or weak? Is there one argument that will finally make the person see what is true?
And, how much attention do we have to pay to what we say and how we say it?That is why we must pay careful attention to what they say and how they say it.
You might not have heard, but membership to this site is not constrained to Catholics. Anyone may become a participating member of these boards. Why do non-Catholics threaten you?Then why are you on this Catholic site with your opinions?
Enough to know when we have asked a question and when it has not been answered.And, how much attention do we have to pay to what we say and how we say it?
If you do not support killing, why would you support the choice to do so?
Why would you so willingly give up that choice for the legislation against murder but fight so much for this decision in utero.
What exactly is the difference between one human life and another human life that makes the one worthy of death and the other not?
**It isn’t true of you to say that you do not support killing (which is actually murdering a baby), because you said on this forum in many places that you believe that abortion is one of those options…
so…
…what if those in whom she places her absolute trust are evil and encourage her to abort her child, she shouldn’t have access to a second opinion? She should only trust those to whom suggest this evil to her?
Also, would you consider Catholics as religious zealots, in your opinion? Or just anyone who would suggest to her that taking the life of her child is against God’s law?