Seventh Grader Sues School Over Right to Wear Pro-Life T-Shirt

[tcurrey]

I agree with you that the Founding Fathers would be disappointed today.

If the Founders were alive today I believe they would most likely be aligned with the Libertarian Party.

I don’t.
Forgive my brasen tone, but I believe they would have a spine. “Live and Let Live” is a copout. It’s a way to not choose sides.

If you stand for nothing, you’ll fall for anything.

We must fight for truth and what we know is right. And, by standing idly by while others are passing laws that allow them to blatenly live in sin, is wrong. It’s just flat wrong! Letting others live the way they please, even if it’s sinful, so long as it doesn’t hurt us, is not in alignment with Church teaching.

Because, by your rational - Libertarianism, I mean, abortion is completely acceptable. It’s “their body,” and they’re not hurting us. This is ABSOLUTELY AGAINGST the teaching of the Church.

 

[rpp]

I don’t.
Forgive my brasen tone, but I believe they would have a spine. “Live and Let Live” is a copout. It’s a way to not choose sides.

If you stand for nothing, you’ll fall for anything.

We must fight for truth and what we know is right. And, by standing idly by while others are passing laws that allow them to blatenly live in sin, is wrong. It’s just flat wrong! Letting others live the way they please, even if it’s sinful, so long as it doesn’t hurt us, is not in alignment with Church teaching.

Because, by your rational - Libertarianism, I mean, abortion is completely acceptable. It’s “their body,” and they’re not hurting us. This is ABSOLUTELY AGAINGST the teaching of the Church.

 

[tcurrey]

Thank you!

 

[Christopher68]

I don’t.
Forgive my brasen tone, but I believe they would have a spine. “Live and Let Live” is a copout. It’s a way to not choose sides.

If you stand for nothing, you’ll fall for anything.

We must fight for truth and what we know is right. And, by standing idly by while others are passing laws that allow them to blatenly live in sin, is wrong. It’s just flat wrong! Letting others live the way they please, even if it’s sinful, so long as it doesn’t hurt us, is not in alignment with Church teaching.

Because, by your rational - Libertarianism, I mean, abortion is completely acceptable. It’s “their body,” and they’re not hurting us. This is ABSOLUTELY AGAINGST the teaching of the Church.

I stand for individual liberty, personal responsibility, and limited government (I take the 9th and 10th Amendments seriously). My spine is rock solid.

 

[rpp]

I stand for individual liberty, personal responsibility, and limited government (I take the 9th and 10th Amendments seriously). My spine is rock solid.

But that is a direct contradiction of your earlier posts where you sided with the school and said it should suppress certain positions they deem inappropriate. The shirt was not in poor taste or graphic. Based on this and posts you have made on other threads, I am not convinced this post is entirely accurate.

Real courage, having a real spine, means that you sometimes do things that are unpopular or dangerous because they are the right thing to do. Promoting the pro-life message is not popular, if it creates tension, that is a side-effect and utterly unrelated because it is the right thing to do.

You are supporting those who do not want to be reminded that a baby is a person. Your position on this specific manner is nothing less than surrender to forces that seek to murder children. That is not exactly part of the definition of having a spine. You help prove Edmund Burke correct when he said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men do nothing.”

But as you said in another earlier post, which I will paraphrase, you have a closed mind. You are not open to fraternal correction that your position is not consistent with Church teachings. How sad. A self-reflective person, one who periodically examines their conscience, when confronted by several people telling them the same thing and no one supporting their position might reconsider whether they really are conforming their conscience, heart and mind to the Church. But then, that is what a Catholic is also required to be.

By the way, most Libertarian candidates support abortion rights.

 

[tcurrey]

But that is a direct contradiction of your earlier posts where you sided with the school and said it should suppress certain positions they deem inappropriate. The shirt was not in poor taste or graphic. Based on this and posts you have made on other threads, I am not convinced this post is entirely accurate.

Real courage, having a real spine, means that you sometimes do things that are unpopular or dangerous because they are the right thing to do. Promoting the pro-life message is not popular, if it creates tension, that is a side-effect and utterly unrelated because it is the right thing to do.

You are supporting those who do not want to be reminded that a baby is a person. Your position on this specific manner is nothing less than surrender to forces that seek to murder children. That is not exactly part of the definition of having a spine. You help prove Edmund Burke correct when he said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men do nothing.”

But as you said in another earlier post, which I will paraphrase, you have a closed mind. You are not open to fraternal correction that your position is not consistent with Church teachings. How sad. A self-reflective person, one who periodically examines their conscience, when confronted by several people telling them the same thing and no one supporting their position might reconsider whether they really are conforming their conscience, heart and mind to the Church. But then, that is what a Catholic is also required to be.

By the way, most Libertarian candidates support abortion rights.

Right on! Right on!

 

[tcurrey]

I stand for individual liberty, personal responsibility, and limited government (I take the 9th and 10th Amendments seriously). My spine is rock solid.

You feel the 9th and 10th amendments trump our right to life?

This is exactly what I’ve been talking about. So many people put their politcs first. FYI - you’re looking at this backwards.

So, let’s put an end to this right now. Are you pro-life? or do you feel that a woman has a right to kill her own flesh and blood?

 

[Christopher68]

You feel the 9th and 10th amendments trump our right to life?

This is exactly what I’ve been talking about. So many people put their politcs first. FYI - you’re looking at this backwards.

So, let’s put an end to this right now. Are you pro-life? or do you feel that a woman has a right to kill her own flesh and blood?

It is you who is looking at this backwards. You are not being realistic if you believe government can make people ‘more moral’ simply by passing more laws. Government is NOT a benevolent high performance organization.

 

[bacon_man]

It is you who is looking at this backwards. You are not being realistic if you believe government can make people ‘more moral’ simply by passing more laws. Government is NOT a benevolent high performance organization.

It might not make people more moral, but government doesn’t have to support immoral things. It might stop a few people who just don’t want to break the law. but bottom line, they don’t have to support it.

 

[Janet1983]

It is you who is looking at this backwards. You are not being realistic if you believe government can make people ‘more moral’ simply by passing more laws. Government is NOT a benevolent high performance organization.

But what is the difference between a mother aborting in the 24th week of pregnancy and a mother suffocating her newborn child?

 

[bacon_man]

But what is the difference between a mother aborting in the 24th week of pregnancy and a mother suffocating her newborn child?

Exactly, I was born 4 months early, don’t try to tell me I’m not a person.

 

[tcurrey]

It is you who is looking at this backwards. You are not being realistic if you believe government can make people ‘more moral’ simply by passing more laws. Government is NOT a benevolent high performance organization.

You are wrong, Sir. I am not seeking government to make people more moral. You are correct - that is not the function of government. What I am seeking is to curb the amount of immoral acts - harmful acts that take place (and save lives) by making abortions difficult to obtain - this is the funciton of government.

And by the way, you dodged the questions, as I suspected you would. Are you pro-life? Or do you feel that a mother should have the legal right to kill her fetus? It’s a very simple question, and if you can’t answer it plainly, then it would seem to me that you are having a difficult time justifying what you know in your heart to be wrong.

 

[st_lucy]

It is you who is looking at this backwards. You are not being realistic if you believe government can make people ‘more moral’ simply by passing more laws. Government is NOT a benevolent high performance organization.

With this train of thought maybe we should make sure government gets rid of all of the moral laws. It seems like you are looking at this backwards.

Making abortion illegal is a lot like making slavery illegal, or making it illegal to kill Jews, or blacks. Would you consider these laws too or more moral, and not the job of the government to look after?

 

[rpp]

You are wrong, Sir. I am not seeking government to make people more moral. You are correct - that is not the function of government. What I am seeking is to curb the amount of immoral acts - harmful acts that take place (and save lives) by making abortions difficult to obtain - this is the funciton of government.

And by the way, you dodged the questions, as I suspected you would. Are you pro-life? Or do you feel that a mother should have the legal right to kill her fetus? It’s a very simple question, and if you can’t answer it plainly, then it would seem to me that you are having a difficult time justifying what you know in your heart to be wrong.

He claims to work at a crisis pregnancy center. However, based on his posts here, I find that claim dubious at best. There is no way to verify it.

 

[rpp]

It is you who is looking at this backwards. You are not being realistic if you believe government can make people ‘more moral’ simply by passing more laws. Government is NOT a benevolent high performance organization.

Dude, look at what is happening. NO ONE is on your side. That should tell you something about your side. Clearly it is time to reconsider your position. Look at the reactions you are generating. It is clearly time to examine your conscience. No one requires you to do that publicly, but it is clear you must do that.