Search results

I know what you mean, but the word "right" doesn't enter into it. Rights are God-given, inherent, "inbuilt" to use your word. We can and do democratically decide to subsidize various welfare measures for our people, some of which are food, water, warmth, shelter and education. Our...

Many even. I'm Catholic so I'm answering your question about sinfulness as a Catholic, and for Catholicism. Not every Catholic lives out what Catholicism believes.

The Scripture does it, why can't @Derf ?

It's those swing state voters who decide our presidents.

Our Constitution does not limit how much subsidized welfare we can offer our people. It's not the same as universal human rights, which can never be morally abrogated without justification.

Marital relations are for two purposes; marital unity, and open to life. Contraception is sinful. Which means, it violates Catholic ethics. But that's not the same thing as criminal, or a rights violation.

Dumb. You're dumb.

I'm cool with ending any life which inherently threatens the life and limb of anybody else. Like, ending the life of Vlad Putin, for example. Clear enough?

On what planet would this be promiscuity?

It's 100% somewhere between 80-98%.

What if it's 50% of abortions that are just back up contraception? Is that like somehow less awful? It's awful Arthur, that so many unborn babies are sacrificed on the altar of what amounts to a desire for zero-consequence promiscuity. It's a crime against nature, like how having human slaves...

While you saying it might be accurate, him saying it is going to be classic.

I'm not "assuming" anything. I know how Roe came about, it wasn't an accident, the exact type of case that was appealed to the Supreme Court back then, this kind of strategic appellate gerrymandering's a tale as old as time. But on the ground, it's absolutely 80% abortions being due to plain...

The whole thread, but if you just read this one excerpted post, in answer to @Hoping :

It would be nice if this sort of rhetoric was as successful as it should be, but alas. People just want to be promiscuous.

Thanks for clearing up that one. Now all the promiscuous people just have to go and get cancer, and they can resume their promiscuous lifestyle without consequences, which is actually what this whole controversy's ever been about ever since Roe. There's going to be a run on tobacco stocks...

It is not. For the safety of the mother's life and limb, I don't know a single state that's advocating for banning surgical abortive termination of a viable pregnancy in defense of the mother's life and limb. Not a single one. This (stupid) tweet is a LIE. You fell for it. Stupid.

Red, herring. Do you see how dumb you are? to be continuing this discussion? without stopping to figure out why I'm saying, that you're getting dumber with every post now? Red herring! That's now THREE logical fallacies you've employed in the past like five posts. On record.

The only thing obvious is how dumb you are.

Why don't you research what kind of errors Straw Man and Equivocation are. Then ask.