1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Defining Life

Cardinal5671 Wrote: Jul 23, 2014 3:40 PM
Even identical twins do not have quite the same DNA. Very similar, but not quite the same. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10511087/Identical-twins-need-never-be-tried-for-same-crime-after-DNA-breakthrough.html
In response to:

Defining Life

Cardinal5671 Wrote: Jul 23, 2014 3:33 PM
Flaming, until you can define when it becomes a human being after conception, you can't conclusively say it isn't a human being at conception and worthy of protection.
In response to:

Defining Life

Cardinal5671 Wrote: Jul 23, 2014 3:29 PM
" she does not 'own' the baby she is carrying and does not have the right to have it executed." Never said she did. But, as you yourself pointed out, she is carrying it. If she wants to carry the baby to term, that is a better solution that making her do so against her will. Better for her and better for the child. That is all I am saying.
In response to:

Defining Life

Cardinal5671 Wrote: Jul 23, 2014 1:56 PM
Well it is true that any rational discussion of abortion must recognize that there are two lives involved: the baby AND the mother. You can't recognize and preserve the life of the unborn child without also recognizing and respecting the life and desires of the mother. You just can't. That doesn't mean the unborn child is not precious, but it does mean you can't ignore the fact that for the unborn child to live, the mother must, in the end, want it to live. You aren't going to do that by denigrating her, certainly.
In response to:

Defining Life

Cardinal5671 Wrote: Jul 23, 2014 1:45 PM
Much about FLMC's argument relies on undefined terms. He won't define "human being" and won't define the point in time when the fetus should be considered a "human being". Of course, to attempt to answer those questions would take him down a road he does not want to go.
I keep noticing that ACA uses the term "the State" not "a State". In that context, I can see someone allowing the definition to include the Federal government. Per Websters, one of the definitions of state is "a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory". I can see this applying to the US as a whole. Not that I wouldn't love to see the courts put a stake in the heard of Obamacare, but I don't know that this is going to be it.
So if the Democrats could put anyone on the court we could have Chief Justice Kagan, or one of the other liberals (or worse). Just think about that...
Its all in how its spun. The Dems could try to spin it that they tried to fix the problems with the bill as best they could. The Republicans were not going to help so the best they could do was address it through regulation. Now, the Republicans are going to continue their obstruction and allow rates to skyrocket. Its not really that hard to see how the Dems could spin this to their advantage.
In response to:

Article One and Stunts

Cardinal5671 Wrote: Jul 11, 2014 1:30 PM
So you would support denying women (or at least tax paying women) the right to vote?
In response to:

Article One and Stunts

Cardinal5671 Wrote: Jul 11, 2014 1:29 PM
Actually he's right. If the House votes to Impeach, it will go to the Senate and die. If the House votes to defund something, that bill goes to the Senate which will not vote for it. Either way the Senate gets a say, THAT is how the government works.
1 - 10 Next