Liberals say it is fine to kill born babies

[SeattleGriz]

If these Libs agree on this, where will they stop? How about we just take out those that only partially give anything to existence? How about those that only give small amounts to society in general?

Libs = Donks = Nazis

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... s-say.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’

“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.

The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”

PS Trying really hard to get my sweeping generalizations better - hope this one is up to par.

[D1B]

Oxford, huh? Not too shabby. Told ya we were right.

Abortion debate over. Libs win. Fucking next....

[youngterrier]

Why is it that the prolife party is only prolife until you're born, while the other party isn't prolife until after you're born?

Questions Questions

[Bronco]

New Pew survey: Obama losing ground among Catholic, Jewish, Protestant and even atheist voters
Coach is Right ^ | 2/29/2012 | Kevin "Coach" Collins

According to a Pew poll released earlier this month even before Barack Obama went public with his all-out war on the Catholic Church White non-Hispanic Catholics started moving away from the Democrats and toward a Republican self-identification.
The quietly released survey, which contains lots of bad news for Democrats, was completed last December by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

What Pew found was as follows.

The Democrat identification all Catholics (practicing and non- practicing) had in 2008 is gone. Democrat identification has slipped from 53/37 to 48/43 – again this was BEFORE Obama’s declaration of war.

While this general trend should be enough to cause alarm for Democrats, digging a bit deeper brings worse news. Among White non-Hispanic Catholics – who make up a much larger portion of those who will actually vote- the numbers have reversed to a 49/42 Republican advantage. Moreover Democrats are now even upside down among non-practicing Catholics falling to a 47/45 GOP advantage.

It’s not just Catholics who have moved from the Democrats and toward the Republicans.
Pew tells us Democrats have lost and Republicans have gained ground with all religious groups. Among Jewish voters there has been a 9 point shift

(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...

[89Hen]

Why is it that the prolife party is only prolife until after you're born, while the other party isn't prolife until after you're born?

Questions Questions

You only got half that one right.

[JohnStOnge]

I have always said that the real imposition of belief is on the "pro choice" side. The objective reality is that, from the point of conception, a member of our species exists. It is alive. It is Homo sapiens. But a subjective belief as to what constitutes a "person" is imposed in order to justify killing individuals at certain developmental stages as a matter of convenience.

What gives these people the right to impose their beliefs as to what a "person" is upon another member of our species in order to justify their position? I suppose "might" is the answer. Newborns are certainly in no position to defend themselves.

But I WILL say this. At least it's a move towards consistency. There never was any reason for drawing a line at birth and saying that before birth an individual has no right to live then at birth he or she does.

[JohnStOnge]

Why is it that the prolife party is only prolife until after you're born, while the other party isn't prolife until after you're born?

The position is that someone has a right to continue their life without having someone else take it from them when they've done nothing wrong. There is nothing inconsistent at all about saying that someone has a right to be free of direct, fatal, positive attack and at the same time saying that no one has a right to have others assist them.

I can say that I don't think someone should be allowed to take positive action to kill me and at the same time say that I have no right to expect someone else to provide me with food if I have no food. Failing to assist is not the same thing as taking positive action to kill.

[YoUDeeMan]

Why is it that the prolife party is only prolife until after you're born, while the other party isn't prolife until after you're born?

The position is that someone has a right to continue their life without having someone else take it from them when they've done nothing wrong. There is nothing inconsistent at all about saying that someone has a right to be free of direct, fatal, positive attack and at the same time saying that no one has a right to have others assist them.

I can say that I don't think someone should be allowed to take positive action to kill me and at the same time say that I have no right to expect someone else to provide me with food if I have no food. Failing to assist is not the same thing as taking positive action to kill.

Of course, there are WHOLE bunch of conservatives that are OK with killing innocent civilians...they're just a cost of doing business when going after the bad guys. Kill a couple dozen kids with a drone...ooops...but God will understand that we were trying to get the one bad guy and we figured collateral killings of a couple of natives in a foreign land was better than a bad guy planning the potential death of one of our folks.

[catamount man]

all life is precious. if you want to be truly pro-life, then war should be the last item on the agenda.

[93henfan]

all life is precious. if you want to be truly pro-life, then war should be the last item on the agenda.

Death penalty too?

[D1B]

all life is precious. if you want to be truly pro-life, then war should be the last item on the agenda.

Yeah, but we should never take it in the ass from a bunch of ignorant towel heads. Fuck them. I wouldn't give a flying fuck if every one of em was turned into fertilizer.

[catamount man]

all life is precious. if you want to be truly pro-life, then war should be the last item on the agenda.

Death penalty too?

still 50/50 on that admittingly. I used to hear Catholic priests say all the time about how the death row inmate can still be changed. Some maybe, but history has often proved this to not be so. I left the RCC over this and birth control, not to mention the over indulgence of Marian theology, and also not to mention the arrogant fuckstick of a priest at my local parish who had the people skills of a cobra.

I'm Lutheran now and I'm content in that part of my life. But as always, trying to improve.

[kalm]

Why is it that the prolife party is only prolife until after you're born, while the other party isn't prolife until after you're born?

The position is that someone has a right to continue their life without having someone else take it from them when they've done nothing wrong. There is nothing inconsistent at all about saying that someone has a right to be free of direct, fatal, positive attack and at the same time saying that no one has a right to have others assist them.

Especially those freeloading kindergarteners expecting a free lunch! Get a job and quit being a taker!

[Ibanez]

all life is precious. if you want to be truly pro-life, then war should be the last item on the agenda.

Yeah, but we should never take it in the ass from a bunch of ignorant towel heads. Fuck them. I wouldn't give a flying fuck if every one of em was turned into fertilizer.

How about Soylent Green? Think of the people we could feed.






Do you know what Ethopian food tastes like?

Spoiler: show

Neither do they.

[D1B]

Death penalty too?

still 50/50 on that admittingly. I used to hear Catholic priests say all the time about how the death row inmate can still be changed. Some maybe, but history has often proved this to not be so. I left the RCC over this and birth control, not to mention the over indulgence of Marian theology, and also not to mention the arrogant fuckstick of a priest at my local parish who had the people skills of a cobra.

I'm Lutheran now and I'm content in that part of my life. But as always, trying to improve.

My life long catholic mother left for Lutheran Church. She loves it now.

[Cap'n Cat]

If these Libs agree on this, where will they stop? How about we just take out those that only partially give anything to existence? How about those that only give small amounts to society in general?

Libs = Donks = Nazis

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... s-say.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They argued: “The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.”

Rather than being “actual persons”, newborns were “potential persons”. They explained: “Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’

“We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”

As such they argued it was “not possible to damage a newborn by preventing her from developing the potentiality to become a person in the morally relevant sense”.

The authors therefore concluded that “what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled”

PS Trying really hard to get my sweeping generalizations better - hope this one is up to par.

It is.

[catamount man]

still 50/50 on that admittingly. I used to hear Catholic priests say all the time about how the death row inmate can still be changed. Some maybe, but history has often proved this to not be so. I left the RCC over this and birth control, not to mention the over indulgence of Marian theology, and also not to mention the arrogant **** of a priest at my local parish who had the people skills of a cobra.

I'm Lutheran now and I'm content in that part of my life. But as always, trying to improve.

My life long catholic mother left for Lutheran Church. She loves it now.

Yes indeed.

[89Hen]

all life is precious. if you want to be truly pro-life, then war should be the last item on the agenda.

Death penalty too?

I've changed my mind on capital punishment.

[Cap'n Cat]

Death penalty too?

I've changed my mind on capital punishment.

Cool, Hen. You're pecking your way outta that Conk shell!

[YoUDeeMan]

all life is precious. if you want to be truly pro-life, then war should be the last item on the agenda.

Yeah, but we should never take it in the ass from a bunch of ignorant towel heads. Fuck them. I wouldn't give a flying fuck if every one of em was turned into fertilizer.

Hey, I'm OK with killing our enemies...towel heads or not. And if you are not helping your neigbor, but know your neighbor is building bombs to kill Americans and you don't do anything about it, then your deserve your death. I can also sleep with the accidental deaths of some innocent civilians (those that get killed that don't know their neighbors are bad guys). Too bad...better them than us.

However, that is not what a Catholic should believe...at least one that is against the death penalty and abortions. All lives are sacred...even the evil ones. And the "self-defense" argument is baloney....not only when killing someone who might be planning an attack (what if that attack never comes?), but also in "revenge" for them killing someone in the past (even if they killed many people in the past).

To dismiss the death of inocents as, "Oh well, too bad they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, but we're doing what's best for us" is an absolute hoot from a Christian point of view.

[89Hen]

However, that is not what a Catholic should believe...at least one that is against the death penalty and abortions. All lives are sacred...even the evil ones. And the "self-defense" argument is baloney....not only when killing someone who might be planning an attack (what if that attack never comes?), but also in "revenge" for them killing someone in the past (even if they killed many people in the past).

To dismiss the death of inocents as, "Oh well, too bad they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, but we're doing what's best for us" is an absolute hoot from a Christian point of view.

Are you Catholic Cluck?

[YoUDeeMan]

However, that is not what a Catholic should believe...at least one that is against the death penalty and abortions. All lives are sacred...even the evil ones. And the "self-defense" argument is baloney....not only when killing someone who might be planning an attack (what if that attack never comes?), but also in "revenge" for them killing someone in the past (even if they killed many people in the past).

To dismiss the death of inocents as, "Oh well, too bad they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, but we're doing what's best for us" is an absolute hoot from a Christian point of view.

Are you Catholic Cluck?

Born and raised (St. John the Beloved, Milltown Road)...gave it up for Lent.

[89Hen]

Are you Catholic Cluck?

Born and raised (St. John the Beloved, Milltown Road)...gave it up for Lent.

Did you never learn about Just War Doctrine?

[YoUDeeMan]

Born and raised (St. John the Beloved, Milltown Road)...gave it up for Lent.

Did you never learn about Just War Doctrine?

Yes. It is just another way for a Catholic to deal with the inconsistencies of their beliefs.

And the use of force should not produce more evil than what is being eliminated. Dropping bombs on a single target while killing 20 innocents, including children, is not exactly a great trade off...unless, of course, it is not your child. And what of the innocent people who are harmed? Are they not going to then hate America even more for the killing of their people? You are simply trading some very innocent lives (preganant women, children, you name it) because there is a CHANCE that some pain or misery will befall your people.

Along the same lines, some people have abortions because they don't believe they can raise a child at that time, or that the child will be born with serious defects. Bringing a child into the world and not loving it properly, or brining a child into the world with severe mental or physical limitations can doom that child, the family, and community to pain and misery.

Both are selfish acts.

[YoUDeeMan]

Oh, while we're on that "Just War" thing...I remember a discussion several years back between some neighbors. A couple of people, Catholics, said we should not have bombed Hiroshima...in that case there were "too many" "innocent" casualties. They babbled on about how we could have done things differently and still won the war.

Screw that. There are times when you must punish the people that support the regime that is attacking you and there are times when eliminating whole populations will...amazingly...eliminate the very people that would kil you.

God can do that...eliminate whole populations as punishment...but people can't? Just another example of the hypocrisy in religion.