Hillary on abortion

Originally posted by RJHinds
Part of that amendment is the freedom of speech. So as I see it Hillary Clinton is free to speak here mind as a politician. Proselytizing for or against religious views or attempting to get congress to make laws prohibing the free exercise of religion is not the job of a government official. That is the idea of separation of church and state as I understand it.

And just how is "congress [going] to make laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion" and who is proposing this?

Originally posted by FMF
And just how is "congress [going] to make laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion" and who is proposing this?

I hope nobody does. But Whodey is suggesting that Hillary's speech may be crossing the line between free speech and proselytizing against a religious view by the State if she is elected President and continues this kind of thing, because then she will be part of the State. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
I hope nobody does. But Whodey is suggesting that Hillary's speech may be crossing the line between free speech and proselytizing against a religious view by the State if she is elected President and continues this kind of thing, because then she will be part of the State. 😏

But if Jeb was elected and went down the same path, all would be well with you.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I hope nobody does. But Whodey is suggesting that Hillary's speech may be crossing the line between free speech and proselytizing against a religious view by the State if she is elected President and continues this kind of thing, because then she will be part of the State. 😏

whodey has not made any kind of case to back up his suggestion despite being invited to do so time and time and time again. Whilst disagreeing vehemently with Mrs Clinton's stance, whodey ought to be championing her right to express her beliefs freely and to seek to persuade others.

Originally posted by FMF
whodey has not made any kind of case to back up his suggestion despite being invited to do so time and time and time again. Whilst disagreeing vehemently with Mrs Clinton's stance, whodey ought to be championing her right to express her beliefs freely and to seek to persuade others.

Well, obviously he disagrees with her views on abortion and that religions need to change their views. He also has the right to express his views in contrast to Hillary's.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, obviously he disagrees with her views on abortion and that religions need to change their views. He also has the right to express his views in contrast to Hillary's.

His view is that her expression of free speech and freedom political action is a violation of the US constitution and he has declined to offer any argument or analysis to support it.

Originally posted by FMF
His view is that her expression of free speech and freedom political action is a violation of the US constitution and he has declined to offer any argument or analysis to support it.

Perhaps it is. I may be mistaken. I was not looking at it that way. I thought he was just concerned that she may continue to advocate such actions since she was running for President.

Originally posted by RJHinds
[b]Perhaps it is. I may be mistaken. I was not looking at it that way.

If only you would say that more often.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
If only you would say that more often.

Well, it is not often that I am mistaken. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, it is not often that I am mistaken. 😏

No, no. You are often mistaken; it is just rarely you realise it.

Originally posted by whodey
Why not tell us your view?

When does life start in your estimation?

In my estimation the zygote at conception satisfies requirements for biological life. But how is this relevant to the abortion debate?

Originally posted by LemonJello
In my estimation the zygote at conception satisfies requirements for biological life. But how is this relevant to the abortion debate?

The sperm and egg prior to conception satisfy the biological definition of life. If they didn't then every conception would be a case of abiogenesis.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The sperm and egg prior to conception satisfy the biological definition of life. If they didn't then every conception would be a case of abiogenesis.

Do you honestly think anyone here does not understand that? Obviously, whodey was asking about the new organism, not its antecedents. And my answer is the same: conception. It's a case of ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Do you honestly think anyone here does not understand that?

I wasn't criticizing you nor did I think you didn't understand that. But I do think that some anti-abortion rhetoric does ignore the fact that sperm and eggs are alive. A popular claim is that assigning right to life at birth is somewhat arbitrary and that conception is a better time to assign it. However one can equally argue that conception is somewhat arbitrary.
As far as I know, the Bible says nothing about exactly when a human life obtains a soul. Some Christians say it happens at birth, others at conception. It is clear that most anti-abortion posters here hold their position purely on theological grounds or, as in whodeys case, purely political grounds. If Obama made an anti abortion statement whodey would immediately be pro abortion.

Originally posted by LemonJello
In my estimation the zygote at conception satisfies requirements for biological life. But how is this relevant to the abortion debate?

If that is when life begins, when should such a life be protected from termination?