Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No. If the baby was born and she killed it that is homicide.Come to think of it, you are right. My mistake! However, the mentality which she demonstrated is similar to that of women who purposefully abort. Agreed?
Well, in that case you have a personal and different definition for what constitutes abortion than the official one.
You haven't read the study have you?
Do I have the right to destroy what someone else is building? Suppose my friend is building a home, but the electrical wiring has not been installed yet. Do I have the right to come with a wrecking ball and destroy his house?
So now you are reducted to semantics?That doesn't say "Freedom of religion." Doesn't it have to say "Freedom of religion."
The establisment clause is designed to protect religion from government not the other way around. Did they teach government when you went to school?...because I can't believe you don't understand such a basic concept.That doesn't say "Freedom of religion." Doesn't it have to say "Freedom of religion."
It is designed to protect both. A government corrupted by religion is just as bad for everyone involved as a religion corrupted by government.The establisment clause is designed to protect religion from government not the other way around. Did they teach government when you went to school?...because I can't believe you don't understand such a basic concept.
No, the free exercise clause is designed to protect religion from government. That's the basic concept.The establisment clause is designed to protect religion from government not the other way around. Did they teach government when you went to school?...because I can't believe you don't understand such a basic concept.
That is what I said, thank you. (shaking head)No, the free exercise clause is designed to protect religion from government. That's the basic cncept.
Everson. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947): "Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'"See above.....unless you can quote from the constitution about your "separation".
So you believe that the study represents all abortion victims? I don't.That study does exactly that.
Except the Ultimate reality.Argument from incredulity. What you choose to doubt has no bearing on reality.
Just a question here...how many, by percentage, priests in the Catholic Church are child molesters?And those anecdotal examples are very much in the minority.
I didn't doubt your stat, but I consider even one abortion a travesty on humanity, so it don't matter.90% is hardly a "may be"!
Even one is a travesty.A few.
You think your opinion matters to me?You've just lost all credibility.
Statistics lie. When statistics say that unemployment is at 5.6%, yet there are 12-15% of the workforce unemployed, you cannot believe the statistics.Wrong. Consult the statistics, rather than your own prejudices please.
Well, I'm not wasting time here. I'm advocating for the unborn.Poisoning the well, red herrings. You've got them all!
I've already explained why earlier. I don't feel inclined to waste my time on you.
I don't believe that is in the constitution.....and please, you know that is not what I was asking, so don't go down that road.Everson. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947): "Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'"
The Supreme Court said that was the intent. Do Supreme Court decisions apply only when they support what you are saying?I don't believe that is in the constitution.....and please, you know that is not what I was asking, so don't go down that road.
Lots of time on your hands, I see. One study. I'd bet there's studies out there, just as unbiased as yours, that refute your conclusion.Yep, I think I'm the only one here that's bothered to actually read the study.
But then, you lot couldn't afford to read it, could you? Because it would clearly show how grossly wrong your position is.
Better to throw stones from a distance, right?
Everson. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947): "Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'"
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?