Who do you support for U.S. Senate in North Carolina in 2010?

Observer wrote:

<quoted text>
Should someone who has no womb. Never had one. Never will have one. Does not have the slightest idea of what it's like to have one, even be allowed to discuss it? Reading this thread has amply answered that question. Why don't you neanderthals go talk about sports.

The Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
That is an interesting proposition.
Should:
Someone not owning a home be allowed to vote on property tax increases?
Someone on welfare be allowed to vote on an increase in welfare benefits?
Congress be allowed to vote itself a raise?
The list goes on and on.
I have always been intrigued with this subject. The main premise is should someone with no exposure to loss or financial hardship be allowed to vote this hardship on others who are exposed to it?

Arnold-Ziffel wrote:

<quoted text>
You forgot. Should someone who hates another group of people that are villified in their churches by ignorant 'representatives of God', be allowed to vote on this hated groups personal right to form a union in marriage on a state wide popular vote referendum? Hell NO! Human rights are NEVER to be determined by popular vote!

TSF wrote:

Just couldn't resist a little roughing up of a neocon nazi neurotic nincompoop forum bully. Who started this name calling BS?
(BB, nixxer, black thug, nazi , smarty pants,liar liar pants on fire )
Yes, you and John Boener need to grow up. No go burst into tears.
<quoted text>

waco1909 wrote:

<quoted text> I know what its like to have my wife die of ovarian cancer...you little snot...

Observer wrote:

<quoted text>
So that is the same as you dying of it? This is exactly what I am talking about.

The Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
The day science proves life begins at conception it is.
Think how far the reduction in weeks for the viability of the child (fetus in liberal-speak) has moved. What happens to your theory when viability begins at conception?

The Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
I absolutely believe you have a soul. However by your own admission you have rejected Christ.

Mike Duquette wrote:

<quoted text>This idea of yours would demand a woman to be forcibly invaded of her body by the government to remove said fetus.
Never going to happen in a free country. Of course, you do not really champion freedom though.

Mike Duquette wrote:

<quoted text>All Jews reject Christ, all Hindu's reject Christ, all Muslims reject Christ, all Buddhist's reject Christ.
Hitler did not reject Christ nor did most every Nazi. And those Nazi's believed those who reject Christ were without a soul. Thus, sub human. Thus, killed them as if they were a soulless animal.
Christians often claim non human animals have no soul, thus they can be killed. No sanctity of life for a soulless being.

Mike Duquette wrote:

<quoted text>This idea of yours would demand a woman to be forcibly invaded of her body by the government to remove said fetus.
Never going to happen in a free country. Of course, you do not really champion freedom though.

TSF wrote:

Just couldn't resist a little roughing up of a neocon nazi neurotic nincompoop forum bully. Who started this name calling BS?
(BB, nixxer, black thug, nazi , smarty pants,liar liar pants on fire )
Yes, you and John Boener need to grow up. No go burst into tears.
<quoted text>

The Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
You have no concept of the idea of personal responsibility, do you?

The Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
You are right. This would ABSOLUTELY be the case if science proves LIFE begins at conception. At that point, BY LAW, abortion would be pre-meditated MURDER.
There you go with your absolutes again. I would think twice before I said "never" on something like that.

Mike Duquette wrote:

<quoted text>I am not speaking for myself, I speak for the freedom of Americans against government force upon our bodies.
I am not for abortion. I do not advocate it. I would try to sway one from doing it. But I would not want the government to make such bodily choices for us.

Mike Duquette wrote:

<quoted text>An ant is life, so I am not seeing your point.
I think there would have to be more. Maybe something in the order of a sentient human being.

The Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
We are going to have SOME fun with this one!
So if science determines LIFE begins at conception, you would STILL advocate a mother's right to MURDER the child?
Alright. Then explain this. How will you differentiate between that and MURDER of a one year old?

The Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
So it is alright to end the life of anyone who is no longer capable of sentient thought?
Are you beginning to see the slippery slope you are on?