re: Question for Christians/Social Conservatives.

quote:

---

That doesn't make sense, and you are the problem.

No idea where your intrinsic value comes from. No idea how society should be structured. Can't ascertain the motivation of your enemies.

You can't academia your way out of a sonewhat dull knife or a 7.62 X 39.

---

I think I'm just going to sit back and see if anybody can understand what the hell it is that you're talking about. Mmmkay?

quote:

---

No idea where your intrinsic value comes from. No idea how society should be structured. Can't ascertain the motivation of your enemies.

---

Actually the theory of evolution covers all of those questions.

Roe vs. wade and as someone else said, it ain't even close.

Easy, Roe v. Wade.
If a armed person shoots a pregnant woman and the unborn child dies as well, he gets charged with two counts of murder.

Besides, Same sex marriage is not a marriage at all in God's eyes. It's just a civil union here on earth, which is fine for those involved. But they were just going to throw a hissy until they could hijack the word 'marriage'.

Not only is none of what you typed true, but there are plenty of assholes who were wanting when they were born, and a myriad of great people who weren't wanted by their biological parents.

Remarkably poor argument from you

Roe v Wade

Dammit I was the first one, wasn't I?

A.

Don't care about B. I support equality under the law for all.

I support gay marriage being legal and recognition the state. By the same token, I support the right of churches, religious denominations and institutions to decide for themselves whether or not they choose to recognize it and perform ceremonies.

For example, I support the government allowing and recognizing same sex marriage. I support the Catholic Church's decision to not recognize these marriages as legitimate, and support their refusal to perform the ceremonies.

I support the Episcopal Church's decision to recognize them and perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples.

It's all about freedom of choice.

As per abortion, since a fetus has unique DNA that is different from the mother's DNA, it is by definition not an extension of her body. If it was it would have the same DNA as the rest of her body. But it doesn't, and therefore can in no way be classified as an extension of the mother's body. At least not by objective, scientific standards. There is no legitimate scientific argument supporting the claim that a fetus is part of a woman's body.

This is relevant because the entire premise and the whole foundation of the pro-abortion argument is that a woman should be able to choose how she handles issues concerning her body. This argument is invalid, because advances in genetic science have definitively determined that a fetus is in fact a completely separate, human individual from the mother in whose womb it resides.

Babies born premature often survive and go on to become healthy babies, so the argument that 'it couldn't live without her and therefore she should be able to choose to kill it' is not valid either.

It basically boils down to abortion being a lucrative industry with extremely powerful lobbyists, and a bloc of voters who are willing to kill human life (and want this to be legal and free of consequences) so that they need not bear the burden of using contraception (which is now free thanks to taxpayers anyway).

There is no valid scientific argument which supports legalized abortion unless one accepts the premise that it's okay for humans to kill other humans, and that human life has no intrinsic value (or at least not enough to justify not killing simply because one is inconvenienced).

So, if you were wondering why freedom of choice would apply toward one issue but not the other, there's your answer. No helpless people are being killed by gay couples who get married.

I hope that helps....

Abortion is a brutal, horrific practice too. Just because the baby hasn't been born doesn't mean it won't feel the pain of being chopped up limb-by-limb while still alive, or having its scull torn open and brain ripped out (both methods are commonplace).

I wouldn't wish that on anyone, not even my worst of enemies. It's unfathomable that some people think it's okay to make someone suffer such a horrific form of torture before ultimately being killed as long as the killer has permission from the person's mother.

I will never understand the rationalizing that has to take place for someone to arrive at a position that brutally killing a person is okay and morally/ethically acceptable if the alternative is to use a condom (or birth control or other contraception).

How does the burden of having to use a condom or take a pill that someone else is paying for justify inflicting upon someone else the burden of having your life taken from you before you ever get a chance to live or experience it?

I believe that the circumstances in which killing of other humans is justified are very few and specific, and avoiding a minor and almost trivial inconvenience is not one of them.