Re: OT: The problem with repuglicans
- From: Matthew Silverstein <msilverz@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 03:14:28 GMT
On Sunday, September 11, 2005, Owen Hartnett wrote:
> Of course we do, but there's no reason to ban abortion if it isn't
> "murder," otherwise it's not harmful to anybody/anything.
What are you talking about? Even if the fetus is a person, it could still
be something that can be harmed. (Dogs are not people, and there are laws
against harming them.) It is possible to harm something without that harm
constituting murder.
Matty
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OT: The problem with repuglicans
- From: SG
- Re: OT: The problem with repuglicans
- References:
- OT: The problem with repuglicans
- From: John Harrington
- Re: OT: The problem with repuglicans
- From: SG
- Re: OT: The problem with repuglicans
- From: Raab Himself
- Re: OT: The problem with repuglicans
- From: A. Brain
- Re: OT: The problem with repuglicans
- From: JohnGavin
- Re: OT: The problem with repuglicans
- From: Bob Harper
- Re: OT: The problem with repuglicans
- From: JohnGavin
- Re: OT: The problem with repuglicans
- From: Bob Harper
- Re: OT: The problem with repuglicans
- From: sechumlib
- Re: OT: The problem with repuglicans
- From: Bob Harper
- Re: OT: The problem with repuglicans
- From: Matthew Silverstein
- Re: OT: The problem with repuglicans
- From: Frank Berger
- Re: OT: The problem with repuglicans
- From: Matthew Silverstein
- Re: OT: The problem with repuglicans
- From: Matthew Silverstein
- Re: OT: The problem with repuglicans
- From: Matthew Silverstein
- OT: The problem with repuglicans
- Prev by Date: Re: Der Rose Pilgerfahrt
- Next by Date: Re: OT: The problem with repuglicans
- Previous by thread: Re: OT: The problem with repuglicans
- Next by thread: Re: OT: The problem with repuglicans
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|