Re: Rights aren't absolute, right?
- From: ftauss@xxxxxxxxxx (Gray Ghost)
- Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2006 21:26:05 -0500
"Scout" <4guns@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:of-dnUBY6NeXznXZnZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx:
That makes no sense; please explain.
What part of that is beyond your comprehension?
If the zygote is a human being, and you assert it is and killing it is
morally wrong. Then accidentally killing it is also morally wrong.
That's why we punish people for doing so. It's called manslaughter. The
accidental killing of another person.
+
Scout I have enjoyed your posts in the past but you are arguing the same
logic as the antigunners. If we can ban people from having nukes why can't
we ban them from having handguns. Well err because they are different.
You are holding onto this in a way that makes me think you have a personal
involvement in a abortion, trying to rationalize the "choice".
Frank
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Rights aren't absolute, right?
- From: Scout
- Re: Rights aren't absolute, right?
- References:
- Re: Rights aren't absolute, right?
- From: Jim Yanik
- Re: Rights aren't absolute, right?
- From: Peter McMullen
- Re: Rights aren't absolute, right?
- From: Gray Ghost
- Re: Rights aren't absolute, right?
- From: Scout
- Re: Rights aren't absolute, right?
- From: Scout
- Re: Rights aren't absolute, right?
- Prev by Date: Re: Rights aren't absolute, right?
- Next by Date: Re: Rights aren't absolute, right?
- Previous by thread: Re: Rights aren't absolute, right?
- Next by thread: Re: Rights aren't absolute, right?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|