The pro-life common sense clincher

[fix]

Fix, study the legal system. A criminal verdict is either guilty or not guilty—never a declaration of innocence.

Are you saying an innocent person cannot be wrongly convicted?

Proof has to be beyond a reasonable doubt–that is the safe guard—is it perfect? no, but life is not perfect. One is guaranteed a fair trial, not a perfect one.

This is beside the point. I am pointing out how certain people view reality. If the legal system “works” does that mean any verdict is just simply because the rules were followed? What is the basis of the system?

That “machinery” you call it, or rather following the rules and procedures is justice.

So, justice is following the legal rules. And what is the basis of these rules?

 

[fix]

non responsive?

 

[fix]

fix,

In your reply above you didn’t quote the entire post of mine. It appears as if I am the one saying everything that you “quoted”. In reality, the section of my post that you highlighted is attributed to the Association for Objective Law, and is their position. I have never stated that their position is my own.

I did not mean to attribute that quote to you. I only wanted to point out the reasoning is arbitrary.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I’m almost surprised how many people, and even some “Catholics”, here are so passionate about arguing for the right to murder your children.

I’m surprised, too. It has been bothering me a great deal. I can’t understand why anyone would belong to any organization (even if it is the Catholic Church) and not accept one of its most basic tenets: the right to life and protection of that right to life of all human beings from conception on.

Abortion is murder. The Church is never going to change her position on it. I see organizations like “Catholics for Choice” with their signs stating “Good Catholics Wear Condoms” and I get ill.

It’s heresy.

“Pro-choice” Catholic is an oxymoron.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

I haven’t refused to answer questions. I just can’t see the point in answering your questions when you just argue in this bull-headed way )and when even if I give answers they go in one ear and out the other, it’s really futile in the extreme) - you’ve got double standards Charlemagne.
It would be wonderful if you listened to other people for a change.

Hi Doc Keele, ya have to admit Charlemagne has a point. I can personally testify to asking pro-choicers questions that deserve a straight answer…and how many times have they beat around the bush? Every time. And I will tell you why: because they know they cannot give a straight answer. Or an answer that makes any sense!

Peace to you,
LFL

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Worthy5

*What do you think Judges do? They make judgments. You do not have to agree with it but the Court has the authority. *

And after WWII some of the Nazi judges went to prison for their judgments.

In spite of your pretensions to being opposed to the police power of the state, you seem quite content that the state throught the Supreme Court has exercised the police power of the state by granting execution rights to mothers and abortionists. Or do you want to argue that the baby in the womb is not human and therefore has no rights.

The framers of the Constitution never imagined that the killing the unborn by the millions would ever be an important public issue. They certainly did not give any permission to the courts or the legislatures or the executive to use the police power of the state to kill the unborn.

Yet you have not presented a single argument in the fifty pages of this thread other than to cite Blackmun. Even Dr. Nathanson, a former abortionist, has shown the lies behind Blackmun’s reasoning, not to mention that lack of common sense, in his documentary “The Eclipse of Reason.”

Why do you not see the police power of the state being used to allow abortion and then to defend by law the right of butchers to kill?

Seems to me a very selective and odd slant on the use of police power that it should be used to kill the innocent.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Hi Doc Keele, ya have to admit Charlemagne has a point. I can personally testify to asking pro-choicers questions that deserve a straight answer…and how many times have they beat around the bush? Every time. And I will tell you why: because they know they cannot give a straight answer. Or an answer that makes any sense!

Peace to you,
LFL

Well there’s questions that deserve a straight answer - and there’s questions that cannot possibly have a straight answer. Politicians learn how to recognize the various traps, which is why they are so careful answering questions.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Well there’s questions that deserve a straight answer - and there’s questions that cannot possibly have a straight answer. Politicians learn how to recognize the various traps, which is why they are so careful answering questions.

I’m not talking about politicians. I have lost trust in most of them a long time ago. I have seen a pattern in pro-abortion people, however. The ones who know it’s wrong don’t care to talk about it, and the ones who think it’s right cannot stop talking about it - unless, of course, their position is questioned by others.

 

[Doc_Keele]

I’m not talking about politicians. I have lost trust in most of them a long time ago. I have seen a pattern in pro-abortion people, however. The ones who know it’s wrong don’t care to talk about it, and the ones who think it’s right cannot stop talking about it - unless, of course, their position is questioned by others.

I can’t argue with your experience, just whether or not it can be generalised. The ability of someone to argue their position does not dictate the morality of it as such.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

I can’t argue with your experience, just whether or not it can be generalised. The ability of someone to argue their position does not dictate the morality of it as such.

You’re right; and someone who desires to argue their position must first research it, correct? Have you researched your position? Have you dug deep enough to find the truth? “The Truth will set you free…”

 

[Doc_Keele]

You’re right; and someone who desires to argue their position must first research it, correct? Have you researched your position? Have you dug deep enough to find the truth? “The Truth will set you free…”

Hmmmmm
Do you actually know what position I personally hold?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

lil

I have lost trust in most of them a long time ago.

So have most people judging by recent polls. Congress has less than 20% approval.

Now the Senate wants to include abortion coverage in the new health care bill.

I imagine that, if they could speak, the unborn would declare 0% trust in the United States Senate.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Hmmmmm
Do you actually know what position I personally hold?

From what I read, you seem to go against anything a pro-lifer says. Is your position simply to cause disruption?

lil

I have lost trust in most of them a long time ago.

So have most people judging by recent polls. Congress has less than 20% approval.

Now the Senate wants to include abortion coverage in the new health care bill.

I imagine that, if they could speak, the unborn would declare 0% trust in the United States Senate.

I must agree, Charlemagne. And if the recent abortion language battle in the healthcare bill has indicated anything, I will never believe another liberal as long as I live.

 

[Doc_Keele]

From what I read, you seem to go against anything a pro-lifer says. Is your position simply to cause disruption?

Not at all.
This thread is meant to be about finding a “pro-life clincher”. How can you do that unless you have some robust criticism?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Doc Keele

*This thread is meant to be about finding a “pro-life clincher”. How can you do that unless you have some robust criticism? *

That would be fine if you were providing it. But since your side seems not able to get much beyond quoting Blackmun, who never even mentions the common sense argument, I can hardly regard your approach as “robust.” :knight1:

 

[Doc_Keele]

Doc Keele

*This thread is meant to be about finding a “pro-life clincher”. How can you do that unless you have some robust criticism? *

That would be fine if you were providing it. But since your side seems not able to get much beyond quoting Blackmun, who never even mentions the common sense argument, I can hardly regard your approach as “robust.”

“My side”? Have I quoted Blackmun once?
Your “commonsense” argument is not persuasive and for some reason you don’t seem to be able to see past it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Doc Keele

*Your “commonsense” argument is not persuasive. *

But you still refuse to answer the question, don’t you?

Is it common sense that we should kill our children?

Until you answer the question, there isn’t going to be any “robust” because you’re not going to allow it.

 

[Doc_Keele]

You just don’t listen Charlemagne.
I have tried explaining the issues of a complex question to you.
I’ll answer that question with a straight answer if you can answer this question with a straight answer - “Have you stopped beating your wife?”

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Not at all.
This thread is meant to be about finding a “pro-life clincher”. How can you do that unless you have some robust criticism?

Alright, Doc. Can you please tell me where you personally stand on the issue of abortion? It would help me very much to understand exactly where you are coming from. If you do not wish to take this thread off-topic, you can PM me.

When does life begin (in your view)?

Does a woman have the right to abort her child in any circumstance (in your view)?

 

[Worthy5]

=fix;6362680]non responsive?

Yes Fix, with all due respect—this discussion seems complete. God Bless