Murder: Killing a Human Life
If Senator Kerry were in a position to save the life of another human being about to be murdered, and he let that person be murdered, then he may as well have murdered that person himself. It is understandable that, in a circumstance, which could cost the senator his own life, he has to think of his family, etc., should he be killed trying to defend this defenseless person.
However, when the only potential risk to saving the lives of thousands, even millions of innocent children is only loosing reelection to the Senate, how could he (or anyone) be so selfish?
Now, those of you on the “choice” side of the issue, don’t complain to me about the “innocent children” phrase in the previous sentence, blame Kerry, he is the one who said, “I believe life does begin at conception.” If this is the case, then that “growth” which abortionists suck out through a tube and flush down the drain is a CHILD. Senator Kerry believes it to be a child, but he does not believe it has any right to be protected from murder. I wonder, is murdering a one year old, in Senator Kerry’s mind, less of a crime than murdering an 80 year old? It would appear that a young child does not have the right to live as much as an older child, and I am just curious if Senator Kerry’s “life protection scale” continued up the age range, as ANY legitimate “rule” would, or if this convenient exception to Senator Kerry’s moral code, is simply an attempt to be on both sides of yet another issue.
Senator Kerry went on to say "I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist…” Wow, is the senator against all legislation having to do with morality? I wonder what the senator’s position is on all kinds of other issues relating to morality. Why is prostitution illegal? Why is doctor-assisted suicide illegal? What about our drug laws? What about cruelty to animal laws?
Think about this… Take “faith”, and “beliefs” out of the picture, and then read those last questions in the preceding paragraph. If we removed all laws based on “faith”, “beliefs” and morals, our country would be in chaos. I know that Senator Kerry does not want that, but the twisted arguments he makes for getting out of one situation, if he uses them consistently, would result in just that. And, failing to use your arguments consistently is hypocrisy.
When someone makes an argument that does not apply to every situation, then one needs to alter the logic used so as to maintain intellectual honesty.
Without “faith”, “beliefs” and morals to guide our leaders, what is left to guide them? Without a compass, does one not get lost easily?
Read up on this issue…
http://www.theunionleader.com/
articles_showa.html?article=40304
Then…
Think for yourself!
Make up your own mind!
However, when the only potential risk to saving the lives of thousands, even millions of innocent children is only loosing reelection to the Senate, how could he (or anyone) be so selfish?
Now, those of you on the “choice” side of the issue, don’t complain to me about the “innocent children” phrase in the previous sentence, blame Kerry, he is the one who said, “I believe life does begin at conception.” If this is the case, then that “growth” which abortionists suck out through a tube and flush down the drain is a CHILD. Senator Kerry believes it to be a child, but he does not believe it has any right to be protected from murder. I wonder, is murdering a one year old, in Senator Kerry’s mind, less of a crime than murdering an 80 year old? It would appear that a young child does not have the right to live as much as an older child, and I am just curious if Senator Kerry’s “life protection scale” continued up the age range, as ANY legitimate “rule” would, or if this convenient exception to Senator Kerry’s moral code, is simply an attempt to be on both sides of yet another issue.
Senator Kerry went on to say "I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist…” Wow, is the senator against all legislation having to do with morality? I wonder what the senator’s position is on all kinds of other issues relating to morality. Why is prostitution illegal? Why is doctor-assisted suicide illegal? What about our drug laws? What about cruelty to animal laws?
Think about this… Take “faith”, and “beliefs” out of the picture, and then read those last questions in the preceding paragraph. If we removed all laws based on “faith”, “beliefs” and morals, our country would be in chaos. I know that Senator Kerry does not want that, but the twisted arguments he makes for getting out of one situation, if he uses them consistently, would result in just that. And, failing to use your arguments consistently is hypocrisy.
When someone makes an argument that does not apply to every situation, then one needs to alter the logic used so as to maintain intellectual honesty.
Without “faith”, “beliefs” and morals to guide our leaders, what is left to guide them? Without a compass, does one not get lost easily?
Read up on this issue…
http://www.theunionleader.com/
articles_showa.html?article=40304
Then…
Think for yourself!
Make up your own mind!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home