Search results

No. Words mean things. That would be great. And I support subsidies that help children who need help, for whatever reason they need it. Nothing wrong in it. You're not proposing that just because we can't or even won't help a person, that killing the person is a moral option? That's what...

Right. Does that make us all rights violators? No, it doesn't.

Again. You're dumb.

Never said it should be. Not at all "just like" killing your kids. Not anything like that.

You have your Biblical interpretation and Catholicism has ours.

You're the only one who thinks "Originalism" means slavery is OK. You're dumb.

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 :