The group of people that I simply cant understand

That's a worthless response. Black people used to not be "people". Science advances, peoples understanding changes, definitions are modified. Get a real argument.

 

How about the quadriplegic, the person with advanced Alzheimers, a person with brain damage due to an accident, even a person who requires constant medical care for a chronic condition such as diabetes? They are not "complete" people. Are you going to take their rights away so they can be "aborted"?

 

Sure they were. They were always people as defined by a dictionary.
It's just our country chose not to go by the dictionary definition.
Unless you have a dictionary definition from the 1800s that defines people and excludes blacks or some other skin color. I will stand by my statement.

 

None of them are inside a human being.
Many do lose certain rights with severe disabilities. Like gun rights, and I'm not saying all. But if they become a risk to themselves or others, rights can be lost.
How do you abort someone that is not in a womb?
You seem to be reaching so far, you aren't making any sense anymore.

 

The law (European and US) declared black people to be property, not people with rights and protections. Didn't you take History 101? I guess not.

Words change, laws change. Your argument is groundless.

 

So you now change your argument from a person having to be a complete human being to a person has to be born. That's another old, worn out basis for abortion, even Blackmun in his Roe opinion destroyed that argument and went with viability.

Do you have another reason to justify abortion? A real one this time. That's what's so bad about this forum, the abortionists have no arguments and are not even up to speed on the issue. I can make a better argument for abortion than the abortionists.

 

You certainly do!

 

[QUOTE="Pardon_Me, post: 1069585282, member: 78431] whether or not an embryo is a person or not is neither here nor there, you still cannot afford one "person" more rights than another.[/QUOTE]

LOL happens every day! The murderer gets less rights than the victim.

 

While I agree that abortion is something far too many take way too lightly, so is making someone who doesn't want a child to have one.What kind of life will that child have being raised by a mother that didn't want it.If it is placed into a state sponsored foster care program will it be one of the very many who wind up being either physically or sexually abused??Will you be one complaining about paying welfare to support this child??

 

You see that's the beauty of the pro life'ers stance. They don't have to have any responsibility for the life they "Saved" were they to succeed in making abortions illegal. The child is not the objective here.

 

As I said. The law didn't go with the dictionary definition.
So, give us the definition of person from the 1800s. If it's different from today, you have a point. Otherwise people is always defined as people, and skin color doesn't make on not a people or person.

Make my point groundless, give the definition of people in the 1800s.
Prove the definition said black skin doesn't qualify has people.

 

I've never changed the definition of human being. EVER.
I doubt the dictionaries did either.

But feel free to post a definition from a dictionary that says a human being is not born.

 

One word, adoption. Thousands if not hundreds if thousands of Americans adopt every year and many have to go overseas to adopt a child!

 

Doesn’t really matter in the context of the abortion debate though does it! The fact is in this context is that a federal law currently on the books recognizes the human rights of children in utero at any stage of development!!!!!!


The UVVA enacted while slick willie was in office!

 

You have to understand that Anti-Choicers only care about the "life" of the fetus because that can be used to control and abuse women.

They really have proven they don't care about "life" once it's born and then is of no use to them...

 

And here we have a stellar example of failing to be able to support ones argument, so resort to trying to demonize the folks who decimated his debate position.

It is sad really.

 

No, saying Jesus lives, yet he died for me and I accept that, is good enough Read John 3:16 again and then read the passage about the two thieves on the cross. Ever try to do any good works after being nailed to a cross? All the one thief could do was to believe. He did and is now in Paradise forever.. Being Catholic does not = being a Christian. Jesus never told us to do "hail Mary's" or confess our sins to a man or any of a number of things they would have you do. As to Jeffery Dahmer.....do you know what takes place within the soul of a man? I think not, but I know the One that does.

 

Ok. Catholics aren't Christian. Think they will disagree with you. And no, you don't know the one .i know you never met anyone who would know. You just think it .

 

It is apparent you ignore, and don't understand the teachings of Jesus. You confuse "religion" with those. Your mind is captive to that. Your approval of the "Catholic collective" is more important than the Truth.

 

You forget what this little side topic is about. It's all Christians don't belive the same. Not even how to achieve paradise in heaven.

Catholics are certainly Christian. They don't belive as you. My point is well made .
You agree now. For you want to deny those who don't belive as you as not Christian. Blowing your point.

Your truth is not everyone's truth. Further making my case stronger.

You are using 1 passage for your entire so called truth.

 

What's wrong with Jeffery Dahmer has nothing to do with his soul.

 

Because you live in a garage....doesn't make you a car. Because you wear a cross and say hail mary's doesn't make you a Christian. The very word "Christian" was given by others as a name of those that followed Jesus. In summation, it means "little Jesus's" or "imitators of Christ." Did Christ ever engage in the pompous activities of the Jewish Temple? Did he wear bells on his robe to be noticed? Of course He didn't. He dressed as a common man indistinguishable from others. So if you want to call yourself "Christian".....His teachings must be your focus, not a set of rituals ascribed to by a man-made organization. Perhaps you don't care or don't believe. That is a different story. But definitions mean something. You can call yourself a car because you might live in a garage, but that doesn't define you.

 

Jeffery Dahmer did some terrible, unthinkable things, deserving of death, but in the realm of eternity, they were not any worse than what you do when you lie, cheat or steal. You will receive physical death some day too. We all will It is possible his eternal soul was granted grace and mercy just as yours might.

 

61falcon said: ↑
While I agree that abortion is something far too many take way too lightly, so is making someone who doesn't want a child to have one.What kind of life will that child have being raised by a mother that didn't want it.If it is placed into a state sponsored foster care program will it be one of the very many who wind up being either physically or sexually abused??Will you be one complaining about paying welfare to support this child??

You didn't answer the question : """Will you be one complaining about paying welfare to support this child?? """


If adoption is such a good thing then why are there kids still waiting to be adopted?


Will you pay for the woman's medical bills, wage loss, possible job loss, education setbacks and physical damage that she incurs from a pregnancy ??


No? Then why should she?


What about if she dies ? How is she compensated then?

 

The question is, is that a valuable view for a society to hold? Does it contribute to the overall well being of society, and if it does, to what degree? Or, would a different view/belief/attempt-at-truth contribute more?