LadyJazzer wrote: Why, yes... What an "apples and ugli-fruit" comparison.
I'm not sure women can choose to keep global warming out of their bodies. (Although, if there is a way, I'm sure that Phyllis Schlafly and the 'Eagle Forum' will try...)
If you don't like abortion, don't have one.
If you don't like murder, don't do it?
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
LadyJazzer wrote: Why, yes... What an "apples and ugli-fruit" comparison.
I'm not sure women can choose to keep global warming out of their bodies. (Although, if there is a way, I'm sure that Phyllis Schlafly and the 'Eagle Forum' will try...)
If you don't like abortion, don't have one.
If you don't like murder, don't do it?
As long as a judge says you can kill something or someone, then it's fine. (except for cute little animals like puppies, you can't kill those)
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
Rick wrote: As long as a judge says you can kill something or someone, then it's fine. (except for cute little animals like puppies, you can't kill those)
No, it isn't fine just because a judge says it is. Judges said slavery was fine, they said separate but equal was fine, they have said many things which are not fine were fine. They are just as wrong today as they were on the day they issued their rulings. It is never fine for a single individual to have the ability to decide whether another human life continues or ends absent the justification for doing so to preserve their own life or well being. That concept lies at the very heart of the foundation of our system of governance. We do not allow even judges to make such a decision by themselves, we don't even allow a panel of judges to make that decision.
Each and every abortion destroys a unique human life. That is not belief, it is a scientific fact that can't be argued. That, as the saying goes, is settled science, there is no debating that point. I can point to that precise moment scientifically and say that it is then that a new human life was created. It was then that a unique entity started occupying its own space in the universe. Life descends from life, there is no ability to argue, as a matter or science, that the human life in the womb isn't alive and living from the moment the zygote is formed until all activity sustaining life ends.
We hold it to be a self evident truth that all are created equal and endowed with the same inalienable rights. That is a cornerstone of our society. We may fall short of putting that belief into practice, but that doesn't mean that it is any less of a truth because of our shortcomings. Abortion does violence to that truth, it says that rights are the result of something other than the mere fact that we exist at all, that someone or something other than our very existence endows us with our rights. The most fundamental right we have is our right to life. Any activity which denies to us that right absent justification or excuse is considered a criminal act with the sole exception of abortion. That, too, is a fact which may not be argued.
Rick wrote: As long as a judge says you can kill something or someone, then it's fine. (except for cute little animals like puppies, you can't kill those)
No, it isn't fine just because a judge says it is. Judges said slavery was fine, they said separate but equal was fine, they have said many things which are not fine were fine. They are just as wrong today as they were on the day they issued their rulings. It is never fine for a single individual to have the ability to decide whether another human life continues or ends absent the justification for doing so to preserve their own life or well being. That concept lies at the very heart of the foundation of our system of governance. We do not allow even judges to make such a decision by themselves, we don't even allow a panel of judges to make that decision.
Each and every abortion destroys a unique human life. That is not belief, it is a scientific fact that can't be argued. That, as the saying goes, is settled science, there is no debating that point. I can point to that precise moment scientifically and say that it is then that a new human life was created. It was then that a unique entity started occupying its own space in the universe. Life descends from life, there is no ability to argue, as a matter or science, that the human life in the womb isn't alive and living from the moment the zygote is formed until all activity sustaining life ends.
We hold it to be a self evident truth that all are created equal and endowed with the same inalienable rights. That is a cornerstone of our society. We may fall short of putting that belief into practice, but that doesn't mean that it is any less of a truth because of our shortcomings. Abortion does violence to that truth, it says that rights are the result of something other than the mere fact that we exist at all, that someone or something other than our very existence endows us with our rights. The most fundamental right we have is our right to life. Any activity which denies to us that right absent justification or excuse is considered a criminal act with the sole exception of abortion. That, too, is a fact which may not be argued.
Sorry PS, I figured by now you understood where I stand on this, I just don't use the
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
If it's not your slave, it's none of your f*ing business.
If it's not your wife, it's none of your f*ing business.
If it's not your child, it's none of your f*ing business.
Know what they all have in common? Treating another human life like it is property instead of another life endowed with the same rights that you were endowed with when you were created, that's what. Know what else they have in common? They are all as equally flawed as the bigot's statement is.
