Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
scoutldr

Pro Life requires personal responsibility

Recommended Posts

Yeah, that's good but in my version magic is what Michael Jordan does on the court. A miracle is the Braves winning the World Series.

 

Hey, hey! Steelers by 4, yeah!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

packsaddle,

 

I doubt you care, but I do claim to know God's will. I simply try to respect the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church which I believe Jesus left to represent Him on earth. The Church does not support IVF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scoutldr wrote: So, my opinion: You want to be "obsessed" and have 14 kids under the age of 8 with no husband or visible means of support? NOT A DIME of taxpayer money should you get. Maybe your Dr will help you raise them. Maybe the pro-lifers will send you checks to help out with your God-given right. Yeah, good luck with that.

 

 

 

Most pro-lifers (at least the Catholic variety) are also against in-vitro fertilization. This is a non-issue, except as a divisive way to slam pro-lifers. Not very scoutlike, IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides, these frozen chosen could be saved simply if a sufficient number of women would just 'adopt' them and bring them to term.

 

Yah, if only da laws in the several states would allow it, eh? Most don't. The law would rather see the embryos destroyed as unwanted property, experimented on as lab animals, or harvested for body parts/stem cells than actually adopted and allowed to become someone's children.

 

And we have been strugglin' to put some genies back in bottles, eh? Since Nagasaki there have been no atomic weapons used in anger. It's becomin' taboo, unthinkable to most people. Poor philosophies and da promiscuous ideas of an individual culture do die, or at least wane.

 

We have the technology to harvest organs from unwanted orphans, eh? That "genie" was let out of da bottle ages ago. We just choose not to.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did we incinerate alive all those Japanese civilians, men, women, and children, out of anger? Did we do that?

 

Edited part: "The law would rather see the embryos destroyed as unwanted property, experimented on as lab animals, or harvested for body parts/stem cells than actually adopted and allowed to become someone's children."

H'mmmm, I didn't hear that from the law. Did the law say that to you? Where? When? I was under the impression that the law did not 'prohibit' those things but that, collectively, WE choose to do it. Or am I wrong?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those children will starve if they are waiting for the Pro-life groups to sweep in and offer to take care of them.

 

Why would Pro-life groups get involved? This isn't a pro-life issue! It is a mental health issue!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did we incinerate alive all those Japanese civilians, men, women, and children, out of anger? Did we do that?

 

Aw, packsaddle. Now you're descendin' to Merlyn's level. Nitpick da wording when yeh can't address the argument.

 

Thesis: New technology is a magical genie, that once released in society can never be checked.

Refutation: Mustard gas. Atomic weapons. Yeh can never quite eliminate the freedom of choice of the wicked to use such things, but you can effectively check 'em by law and social taboo and threat of retribution.

Counter-Argument: You used the word "anger" (as a common colloquialism) for "in war", nyah-nyah. :p

 

Doesn't just apply to weapons, eh? I expect law and social taboo will eliminate a whole class of financial derivative instruments (yet another "genie") in da next few years. Only you irrational scientist types seem to believe in unstoppable magical genies. ;)

 

Beavah

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beavah, I always address arguments, I don't nitpick to avoid arguing. Arguments require using proper terms, otherwise you just get meaningless word salad.

 

Mustard gas was used in the Iran-Iraq war in the 90s, and possibly since then, so I don't think it's a good example of something being 'checked'. Mustard gas is a lot easier to make than a nuclear weapon, so it's much harder to control.

 

But yes, you can certain try to "control" people with retribution, especially when you have someone like TheScout who knows exactly what god wants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"packsaddle,

I doubt you care, but I do claim to know God's will."

 

Sounds like you're claiming to know what god wants right there.

 

Addendum: It looks like you may have meant to type "don't"; if so, I retract my statement.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its ok. Typo I assure you. Good catch.

 

I only claim to know will of the writers of the Constitution, not God.

 

; )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this California woman is the same one I'm reading about in the news:

 

The mother is married.

She took fertility treatments, but did not plan on having 8 children.

The woman's husband will soon be returning to Iraq to serve.

 

With the sad state of the press, I'm not sure what to believe when I read the papers these days.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two conflicting reports in the Atlanta press:

 

"Suleman, a 33-year-old single mother, already had six children, ages 2 to 7 when she gave birth to her octuplets on Jan. 26."

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/shared-gen/ap/National/Octuplets.html?cxntlid=thbz_hm

 

"They confirmed that their mother now has 14 children. Making things a little trickier, the woman's husband will soon be returning to Iraq to serve."

http://www.wsbtv.com/health/18600993/detail.html

 

The good news is she appears to be set to write/ have written a book about her experience. Maybe she will generate enough income to take care of her kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beavah, am I missing something? Here's what you wrote: "Since Nagasaki there have been no atomic weapons used in anger."

That's where I got the word from. But it was just a question? Yes or no?

 

"Nitpick da wording when yeh can't address the argument." Coming from someone with a legal background?...c'mon.....do I really need to say it?

 

"New technology is a magical genie, that once released in society can never be checked."

 

I'm not sure what you mean by 'checked' but if you meant 'eliminated', I agree. Its application might be suppressed but the technology will remain, just like that really embarrassing cell-phone photo that someone took of Paris Hilton. We may not be applying those weapons but they still exist and plenty are ready to continue the incinerations and poisonings. And the way they work would survive even if they were totally destroyed.

 

In the case of medical procedures associated with abortion, that technology is diffuse (known by many in many places) and simple. It always will exist somewhere and availability will always simply be a matter of money.

Technology isn't just hardware. It includes the knowledge of how to do things.

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  

×
×
  • Create New...