5. I seriously want to know why people whose very purpose is to limit what counts as true knowledge and true science by way of highly questionable philosophical assumptions (or at least unacknowledged ones) get to call themselves "rational" or "enlightened".
4. Just save us time, and admit to being a materialist and a utilitarian. That way, when we wake up in a Stalinist paradise, I can say, "I told you so." If I'm not dead.
3. Abortion and homosexual acts are both grave offenses against the dignity of the human person, and thus, against God, who made us, and took on our human nature to redeem us. They are by no means the only ones, but they are real, and this needs to be said clearly.
2. Is the yet-born fetus a person? The whole abortion issue turns on this question, and this alone. Consequently, there can be no "exceptions" to a prohibition on abortion, if we are to answer in the affirmative. If we answer in the negative, then abortion is not "tragic," except as a rhetorical ploy. Therefore, it is inconsistent to work for limits on abortion, if one has answered in the negative to the central question. May I suggest that those who have answered in the negative, and yet still speak of the tragic nature of this practice suffer the pangs of conscience. I am in no way attempting to take away anyone's freedom or choice; I suggest rather that this choice to take away a life that belongs to someone else (and an innocent someone, at that) cannot be licitly granted, not by individuals, and not by governments.
1. Have a great day.
4. Just save us time, and admit to being a materialist and a utilitarian. That way, when we wake up in a Stalinist paradise, I can say, "I told you so." If I'm not dead.
3. Abortion and homosexual acts are both grave offenses against the dignity of the human person, and thus, against God, who made us, and took on our human nature to redeem us. They are by no means the only ones, but they are real, and this needs to be said clearly.
2. Is the yet-born fetus a person? The whole abortion issue turns on this question, and this alone. Consequently, there can be no "exceptions" to a prohibition on abortion, if we are to answer in the affirmative. If we answer in the negative, then abortion is not "tragic," except as a rhetorical ploy. Therefore, it is inconsistent to work for limits on abortion, if one has answered in the negative to the central question. May I suggest that those who have answered in the negative, and yet still speak of the tragic nature of this practice suffer the pangs of conscience. I am in no way attempting to take away anyone's freedom or choice; I suggest rather that this choice to take away a life that belongs to someone else (and an innocent someone, at that) cannot be licitly granted, not by individuals, and not by governments.
1. Have a great day.
Comments
This will be an evangelism opportunity. :-)