Jump to content

philpot123

Members
  • Posts

    1,795
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by philpot123

  1. "In Pennsylvania, abortions after 24 weeks of gestation are against the law. Gosnell regularly performed the procedure at 30 weeks of gestation or later." Google helps. Regardless of how he did it, why is it okay to perform an abortion at 24 weeks and not at 30? Let's assume for a second that he DIDN'T deliver babies and then snap their spines with scissors (which is what he's accused of). Let's assume he aborted children in the womb at 7 1/2, 8 months gestation the "proper" way. Is that wrong? Why does viability have anything to do with humanity? A few months earlier there was a living, growing child with a beating heart, just like there was at 8 months. I think we can all agree that the man did disgusting things. People on both sides of the issue are getting worked up over this. I guess I just don't quite understand how it's any more disgusting than any abortion procedure.
  2. Kermit Gosnell What he did... would it have been right if done a couple months earlier in the pregnancy?
  3. This is a rather hostile, simplistic, and in my opinion, erroneous description of the Doctrines of Grace (i.e. Predestination or "Calvinism"). I'd be glad to discuss the relevant doctrinal issues with you over private message. I'd also love to discuss your views of Jesus himself.
  4. The Morning Center The Hope House (Linked to "crisis" page) There's two that I'm personally aware of/involved with on opposite ends of my state. Yes, they are Christian. But based on the volunteer work I've done with the Hope House, they don't discriminate on that basis. They'll accept anyone who needs help and counseling. As far as outside of my state, the folks at Abolish Human Abortion have tabs on similar crisis pregnancy centers in Oklahoma where they're based and in other states, so if you want more information, you could contact them and I'm sure they'd be glad to provide some links.
  5. They're also being sued in Washington for what, $377 million in medicaid fraud? Great stuff, that.
  6. 2011-2012 PPFA Income, $1.244 billion Clinic Income, , $311.5 million Taxpayer Money, $542.4 million Private Donations, $307.5 million Profit, $87.4 million (or as it's marked in the report, "excess of revenue over expenses [in millions]") Planned Parenthood Annual Report
  7. I would consider a place that facilitates and participates in murder evil. Oh, and have you seen Planned Parenthood's profit margin?
  8. Despite the fact that there are some people like this, no, that's not a pro-life position. I can provide you with links to several local aid centers for pregnant women and post-birth women that provide shelter and supplies to young mothers who chose birth instead of abortion. A truly pro-life position includes options to care for the mother and the child post-birth, not scaring women away from abortion mills.
  9. They shouldn't be allowed to. I shouldn't get benefits for marrying a female OR a male. Abolish the income tax and we don't have to worry about tax breaks I don't want the government to have anything to do with marriage, ideally. But yes, the idea of allowing consenting adults to enter into contracts in regards to estates, visitation rights, etc. regardless of gender is perfectly acceptable to me. I also want people to be free to recognize or not recognize anyone's "marriage" as such within private organizations and religious institutions. Hetero or homo.
  10. I agree that most people arguing about it aren't very consistent. If you want a well-thought-out discussion from the conservative side of the issue, here's an article for reading. I understand almost everyone here disagrees, but I feel like this is a solid summary of the more legitimate arguments. Five Gay Marriage Myths
  11. Right. It's a counter-image. (not saying it's something I condone)
  12. My team won the state mock trial championship, so we'll be representing the state of Tennessee at nationals. I also won an outstanding student award, and was awarded a mock trial scholarship to my school of choice. It's been a great month
  13. I agree. Consistency is key. If it's wrong to kill a child in the womb, it doesn't matter how it was conceived. Compromises can't figure into a pro-life worldview. Which means people who are against abortion should be CONSISTENTLY against abortion, and they should also be against warmongering, war in general, and especially the killing of civilians in wartime. Unfortunately, most "pro-life" people aren't that consistent.
  14. Which is why tax benefits for married couples should be abolished, and two consenting adults of either gender should be able to form a legal contract in regards to visitation rights, etc. I'm in favor of getting rid of all legal benefits and definitions of marriage. If someone wants a marriage ceremony, find someone to perform it for you.
  15. You're hypothetically my offspring. I've decided to kill you. You have no say in the decision. It's my choice.
  16. And some people fought for the abolition of an evil industry, despite the fact that some people supported it and others were complacent. So you really think slavery was a grey area back then? It wasn't absolutely wrong?
  17. I'm against slavery. I think it's wrong to own slaves. I would never own a slave. But I think you should have the right to decide whether or not to purchase humans like meat for yourself. If abortion is wrong, isn't it just... wrong? I'm not trying to disparage your position, but I have a hard time wrapping my mind around it.
  18. I've been homeschooled all my life, but not in the sense of being schooled inside my home the whole time. I'm a senior in high school right now. I've taken various outside classes through different organizations and colleges, and I'm currently enrolled in a few AP courses. We have local organizations that oversee standardized testing (we take the same achievement tests as public schoolers), track our grades, make sure we meet state graduation requirements, etc. I actually have a homeschool "graduating class" of about 45 local kids. I'm so ridiculously ready to be done with my last semester and get on to college. Thankfully I've received scholarships for my academics (yay for ACT scores!) and mock trial experience, so the costs are being covered pretty well. I'll be majoring in Government with a track in American Politics and Policy. And thankfully all of the core classes are both relevant to my field and interesting to me, so I won't have to deal with obnoxious "filler" classes.
  19. So let me get this straight. You're saying there is no line that determines when life is worth protecting? It's a morally gray area that varies person to person? So it's perfectly acceptable for a mother to kill her 2 week old child? 2 month old child? Toddler? Or are you saying it's okay to terminate a pregnancy up until the minute of birth? I don't wish to assume anything, so I'll work from both options. If the former, then it's perfectly acceptable to kill any child if it becomes an inconvenience? No matter the age? If the latter, what is so different about the child in the hours before birth and the hours after birth that makes it deserving of human rights? When do I get basic human rights? You would say that I should not harm you, correct? That it would be wrong for me to physically harm you, rape you, or kill you? Because you have basic human rights? When does a child gain those same rights that you claim to have? If there is no "line" to be crossed that gives the child those rights, how can you claim to possess them?
  20. Doesn't mean He doesn't exist. And it doesn't mean that taking a life isn't inherently wrong. "Often"? That's not the case. Medically "necessary" abortions account for a very small percentage of abortions performed. And the "necessary" part is debatable in many cases. Who said it was worth more? Who said it was more important? I just want the child's life to be of EQUIVALENT importance to its mother's. If I kill the mother, I get put in jail. If I kill the child, I get put in jail. Equivalent value, because they're both humans. I disagree. It's human offspring in the developmental process. It can't be anything but human. It's not going to become a cat. It has been argued on this thread that the developmental process can "malfunction" and it can become a tumor or miscarry, but that doesn't change the fact that it WAS a developing human. Tell me then, at what point does a fetus become human? Because your line of reasoning sounds an awful lot like Singer's. And he argues that I should be permitted to kill my offspring until it can declare its will to live. Is it wrong for me to kill a just-born infant? If yes, why was it not wrong for me to kill it 5 minutes before birth? If it was wrong to kill it five minutes before birth, why was it not wrong to kill it a week prior? If it was wrong to kill it a week prior... etc. When is life worth being protected? I believe any line someone can supply about "life is worth protecting now" is completely arbitrary. I don't think you matter LESS than anything. I think the child that is (hypothetically) within you matters just as much as you do. Life begins at conception. Because the idea that a fetus is alive is equally supportable by religion and science, and the killing of infants in the womb is morally abhorrent just like any other form of murder. We don't want new laws, we want the laws that are already in place to apply to all kinds of murder.
  21. Because that "group of cells" is scientifically alive. It is not my place or anyone else's place to choose to end a life. For me, it boils down to an entirely religious conviction. The Lord gives and the Lord takes away, it's not for me to decide. The only times when ending a life is not murder Biblically is self-defense and civil punishment for capital crimes. So the day it can be extracted and live outside the womb, it's a person? But it still couldn't survive outside the womb at that stage without medical technology, so I guess it's not a person then either? Why does that mean it's not a person? Obviously a fetus can't voice opinions and lacks rational capabilities. My point is that the idea of "my body, my choice" ignores the fact that there is more than one body involved. True, but ending the life guarantees it WON'T become a baby. Not sure why the possibility that the pregnancy might miscarry or develop poorly gives us the right to end any pregnancy we wish for any reason.
  22. I'll borrow from C.S. Lewis (who borrowed from J. Gresham Machen) and say that you can't really say Jesus was "just" a nice man. He claimed divinity. Considering you've already ruled out his divinity, he was either a loony, or he was simply deceiving people. Either way, not very nice. "Thous shalt not murder" does not exclude fair punishments. Murder is different from civil punishment altogether. "An eye for an eye" is merely a way of saying that the punishment should fit the crime. I see no contradiction here. Why does the fact that it couldn't survive outside the womb nullify its humanity? Yes, choice is a basic human right. But I don't have the basic human right to choose to kill you, do I? I can choose to do a lot of things, but they could be wrong choices. "My body, my choice" applies to your body. But unless you have four arms, four legs, and every once in awhile, male genitalia, the body within you is not your body. Where's his/her choice? Doesn't it have a body?
  23. It depends on the area, obviously. My area is certainly not representative of high-crime localities. I couldn't sign on at the NYPD in a week's time. My point is simply that the laws that are in place already allow for low-skill people to carry a firearm, and it happens without much incident. Again, I still believe training is a personal responsibility issue, not something any government has the right to mandate.
  24. No, they aren't. Asking that permitted teachers be allowed to carry a firearm is not equivalent to asking them to enforce the law. It's allowing them to defend themselves against a lawbreaker. I appreciate your reasoning, although I disagree. I selected this sentence specifically because I believe it's a misrepresentation of our goals as 2Am. supporters. We don't wish to hand teachers anything that they don't already have. We simply want them to be allowed to carry their personal firearm into the school in a concealed manner if they have a state permit allowing them to carry a firearm. Further, we wouldn't expect them or tell them to shoot someone. This is up to the individual. Whether or not to carry a gun is a personal choice, whether or not to use it in self defense is a choice. No coercion is involved, no mandates or requests. We very simply want the laws governing our states to apply even within a school building. We don't to arm more people unless they wish to be armed. Yay for liberty! I like liberty! I will also say that with modern firearms, a true "accidental" discharge of a firearm is very difficult to find. In any instance where the user him/herself pulls on the trigger, even in an "accidental" way, that would be classified as a "negligent discharge," something that could have been prevented with proper firearm safety. A true accidental discharge is something along the lines of dropping a firearm and having it go off (highly unlikely with ANY modern gun), or if someone is carrying a firearm in an unsafe manner, having some other object catch the trigger. In any case, if the owner is carrying properly, these things will simply not happen. Any legitimate carry holster covers the entire trigger guard of the pistol, so nothing will catch the trigger on accident.