Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > General Discussions > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 05-08-2009, 10:46 PM
rockdawg21's Avatar
rockdawg21 rockdawg21 is offline
I'm kind of a big deal
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 5,584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR
Personally, I believe that any doctor who performs an abortion should be convicted of murder in a court of law. The mother should also be convicted using the same charges that we level against people who pay a "hitman" to kill another person. All the nurses, assistants, receptionists, family members and anyone knowingly involved in the abortion should be charged with being an accessory to murder.
And I thought I was the only one.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-08-2009, 11:49 PM
Crisco
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rockdawg21
And I thought I was the only one.
The difference is Nate wants them tried by law you seemed to favor just people killing them.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-09-2009, 12:07 AM
rockdawg21's Avatar
rockdawg21 rockdawg21 is offline
I'm kind of a big deal
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 5,584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crisco
The difference is Nate wants them tried by law you seemed to favor just people killing them.
So the difference is it goes through the legal system and that makes it better? Either way, the justice is done.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-09-2009, 12:27 AM
logrus
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I love the picture of the little girls holding the signs. Course in todays day and age 2 out of 3 of them will probably be pregnent by 13 anyways. Then of course 1 of them will run into things with their stumachs to miscarry, the other one will dump it onto grandma and grandpa. Then again maybe the first one will give it up fr adoption, wait til its 6 or 7 and then go to court to get it back and win.

Whats next, where does it end.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-09-2009, 12:40 AM
J.B.'s Avatar
J.B. J.B. is offline
WAR CARDINALS!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Apache Juntion, AZ
Posts: 8,462
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by logrus
I love the picture of the little girls holding the signs. Course in todays day and age 2 out of 3 of them will probably be pregnent by 13 anyways. Then of course 1 of them will run into things with their stumachs to miscarry, the other one will dump it onto grandma and grandpa. Then again maybe the first one will give it up fr adoption, wait til its 6 or 7 and then go to court to get it back and win.

Whats next, where does it end.
Is this your pro-choice argument?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-09-2009, 12:56 AM
Miss Foxy
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by logrus
I love the picture of the little girls holding the signs. Course in todays day and age 2 out of 3 of them will probably be pregnent by 13 anyways. Then of course 1 of them will run into things with their stumachs to miscarry, the other one will dump it onto grandma and grandpa. Then again maybe the first one will give it up fr adoption, wait til its 6 or 7 and then go to court to get it back and win.

Whats next, where does it end.
So what are you trying to say??? Are you trying to justify that an abortion is appropriate?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-09-2009, 01:10 AM
Hughes_GOAT
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Foxy
So what are you trying to say??? Are you trying to justify that an abortion is appropriate?
*gets some popcorn*
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-09-2009, 02:50 AM
NateR's Avatar
NateR NateR is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 5,742
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by logrus
I love the picture of the little girls holding the signs. Course in todays day and age 2 out of 3 of them will probably be pregnent by 13 anyways. Then of course 1 of them will run into things with their stumachs to miscarry, the other one will dump it onto grandma and grandpa. Then again maybe the first one will give it up fr adoption, wait til its 6 or 7 and then go to court to get it back and win.

Whats next, where does it end.
Exactly why they need to teach Christian morality in public schools.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-09-2009, 03:05 AM
rockdawg21's Avatar
rockdawg21 rockdawg21 is offline
I'm kind of a big deal
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 5,584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR
Exactly why they need to teach Christian morality in public schools.
When I first moved to Texas back in 2004, I found out they say the "Texas Pledge" every day in the schools. In February 2007, they added "one state under God" to the pledge.

Some jackass Athiest parent complained about it but the judge just recently dismissed the case. Good for him, had this been NY or CA, it would have been changed to please the 1 person.

http://www.dentonrc.com/sharedconten...1.4adcc79.html

Quote:
Judge dismisses attempt to remove 'one state under God' from Texas pledge

12:00 AM CDT on Saturday, March 28, 2009

By KATHERINE LEAL UNMUTH / The Dallas Morning News
kunmuth@dallasnews.com

A judge has dismissed the claims of an atheist parent who sought to remove the words "one state under God" from the Texas pledge of allegiance.

Parent David Wallace Croft had argued that the insertion of the words in 2007 by legislators was unconstitutional and amounted to a violation of the separation of church and state.

Public school children recite the pledge every morning after the U.S. pledge.

U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade on Thursday upheld the pledge as it is worded: "Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible."

In his opinion, Kinkeade wrote, "A voluntary recitation of the Texas Pledge of Allegiance simply does not coerce students in the same way a school-sponsored prayer might."

He noted that the U.S. pledge and four other states have similar pledges that make reference to God or divine grace.

Dean Cook, Croft's attorney, said he is considering appealing the decision.

"The insertion of the language 'under God' shows that the Legislature did not have a secular purpose," he said. "It would be just as inappropriate if they inserted the language 'this is a state under no God' or a 'state under Vishnu.' It doesn't maintain the proper neutrality between the state and religion."

Attorney General Greg Abbott also issued a statement.

"The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that patriotic acknowledgments of the Almighty are constitutional," he said. "Texans can rest assured that we will continue defending their children's ability to recite the state Pledge of Allegiance each morning."

In addition, the judge noted that parents have the right to excuse their children in writing from reciting either pledge.

Croft, whose children are enrolled in the Carrollton-Farmers Branch school district, also has unsuccessfully challenged the minute of silence Texas children observe every morning after reciting the pledges.

Cook said he is considering asking the Supreme Court to consider taking up the moment of silence case, since the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected his arguments earlier this month. He also said he and his client have received many e-mails because of the cases, some of which are threatening in nature.

"I'm beginning to see that living in Texas, it's not surprising the way it went," he said of the decision.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-09-2009, 03:38 AM
logrus
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NateR
Exactly why they need to teach Christian morality in public schools.
Yeah my parent messed me up at an early age, I was sent to a Catholic school.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.