sargasm said:They dont care about 30,000 children that die each day from starvation, they don't care about executing some guy on death row, even though according to them, God is the only entity capable of judging man. They scream bloody murder when some poor girl gets an abortion because she can barely pay the rent, is working two shifts, and the guy who got her pregnant is long gone. They say they are defending the vulnerable but they put millions of dollars every year into anti-abortion campaigns instead of sending it to aid starving people. Their argument is so full of hypocricy its a wonder how they continue to carry on this crusade to stomp out a civil right.
Urethra Franklin said:To care about starving children would mean proposing fairer global systems, which might mean just a few less dollars for the average US citizen to go bowling or to McDonalds, so knowing that the average selfish church-goer won't vote for that, they don't propose it.
A young, vulnerable, distressed girl in an unfortunate situation is fair game. So they pick on her because christians love the culture of blame, so they'll vote for the idea that all the world's ills stem from the idea that Caitlin from South Carolina once had sex. We'll pray for starving children, pretending we care for an hour on a Sunday morning, knowing damn well that that does nothing, then we'll forget about them until next week, because we've got more christain things to do like plan the next bombing of the local abortion clinic.
satanloveslibs said:Hold on here! You are saying that Christians do this, but really it politicians who claim to be Christians. I hope you can tell the difference. If you knew a real Christian you would see that they all about love and caring and not what you typed. I believe, as do most of the poeple at my church, that there should be more spending toward starving third world countries. I'm pretty liberal on that issue. I feel hardly any simathy for people in America because there are enough jobs for everyone here. I'm not completely for the death penalty, 1, because it is not consistant with states, one man gets death, while the other gets 30 years. 2, innocent people have died, and keeping someone for life cost less than death, and yes God is the ultimite Judge, not us.
sargasm said:Jesus, still no conservative dares to show their head in here still because its so obvious they're wrong
Why do conservative politicians oppose abortion under the guise of this country being a culture of life when its obvious they are only trying to forward their own religious views/gain votes from religious nuts, which is clearly unconstitutional? I mean conservatives say they care about life but they only care about the unborn and post-living vegetables like Terri Schivo. They dont care about 30,000 children that die each day from starvation, they don't care about executing some guy on death row, even though according to them, God is the only entity capable of judging man. They scream bloody murder when some poor girl gets an abortion because she can barely pay the rent, is working two shifts, and the guy who got her pregnant is long gone. They say they are defending the vulnerable but they put millions of dollars every year into anti-abortion campaigns instead of sending it to aid starving people. Their argument is so full of hypocricy its a wonder how they continue to carry on this crusade to stomp out a civil right.
jamesrage said:To someone who sees abortion for what it is,which is government sanctioned murder.Abortion has caused the deaths of almost 50 million unborn children since this heinious act first became legal.
To put it in a contex that you could understand.Imagine 50 million people being slaughtered for profit because they refused to work for a south American Wal-mart.
FiremanRyan said:because no one can respond to your broad generalization. and how, in any way, do you feel that abortion should be a civil right when its supporters still cant make a strong case that you arent killing an unborn child?
is there hypocrisy from conservative politicians? sure. but same with the left. you want to save inmates on death row but you'll vaccuum a fetus out of a woman, no questions asked. if you care so much about life and equal rights, why dont unborn children deserve the same?
sargasm said:And you have a stong case to prove that you are killing an unborn child?
Want to save inmate from death row, yeah, thats because an inmate is a HUMAN. Believe it or not, its scientifically proven that inmates are humans. But science is a word that means too little to you so I won't play that card. Why fight against abortion if it isnt proven that they are children when 30,000 children die of hunger every day; we know they're alive, but rather then help them lets put millions and millions of dollars each year into the campaign against abortion because its "a senseless waste of life". Thats hypocrisy for you.
What? How does this South American Walmart business even relate in any way to abortion?
jamesrage said:If you are too ignorant to understand the anology then do not bother wasting my time.
FiremanRyan said:because no one can respond to your broad generalization. and how, in any way, do you feel that abortion should be a civil right when its supporters still cant make a strong case that you arent killing an unborn child?
vergiss said:*cough*ornotdeludedenoughtounderstandit*cough*
Um, mate - hate to burst your bubble, but no one has proven that it is killing an unborn child, either. So until it's proven one way or another, it's a useless argument.
"You MIGHT be killing them!"
"But I MIGHT not be, as well."
See? Same goes for vice versa.
Abortion is legal now... so really, if the anti-abortion side want to stop it, the burden of proof is on them.
jamesrage said:If you are too ignorant to understand the anology then do not bother wasting my time.
FiremanRyan said:i never said that concrete evidence was there. if i did quote me. what i said is that science hasnt proved it one way or the other, although they are leaning toward one side. regardless of which side that is, we should be giving the children the benefit of the doubt.
if you cannot prove that their 'human life' hasnt started and arent 100% sure on it, how can you feel comfortable killing them?
"You MIGHT be killing them!"
"But I MIGHT not be, as well."
....well ****, i dont know so lets kill them anyways."
thats basically what liberals are saying.
Nope, that's claptrap nonsense.FiremanRyan said:if a fetus is considered 'life', than killing it is murder.
Actually, life started close to 4 bill. years ago. Everything since is merely continuation of existing life.pro-choicers have no scientific evidence to support their theory that life starts when you are born or in the last trimester or whatever they say.
Than conception? yes, after all, the sperm and the egg certainly are alive.in fact, science has consistantly been swaying the other way saying that life begins much earlier.
And "it" is what, exactly? You are making some very generalized claims based on very vague claims. Care to be specific instead?why do you think National Geographic just came out with a documentary on it, or why its been in the media as much as it has?
"unborn children"? Oh, that must be some new prolife revisionist linguistic hyperbole, just like if we talked about "pre-dead corpses."its all based on these findings. call me nuts, but these unborn children
"doubt" about what? Regardless of what the fetus or embryo are, nobody or nothing has the right to use a woman's bodily resources against her will.should be given the benefit of the doubt,
That would be the moral obligation to NOT enslave women into a conservative, theocratic misogyny.not because of religion, but because of moral obligations.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?