SERIOUS Trouble, Now with all the tall tales coming out, Gallup 10 point lead might be truer than they know & that’s why “THE CHOSEN ONE’S” campaign is in total panic

I’ve heard a prominent “Catholic” dem (the first was Pelosi) hide behind alledgely ambiguous writing of Thomas Aquinas about when life begins.

This smells like a contrived talking point, but I’d appreciate it if someone more knowledgable on the topic (Feddie, are you out there?) could shed a little light on this one.

The “I don’t know for sure that it’s human therefore it’s ok to kill it” argument just doesn’t make sense to me. Then again, I never understood how the uncertainty principle applied to physics, either.

Let me get this straight: I have the “right” to kill a fetus because it’s not 100% certain that what I’m killing is a human being, but I can’t fire a gun into a crowd (or drive drunk), because there’s a chance that I’ll kill a human being.

In other words, it’s ok to certainly kill something that might be human, but it’s wrong to engage in an activity that might kill something that’s certainly human.

Am I missing something here?

There is nothing in the Bible that says “don’t kill unborn babies” or “don’t have an abortion”. The only moral truth we can draw from what the Christian religion says about abortion is that children are a blessing and that murder is wrong.

So WHY do we let them get away with saying “well, a humble guy like me wouldn’t presume to answer a theological question like that.”

It’s as simple as this: technology has determined that an unborn child is a- human (not “potentially” human, it is human. There is no chance that baby is going to suddenly turn into a fish or some other being.) b- a separate entity from the mother (completely unique DNA) and it is alive.

Therefore, allowing for the death of this child means that we are denying one of the basic inalienable rights to certain people.

There is nothing theological about that, and allowing him to frame abortion as a “religious” issue means allowing him avoid the discussion at all. It makes the argument about the right to religious choice rather than freedom to live.

This isn’t just a Catholic position — it is a Christian position which all Christians who respect the opinions of our common ecclesial forebears ought to understand and hold to.

A few examples:

74 AD The Letter of Barnabas “The way of light, then, is as follows. If any one desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works. The knowledge, therefore, which is given to us for the purpose of walking in this way, is the following. . . . Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born” (Letter of Barnabas 19).

150 AD Didache “The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child” (Didache 2:1)

210 AD Tertullian “In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed” (Apology 9:8).

210 AD Tertullian “Now we allow that life begins with conception because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does” (Apology 27).

but i formed a blog, it is http://therepublicanproject.blogsome.com/. My username is therepublicanproject and I am the administrator.

“As a Christian, I have a lot of humility”

* only 2 in the Christian scriptures have dared to be exceptions to that rule:

Moses: (Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth.) (Numbers 12:3)

and

Jesus: Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. (Matthew 11:29)

Going for the #3 slot?

WHO keeps trotting out this “when life begins” phrase, and why are people being allowed to redefine it as a matter of “belief” or “opinion?”

They would have a fit if people were disagreeing about the science of evolution; why a double standard.

The truth is plain and simple. When life begins is STRICTLY a biological and scientific question, and it was answered once and for all in the early 1800′s.

They may have disagreements over when and whether to protect life, but they have NO RIGHT to LIE about the scientific facts. Even then, it’s IN NO WAY “personal” because the law has to protect people at some point. It also has the duty and obligation to put the medical profession in its place.

Why are scientists and biologists not calling them out on this?!

This is like saying whether the sun is a star is personal belief.

These people aren’t qualified to work as janitors, much less elected office.

The “above my paygrade” comment was a ploy by Obama to try and get the Presidential salary raised should he be elected.

Sen. Obama was asked about when he believes that life begins. Hefudged the answer, couching it into the typical ‘relative morals’ language of how anyone’s opinion is as valid as anyone else’s. But he never actually answered the question.

Heckuva statesman, Barry!

Pastor Warren asked (paraphrasing), “At what point does an unborn baby have ‘human rights’”. In other words, at what point does that child deserve the protection of the law.

Last I looked, BO is a graduate of Harvard Law School. He passed the Bar in IL. He was an instructor in ConLaw. Given those facts, the question was exactly within his “pay grade”.

to keep from saying to millions of people he is in favor of killing babies.

Saying the question is above his pay grade is one more way to simply vote “Present“. This happened with plenty of issues in the Illinois Senate. He was a state senator and he had questions there that were also above his pay grade that he voted “present” on. Must have been, since he had no clue how to vote. But, when it came to granting human rights to babies after they are born, he said NO, so that question was not above his pay grade. Go figure* that one* out!

PS: Happy that site seems to be responding tonight thus far!

You act like he made a practice of it.

What about the 700 or so bills his name was added to without any participation at all, so Majority Leader Jones could “make a U.S. Senator”? I suppose you’ll deny him credit for those, too, just because he had nothing to do with their drafting or passage.

Obviously, the fetid stench of racism is here.