One-Issue Voters Make Me Sick

[Q Classic]

That's what we do for parents who don't want to take care of their child.

You are not forcing them to give up their child, they have already decided that they do not want this child.

and what if they want to donate the embryos for stem cell research? who are you to prevent them from donating their own flesh and blood for something they consider a greater good? particularly if the couple in question doesn't believe that the embryos count as sentient human beings...

[Whaleboy]

No he doesn't. It's one of his fundamental assumptions.

True but I'd want that explored.

[David Floyd]

rue. Given Stephens and O'Connors resignation, that tips the scales, particularly if Rehnquist also has another prolife replacement.

Yes, but even a prolife replacement is not automatically guaranteed to overturn Roe. Remember, the Court is run by precedent, and no competent SCOTUS Justice will make a decision solely based upon his/her moral/political beliefs.

Not without a 60 percent support in the house, which means, given the current partisanship for such measures, all prolife bills could be killed by a pro abortion president.

Which is irrelevant, because such bills would probably be killed by the courts anyway.

Which is a violation of the separation of powers supposedly enforced by the constitution.

I agree, but it still happens. That's why it's a more important issue to me than abortion.

Do the majority of doctors provide abortion on demand?

The majority of doctors who provide abortions do, AFAIK.

I'm taking your argument, and running with it to make other conclusions.

It's not my argument, it's your strawman.

Not as a whole, but there is a substantial component that are funded by abortion industries, because the two complement each other.

Yes, but I still think that most doctors take their oath to "do no harm" seriously, and if they truly took the same view of abortion as you, would not perform abortions regardless of the financial issue.

True, if they understood what they were doing, then they would not be involved.

But just because the doctors who perform the abortions, insist that abortion kills a blob of tissue, does not mean that scientifically, the unborn child is just a blob of tissue.

Not on that basis alone, but a doctor's opinion or a scientist's opinion is much weighter than your opinion.

True, but a believe in a position to influence public policy, can reach many more people than they would be able to do otherwise. It's the whole principle behind the idea, of having a Christian leader being a benefit to both the church and state.

Yes, but having an atheist government would not mean that the free speech of believers would be infringed, nor would it mean that believers would automatically stop spreading the word. Agreed?

True. However, Removal of all religious influence upon government = oppression of believers.

You have yet to show why that is necessarily true. I could just as easily say that allowing religious influence necessarily oppresses atheists, and my assertion would probably have more basis in fact.

If the biological parents refuse to take care of a child, then an adoptive parent, ought to be allowed to do so.

OK, find a way to remove the child from one woman's womb and transplant it to another womb, that will result in the first women giving consent every time. Otherwise, her rights are being violated.

[Whaleboy]

In order to show that not allowing them political influence denies religious people civil rights, he needs to associate the two (civil and political rights).