Right to Life holding convention here

Svaha wrote:

<quoted text>
"Should" implies that she has a choice. A woman's reasons are her own and she "shouldn't" have to explain them to anyone. If "god" thinks it's a sin to have an abortion he/she/it can take it up with her. I'll not judge her reasons.

Svaha wrote:

<quoted text>
"Should" implies that she has a choice. A woman's reasons are her own and she "shouldn't" have to explain them to anyone. If "god" thinks it's a sin to have an abortion he/she/it can take it up with her. I'll not judge her reasons.

Judged:

1

1

1

Speed wrote:

<quoted text>
Look in any major newspaper. There are people all over the country starved to have a baby, and they cannot. Their ads are posted seeking a baby to adopt. Anyway, how is that an excuse to kill a baby?

kadamson wrote:

<quoted text>At what point is it not ok for a woman to kill her child? When is it alive. God objects to taking the life of another human. If a person chooses to do that you don't judge their reasons either?

Entropythermo wrote:

<quoted text>
eh...that's what I said

kadamson wrote:

<quoted text>At what point is it not ok for a woman to kill her child? When is it alive. God objects to taking the life of another human. If a person chooses to do that you don't judge their reasons either?

hornback12 wrote:

<quoted text>the question was "are you willing to adopt one of the children that you save from abortion?" a very simple question. yes or no is enough

Svaha wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm betting the answer is no. They want the power OVER others but certainly NOT the responsibility FOR the decisions THEY think they should be able to make. That's left to already overburdened government agencies that they are so terrified will become SOCIALISM.

Amazed wrote:

<quoted text>
What you call not taking responsibility is also known as "shifting the costs". The point is that theology isn't the single driving force and motivator behind the decisions of the Vatican. The Vatican also seeks to protect its tithe filled war chests, coffers, vaults and investment portfolios.
The Vatican tries but fails to disguise its true motivations for its actions in declaring war on Americas poor and on American health care reform: church economics.
http://coloradoindependent.com/42226/stupak-a...
From the article:
"Although the bishops’ stand against health reform can not be separated from theology, its ties to Church economics are also very real. The Catholic Church with its hundreds of hospitals and clinics and nursing facilities is in the health care business in a major way. In 2006, Americans spent $84.6 billion on Catholic-affiliated health care. Fact is, the bishops have more at stake in this debate than principle. Former Colorado Independent editor Wendy Norris developed the point today in a blog post for RH Reality Check.
The Stupak Amendment, which is designed to cut abortion out of what would be the dominant health-care plan in the nation, may or may not be a moral victory. What it is, indisputably, is genius business strategy, the kind other industries dream of effecting on Capitol Hill."
and:
"By restricting insurance coverage of women’s reproductive health care, the competitive barriers faced by Catholic institutions will be eliminated — provided the amendment is not stripped out of the final bill that emerges from House-Senate health care reform conference committee. Which is why pro-choice advocates should expect nothing short of a full-frontal attack by the Vatican on conservative Senators."

Walter In FL wrote:

<quoted text>
Speed
What is the difference of sperm cells and other cells in the body?
How do you know life begins at conception?
Is it Science or Religious Beliefs that it is concidered to be a person when it is just a several cells?
That is conception but it is still the same as any other cells of the body.

hornback12 wrote:

<quoted text>because you believe it does not mean that others do. this country was founded by people trying to get away from others telling them what to think. i believe that all churches chould be taxed the same as other businesses. since taxes help with the social services and envolves the protection of a being, you would agree with that. you , i guess are also willing to support one of the children that were not aborted.

Svaha wrote:

<quoted text>
So what do you think we ought to do. Chip women in childbearing years so the preggo police can round 'em up like the breeding stock you'd like them to be? Then they can be forcefed their prenatal vitamins because pregnant women don't HAVE any rights over their own being. After the forced birth (probably without anesthesia because they have to be punished for having sex) kick 'em to the curb and it's time for the NEXT one. Pretty picture you pain there sport:-)

kadamson wrote:

<quoted text>At what point is it not ok for a woman to kill her child? When is it alive. God objects to taking the life of another human. If a person chooses to do that you don't judge their reasons either?

Speed wrote:

<quoted text>
The other cells in the body do not join and create a heartbeat.
No, it is not the same.

Judged:

1

1

1

Walter In FL wrote:

Speed
Everyone of us regulars on this Terri Schiavo Forum have full knowledge of the pros and cons of abortions.
So, please get back on you horse and go back to the Topix Anti-Abortion Forum or stay on the topic of the Terri Schiavo Forum.
URL: http://www.topix.com/forum/news/abortion

Walter In FL wrote:

<quoted text>
Then you're for the pomotion and use of birth control methods?
example: Day after pill

Walter In FL wrote:

Speed
It would be a lot cheaper to promote the use of birth control and realistic sex education in the schools. But you and your like-minded would not have anything to do. You would have to find another subject to campaign. Or should I say your leader the terrorist Randall "bullhorn" Terry will to find another livelihood for you to rally.