To: chance33_98
Signer of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice?? And God said go forth and subtract?
2 posted on
03/26/2004 1:09:02 PM PST by
Jim Robinson
(warning: some parts of this post may be plagiarized - some parts may be sarcasm - no parts edible)
To: chance33_98
So, by this logic, since Satanism recognizes the ritual murder of a virgin, we should not criminalize murder since it's an infringement on their freedom of religion.
What a bunch of Bravo Sierra!
3 posted on
03/26/2004 1:09:54 PM PST by
So Cal Rocket
(If consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, John F. Kerry’s mind must be freaking enormous)
To: chance33_98
In Judaism there is no allowance for the abortion of a child that does not threaten grave injury to the mother - it is considered the moral equivalent of murder. And I know the Christian point of view is even more strict.
Just what religion is this group representing? Molech's?
4 posted on
03/26/2004 1:10:34 PM PST by
thoughtomator
(Voting Bush because there is no reasonable alternative)
To: chance33_98
Following is a statement by Reverend Carlton W. Veazey, president, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice:A euphemism for Baby Killers for Chirst?
6 posted on
03/26/2004 1:11:36 PM PST by
jwalsh07
(We're bringing it on John but you can't handle the truth!)
To: chance33_98
"The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, founded in 1973, is the national alliance of organizations from 15 denominations and traditions with official statements in support of reproductive choice, including the Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church (USA), United Methodist Church, United Church of Christ, Reform and Conservative Judaism, and Unitarian Universalism."
Guess the current occupant of the white house will have to listen to this group as his cult is a member organization.
Wonder how he feels about the lesbian preacher living in sin with her whatever.
The UMC has become such a joke, of course, it started many years ago when they started radicalizing the young'uns with the teachings of edgar cayce.
7 posted on
03/26/2004 1:12:17 PM PST by
dts32041
( "If Bill Shakespeare lived today, would he have written a sequel call "Egglet"?")
To: chance33_98
"The bill explicitly states that a fertilized egg or fetus at any stage of development is a 'child.'"
Do we not say that a woman who is pregnant is "with child" regardless of the stage?
8 posted on
03/26/2004 1:12:20 PM PST by
Bikers4Bush
(Flood waters rising, heading for more conservative ground. Write in Tancredo in 04'!)
To: chance33_98
So tell me Reverend Carlton W. Sleazy Veazey, a what stage of development is it a child?
To: chance33_98
If these women didn't want to get pregnant they could/should have done something about it before they got pregnant! And by the way...it's not a "narrow" religious belief. There is nothing religious about abortion!
11 posted on
03/26/2004 1:21:58 PM PST by
mtnwmn
To: chance33_98
Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church (USA), United Methodist Church, United Church of Christ, Reform and Conservative Judaism, and Unitarian Universalism
Every on eof them are liberal churches that promote non-biblical principles.
13 posted on
03/26/2004 1:29:58 PM PST by
Blood of Tyrants
(Even if the government took all your earnings, you wouldn't be, in its eyes, a slave.)
To: chance33_98
Actually their argument is based on a fallacy. The bill does not claim that a fertilized egg is a human being. The language of the bill is:
`(d) As used in this section, the term `unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or `child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.'.
A simple fertilized egg is not in fact in the womb yet but traveling down the falopian tubes and is not implanted. Geography, but important geography.
What makes people mad is that this law qualifies as worthy of protection an embryo or fetus at any stage of pregnancy- viable or not. Personally I think anyone who argues this as a pro-choice issue should ask Laci Peterson if she had a "choice".
To: chance33_98
So the Unitarians and the other donominations trying to be as foolish as them are trying to argue a fact of biology as a question of religion?
These guys are splitting apart and fading into nothingness and this is what they waste time thinking about? Dopes....
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson