Ted Cruz speaks on PRO LIFE.. YES!

[Lon]

Of course you do. It never ceases to entertain me the way so many on this site -- not only are so glad to quietly stuff their head in the sand -- but proudly go out of their way to give me a customary demonstration. :cheers:

It is a polarizing issue and you are only interested in your rights and your choices to the exclusion of whether it is a human being or not. You literally don't care to entertain him/her being human any longer, if ever was such was contemplated. You've not once advocated for an unborn child. Guess what that means to your entertainment and head/sand personal assessment? lain: :yawn: :wave:

 

[TomO]

A fair enough question but remains typically callow in its effort to miss the (objective) mark. Conception begins in the fallopian tube, moves to the uterus with a gestation period for approximately nine-months. I know you realize this yet, your question fails to make this otherwise obvious distinction when morally comparing "stages of development". In short,....

:bang: In short you have no answer so you decided to cloud the issue. What else is new?

In conclusion, as a third party to pregnancy the law must take a rationally, practical, objective, non-emotional approach as to when to recognize the full, unimpeded rights of human beings; the same "stage of development" it has always been since the inception of our country.....at birth.

Appeal to tradition....That's cute....Do you rest all your life and death decisions on such weak logical fallacies? :AMR:

 

[Lon]

By virtue of the very nature of pregnancy itself; the juxtaposition of fetus subsisting within the womb, neither women must be condemned or otherwise commanded to remain host to another human being without explicit personal consent....moreso, as there is no such non-pregnancy precedent.

:nono: She had that choice BEFORE pregnancy, not after. This is a death, not, in fact, a choice. Exceptional problems should go to court as this should be illegal, because it is killing another human being and should not be sanctioned. He/she is a human being. They left doctors in charge of the moral situations, and the doctors failed their Hippocratic oaths.

 

[quip]

:bang: In short you have no answer so you decided to cloud the issue. What else is new?

A rather complex answer to a complex subject.

Wow, what a disappointment. I spent my time respectfully drawing out such complexities only to receive the typical pro-life, holier-than-thou "nuh-uhh" denial....ah well :sigh:
On the up side....you just cased my "head in sand" point here.

Appeal to tradition....That's cute....Do you rest all your life and death decisions on such weak logical fallacies? :AMR:

You do realize that there was an entire argument conveniently ignored here?

Do you even have any substantive rebuttal..or should I even ask?

 

[quip]

:nono: She had that choice BEFORE pregnancy, not after. This is a death, not, in fact, a choice. Exceptional problems should go to court as this should be illegal, because it is killing another human being and should not be sanctioned. He/she is a human being. They left doctors in charge of the moral situations, and the doctors failed their Hippocratic oaths.

This boils down to:

Me not like abortion....you not do abortion. K:

I suppose TomO can relate...so you're not alone.

 

[TomO]

Do you even have any substantive rebuttal..or should I even ask?

Nah man...I can't answer you...We don't even speak the same language.

 

[quip]

Nah man...I can't answer you...We don't even speak the same language.

Fair enough.

 

[Lon]

This boils down to:

Me not like abortion....you not do abortion. K:

I suppose TomO can relate...so you're not alone.

Yep, that arena as well. Criminals rarely understand complexities. They are self-absorbed. YOU are a self-absorbed monster advocating that those pesky Jew-like fetus's get out of your way and life. You call that however you see it. I will advocate on whatever level it is you understand. I do pray one day, it will be mandatory, again. We've had a few shameful moments in our short history. This is absolutely one of them.

 

[kiwimacahau]

A foetus is a potential human being, it does not have the rights that a full human does nor should it. Furthermore if you don't like abortions don't have one but do not arrogate to yourself the declaration of abortion as evil when the Bible says no such thing and it is solely your interpretation of the scripture that attempts to make it so.

 

[jgarden]

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/06/28/...ention-democrats-dont-care-about-infanticide/

Maybe 1st impressions really are the ones best relied upon...

Cruz was my first choice for president--

Of course, we have to say God's will be done... But I know one thing about God.

I don't know much about Him--because as per Isaiah: "My ways are not your ways; My thoughts are not your thoughts"

But I do know ONE thing about him: He is pro life

Child poverty in the U.S. is among the worst in the developed world

The United States ranks near the bottom of the pack of wealthy nations on a measure of child poverty, according to a new report from UNICEF. Nearly one third of U.S. children live in households with an income below 60 percent of the national median income in 2008 - about $31,000 annually.

In the richest nation in the world, one in three kids live in poverty. Let that sink in.

..... With 32.2 percent of children living below this line, the U.S. ranks 36th out of the 41 wealthy countries included in the UNICEF report. By contrast, only 5.3 percent of Norwegian kids currently meet this definition of poverty.

More alarmingly, the share of U.S. children living in poverty has actually increased by 2 percentage points since 2008. Overall, 24.2 million U.S. children were living in poverty in 2012, reflecting an increase of 1.7 million children since 2008. "Of all newly poor children in the OECD and/or EU, about a third are in the United States," according to the report. On the other hand, 18 countries were actually able to reduce their childhood poverty rates over the same period.

..... "Between 2006 and 2011, child poverty increased in 34 states," according to the UNICEF report. ."

..... For the richest country in the world to also have one of the world's highest childhood poverty rates is, frankly, an embarrassment. Like our high infant mortality rate, child poverty in the U.S. reflects the failure of policymakers to seriously grapple with the challenges facing the most vulnerable members of society.

While Ted Cruz and "republicanchick" shed "crocodile tears" over abortion, 32.2% of American children are living below the poverty line and the sitiation is getting worse.

If the high rate of child poverty was being addressed, perhaps pregnant women would be more optimistic about the prospects of bringing another child into the world.

 

[Lon]

A foetus is a potential human being, it does not have the rights that a full human does nor should it. Furthermore if you don't like abortions don't have one but do not arrogate to yourself the declaration of abortion as evil when the Bible says no such thing and it is solely your interpretation of the scripture that attempts to make it so.

AND Jews were killed for EXACTLY the same reason! I CANNOT believe I'm having this debate with a priest. :nono: :idunno: :dizzy:

Frankly, it is shameful, if not monstrous, with you. You really REALLY should think before typing with your fingers. You are going to make everyone's first encounter with OLD Catholicism/Anglicans become one of prejudism. This topic is INCREDIBLY polarizing and you aren't helping at all.

 

[quip]

While Ted Cruz and "republicanchick" shed "crocodile tears" over abortion, 32.2% of American children are living below the poverty line and the sitiation is getting worse.

If the high rate of child poverty was being addressed, perhaps pregnant women would be more optimistic about the prospects of bringing another child into the world.

Petty facts don't concern our moral guardians such as Lon....they're pro-life ....don't you know? :bang:

 

[Lon]

Petty facts don't concern our moral guardians such as Lon....they're pro-life ....don't you know? :bang:

That is 'with' abortion in place. Think before being ridiculous. These are generally people that wanted kids. Killing them is not the answer. You called that part exactly right. Spare the brain-dead-tears. I have none for things that are further episodes in marginalizations and excuses.

 

[Lon]

If the high rate of child poverty was being addressed, perhaps pregnant women would be more optimistic about the prospects of bringing another child into the world.

In what sense are you a Christian if you advocate killing part of the population to make room for other parts???

 

[Simon Baker]

While Ted Cruz and "republicanchick" shed "crocodile tears" over abortion, 32.2% of American children are living below the poverty line and the sitiation is getting worse.

If the high rate of child poverty was being addressed, perhaps pregnant women would be more optimistic about the prospects of bringing another child into the world.

Unreal

 

[Simon Baker]

it's still a conscience decision between 2 consenting adults. percentages and failure rates of contraception in any form are known. since seemingly nothing is 100%, then why should we offer an "individual", NO MATTER what their MOTIVE, another choice that's 100% guaranteed ? NO - responsibility and sex go together, it's not just spreading seeds and eggs everywhere, hoping for the 'best"

AMEN !

 

[Lon]

...hindsight and regrets do not equate to a "responsible" THING TO DO, by just killing a baby cuz it's "better" that way. unreal. it is a fine line, between freedom and "what's good for ME".

Not that he'll listen. He won't, not that he can't.

 

[kiwimacahau]

AND Jews were killed for EXACTLY the same reason! I CANNOT believe I'm having this debate with a priest. :nono: :idunno: :dizzy:

Frankly, it is shameful, if not monstrous, with you. You really REALLY should think before typing with your fingers. You are going to make everyone's first encounter with OLD Catholicism/Anglicans become one of prejudism. This topic is INCREDIBLY polarizing and you aren't helping at all.

The Jews were killed because they were considered sub-human. No one here is arguing that Foetuses are sub-human just that they do not have the same rights as the human carrying them. If you cannot tell the difference between Nazi philosophical thought re Jews and the concept that a foetus becomes a full human at birth then the problem is yours rather than mine.

Yes, the topic is polarising and it certainly is not helped by the emotive language you and others use here.

 

[Lon]

The Jews were killed because they were considered sub-human.

Bingo!

 

[kiwimacahau]

Did you miss my next sentence? " . . .No one here is arguing that Foetuses are sub-human just that they do not have the same rights as the human carrying them. If you cannot tell the difference between Nazi philosophical thought re Jews and the concept that a foetus becomes a full human at birth then the problem is yours rather than mine. . ."