You guys are both correct, but I don't see how that supports this view:

"The inalienable right to life of the unborn should not be contingent on the choice of anyone else."

 

Prior to the the case of Jeanna Geise, rabies was deemed to have a 100% mortality rate among non-vaccinated humans. Prior to that case, would you have supported the killing of rabies victims because they are no chance to live and pose serious health threats to others?

 

 

Things just don't line up.

 

Of course we wouldn't kill them, we'd give them palliative care until they died. That's what healthcare providers are supposed to do, heal not kill.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

there is a thread having to do with this very topic you guys are discussing now.

---

<!-- isHtml:1 --><!-- isHtml:1 -->;

;

Then how can you justify ANY abortions? It is killing a "child" in your eyes. If 100% mortality rates + putting others at risk isn't enough reason to kill victims with rabies, then how is it justification to kill a "child"? Your words were that every person has a right to live from conception, shouldn't that apply to ALL people then (and in your words, an embryo is a person)?

 

I understand your reasoning, but we both know that medical complications and abortion for contraception aren't the same thing. And it's a huge and illogical leap to go from that to killing people with terminal illnesses who could otherwise be cared for until their natural deaths.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The inalienable right to life of the unborn should not be contingent on the choice of anyone else.

 

Says who?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

Says who?

 

The guys who wrote our Constitution.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

http://jungle.jaguars.com/index.php?/top...he-a-word/

 

If you're about to post something about abortion that this thread has turned completely into now click the link above and do it there.

---

<!-- isHtml:1 --><!-- isHtml:1 -->;

;

As long as an ID is provided free of charge and acquiring one is easy, I have no problem with requiring proof of one's identity and place of residence. The problem is making them pay for it. That is, in effect,a poll tax. Poll taxes were declared to be unconstitutional in 1966.

 

Do I get to ask a question now?

 

I'll take the silence as a yes. I have more than one.

 

Why do "conservatives" insist on tightening up perceived loopholes in voter registration in the absence of evidence of voting fraud? What are they afraid of? Aren't they the first to holler when government dollars are spent unnecessarily?

 

Why is voter registration and voting so restricted in the first place? This article has some great ideas using existing technology and data.

Perhaps things like this:  http://www.punditpress.com/2012/11/break...a-had.html  

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.