Life Begins at Conception, Says Department of Health and Human Services

[TomSea]

Ignore them, buddy!   Ignore the trolls who get their jollies this morning savaging you while they're sipping coffee.

You serve as an important member here at TBR, @Jazzhead

You keep the haughty 'local'  Christian coalition flummoxed....the ones that find it necessary to preach/condescend everyone with an alternate opinion.

Sorry, this HHS comes from the Trump administration.  You do understand that? Are you calling the administrations directives "troll" material? This comes from the main offices baby and if you call names over that, I'll take it. Maybe we shoulda elected Hillary.



So, then, if you object to this, you are objecting to what the Trump administration has dictated.

Also, again, poster has sided with Muslims while putting down Christianity, so this is a different kettle of fish.

@DCPatriot

[TomSea]

Trump administration has said this.

Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, etc. uphold the rights of individual states to make their laws by community standards, not the one size fits all Federal Government doing this.

If one takes cheap shots and calls others trolls, perhaps, one should get informed first.

[Jazzhead]

The amount of justification for abject evil and the open hatred and despisement of God's truth on this thread by those who pretend to be Christians is truly enlightening.  I find it illustrative that similar condemnation, ridicule and even threat was received when we refused to surrender Christian principles to vote for Trump as demanded last year.  Familiar handles expressing their disgust with biblical principles being argued against infanticide is not surprising.

The wisdom of self and the world being spouted here by self-identifying followers of Christ as a better morality than the 'evil' of the Word of God is frightening in terms of the depths of delusion they have been taken to.  They have deceived themselves and allowed themselves to be deceived by this world's morality which they declare to be from the Christ they claim is theirs.  They are as ignorant of Him as His Word that they reject and despise.

"Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of iniquity." - Matthew 7:21-23

Doing the Will of the Father in no wise involves the advocacy of and service towards helping women slaughter their infants because they use abortion as a form of birth control. To call that "Compassion" is of an evil not even the Nazis could touch.

In India it is legal to slaughter a little girl up to five years of age because their culture does not recognize a female to be a full human being until she is married.  Despite that culture, this nation has slaughtered millions more children than they have. This people do not recognize an infant in the womb to be a 'viable' human being until some mythical date they choose to justify the baby as being 'alive'.  An entire generation of American children has been ripped to pieces in the womb and dumped upon the altar of convenience and "legality".  Nearly 60 million.  India is a pagan nation and nearly wholly ignorant of the Creator as revealed in scripture.  America was not.  We have no excuse.

Do we think God has not noticed or is going to absolve those whom justify this institutionalized genocide?  We got another thing coming if we do, and I do fear for us. We are not going to be able to declare ignorance on That Day when we all have to answer for what this nation has done with our approval and articulate justifications.  God is not mocked, and even Jefferson stated that he 'trembled for his country when he considered that God is Just, and His Justice will not sleep forever'.

So many have willfully chosen to ignore such wisdom in favor of a Jesus they have constructed from their own imagination at the behest of Prosperity Gospel pimps and their own fleshly desires for justification to embrace evil as a good, while denouncing righteousness as an evil.  Woe to us.

If the civil war was God's judgment upon us in blood for slavery - I tremble at what the cost in blood is going to be required upon this nation for the legal slaughter of infants so we can have sex out of wedlock without consequences. 

The Lord said "Choose life, that you and your descendants may live".

We have chosen death, and it's beyond appalling to read the justifications for it on a site dedicated to Conservative principles that some have obviously discarded along with common decency.

But no one on this thread is defending abortion.   The issue is whether the state, at the behest of "Christians" like yourself,  should determine whether a woman will bear a child, or whether the woman should decide for herself.   Not all of us here, not even all of us who believe in Christ,  think that as conservatives it is the role of the state to enforce Biblical morality.  Rather, that task is best performed by individuals speaking with and helping other individuals,  empathic to the circumstances in which women find themselves, facing the fear and anguish of spending the next 20 years of their lives raising a child alone without the financial and emotional means to do so.   

Meanwhile, your appalling view is that such women merely seek "illicit sex without consequences".  I feel quite safe in saying that is not the attitude that Christ would have,  and that He would condemn such a heartless attitude in those who seek to follow Him. 

My advice to you is to wake up,  except you've insulated yourself against such advice by the trick so many religious zealots use, of putting the rabbit in the hat.  You simply declare that anyone who questions your pronouncements speaks with the devil's tongue, and so must be disregarded by the pious.  Nice racket, that!

We can all think and feel for ourselves - a gift from God, that.   Your heart is made of stone, sir.   Do your best to ponder the true message of Christ.   

 

[thackney]

@TomSea

A fetus is a POTENTIAL human being right up to the point it can exist on it's own outside the mother.

Yes,it DOES have rights as long as it is healthy and continues to evolve into a full-fledged human,but it is NOT an actual human.

So right to life as a human is determined by technology to support the life outside the mother?

And right to life changes as technology changes?

It is not a religious issue.

[Jazzhead]

So right to life as a human is determined by technology to support the life outside the mother?

And right to life changes as technology changes?

It is not a religious issue.

The moral issue and the legal issue are different.  The legal issue is about balancing the woman's liberty interest and the state's interest in protecting the unborn. 

[TomSea]

But no one on this thread is defending abortion.   The issue is whether the state, at the behest of "Christians" like yourself,  should determine whether a woman will bear a child, or whether the woman should decide for herself.   Not all of us here, not even all of us who believe in Christ,  think that as conservatives it is the role of the state to enforce Biblical morality.  Rather, that task is best performed by individuals speaking with and helping other individuals,  empathic to the circumstances in which women find themselves, facing the fear and anguish of spending the next 20 years of their lives raising a child alone without the financial and emotional means to do so.   

Meanwhile, your appalling view is that such women merely seek "illicit sex without consequences".  I feel quite safe in saying that is not the attitude that Christ would have,  and that He would condemn such a heartless attitude in those who seek to follow Him. 

My advice to you is to wake up,  except you've insulated yourself against such advice by the trick so many religious zealots use, of putting the rabbit in the hat.  You simply declare that anyone who questions your pronouncements speaks with the devil's tongue, and so must be disregarded by the pious.  Nice racket, that!

We can all think and feel for ourselves - a gift from God, that.   Your heart is made of stone, sir.   Do your best to ponder the true message of Christ.   

What a load, resurrecting the Christian boogie man, are Christians the only ones who are pro-life? Typical Christian bashing, on top of this, we have the Constitution that was founded and written by Christians, not this secular hogwash. No babies are going to be born from anal sex marriages but I think many defenders of homosexual marriages, leftists, do support abortion to spite the religious right.

And the Constitution and State Rights should determine this, not some irresponsible 19 year old girl who doesn't want to be hassled with an abortion. They could have made other choices before destroying a life.

[TomSea]

The moral issue and the legal issue are different.  The legal issue is about balancing the woman's liberty interest and the state's interest in protecting the unborn.

Well, the states have some rights to and community values. But if one is against the Constitution so be it.  Nobody needs the Nanny state deciding this.

Maybe some states want to be like Wyoming with 2 abortions per capita than New York with over 30 per capita.

[Jazzhead]

What a load, resurrecting the Christian boogie man

May the record show that I did not refer to INVAR as the Christian boogie man.   

[Jazzhead]

Maybe some states want to be like Wyoming with 2 abortions per capita than New York with over 30 per capita.

Demographics likely account for that, not the law.

[INVAR]

But no one on this thread is defending abortion.

Horseshit.  You are, and have gone to great lengths to defend abortion and define helping a woman kill the baby she does not want because she chose to have sex outside of marriage or when it is not convenient, as 'compassion' .

The issue is whether the state, at the behest of "Christians" like yourself,  should determine whether a woman will bear a child, or whether the woman should decide for herself.

You just defended abortion, contrary to the previous sentence you uttered.  You talk out of both sides of your face to disguise what you really stand for.

Not all of us here, not even all of us who believe in Christ,  think that as conservatives it is the role of the state to enforce Biblical morality.

By all means then, we should dispense immediately with all laws that make murder illegal,  make stealing legal, make bearing false witness legal, make slander legal and adultery preferred and marriage illegal since those are enforcements of biblical morality whether you choose to recognize them as such or not.

Rather, that task is best performed by individuals speaking with and helping other individuals,  empathic to the circumstances in which women find themselves, facing the fear and anguish of spending the next 20 years of their lives raising a child alone without the financial and emotional means to do so. 

You do not believe in that at all.   I recall you insisting in a previous discussion that trying to talk a woman out of killing her infant was 'coercion' from "self righteous bigots" and that no one but the woman has any right to interfere with her decision.   You insisted abortion must be kept legal at all costs, and that all women must have the state-sanctioned "right" to determine whether or not to kill her baby with the full taxpayer assistance of medical professionals.

Meanwhile, your appalling view is that such women merely seek "illicit sex without consequences".

Not surprising that you find the truth offensive. Like the one whom you are a willing pawn in service, he too is outraged when Truth shines a light on lies.

I feel quite safe in saying that is not the attitude that Christ would have,  and that He would condemn such a heartless attitude in those who seek to follow Him. 

You follow a Jesus of your own imagination.  You have willfully discarded and ignored His own words and admonitions about repentance and sinning no more, and have then gone to declare such a statement to be self-righteous judgmentally. 

My advice to you is to wake up,  except you've insulated yourself against such advice by the trick so many religious zealots use, of putting the rabbit in the hat.  You simply declare that anyone who questions your pronouncements speaks with the devil's tongue, and so must be disregarded by the pious.  Nice racket, that!

The sheep hear His voice.  You sir, speak in another voice altogether.  That is why you declare the Truth to be a 'racket'.  You do your father's bidding willfully.

We can all think and feel for ourselves - a gift from God, that.   

"There is a way which seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death". - Proverbs 16:25

That is all you promote here.  The way of death, not life.

[roamer_1]

I gotta say that I don't have much sympathy for men in these circumstances.   Sure, it takes two to tango.  But the man's work is done in the first 30 seconds; the woman's burden lasts for nine months. 

No, I don't have much sympathy for men in these circumstances.   And if a man wants to avoid his financial responsibility,  then what the hell, he should have kept his pants zipped.   My fiercest critics on this thread have, unanimously, been blaming the woman,  hectoring her to keep her legs shut, to recognize the consequences of sex.  And then outrageously claiming that most women abort for "convenience".  It's disgraceful, the unrepentant slut-shaming I've encountered on this thread.  And from folks who wear their religion on their sleeve!

 I say that's insensitive and cruel, but perfectly understandable coming from a "Bible-believing Christian",  still in thrall to the patriarchy.   No, I don't have much respect for men in these circumstances.   

As the man goes, so goes the abortion.   

Your hypocrisy on display.

A man's mistake put's him on the dime without recourse for twenty years
But a woman can dispose of her mistake and carry on.

At least be consistent.
If it is fair for the woman to kill the child, it should be just as fair for the man to.

If it is fair for the woman to shirk her responsibility, certainly the man has every right to shirk his.

If it is unfair to burden a woman with a child, then it is equally unfair to burden the man likewise...

But no... according to you, it's perfectly fair to keep a man in thrall for two decades, but it isn't fair to bother a woman to bear that same life to term.

... for exactly the same 'mistake'.

[roamer_1]

And pragmatically, you cannot force a girl/woman to give birth...in order to offer them up for adoption, etc..

As much as we hated the terminology Obama used, he was right.   You cannot saddle a girl/woman with motherhood for 20+ years for a 'mistake' in judgment.

But you sure as hell can saddle the man for exactly the same mistake!

[Jazzhead]

But no... according to you, it's perfectly fair to keep a man in thrall for two decades, but it isn't fair to bother a woman to bear that same life to term.

... for exactly the same 'mistake'.

No, I'm saying that if the woman steps up and takes responsibility, then so should the man.   

Unfortunately, the flip side of that is that if the woman aborts, then the man is off the hook.  Which is why so many woman get pressured by their partner to take care of their little problem. 

As I said above, so goes the man, so goes the abortion. 

Maybe the solution to this is the development of a truly effective male contraceptive.  Interesting, isn't it, that ObamaCare covers free female contraceptives, but not condoms?       

[INVAR]

Your hypocrisy on display.

A man's mistake put's him on the dime without recourse for twenty years
But a woman can dispose of her mistake and carry on.

At least be consistent.
If it is fair for the woman to kill the child, it should be just as fair for the man to.

If it is fair for the woman to shirk her responsibility, certainly the man has every right to shirk his.

If it is unfair to burden a woman with a child, then it is equally unfair to burden the man likewise...

But no... according to you, it's perfectly fair to keep a man in thrall for two decades, but it isn't fair to bother a woman to bear that same life to term.

... for exactly the same 'mistake'.

Exactly so.

Not only this, but isn't it interesting that any discussion of abstinence and keeping sex within the confines of marriage (which would eliminate this entire issue wholesale) is considered 'self-righteous' bigotry and off the table for discussion or consideration?   Instead we get notions about more effective contraceptives rather than advocate people keep it in their pants if they do not want a kid.    The application of biblical morality is eschewed by the Morality-Of-This-World-Crusaders who want to have "freedom" and license to do what feels good, and have sex without consequences while demanding to be free from a seared conscience from anyone whom would consider their behavior to be sinful.

Thus the discussion becomes justification and argumentation of the woman's sacred sacrament and 'moral right' to kill the child that results from sex, sans any involvement or input from the father or the men she copulated with.

In this way - such women are not unlike the woman caught in adultery - who alone was brought before Jesus without the man - contrary to scripture and in violation of the law in order to illustrate Jesus as an evil.  Jesus did not say the law was wrong, or do away with it.  He simply told those who brought the woman caught in the act without the man, that of those eager to stone her - him without sin cast the first stone while Jesus was writing their sins in the sand with His finger.  Lots of Christians like to quote the fact Jesus did not condemn her as some kind of license to do as they please without condemnation.  The command to go and sin no more is ignored - deliberately.  Had the woman been caught again in the act - and Jesus was not around - the penalty as prescribed by the law would have been carried out.

That goes without even mentioning the fact that as Christians it is not the act of sin itself that condemns one to death - but the very thought and heart of one transgressing the entire spirit of the law, not even just the physical commitment of the sin - being regarded as the same thing as having done the deed.

But that is a 'heart of stone' to those whom are ignorant of the Jesus they profess to believe in, but do not.

Instead we get treatises about 'compassion' for those who not only are bearing the consequence of sin, but whom use abortion as a form of birth control, as the industry and her 'choice' being justified and exonerated to commit murder so they can be rid of the consequence of sex.

Evil is good and good is an evil in this age we now live.

[roamer_1]

No, I'm saying that if the woman steps up and takes responsibility, then so should the man.   

Unfortunately, the flip side of that is that if the woman aborts, then the man is off the hook.  Which is why so many woman get pressured by their partner to take care of their little problem. 

As I said above, so goes the man, so goes the abortion. 

Maybe the solution to this is the development of a truly effective male contraceptive.  Interesting, isn't it, that ObamaCare covers free female contraceptives, but not condoms?       

So to you, it is fine that the woman gets to decide the culpability and participation of the man, but not the other way around? You have opined for the right of the woman for self-determination, but do not allow the very same for the man?

Ironically, the only thing you've said that is true, is the very thing I called you on:

And if a man wants to avoid his financial responsibility,  then what the hell, he should have kept his pants zipped.

THAT much is true. Now all you have to do is apply the very same to the woman, and we will agree.
And abortion will no longer be necessary.
and illicit sex will be largely a thing of the past.
and marriage will return in strength.
and children will be raised by two parents...

You know, like it was for millennia prior to this horrid experiment with 'sexual freedom'.
 

[bigheadfred]

in·al·ien·a·ble

[roamer_1]

Exactly so.

Not only this, but isn't it interesting that any discussion of abstinence and keeping sex within the confines of marriage (which would eliminate this entire issue wholesale) is considered 'self-righteous' bigotry and off the table for discussion or consideration?   Instead we get notions about more effective contraceptives rather than advocate people keep it in their pants if they do not want a kid.

LOL! Exactly so - You'll note my post just after yours... GMTA.

With liberty comes responsibility. As I have oft remarked - 'Liberty has responsibilities, Freedom has consequences'. In shorthand, that is the major context of Torah - 'If you keep my commandments, these blessings will be upon you, but if you forget my commandments, these curses await'... As is proven in our culture and society today.

I would rather have liberty than freedom. Thus I study the Law of Liberty, as defined by it's Author.

The application of biblical morality is eschewed by the Morality-Of-This-World-Crusaders who want to have "freedom" and license to do what feels good, and have sex without consequences while demanding to be free from a seared conscience from anyone whom would consider their behavior to be sinful.

Exactly right - exactly. The reality is that there will never be sex without consequence - It is the nature of the thing. And the only way that consequence is legitimated and becomes a blessing is in accepting the responsibility - And that best found in marriage, just as YHWH has said.

Thus the discussion becomes justification and argumentation of the woman's sacred sacrament and 'moral right' to kill the child that results from sex, sans any involvement or input from the father or the men she copulated with.

In this way - such women are not unlike the woman caught in adultery - who alone was brought before Jesus without the man - contrary to scripture and in violation of the law in order to illustrate Jesus as an evil.  Jesus did not say the law was wrong, or do away with it.  He simply told those who brought the woman caught in the act without the man, that of those eager to stone her - him without sin cast the first stone while Jesus was writing their sins in the sand with His finger. 

LOL! Again, precisely right! So many misinterpret that passage! Since Christians by and large are unaware of the 'Old Testament', and are unconcerned with Torah, They turn that very passage into license.

As an aside, why did they bring her to Yeshua instead of to the gate? Why did they give him authority rather than go to the judges? He must have had the right. How so?

That'll break your head.

Lots of Christians like to quote the fact Jesus did not condemn her as some kind of license to do as they please without condemnation. The command to go and sin no more is ignored - deliberately.  Had the woman been caught again in the act - and Jesus was not around - the penalty as prescribed by the law would have been carried out.

That goes without even mentioning the fact that as Christians it is not the act of sin itself that condemns one to death - but the very thought and heart of one transgressing the entire spirit of the law, not even just the physical commitment of the sin - being regarded as the same thing as having done the deed.

But that is a 'heart of stone' to those whom are ignorant of the Jesus they profess to believe in, but do not.

Right again. If anything Yeshua increased the strictures of Torah upon his followers, compared to the common interpretation of Moses.

Instead we get treatises about 'compassion' for those who not only are bearing the consequence of sin, but whom use abortion as a form of birth control, as the industry and her 'choice' being justified and exonerated to commit murder so they can be rid of the consequence of sex.

Evil is good and good is an evil in this age we now live.

Oh but I do have compassion for those who have swallowed the lie whole. And for those that turn from the path to hell - A path I know all too well.

But what else to do but shout rebuke and warning? Often they cannot hear until they have been hit by the train, no matter how much you cry out. 

It is so heartbreaking. But that is the nature of the lie.

[musiclady]

I'm not suggesting either,  ML.   What's your opinion of INVAR's view that women seek abortions because they seek "free illicit sex without consequences"?

@Jazzhead

First, you have to realize that the precise purpose of Margaret Sanger's abortion plans were (in addition to it's racism and desire to create a "perfect" society), was the desire for women to be able to be as promiscuous as men without consequence.

The GOAL of abortion, again aside from eliminating blacks.... another point with which I hope you disagree, but I'm not sure....... was to do exactly what @INVAR said.

The consequence of abortion has achieved Sanger's goal.  Women are disrespected.  Babies are slaughtered by the millions (including 4 out of 5 African-American babies in NYC).  Men are denied their rights (as has been mentioned), and the morals of the country have gone down the sewer.

So, overall, it's such a great thing, that it's no wonder you're here defending it, eh??

btw, you DO need to find out about the REAL Jesus Christ, who He is, what He says, and the standards He sets for us.

Then, perhaps you'll stop bashing people who actually believe what HE says because we know who HE is......

[musiclady]

Just for the record, anyone who called ANYONE on this thread a "troll" is either pathetically mistaken or pathetically dishonest.

Just because people don't agree with you, and state opinions strongly, doesn't mean they're trolls.

Calling them names is just silliness, and shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone.   

[Jazzhead]

So, overall, it's such a great thing, that it's no wonder you're here defending it, eh??

Except I'm not defending abortion.   I'm advocating for better ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies and reduce the frequency of abortion, that are consistent with the Constitution.

If you want to teach Biblical morality, have at it.  There are some who will listen.  And a lot more, alas, who will not.   But for the state to enforce your moral code?   No, that is not the proper role of the state.       

[sneakypete]

I disagree with what you say or how you put it but would fight for your right to say it.

@sneakypete

@TomatoSea 

I am of the same opinion  about what you say. We are either all free to speak our minds,or none of us is free. That is a universal truth too many don't seem to understand.

[INVAR]

Oh but I do have compassion for those who have swallowed the lie whole. And for those that turn from the path to hell - A path I know all too well.

But what else to do but shout rebuke and warning? Often they cannot hear until they have been hit by the train, no matter how much you cry out. 

It is so heartbreaking. But that is the nature of the lie.

True.  For all the accusations of 'lacking compassion' and 'judgmentally' the hedonists and morality-of-this-world advocates try to hang on those of us speaking the truth, the fact is that they are all marching wholesale towards the wide gate that leads to eternal death and destruction.

If we had no 'compassion' we would simply ignore them and let them march unimpeded to their doom and let them suffer the consequences without any understanding about why they are suffering them.  You and I understand Yah's desire in 2 Peter 3:9.  But to those in this age - to decry sin and demand they stop and turn from it is to suffer the wrath of men who have made themselves arbiters of their own morality.

For all the charges of lack of 'compassion' for those doing evil, we do not want to watch mankind march into oblivion for eternity.  So we are charged with being a witness which is necessary so that they have no excuse to state they were never warned or never heard the truth of the need to repent and stop advocating for and doing wickedness while being arrogantly proud of their own gods they have created in their minds.

Go and sin no more was stated for a reason.

This people do not want to hear that.

They want to hear 'sin more and to your heart's content so that Grace may abound'.

Then make the taxpayers foot the bill for the consequences they want 'taken care of'.

[musiclady]

Except I'm not defending abortion.   I'm advocating for better ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies and reduce the frequency of abortion, that are consistent with the Constitution.

If you want to teach Biblical morality, have at it.  There are some who will listen.  And a lot more, alas, who will not.   But for the state to enforce your moral code?   No, that is not the proper role of the state.     

Helloooooo??  What about all the FACTS I posted about the purpose of abortion relative to Invar's statement??

That's what you asked me about, and what I responded to, and you evaded the entire subject to use your dried up old liberal talking points.

Respond to my post, please....... about abortion's goal to allow women to be promiscuous without consequence by killing their babies.

[sneakypete]

If all of this is so, there would be no record of murders committed against married woman and a person being charged with 2 murders.

North Carolina Man Charged for Killing Pregnant Woman, Baby
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/01/19/north-carolina-man-charged-for-killing-pregnant-woman-baby/

HHS said this. They follow dogma I gather.

@sneakypete

@TomSea

Because it is typical of prosecutors to charge people arrested with everything they can think of in order to improve their chances of a conviction,and because the woman was far enough along in her pregnancy that an abortion would have been illegal.

IMHO,the charge is justified if the woman had every intention of carrying the fetus until birth because there is no reason to think it wouldn't have lived to be born. You can't make law on opinions like that,though.

[sneakypete]

The amount of justification for abject evil and the open hatred and despisement of God's truth on this thread by those who pretend to be Christians is truly enlightening.  I find it illustrative that similar condemnation, ridicule and even threat was received when we refused to surrender Christian principles to vote for Trump as demanded last year.

Ain't you "special",comrade?

Familiar handles expressing their disgust with biblical principles being argued against infanticide is not surprising.

Really? You want to go THERE? How about God,in the Old Testament,telling the Christian soldiers to take the babies of a defeated city by their heels and bash their brains out against the city walls to make sure those "evil"' people no longer existed? Come on,Bubba,let's here you call your God a baby killing murderer! Show some balls and be consistent!