11/10/09

Dan Barker's Views On Human Dignity

FYI: this post has been moved here.
Share |

TwitThis

Posted by Ken
Labels: , , , , , , ,

4 comments:

  1. OttofireNovember 13, 2009 at 7:47 AM

    I wonder if Dan, when examining his own professed past life as a Christian, would say that when he was a Christian that he had not an inkling of compassion for the new life inside a mother, and that he really just wanted to control a new mother's reproductive choices.

    We already know that as an atheist he cares not a hoot for the child, just wondering if nothing has really changed for him. First he wants to control her uterus, now he wants to control what she can teach her children.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousNovember 13, 2009 at 10:09 PM

    Dan Baker calling pro-lifers misogynist really reminds me of Janeane Garofolo calling tea-party protestors racists. When some people have no real arguement, or have not studied the other side enough to produce an educated refuation, they always seek name-calling as refuge. So sad, really.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cedric KatesbyNovember 14, 2009 at 9:06 AM

    This is why life begins at conception.
    .

    Well, that depends on who you ask and when you ask them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. rayNovember 14, 2009 at 9:30 AM

    Terminating a pregnancy is a matter of choice. I DO agree that the power of choice should be exercised BEFORE becoming pregnant. I do not personally like the idea of terminating a pregnancy, but the final choice HAS to remain with the woman. And because abortion will always happens, it makes sense to ensure that abortions are done in a medically safe environment. It's not a morals issue at all, but one of equal protection under the law for all LIVING persons. An unborn fetus is not a living person, but merely a potential person. An unborn fetus has no rights of its own.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)