Comments on: The Religious Right’s Trump Card Exposed

By: Robin Torner

Robin Torner — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:08:20 +0000

Fun post, I surprisingly benefited from studying it, keep doing the good efforts.

By: Princess Clinker

Princess Clinker — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:26:41 +0000

Great article, I surprisingly had a good time glossing over it, keep doing all the hard efforts.

By: Software for construction estimating

Software for construction estimating — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 08:43:34 +0000

Nice post. It came up in my feed yesterday.

By: Trena Salquero

Trena Salquero — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 02:19:46 +0000

Enjoyable article, I surprisingly had a good time reading it, keep doing the hard writing.

By: Tessie Montesi

Tessie Montesi — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:10:09 +0000

Fantastic feature, I genuinely enjoyed reading it, keep doing the hard work.

By: Rudolph Guenthur

Rudolph Guenthur — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 06:08:52 +0000

Fantastic article, I genuinely benefited from reading it, keep up the hard thoughts.

By: Winford Coccia

Winford Coccia — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 23:35:50 +0000

Some genuinely quality posts on this website , saved to favorites .

By: Mitsue Starcic

Mitsue Starcic — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 20:00:30 +0000

Enjoyable feature, I actually had a good time studying it, keep doing the good writing.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 02:12:25 +0000

Polish Wolf, I am responding to one of your earlier posts. Specifically your statement, “To place, as is being done in Nicaragua, the life of the unborn ahead of the life of the mother is directly opposed to scriptural teachings which make a clear distinction between actual and potential life.”

First of all, the rights of the unborn do not supercede the rights of the mother. Conversely, the rights of the adult never supercede the rights of the unborn. Niether has a superceding authority.

The mother has the right to live, as well as the unborn child.

The mother does not have the right kill the child nor the child kill the adult.

Also, the definition of actual and potential life has no bearing in this conversation. We are talking about humans, not sperm or egg cells. Any way you try to slice it, once the egg is fertilized by the sperm it is human as evidenced by 42 chromosomes. Once that is established, you can then follow the logic to discern whether a human a person OR a person a human. If you get in on the wrong side of the question, you get Dred Scott, Nazism, and Roe. Get it right, and the logic that all humans are persons and all people have the right to life follows.

Speaking to the exception that abortion can be done to save the life of the mother deserves attention. A tubal pregnancy is not ended in an abortion. In this case, the loss of the child must be so as to save the life of the mother. Uninterrupted, they both will die. It is a medical condition where the treatment is applied appropriately with dignity and sadness. The child is not sucked out with a vacuum after being burned with chemicals nor is it delivered partially only to puncture its skull and destroy its brain. The mother will lose a fallopian tube (and a child) in the process.

By: Steve T.

Steve T. — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 23:36:57 +0000

Eric-

You show in two sentences the ignorance that dominates the religious right. You always have had a tendency to dumb things down, but this one is rather convenient.

This is what I mean: If you are Catholic, you probably should reject abortion. By rejecting abortiion, I mean: don’t get one. Same thing with gay marriage. If you don’t agree with it, then you should refrain from kissing other dudes.

You guys think that “rejecting” something means not only refraining from it yourselves, but doing your best to make sure everyone else has to refrain from it as well. It’s the height of ignorance. But then again, I wouldn’t expect any less of you.