And this is why I am for capital punishment

[Powerman]

So, you could conceivably be...what's the word - wr....

wr....

Come on - say it....

Yes it is quite possible. Big deal. I've been wrong before. However there is absolutely zero evidence that I am wrong. If it is provided then I will happily admit my mistake.

 

[Annie]

So, you could conceivably be...what's the word - wr....

wr....

Come on - say it....

think it's possible MM, that the church teachings for this do not include this Aquinas teachings? Yeah, it's more than possible. That's what the PM's of the world hope no Christians will get.

 

[Powerman]

think it's possible MM, that the church teachings for this do not include this Aquinas teachings? Yeah, it's more than possible. That's what the PM's of the world hope no Christians will get.

Damn it woman. It's not just a teaching. It's a doctrine.

 

[musicman]

I'm not a liberal. I have never told any lies on this forum. You are just flaming and not contributing anything at this point.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27453&page=4

Post #53.

This is a disgusting tactic, employed exclusively by liberals, for the express purpose of distorting the meaning of another's words, to advance bankrupt, preposterous ideas that would be laughed off the face of the earth if ever forced to stand on their true merit; in short, a lie.

 

[Powerman]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27453&page=4

Post #53.

This is a disgusting tactic, employed exclusively by liberals, for the express purpose of distorting the meaning of another's words, to advance bankrupt, preposterous ideas that would be laughed off the face of the earth if ever forced to stand on their true merit; in short, a lie.

That was intended as a joke. Probably because what he said was so ridiculously viscious and cruel it didn't deserve an actual response. Can we get back on topic here?

 

[Annie]

Damn it woman. It's not just a teaching. It's a doctrine.

You are incorrect. Not everything that Aquinas said is doctrine. Even if it were, most 'doctrine' does not fall within 'infallibility' which IS what you are attempting to imply. Guess what, even the most 'evangelical' here, know better than this bs.

 

[Powerman]

You are incorrect. Not everything that Aquinas said is doctrine. Even if it were, most 'doctrine' does not fall within 'infallibility' which IS what you are attempting to imply. Guess what, even the most 'evangelical' here, know better than this bs.

I'm in correct? You are trying to tell me that the DOCTRINE of double effect is not a DOCTRINE?

Are you ******* serious?

And I never said that this had anything do to with infallibility.

 

[musicman]

That was intended as a joke. Probably because what he said was so ridiculously viscious and cruel it didn't deserve an actual response. Can we get back on topic here?

No, it wasn't. You just don't like being busted, and now you're telling more lies to cover your original lies. It's a viscuous cycle - you're all oily from your lies.

Now, THAT was a joke!

 

[Annie]

I'm in correct? You are trying to tell me that the DOCTRINE of double effect is not a DOCTRINE?

Are you ******* serious?

Doctrine or infallible?

 

[musicman]

I'm in correct? You are trying to tell me that the DOCTRINE of double effect is not a DOCTRINE?

Are you ******* serious?

And I never said that this had anything do to with infallibility.

Mayday - mayday - we're losing - dilute, deflect, misdirect - strawmen to the bridge - dive, dive, dive!

 

[Powerman]

No, it wasn't. You just don't like being busted, and now you're telling more lies to cover your original lies. It's a viscuous cycle - you're all oily from your lies.

Now, THAT was a joke!

Here is the logic that goes into what you were referring to. He said that he found comfort in seeing young children die so I asked him if he was pro choice. Afterall it would seem to be comforting to know that all these children went directly to heaven and didn't even have to spend anytime on earth.

But this is for a different discussion. There is still absolutely zero proof to go against what I said about the doctrine of double effect.

 

[Powerman]

Mayday - mayday - we're losing - dilute, deflect, misdirect - strawmen to the bridge - dive, dive, dive!

This is pathetic. Between the 2 of you, you can't find one piece of information that acutally refutes what I said. The information is no doubt difficult to come by as I am learning. But the church doctrine clearly says that fetal craniotomies are not permitted. So I would venture to say that they do not perform this procedure in Catholic Hospitals.

You can call it a strawman argument. But you have NO argument. None whatsoever.

 

[musicman]

Here is the logic that goes into what you were referring to. He said that he found comfort in seeing young children die so I asked him if he was pro choice. Afterall it would seem to be comforting to know that all these children went directly to heaven and didn't even have to spend anytime on earth.

But you said you were joking. Oh, wait...that was three lies ago - sorry.

But this is for a different discussion. There is still absolutely zero proof to go against what I said about the doctrine of double effect.

You ARE funny - I'll give you that...

 

[Annie]

Here is the logic that goes into what you were referring to. He said that he found comfort in seeing young children die so I asked him if he was pro choice. Afterall it would seem to be comforting to know that all these children went directly to heaven and didn't even have to spend anytime on earth.

But this is for a different discussion. There is still absolutely zero proof to go against what I said about the doctrine of double effect.[/QUOTE]

'double effect' for Catholocism. ' irreducibly complex ' for ID.

These are the strawmen that PM brings forth. He claims to be senior at LSU, either he is lying or LSU is below par.

 

[Powerman]

Here is the logic that goes into what you were referring to. He said that he found comfort in seeing young children die so I asked him if he was pro choice. Afterall it would seem to be comforting to know that all these children went directly to heaven and didn't even have to spend anytime on earth.

But this is for a different discussion. There is still absolutely zero proof to go against what I said about the doctrine of double effect.

These are the strawmen that PM brings forth. He claims to be senior at LSU, either he is lying or LSU is below par.[/QUOTE]

Kathy I have completely and utterly destroyed you on the ID issue and you know it. You spent half your time looking up various definitions of science and I showed that every last one of them would make ID not science. LSU is a very good school by the way. You would do yourself justice by not saying such absurd things without knowing any better.

I am telling you what I learned from my course in bioethics there. I have offered proof that the doctrine of double effect does in fact state that fetal craniotomies in the case of an ectopic pregnancy are not permissible. What have you offered? Nothing

So either come with something to refute what I said or put a sock in it.

 

[Said1]

I should have also mentioned that certain hospitals often have close affiliations with certain area churches for a number of reasons and would probably be required to the follow the church's stances on many issues.

 

[Powerman]

I should have also mentioned that certain hospitals often have close affiliations with certain area churches for a number of reasons and would probably be required to the follow the church's stances on many issues.

You very well could be right. And thank you for being rational and civil about it.

 

[William Joyce]

Lakeisha was just keepin' it real.

 

[Powerman]

Lakeisha was just keepin' it real.

Lakeisha is about to get e-***** slapped again if she keeps this attitude up :rotflmao:

 

[Annie]

You're very well could be right. And thank you for being rational and civil about it.

You missed something here, she was NOT necessarily agreeing with you.