Discussion thread for: Battle Royale XIII

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bob Enyart

Deceased
Staff member
Administrator
Duffy & Scofield are stunning and brilliant in Post 5a of BR XIII

Duffy & Scofield are stunning and brilliant in Post 5a of BR XIII

Will Duffy and Jim Scofield's Post 5 in Battle Royale XIII is stunning and brilliant. John McCain is an unrepentant child killer who defends, advocates the supposed 'right,' and funds the murder of babies; anyone who knows that and uses their authority to help put him in office shares in the guilt of the innocent blood he sheds.

Favorable mention:

Republican presidential candidate's abortion policy (as insightfully demonstrated by the Simpsons in 25 seconds).

Don't waste your vote on a third party (as demonstrated by the Simpsons).

Absurd mention:

I only read a few of the posts in the granstands. But I did notice CabinetMaker's recent post. Lunacy. Sheer lunacy:

<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name="ProgId" content="Word.Document"><meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><meta name="Originator" content="Microsoft Word 11"><link rel="File-List" href="file:///C:%5CDOCUME%7E1%5Cdmorris%5CLOCALS%7E1%5CTemp%5Cmsohtml1%5C01%5Cclip_filelist.xml"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:punctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><style> <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> </style><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> After reading both sides of the debate, I do not find any compelling evidence that it is immoral to vote for McCain.... In the end, they did a fine job of proving that to vote for somebody who advocates killing children would, indeed, be an immoral act. However, they never offered any evidence that any candidate actually supports killing children. ... However, team GG failed to offer any supporting evidence of where McCain, or even Obama, has ever stated that they would force an abortion for any reason. Team GG’s rhetoric is always phrased such that the candidate is portrayed as actively advocating (forcing) that a child be killed. ... Within the confines of this debate, on the sole issue of whether it is immoral to vote for John McCain, team GG failed to prove that such a vote is an immoral act.

I expect that WandererinFog and Nicholsmom do not even appreciate this guy's help and would even say to him: "Hey, CabinetMaker, please, don't take our side."

-Bob Enyart
Denver Bible Church & KGOV.com
 

chatmaggot

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
After reading the discussions others had with Clete I want to ask Clete if the following summary is accurate of his beliefs:

A third party vote is a vote for Obama. If Obama wins, then we KNOW that any fight against abortion is basically a lost cause. However, a vote for McCain (not because we agree with McCain...but rather to keep Obama out) at least is a strategy which makes fighting for the rights of the unborn an option with less "roadbocks". A McCain victory is a strategy that could make our fight easier whereas an Obama victory is dooming any pro-life chances for at least four years where babies are guaranteed to be killed.

If that is accurate, or at least close to accurate, will a personhood amendment in any state even stand a chance if Obama is elected? If not, then why not vote for McCain to keep Obama out? (This question is for anyone...not just Clete).
 

CabinetMaker

Member of the 10 year club on TOL!!
Hall of Fame
Will Duffy and Jim Scofield's Post 5 in Battle Royale XIII is stunning and brilliant. John McCain is an unrepentant child killer who defends, advocates the supposed 'right,' and funds the murder of babies; anyone who knows that and uses their authority to help put him in office shares in the guilt of the innocent blood he sheds.

Favorable mention:

Republican presidential candidate's abortion policy (as insightfully demonstrated by the Simpsons in 25 seconds).

Don't waste your vote on a third party (as demonstrated by the Simpsons).

Absurd mention:

I only read a few of the posts in the granstands. But I did notice CabinetMaker's recent post. Lunacy. Sheer lunacy:



I expect that WandererinFog and Nicholsmom do not even appreciate this guy's help and would even say to him: "Hey, CabinetMaker, please, don't take our side."

-Bob Enyart
Denver Bible Church & KGOV.com
Maybe its time for me to find a new church...
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Will Duffy and Jim Scofield's Post 5 in Battle Royale XIII is stunning and brilliant. John McCain is an unrepentant child killer who defends, advocates the supposed 'right,' and funds the murder of babies; anyone who knows that and uses their authority to help put him in office shares in the guilt of the innocent blood he sheds.

Greetings Bob!,

You know that I respect you and your teaching more than I even know how to express and so I hope you won't find me to be insolent for asking this but what about the innocent blood Obama would shed?

Are those who use their authority in a way that helps Obama get in office sharing his guilt?

Since the BR didn't substantively deal with the only question I've been trying to get answered for over a month now, perhaps you would be willing to give it a shot. I'll ask it in several ways...

How does voting for Alan Keyes not help Obama win in the same way that people voting for Perot helped Clinton to win?
How is every vote cast for a candidate that is not going to win the election not a vote that Obama need not worry about countering?
How is anyone who would split the conservative vote, for whatever reason, not Obama's best friend in this election?


The way I see it, you have the following choice. You can either vote in such a way as to help Obama win or you can vote in such a way as to make it more difficult for Obama to win. And because of the way the system works, those are the only two options that exist and I cannot see how a vote that is cast for anyone other than McCain, or a conservative vote that isn't cast at all, isn't a vote that helps Obama win!

If I'm Obama, I want Keyes to to take as many votes from McCain as possible! If I'm Obama, I might even be persuaded to contribute money to bolster Keyes' campaign just for that one reason alone! The enemy of my enemy is my friend and as such, Obama is loving the Keyes campaign in Colorado right about now.

And now for the most important question I've been asking for weeks...

HOW AM I WRONG?
(Seriously, I want someone to explain to me how I'm wrong, if indeed I am. I DO NOT like being on the opposite side of any issue from you and would just love it if you could help me understand how my line of reasoning isn't right.)

Favorable mention:

Don't waste your vote on a third party (as demonstrated by the Simpsons).
I have to say that I'm simply astonished that you found this to be substantive. Its as though the whole TOL community has just gone berserk! Either that or I'm seriously missing something important!

Just think about it for a second. What was Bart attempting to do during the main body of that cartoon? Was he campaigning for a third party or was he trying to get everyone to understand that both candidates where aliens? If he had attempted to get everyone to vote for a third party BEFORE they all knew they were aliens, would he have had any success at all? And after everyone did know that they were aliens, do you really find it plausible that they would not have voted for a third candidate? The key is getting people to understand the choice they are faced with. Then and only then is a third party going to be viable. Until such time, third parties only serve as spoilers and in this case help the worse of two evils.

Further, the cartoon doesn't accurately depict the current situation in another important way in that McCain and Obama are not equally evil. They do not both have the same agenda and one is very clearly more evil than the other and so while in the cartoon it wouldn't have mattered which of the two aliens won the election, it will matter very much who wins our election in November. The fact of the matter is that we Christians have failed, for whatever reason, to get the idea that neither candidate is acceptable accepted into the arena of ideas and thus we are faced with the reality of the choice I mentioned above. We can either help the worse of two evils win by voting for a third candidate or by not voting at all or we can help the worse of two evils lose by voting for McCain.

You are choosing to see the later as helping the lesser of two evils win and I can understand that but its all a matter of perspective and rhetoric because the fact of the matter is that one or the other is going to win this election and all we have is the opportunity to swing the decision to the right or to the left. Even if it isn't swung very far, I still want my influence to be toward the right.

Again I ask you,

HOW AM I WRONG?

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
After reading the discussions others had with Clete I want to ask Clete if the following summary is accurate of his beliefs:

A third party vote is a vote for Obama.
Not exactly. Its not as powerful as a vote directly for Obama but its merely one vote that Obama doesn't have to counter in order to win the election. Obama needs to directly counter every vote McCain gets but he can ignore votes cast for anyone else. In short, any splitting of the conservative vote brings the finish line that much closer for Obama and that much further away for his only real opponent.

If Obama wins, then we KNOW that any fight against abortion is basically a lost cause.
Basically perhaps, but I think the fight would still be worth fighting. I just think we'd lose more ground to Obama who disagrees with us on virtually every issue than we would to a man who is a lot closer to agreeing with us on most every issue.

However, a vote for McCain (not because we agree with McCain...but rather to keep Obama out) at least is a strategy which makes fighting for the rights of the unborn an option with less "roadbocks".
This I think I would agree with this entirely.

A McCain victory is a strategy that could make our fight easier whereas an Obama victory is dooming any pro-life chances for at least four years where babies are guaranteed to be killed.
Things would be worse not only for unborn babies but for us all under Obama, yes.

If that is accurate, or at least close to accurate, will a personhood amendment in any state even stand a chance if Obama is elected? If not, then why not vote for McCain to keep Obama out? (This question is for anyone...not just Clete).
I'm not sure that it would stand a chance in either case but that's because of the Congress and the rest of our population, not the President. Pro-lifers simply haven't sold the American public on the notion of an amendment to the Constitution. They've sold other Christians on the idea but that won't be enough to overcome the Congress and the people of the State of New York, California, Connecticut and a dozen or more other states.

This is one of the reasons I'm loving this recent push for pastors being given back the right to say what they want, when they want from their own pulpits. The IRS's muzzle over the preacher's mouth is coming lose and there is great power in the words of a pastor. If the church is to become a force of importance and influence in this country again, the move in that direction will start in the pulpit, not in the voting booth.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

genuineoriginal

New member
The Battle Royale is over, but the debate continues.

In rounds 1 & 2, team NW were clear and logical and team GG was still trying to figure out what they were debating.
Rounds 1 & 2 ended with team NW clearly ahead.

In round 3, team NW failed to advance and team GG finally figured out they were in a debate.
The round ended with team NW ahead.

In round 4, team GG started bringing out the real arguments, and team NW blundered so badly they lost most of the ground they had gained.
This round ended with neither team clearly ahead.

In round 5, team GG were clear and had the moral high ground
Team NW was unable to pull out of their spiral dive.
The round and the Battle Royale ended with team GG as the winners.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
What you said isn't irrational in and of itself but it does not address the argument and so as a response to the argument is it irrational.

It would like if I said 2+2=4 and you counter with, "No, not all apples are red!"

The one has nothing to do with the other!
Not even close. 2+2 does =4. Saying McCain is better than Obama is not true. In fact, using your own illustration, it's like saying that a green apple is not really an apple, because it's not red. And my response is that the color of the apple does not change it's being an apple.

Who cares? Why is what you BELIEVE relevant?
Because I'm the one voting.:dunce::duh:

So what? How is your peace of mind or lack thereof relevant?
Stop asking stupid questions.

YES IT IS!!! Whether you are right or not is THE ONLY THING that would make your position make any sense!
:doh:

:bang:

If I truly believe what I say, then my position makes perfect sense.

What if you're wrong about McCain and Obama being equally evil?
This whole response of yours is predicated entirely on the fact that you believe you aren't wrong, but what if you are? How do you know you aren't wrong?
I can look at what both men have done in the past. And I see no difference on these positions. But even if I'm wrong, how am I going to know? How are you going to know? Only one of them can win.

If you're right about their being equally evil then that puts a pretty big dent in my argument! But I don't have to just insist that Obama is worse, I can actually make a real and substantive case for the fact that he is clearly worse from any direction you want to look at it from.
Then do so.

So if you want to make an argument that attempts to establish the equally evil nature of McCain and Obama then I'd be happy to read it.
Look at their records. They speak for themselves.

Of course it matters. Your entire position is predicated on it and yes I can back it up. McCain and Obama both have very clear records. Of the two, who is considered the most liberal member of Congress? Of the two, who has radical left wing associates who've attempted to bomb the Capital building? Of the two, who has the wife who has spent her entire adult life being something other than proud of her country? Of the two, who voted against legislation making it illegal to kill a baby born alive after a botched abortion? Of the two, who has picked the third most liberal Senator in the Congress as his running mate? Of the two, who doesn't have the running mate who willfully and happily chose to carry a Down's Syndrome Baby to term rather than aborting it? Of the two, who flips and flops on the issue of your right to carry a fire arm? Of the two, who believes in the fairness doctrine? Of the two, who wants to sit down and talk with terrorists and tyrants without preconditions?
You actually think their running mates has anything to do with how evil they are?

And how about instead of saying these things you provide the proof?

On and on one could go, showing issue after issue after issue where Barrack Husein Obama II is easily the most liberal, the most evil and the most unqualified man to ever run for the office of President in the history of the United States of America.

Resting in Him,
Clete
:nightall:

OK, now that the battle is officially over I will comment. This battle was a bit of a slaughter. In fact, I think it was the biggest slaughter since "Battle Royale IV - JALTUS vs. s9s27s54", where s9s27s54 gave up after a couple rounds. WanderinFog and Nicholsmom didn't really put up much of a fight did they?

Changing their "yes" answers in mid-stream to "no comment", reminded me of Roberto Duran shouting out out... "No Más, No Más..." when fighting Sugar Ray Leonard in 1980.

NW teams stated in their final round....



That is the most bizarre and asinine argument I have ever heard!

In case you didn't catch it, what they are saying is God wouldn't care if we voted for Charles Manson, as long as God Himself did not command us to obey him as a legitimate authority.

I wonder... how would Nicholsmom and WanderinFog make that determination? :think:

What candidate could possibly be "out of bounds" for them based on that logic?

This is the height of attempting to rationalize away what is right and what is wrong.

And this also highlights that politics can turn otherwise smart people into adopting silly points of view. I have found myself making similar arguments in the past and I always feel so weird about it until I repent I get myself more inline with God's will and not the will of men.
While I certainly think their logic is problematic, I don't think they were saying what you think.

They think it would not be immoral to vote for Manson as long as God did not command us not to, is what they are actually saying.

But either way it's equally as stupid.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
While I certainly think their logic is problematic, I don't think they were saying what you think.

They think it would not be immoral to vote for Manson as long as God did not command us not to, is what they are actually saying.
Uh.. that's pretty much exactly what I said. :idunno:
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Uh.. that's pretty much exactly what I said. :idunno:
If I read what you posted correctly you said it backwards. Of course, if you meant the same thing as what I said, then I'm not surprised. We both have mistyped in the past.

Of course, I could have misread.
 

SaulToPaul 2

Well-known member
This verse was quoted by GG in round 5.

Romans 1
29: Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30: Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31: Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

I think it's important to keep reading.

Romans 2
1: Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
 

nicholsmom

New member
I expect that WandererinFog and Nicholsmom do not even appreciate this guy's help and would even say to him: "Hey, CabinetMaker, please, don't take our side."

-Bob Enyart
Denver Bible Church & KGOV.com

You are quite incorrect in this expectation. CabinetMaker is absolutely correct to state that GG failed miserably to meet their burden of proof. They failed to establish Biblically that voting can be seen as an immoral act upon any ground and they failed to establish that McCain meets even their unsubstantiated, foundationless standard for immoral voting.

That you think they did only goes to your pre-conceptions - your notions about WWJD, in absence of having any Biblical example for what that would be. All we can end up with here is WWBD, and that's just plain sad.
 

nicholsmom

New member
Not even close. 2+2 does =4. Saying McCain is better than Obama is not true. ...
Look at their records. They speak for themselves.

Have you looked at Obama's record? Or have you just looked at commentaries on McCain's?

Nevermind. Have a look at this (I've snipped as much as I dare - if you want the whole thing, follow the link):
October 13, 2008
Why Obama's socialism matters
...
The only way to explain this disinterest in Obama's past and its relationship to his present is that Americans no longer consider the label "socialist" to be a pejorative. ... To most people, it just means Obama is a more liberal Liberal, or a leftier Lefty, and they already knew that.

In order to stir ordinary Americans to the sense of outrage those of us in the blogosphere feel, we need to remind them that socialism is not simply a more liberal version of ordinary American politics. It is, instead, its own animal, and a very feral, dangerous animal indeed.
...

<lots of great history snipped here in the interest of brevity>

Once you vest all power in the state, history demonstrates that the state, although technically composed of individuals, in fact takes on a life of its own, with the operating bureaucracy driving it to ever greater extremes of control. Additionally, history demonstrates that, if the wrong person becomes all-powerful in the state, the absence of individualism means that the state becomes a juggernaut, completely in thrall to a psychopath's ideas. Herewith some examples:

My favorite example is always Nazi Germany because so many people forget that it was a socialist dictatorship. Or perhaps they're ignorant of the fact that the Nazi's official and frequently forgotten name was the National Socialist German Worker's Party. In other words, while most people consider the Nazi party to be a totalitarian ideology arising from the right, it was, in fact, a totalitarian party arising from the left.

Practically within minutes of the Nazi takeover of the German government, individuals were subordinated to the state. Even industries that remained privately owned (and there were many, as opponents of the Nazis = socialist theory like to point out), were allowed to do so only if their owners bent their efforts to the benefit of the state. Show a hint of individualism, and an unwillingness to cooperate, and you'd swiftly find yourself in Dachau, with a government operative sitting in that executive chair you once owned.

We all know what life was like in this Nazi socialist state. Citizens immediately lost the right to bear arms; thought crimes were punished with imprisonment and death; children were indoctrinated into giving their allegiance to the state, not the family; the government dictated the way in which people could live their day-to-day lives; and people who appeared to be outliers to the harmony of the conscienceless government entity (gays, mentally ill-people, physically handicapped people, Jews, gypsies) were dehumanized and eventually slaughtered.

And here's something important for you to realize as you think about what happened in that socialist state. While a core group of people, Hitler included, undoubtedly envisioned these extremes as their initial goals, most didn't. They just thought that, after the utter chaos of the 1920s (especially the economic chaos), the socialists would calm the economy (which they did), and simply remove from people the painful obligation of having to make their way in the world. It was only incrementally that the average German bought into the ever-more-extreme demands of the state - and those who didn't buy in were coerced because of the state's unfettered willingness to use its vast, brute power to subordinate individuals to its demand.

Here's another example: the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. ... From its inception, the Soviet state brutalized people, whether it was the upper echelon party purges or the mass slaughter of the kulaks -- all in the name of collectivism and the protection of the state envisioned by Lenin and Stalin. Most estimates are that, in the years leading up to WWII, the Soviet socialist state killed between 30 and 60 million of its own citizens. Not all of the victims died, or at least they didn't die instantly. Those who didn't receive a swift bullet to the head might starve to death on collective farms or join the millions who ended up as slave laborers in the gulags, with most of the latter incarcerated for thought crimes against the state.

I've got another example for you: the People's Republic of China, another socialist state. <more great stuff clipped in the name of brevity>

Those are examples of hard socialism. Soft socialism is better, but it certainly isn't the American ideal. Britain springs to mind as the perfect example of soft socialism. Britain's socialist medicine is a disaster, with practically daily stories about people being denied treatment or receiving minimal treatment. Invariably, the denials arise because the State's needs trump the individual's: Either the treatment is generally deemed too costly (and there are no market forces at work) or the patients are deemed unworthy of care, especially if they're old.
<more on British socialism snipped>

Both history and current events demonstrate that the socialist reality is always bad for the individual, and this is true whether one is looking at the painfully brutal socialism of the Nazis or the Soviets or the Chinese, with its wholesale slaughters, or at the soft socialism of England, in which people's lives are ever more tightly circumscribed, and the state incrementally destroys individual freedom. And that is why Obama's socialism matters.

Regardless of Obama’s presumed good intentions, socialism always brings a society to a bad ending. I don’t want to believe that Americans who live in a free society that allows people to think what they will, do what they want, and succeed if they can, will willingly hand themselves over to the socialist ideology. They must therefore be reminded, again and again and again, that socialism isn’t just another political party; it’s the death knell to freedom. So remember, while McCain wants to change DC, Obama wants to change America.

(Source)

It isn't McCain who is like Hitler, it is Obama. I will not be a party to allowing Obama-Hitler to rule.
 
Last edited:

Servo

Formerly Shimei!
LIFETIME MEMBER
It isn't McCain who is like Hitler, it is Obama. I will not be a party to allowing Obama-Hitler to rule.

:think: How many abortions have occurred under Bush's watch? Isn't he more supposed to be more pro-life than McCain?

What has Bush done to stop abortion other than oppose South Dakota's attempt because exceptions to kill the child were not included in the amendment?

See where compromising has taken us?
 

nicholsmom

New member
:think: How many abortions have occurred under Bush's watch? Isn't he more supposed to be more pro-life than McCain?

What has Bush done to stop abortion other than oppose South Dakota's attempt because exceptions to kill the child were not included in the amendment?
What does it mean to "oppose?" Did he veto something? What action did he make or fail to make that had anything whatever to do with the outcome in SD?

What do you suppose Bush could do to "stop abortion?" What do you suppose any President of the USA do or not do to stop or promote abortion? Bully pulpit is insufficient to stop abortion; appointments to the SCotUS are insufficent not least because all the President can do is nominate, but also because it would not stop abortion. So what, praytell, can the President do??? I'll give you a clue: in Spanash it's nada.

See where compromising has taken us?
Compromise. Nope. No failure to compromise upon the part of the President of the USA can in any way stop abortion. No amount of positive thinking, or stomping his foot, or sticking to his principles can give the President of the USA this power to stop abortion - even to stop legal abortion. If the office of the President of the USA had that sort of power, you can bet that Ronald Reagan would have used it without delay.

Be honest Servo, did you read that article I quoted?
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
Have you looked at Obama's record? Or have you just looked at commentaries on McCain's?

Nevermind. Have a look at this (I've snipped as much as I dare - if you want the whole thing, follow the link):


It isn't McCain who is like Hitler, it is Obama. I will not be a party to allowing Obama-Hitler to rule.
Evil is evil, period. And McCain is evil. He will not stand by the record you believe he has, nor will he keep his word.
 

atdcross

New member
I just started reading the debate and found GodsFreeWill opening argument to be very persuasive, especially when he asks would we vote for someone who was willing to kill some Jews and blacks. As I continue reading as opportunity arises I'll post my comments, time permitting. If this opening post is like the rest of the debate, this will prove to be a very good learning experience for me.
 

skeptic griggsy

New member
Many Christians maintain that both side do in fact err as the question is one of personhood, which does not come until around 22 weeks when there is consciusness and the fetus can then feel pain.That is reflected in Roe in that states can regulate strictly against abortions at that time.
So a debate on personhood would reflect the full situation.
Those Christians then agree with the humanist covenant morality for humanity that we should indeed discern from the consequences how acts affect human beings, using facts and reason in light of the context, not blindly applying a rule.
See the covenant morality for humanity thread, please.
Double depression is ever depressing! Your happy, depressive, neurotic schizotypal.
And thanks to those who look at my profile. Please any who want to be my friend, let me know. Thanks.
Blessings and goodwill to all!
Obama-Biden will win bigtime and will guard our liberties and further the Social Contract, enshrined in article II, grounding the General Welfare, affirmed by the Supreme Court.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top