Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
funscout

Pro-choice quandary

Recommended Posts

TheScout wrote:

"I care for little about the "rights" of anothers property. It is all in the way you look at it. I am quite sure you wouldn't have given a damn about the rights of the slaveholders.

 

I will support the right of an American slaveholder over an African slave anyday."

 

Is everyone comfortable with this? Ed? Beavah? Mr. Boyce? Eagledad? Beelzebub?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, not going to get down and wrestle in the mud with that pig (metaphorically speaking). I'm done here.

 

Pack, it boggles the mind, doesn't it?

 

On a related note, does anyone know why "ignore user" doesn't seem to work in a consistent fashion? I've found that in some threads, the comments from an ignored user are squelched, but in others they aren't. What's up with that?

 

(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

African's were only slaves because we made them slaves. One human should never own another human.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OGE,

My apologies. I though that the D&X was a tipo, C being next to X on the keyboard. Working in a Catholic facility for 25 years, I had never heard the term.

 

And yes people, please do not mistake a D&C as an abortion. IT IS NOT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it comes down to the fact that choice is only good when we like the results.

 

We don't like Americans owning certain articles of property. That's inhuman!

 

But its ok to kill American babies. Not inhuman.

 

Hypocrisy anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too would really appreciate it if the squelch feature worked. There are very few whom I would wish to squelch, but I have no use for the narrow-minded arguments of those who consistently display certain racist, sexist, self-absorbed, and rather childishly simplistic views of the world.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yah, I've never gotten squelch to work.

 

I've also completely lost da thread of the arguments here. Went off into weirdness.

 

I reckon if we just let the national debate be in legislatures rather than courts, we'd end up with the same definition for the start of life as the end, eh? Heartbeat. After fetal heartbeat, legal protection ensues. Before then, it's a matter of personal/religious ethics which merits neither state sanction for committin' nor state fundin' for procuring.

 

If da pro-life lobby-da-politicians crowd were smart, they'd shoot for that, eh?

 

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW!!

Work a couple of off shifts, don't post for a couple of days, a look what I miss.

 

DanK, My heart goes out to you and your family. Such decisions should never have to be made.

 

Scout, I thought that you were raised in Buffalo, one of the URR stops on the way to Canada, not the deep south 60 years ago. My young friend, I understand that you are only using the slavery thing to drive home a point, but tread lightly, the ice is very thin, and starting to crack, just like Erie in the spring. Just think of the reaction I would get if I used the Holocaust, Hitler and the Jews.

 

Scout, Boyce & Ed, if the woman chooses to bring the pregnancy to term, and decides to have radiation and chemo during the pregnancy, especially the first trimester, then the fetus dies in utero because of the decision, does she stand responsible for the demise of the fetus, therefore chargeable, or was it just God's will? Does she instead, choose to not be treated, knowing that she and the fetus will die before the pregnancy comes to term, or choose to unfortunately terminate this pregancy, since either of the other options will kill the fetus, get treated, hopefully beat the disease, and possibly bearing more children in the future, thus procreating as God intended? I would like to be a fly on the wall holding up the Pearly Gates to see how God would look at the last option. I bet he would be compassionate, and gladly except her, especially since she beared additional children, if that was his will.

 

Just as was stated earlier, but worded a little differently, the mother arrives at the gates, and asks God why he didn't save her and or her child. God responds, "I gave you the doctors and the treatments to save you, you chose not to use them". I hope you realize this before you have to make such a heart wretching decision in your future Scout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the loving and merciful God who I know wouldn't be nearly as harsh on folks as some of the posters on this forum. He evan gave Sodom and Gomorrah chances to repent and sent Jonah to Nineveh to get those folks right (after letting Jonah do a little getting right himself). And that's all Old Testament.

 

However, I have one judgement to make. TheScout, you need to step back from working with youth before you infect them with those racist ideas. Maybe you will perceive this as a personal atttack, but you really crossed the line here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ASM 915,

 

Doesn't a sin require intent? Therefore a woman could not be held responsible for accidentally killing her baby.

 

Pinkflame,

 

I assure you that you make a quite artificial distinction. So it is ok to support the murder of babies? Those people should keep working with Scouts?

 

But someone who supports valid property rights is not?

 

I am afraid I don't get it.

 

Are some things above criticicm and some not? Perhaps the fact that the murder of babies in our society is still debated, it is ok to support. That doesn't seem right at all either.

 

To me this is the worse of all crimes of human history. The amount of dead in our own country even far outstipes the genocide of the Jews that ASM 915 brings up. And the babies were more innocent than anyone, ever, but still paid the ultimate price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ASM915,

 

I'm not from Buffalo or the south & I'm a lot older than you think!

 

Doesn't a sin require intent?

 

No it doesn't.

 

In the case of radiation treatment killing the fetus, that's a little tricky. However, it is different from intentionally killing the fetus because you couldn't keep your legs crossed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't claim to be an expert in theology. But I think I recall my Catholic priest in his homily two weeks ago was talking about sin and said it required intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OGE,

"The inevitable reality is that life ends in death".

Yep, from the time we are born, we're start on the road to dying.

 

Ed, the Scout is from Buffalo, and now hiding from all the snow in Missouri. By the way, how old are you since you brought it up?

 

Scout,

But would she. If she was informed up front that the treatment would kill the fetus, nontreatment would kill both of them, and to save her, she would need an abortion, I guess she is stuck in the moral dilemma that no matter how she proceeds, she will be killing her unborn baby. Guilty in all three instances. Which carries more guilt, having the radiation knowing the outcome, or the selective abortion? Or do they carry the same level of guilt?

 

Ed,

New lashing project. Just lash them legs together until married. But then we'ld be accused of teaching bondage. Never mind.

(This message has been edited by ASM915)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ASM915,

 

I like that lashing project! Would make it tough to walk but could ride a Segway instead!

 

53.

 

Ed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×