Only when they are open books.
It might. Telling them how and why they are wrong might make them realise that they are way out of line. Not all people are stubborn.
Luckily we don't have those problems in my country.
98% of Catholic Women us Contraception
- Thread starter JuNie
- Start date
Only when they are open books.
It might. Telling them how and why they are wrong might make them realise that they are way out of line. Not all people are stubborn.
Luckily we don't have those problems in my country.
hehe 
i know how it happens. and don't tell me that children are accidents; they're not, in any way, shape, or form. what i'm saying is that it shouldn't be such a tough decision. the only reason it's ever a tough decision is because we're screwed up.
the truth is that i was the worst mother i could possibly have been. you just can't do much worse than killing your own child. sorry, but it's true. :shrug:
So you support christian terrorism?
of course not. i also don't support the engrained societal terrorism that prompts so many women to seek abortions.
instead of moronic, hateful religious people outside of those clinics, i'd love to see a person there saying to women, "can i help you? what can i do to help you?" i don't think however, that would make much of a difference in the decision of the women.
it wouldn't have for me.
How about no people at all outside those clinics and let people decide for themselves, what they want to do with their own bodies?
that sounds reasonable.
Well...
Hmmm.
No. To the bolded part, not the latter part.
I'll be frank and mention here that as a papist or possibly ex-papist I think abortion is essentially murder. That being said, as a Darwinist I also feel: hey, go kill your kids if you really want to. Just that much more for mine, jackass. But this is neither here nor there.
What is here and there is the right of American citizens to free protest: there's not exactly a right to protest, but there is a right to free assembly, I might remind you, and it isn't - much as even I lament sometimes - contingent on social or political outlook, with exceptions being imposed by the relevant legal authority here and there and everywhere as interest dictates. Such assembly cannot by law interfere with the free passage of people - though many protest assembles do, inevitably - but I don't think it can be argued that they have no right to make their opinions known. People are indeed free to do what they want with their bodies - and that includes protests at abortion clinics. There are a number of legal modifiers on those protests, specifically and exceptionally, already in place.
Hmmm.
No. To the bolded part, not the latter part.
I'll be frank and mention here that as a papist or possibly ex-papist I think abortion is essentially murder. That being said, as a Darwinist I also feel: hey, go kill your kids if you really want to. Just that much more for mine, jackass. But this is neither here nor there.
What is here and there is the right of American citizens to free protest: there's not exactly a right to protest, but there is a right to free assembly, I might remind you, and it isn't - much as even I lament sometimes - contingent on social or political outlook, with exceptions being imposed by the relevant legal authority here and there and everywhere as interest dictates. Such assembly cannot by law interfere with the free passage of people - though many protest assembles do, inevitably - but I don't think it can be argued that they have no right to make their opinions known. People are indeed free to do what they want with their bodies - and that includes protests at abortion clinics. There are a number of legal modifiers on those protests, specifically and exceptionally, already in place.
If you look at abortion, it is not natural, rather it is unnatural. A miscarrige is natural, but one will not see animals using technology to thin their numbers to they can make more babies so they can abor them too. In the lip service world of green and organic, abortion is neither. The anti-abortionists only seek humans to be natural and not unnatural like the atheists suggest. Who bother going green and then black.
The definition of life, as define by science, is closer to the religious view when it comes to defining the onset of life. Life as defined by science has to meet the following conditions;
The unborn of humans meet the science definition conditions, at the cellular level, beginning at conception.
According to the liberal and atheist definition of life (abortion) life does not begin until a human is born. That is similar to creationism, where life appears after Adam is fully formed. Science does not use the humanoid definition for life, but takes into account all forms of life including the first simple replicators.
The definition of life, as define by science, is closer to the religious view when it comes to defining the onset of life. Life as defined by science has to meet the following conditions;
The unborn of humans meet the science definition conditions, at the cellular level, beginning at conception.
According to the liberal and atheist definition of life (abortion) life does not begin until a human is born. That is similar to creationism, where life appears after Adam is fully formed. Science does not use the humanoid definition for life, but takes into account all forms of life including the first simple replicators.
Source please.
That is based on the law of the land, which has been pressured by the conservatives to back off a little closer to definiton of science. But there is resistance to using the full science definition of life, since it would take away the right to be unnatural. It may start a trend where other unnatural is also challenged.
I beleive that actions speak louder than lip service definitions. My observation is based on the law of the land, which was moderated a little closer to the science definition by moderates. Yet the law of the land fights use of the science definition of life since that would take away the right to choose unnatural behavior, that is justified based on a spin definition of life that is not even scientific.
Liar. You know what the topic was.
The topic of this thread is Catholics using contraception, call me as many names as you wan't.
It was attacks on abortion clinics and it was in that context you asserted they were viable targets.
huh??
What does this have to do with your statement about a liberal and atheist "definition of life"? I'm asking for a source on that definition.
Source please.
my uterus.