The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: TomSea on October 14, 2017, 01:30:20 pm
-
Life Begins at Conception, Says Department of Health and Human Services
October 13, 2017 By Harvest Prude
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) just released their 2018-2022 plan, which unequivocally states that life begins at conception and deserves protection. In the introduction it says,
“HHS accomplishes its mission through programs and initiatives that cover a wide spectrum of activities, serving and protecting Americans at every stage of life, beginning at conception.”
The draft mentions conception five times total. The overwhelmingly pro-life stance in the draft is welcome news to many.
(http://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/ted-cruz.png)
Read more at: http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/13/life-begins-at-conception-says-department-hhs/
Totally agree with Cruz in the above tweet, no matter whom the Republicans elected, as long as they were pro-life, I would vote for them, it be Trump, Cruz and so on.
-
For once, I think this is something that almost everyone agrees on.
-
For once, I think this is something that almost everyone agrees on.
Have you alerted @Jazzhead ? It remains inanimate tissue until he says otherwise.
-
Have you alerted @Jazzhead ? It remains inanimate tissue until he says otherwise.
Nonsense. Of course life begins at conception (actually, at implantation, which is a significant difference). The question is who as a legal matter has dominion over a fetus that is not yet viable. The woman or the state? I say the woman, you say the state. The fundamental problem I have with social conservatism is that it is so cocksure of its moral position that it would force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.
The way to advance that moral position is persuasion, not coercion. It's the better, more effective way. It is also, philosophically, the more conservative way because it respects individual liberty and does not deploy the government gun.
-
Nonsense. Of course life begins at conception (actually, at implantation, which is a significant difference). The question is who as a legal matter has dominion over a fetus that is not yet viable. The woman or the state? I say the woman, you say the state. The fundamental problem I have with social conservatism is that it is so cocksure of its moral position that it would force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.
The way to advance that moral position is persuasion, not coercion. It's the better, more effective way. It is also, philosophically, the more conservative way because it respects individual liberty and does not deploy the government gun.
Well, jazz.......... I'm sure you don't mind that "the state" has laws against your Mom if she kills you, right??
You believe YOU should be protected by law, but you believe a helpless, wee human baby can be killed if his or her Mom doesn't think he or she should be able to live.
Us horrible social conservatives want YOU protected, even if your Mom doesn't want you.
SHAME on us.
-
Or "Quickening?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quickening
-
Well, jazz.......... I'm sure you don't mind that "the state" has laws against your Mom if she kills you, right??
You believe YOU should be protected by law, but you believe a helpless, wee human baby can be killed if his or her Mom doesn't think he or she should be able to live.
Us horrible social conservatives want YOU protected, even if your Mom doesn't want you.
SHAME on us.
You're attempting to reason with an agent of promoting abject evil as a good.
Pearls and swine apply here.
-
You're attempting to reason with an agent of promoting abject evil as a good.
Persuasion is more effective at saving unborn lives than coercion. Why are you so afraid of it?
-
Or "Quickening?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quickening
Good point, TS. There was traditionally a recognition that a woman had legal dominion over the life growing in her body at least until the point of quickening.
-
Good point, TS. There was traditionally a recognition that a woman had legal dominion over the life growing in her body at least until the point of quickening.
"Abortion in early America.
Acevedo Z.
Abstract
This piece describes abortion practices in use from the 1600s to the 19th century among the inhabitants of North America. The abortive techniques of women from different ethnic and racial groups as found in historical literature are revealed. Thus, the point is made that abortion is not simply a "now issue" that effects select women. Instead, it is demonstrated that it is a widespread practice as solidly rooted in our past as it is in the present.
PIP:
Abortion was frequently practiced in North America during the period from 1600 to 1900. Many tribal societies knew how to induce abortions. They used a variety of methods including the use of black root and cedar root as abortifacient agents. During the colonial period, the legality of abortion varied from colony to colony and reflected the attitude of the European country which controlled the specific colony. In the British colonies abortions were legal if they were performed prior to quickening. In the French colonies abortions were frequently performed despite the fact that they were considered to be illegal. In the Spanish and Portuguese colonies abortion was illegal. From 1776 until the mid-1800s abortion was viewed as socially unacceptable; however, abortions were not illegal in most states. During the 1860s a number of states passed anti-abortion laws. Most of these laws were ambiguous and difficult to enforce. After 1860 stronger anti-abortion laws were passed and these laws were more vigorously enforced. As a result, many women began to utilize illegal underground abortion services. Although abortion was legalized in 1970, many women are still forced to obtain illegal abortion or to perform self-abortions due to the economic constraints imposed by the Hyde Amendment and the unavailability of services in many areas. Throughout the colonial period and during the early years of the republic, the abortion situation for slave women was different than for other women. Slaves were subject to the rules of their owners, and the owners refused to allow their slaves to terminate pregnancies. The owners wanted their slaves to produce as many children as possible since these children belonged to the slave owners. This situation persisted until the end of the slavery era"
Note: "The British colonies," became the USA.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10297561
-
Nonsense. Of course life begins at conception (actually, at implantation, which is a significant difference). The question is who as a legal matter has dominion over a fetus that is not yet viable. The woman or the state? I say the woman, you say the state. The fundamental problem I have with social conservatism is that it is so cocksure of its moral position that it would force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.
No, The legal question indeed revolves around when life begins. Roe v. Wade is rendered moot if life begins at conception.
A woman having to bear a child to term is a small price to pay in the course and defense of the life of the child.
If life does in fact begin at conception, then what you defend is a woman's right to murder.
Against the right of the father.
And against the life of the child.
-
Persuasion is more effective at saving unborn lives than coercion. Why are you so afraid of it?
Why are you afraid of admitting that the dreaded "state" (that you pretend to oppose) protects you from being murdered by your mother, but that you think that innocent children should be murdered if their mothers don't want to give birth to them.............. for whatever reason they can come up with?
Why do you have such conflicted views about who's valuable enough to live and who's not?
And why are you so arrogant as to think YOU are more important than THEY are??
@Jazzhead
-
If the union of a human sperm an a human egg is not a human being what the heck is it?
-
Why do you have such conflicted views about who's valuable enough to live and who's not?
And why are you so arrogant as to think YOU are more important than THEY are??
@Jazzhead
I am of no importance. I maintain simply that a woman has dominion over the decision to reproduce. Not the state. Not until quickening or, perhaps, the point where pain can be felt.
-
Persuasion is more effective at saving unborn lives than coercion. Why are you so afraid of it?
You persuade no one but yourself.
-
I am of no importance. I maintain simply that a woman has dominion over the decision to reproduce. Not the state. Not until quickening or, perhaps, the point where pain can be felt.
You apparently aren't well-informed enough to realize how deeply and permanently harmful having an abortion is to a woman.
Abortion is the worst thing that's happened to the progress and equality of women in America. It degrades women, it kills FAR more little girls than little boys, it harms bodies, souls and spirits.
If you cared about women........ really............ you'd oppose abortion with the same fervor that you promote and defend it here.
And DO stop using that idiotic argument about "the state" as though you actually care about limiting the power of government. It is "the state" that made up the "right" to abortion, and it is "the state" that is responsible for enforcing this hideous law and harming millions of women all over the country.
Your leftist argument is bogus. You are ANTI woman.
-
Persuasion is more effective at saving unborn lives than coercion. Why are you so afraid of it?
And that's rather condescending, "coercion", maybe those being coerced are those young girls who are too confused to know what to do.
-
You apparently aren't well-informed enough to realize how deeply and permanently harmful having an abortion is to a woman.
Abortion is the worst thing that's happened to the progress and equality of women in America. It degrades women, it kills FAR more little girls than little boys, it harms bodies, souls and spirits.
If you cared about women........ really............ you'd oppose abortion with the same fervor that you promote and defend it here.
And DO stop using that idiotic argument about "the state" as though you actually care about limiting the power of government. It is "the state" that made up the "right" to abortion, and it is "the state" that is responsible for enforcing this hideous law and harming millions of women all over the country.
Your leftist argument is bogus. You are ANTI woman.
+1.
I could interpret it as being a sexist argument that JH is making.
-
Nonsense. Of course life begins at conception (actually, at implantation, which is a significant difference). The question is who as a legal matter has dominion over a fetus that is not yet viable. The woman or the state? I say the woman, you say the state. The fundamental problem I have with social conservatism is that it is so cocksure of its moral position that it would force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.
The way to advance that moral position is persuasion, not coercion. It's the better, more effective way. It is also, philosophically, the more conservative way because it respects individual liberty and does not deploy the government gun.
I know you will refuse to, but can you let us all know how you define the word 'viable'?
Absent an effective definition, viability begins when life begins, at conception.
-
Good point, TS. There was traditionally a recognition that a woman had legal dominion over the life growing in her body at least until the point of quickening.
IMHO..a woman has legal dominion over her body because she has access to birth control, or an aspirin held tightly her knees.
After that..all bets are off. You are hosting another human being.
-
IMHO..a woman has legal dominion over her body because she has access to birth control, or an aspirin held tightly her knees.
After that..all bets are off. You are hosting another human being.
It is an indisputable fact of life that you cannot have personal liberty without also accepting personal responsibility.
-
I am of no importance. I maintain simply that a woman has dominion over the decision to reproduce. Not the state. Not until quickening or, perhaps, the point where pain can be felt.
Even if you don't believe that life begins at conception, quickening is a pretty poor measure considering that a woman who has previously carried a child can recognize a baby's movements in the womb weeks before a first-time mother usually does.
-
+1.
I could interpret it as being a sexist argument that JH is making.
I completely agree.
The damage abortion has done to women is immeasurable.
Advocating that mothers have the right to kill their own children is reprehensible.
@Jazzhead has been taken in by the leftist lie that abortion is compassionate toward women, when it is extremely sexist against women.
(And I haven't even brought in the femicide taking place all over the world because of this hideous "right" that leftists around the world have made up out of whole cloth. The wholesale slaughter of infant girls is one of the greatest crimes against humanity ever committed).
-
Absent an effective definition, viability begins when life begins, at conception.
Actually, there is a definition of viability:
fetal viability
The ability of a fetus to survive outside of the womb. Historically, a fetus was considered to be capable of living at the end of gestational week 20 when the mother had felt fetal movement (quickening) and the fetal heart tones could be auscultated with a fetoscope.
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fetal+viability
Surviving outside the womb includes supporting the (premature) baby with up-to-date medicine.
-
Actually, there is a definition of viability:
Surviving outside the womb includes supporting the (premature) baby with up-to-date medicine.
So how does an abortionist know whether he is committing murder or just taking a life, which begins at birth as @Jazzhead declared?
-
So how does an abortionist know whether he is committing murder or just taking a life, which begins at birth as @Jazzhead declared?
As of now, abortion is based on when life becomes viable, not when life begins. (We'll have to see how the administration's change affects the laws on the books.)
So right now until viability the mother is considered a "host" of sorts and controls the future of the pregnancy (not even the biological father has a legal say). Abortions performed before viability as defined in the previous post are legal. Technically those performed at or after viability are not, but often "the health of the mother" is the go to reason for the late term abortion.
The federal Born-Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002 amends the legal definitions of "person," "human being," "child" and "individual" to include any fetus that survives an abortion procedure. The federal law requires doctors to attempt to keep alive a fetus that survives an abortion. (https://definitions.uslegal.com/f/fetus/ )
-
Totally agree with Cruz in the above tweet,...
Then you should be deliriously happy with the President:
(http://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/operation-rescue.png)
-
As of now, abortion is based on when life becomes viable, not when life begins. (We'll have to see how the administration's change affects the laws on the books.)
So right now until viability the mother is considered a "host" of sorts and controls the future of the pregnancy (not even the biological father has a legal say). Abortions performed before viability as defined in the previous post are legal. Technically those performed at or after viability are not, but often "the health of the mother" is the go to reason for the late term abortion.
The federal Born-Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002 amends the legal definitions of "person," "human being," "child" and "individual" to include any fetus that survives an abortion procedure. The federal law requires doctors to attempt to keep alive a fetus that survives an abortion. (https://definitions.uslegal.com/f/fetus/ )
Once again, how does one establish 'viability' prior to performing an abortion of this life?
It seems from the way you describe it viability is only known once the actual abortion has taken place. Of course, I understand abortion procedure sometime involve sucking the brains out of the infant prior to it leaving the womb in order to prevent an otherwise viable child from being born.
-
Persuasion is more effective at saving unborn lives than coercion. Why are you so afraid of it?
Really? We had few abortions when it was legal? Is that your claim?
-
The natural environment of a 20 week old fetus is not outside the womb and is perfectly viable inside.
-
Here is the link to the HHS Full Strategic Plan: https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/hhs-draft-strategic-plan-fy2018-2022.pdf
Strategic Goal 3 begins at 844:
Strategic Goal 3: Strengthen the Economic and Social Well-Being of Americans across the Lifespan
A core component of the HHS mission is our dedication to serve all Americans from conception to natural death, but especially those individuals and populations facing or at high risk for economic and social well-being challenges, through effective human services. HHS efforts to improve human services include efforts to support socially and economically safe, stable environments for individuals, families, and communities. This strategic goal also focuses on HHS efforts to improve outcomes for children and families, older adults, people with disabilities,.....
-
Here is the link to the HHS Full Strategic Plan: https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/hhs-draft-strategic-plan-fy2018-2022.pdf
Strategic Goal 3 begins at 844:
Wow. Cradle to the grave... Sounds sooooo conservative.
-
Once again, how does one establish 'viability' prior to performing an abortion of this life?
Here's the law:
fetal viability
The ability of a fetus to survive outside of the womb. Historically, a fetus was considered to be capable of living at the end of gestational week 20 when the mother had felt fetal movement (quickening) and the fetal heart tones could be auscultated with a fetoscope.
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fetal+viability
If the doctor gets it wrong and the fetus medically assessed not to be viable actually is, under the federal Born-Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002 he/she must attempt to keep the baby alive (with up-to-date medicine) (https://definitions.uslegal.com/f/fetus/ )
-
The natural environment of a 20 week old fetus is not outside the womb and is perfectly viable inside.
Completely agree. But abortion law defines "viability" as outside the womb (able to live on its own with up-to-date medical support, as required)
-
It seems from the way you describe it viability ...
I am not describing viability, the definition is federal law.
-
Wow. Cradle to the grave... Sounds sooooo conservative.
You're missing the points. This defines life as "at conception" (not cradle) and death as "natural" (repudiating euthanasia)
-
You're missing the points. This defines life as "at conception" (not cradle) and death as "natural" (repudiating euthanasia)
No, I am not missing the point. You are.
-
No, I am not missing the point. You are.
Nope you're wrong ... and I don't care how many times you post it, so save your energy.
-
If the union of a human sperm an a human egg is not a human being what the heck is it?
A zygote.
Is a seed a tree? Is a foundation a house? Is a stack of paper a novel?
Perhaps they are all potentials.
After all, at least 1/3 of all zygotes -- perhaps a majority of them -- pass out of a woman's body without her ever even being aware a conception occurred. Do we know that each was given a soul just to be discarded? Or perhaps that arrives at some later point?
-
A zygote.
Is a seed a tree? Is a foundation a house? Is a stack of paper a novel?
Perhaps they are all potentials.
After all, at least 1/3 of all zygotes -- perhaps a majority of them -- pass out of a woman's body without her ever even being aware a conception occurred. Do we know that each was given a soul just to be discarded? Or perhaps that arrives at some later point?
And I don't know the science of it but, it seems some of them have DNA which would seem to point towards it being a person.
@Suppressed
-
You apparently aren't well-informed enough to realize how deeply and permanently harmful having an abortion is to a woman.
Abortion is the worst thing that's happened to the progress and equality of women in America. It degrades women, it kills FAR more little girls than little boys, it harms bodies, souls and spirits.
If you cared about women........ really............ you'd oppose abortion with the same fervor that you promote and defend it here.
What makes your think I support abortion? I oppose abortion the same as you do, and for many of the same reasons. It's a horrible choice. But it must, until viability or quickening or the point where fetal pain can be felt, be a legal choice.
It is not the state's place, in a Constitutional republic that respects the right of the individual, to force a woman to reproduce. Should she have kept her legs shut if she wasn't ready to have a baby? Of course - but so what. You're not the boss of her, and neither is the doggone government. You are making a moral argument, and backing it up by insisting that your moral condemnation of her mistake instead be a coercive directive backed up by force of law.
That is where we disagree. I say persuade her to do the right thing. Give her some money and support to do the right thing. Tell her all the terrible consequences to her future psyche if she goes through with an abortion, and what is precious that will be lost even if she has to see her baby born only to be given over to be raised by another. It'll be more effective coming from you, spoken in an atmosphere of love and respect, than it ever will be coming from a punitive state.
-
Even if you don't believe that life begins at conception, quickening is a pretty poor measure considering that a woman who has previously carried a child can recognize a baby's movements in the womb weeks before a first-time mother usually does.
Acknowledging the woman's dominion at least until quickening is traditional. Another point in time to consider is the point at which the fetus can feel pain. Lastly is viability, which is where the law is probably evolving, with the legal definition expressed, I believe, as a number of designated weeks following implantation.
-
I don't know when life begins, I think only G-d does. At conception or at quickening?
Some women know an hour after they are pregnant, they can feel it.
-
What makes your think I support abortion? I oppose abortion the same as you do, and for many of the same reasons. It's a horrible choice. But it must, until viability or quickening or the point where fetal pain can be felt, be a legal choice.
It is not the state's place, in a Constitutional republic that respects the right of the individual, to force a woman to reproduce. Should she have kept her legs shut if she wasn't ready to have a baby? Of course - but so what. You're not the boss of her, and neither is the doggone government. You are making a moral argument, and backing it up by insisting that your moral condemnation of her mistake instead be a coercive directive backed up by force of law.
That is where we disagree. I say persuade her to do the right thing. Give her some money and support to do the right thing. Tell her all the terrible consequences to her future psyche if she goes through with an abortion, and what is precious that will be lost even if she has to see her baby born only to be given over to be raised by another. It'll be more effective coming from you, spoken in an atmosphere of love and respect, than it ever will be coming from a punitive state.
You manage to talk around the issue, evade, and use liberal talking points, all the while being deceitful about pro-lifers.
It is the pro-life movement that has been compassionate......... that has persuaded, that has provided for the needs of Moms and babies, that has treated women with respect.
It is you on the left, advocating abortion (yes you do, and on a daily basis here), who are in complete denial of the permanent harm abortion does to women.
Why did you not respond to my comments about the lack of compassion and degradation of women that abortion causes?
Why do you keep talking about the "state" as if people like you haven't used the state to make killing babies legal.
The whole "let women kill their babies" was from the left and the state, and was not done legally. The whole "reproductive rights" argument is a lie, and yet you believe it and promote it with your heart and soul.
Why not become a compassionate, caring human being, @Jazzhead , and oppose abortion to protect women and children?
Why don't you care about women? Why don't you care about children?
And most importantly here, why do you lie repeatedly about those of us who do? Why is it so important to you to malign the movement that respects women? Pro-life conservatives.
Why??
-
Why do you keep talking about the "state" as if people like you haven't used the state to make killing babies legal.
Simple. People like Jazzy who push the Leftist agenda are opposed to the 'state' upholding biblical morality, virtue and religion - but at the exact same time, are wholeheartedly in favor of USING the state to IMPOSE their wicked and perverted morality upon the rest of us via punishment, pain and imprisonment along with intimidation and threat.
-
Here's the law:
If the doctor gets it wrong and the fetus medically assessed not to be viable actually is, under the federal Born-Alive Infant Protection Act of 2002 he/she must attempt to keep the baby alive (with up-to-date medicine) (https://definitions.uslegal.com/f/fetus/ )
Nope, don't hide behind a law.
I am asking how a doctor who is asked to perform an abortion, can determine that a fetus is viable BEFORE the procedure.
If he sticks a suction device into the brain and sucks it out during the procedure, everyone can be assured the fetus is no longer viable, although it could have been viable prior to the time HE CAUSED IT to no longer be viable.
Help me understand. @Jazzhead already said that fetus represent a life, so it seems there must be some ironclad, 100% surety somebody is not killing a viable child before one undertakes an abortion and terminates a life.
-
You're not the boss of her, and neither is the doggone government.
Where that argument breaks down if she waits until well after the child is born, the government does force her to spend her time and money to take care of the child. If she abandon the child, she can be sued to pay child support. (as was done with my niece)
She does not get to kill the child if she finds it inconvenient after the child is born. The same should apply before.
-
It's off-topic to the conversation but, since it seems one person seems to often slight Christianity though they say they are one themselves, who feeds the hungry of the world? In Africa and elsewhere? Yes, we see some charities over there and I'm not going to lump that religion in with all others and the atheists and secularists aren't over there en masse either.
-
Nope, don't hide behind a law. I am asking how a doctor who is asked to perform an abortion, can determine that a fetus is viable BEFORE the procedure. ....
I'm not hiding, period @IsailedawayfromFR If you want to know how the law is interpreted and applied, ask a doctor.
-
Where that argument breaks down if she waits until well after the child is born, the government does force her to spend her time and money to take care of the child. If she abandon the child, she can be sued to pay child support. (as was done with my niece)
She does not get to kill the child if she finds it inconvenient after the child is born. The same should apply before.
Is not the essence of the debate when the fetus becomes a child? @thackney As of now, that moment is defined as at viability outside the womb.
-
Is not the essence of the debate when the fetus becomes a child? @thackney As of now, that moment is defined as at viability outside the womb.
By law yes. In reality no!
-
I'm not hiding, period @IsailedawayfromFR If you want to know how the law is interpreted and applied, ask a doctor.
No, it is not how the law is interpreted. Don't need to interpret the plain English language. I can read It says 20 weeks.
It is how 20 weeks is declared as the viable vs non-viable. Sucking out the brains of a viable human being vs just a piece of tissue seems to me to be something quite important to anybody with any morality, doesn't it?
-
Is not the essence of the debate when the fetus becomes a child? @thackney As of now, that moment is defined as at viability outside the womb.
There you go again. Viability outside the womb. Is there viability inside the womb? If so, how does one determine that? Remember, life begins at conception as per @Jazzhead .
-
Is not the essence of the debate when the fetus becomes a child? @thackney As of now, that moment is defined as at viability outside the womb.
I was responding to:
"You're not the boss of her, and neither is the doggone government."
My point was when it comes to protecting another life, that wasn't a true statement.
-
Remember, life begins at conception as per @Jazzhead .
@IsailedawayfromFR
IIRC, @Jazzhead said implantation, not conception.
-
There you go again. Viability outside the womb. Is there viability inside the womb? If so, how does one determine that? Remember, life begins at conception as per @Jazzhead .
No one is debating the viability of a fetus inside the womb @IsailedawayfromFR The discussion I was participating in is about abortion and when abortion falls outside the definition of legal. The legality or illegality of the procedure is based on the viability of the fetus outside the womb. And, for the last time ... if you want to know how viability is determined prior to an abortion, ask a doctor.
We have yet to see how the administration's definition of life beginning at conception changes established abortion "protocol". It may change it profoundly, or not at all since the fundamental question in abortion is not if the fetus is life, but when the life becomes viable outside the womb.
You appear to be very passionate about this issue. While working to change the current law, might I suggest some of your passionate energy be spent expanding "choice" to include other options and services--such as financial and emotional support for the expectant mother and easier avenues for adoption?
This is all I have to say on this.
Thanks.
-
I was responding to:
"You're not the boss of her, and neither is the doggone government."
My point was when it comes to protecting another life, that wasn't a true statement.
Got it. Thanks!
-
@IsailedawayfromFR
IIRC, @Jazzhead said implantation, not conception.
I can read what he wrote. Can you?
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,285911.msg1483035.html#msg1483035
-
No one is debating the viability of a fetus inside the womb @IsailedawayfromFR The discussion I was participating in is about abortion and when abortion falls outside the definition of legal. The legality or illegality of the procedure is based on the viability of the fetus outside the womb. And, for the last time ... if you want to know how viability is determined prior to an abortion, ask a doctor.
We have yet to see how the administration's definition of life beginning at conception changes established abortion "protocol". It may change it profoundly, or not at all since the fundamental question in abortion is not if the fetus is life, but when the life becomes viable outside the womb.
You appear to be very passionate about this issue. While working to change the current law, might I suggest some of your passionate energy be spent expanding "choice" to include other options and services--such as financial and emotional support for the expectant mother and easier avenues for adoption?
This is all I have to say on this.
Thanks.
I thought we were talking about life, which begins at conception, and whether murder is committed when it is terminated due to unnatural causes.
I know you think it is just tissue, but most people think otherwise.
-
I thought we were talking about life, which begins at conception, and whether murder is committed when it is terminated due to unnatural causes.
I know you think it is just tissue, but most people think otherwise.
I have never, ever heard a woman exclaim: "I'm having a fetus!" **nononono*
The truth of it is known, inherently, by any and every woman.
-
I have never, ever heard a woman exclaim: "I'm having a fetus!" **nononono*
The truth of it is known, inherently, by any and every woman.
The abortion issue should be about creating the conditions for abortion to be unnecessary, or as rare as possible. Instead, it has become an existential struggle of women seeking to protect their right to self-determination against encroachment by the state in the name of religion.
Stated simply, women cannot gain full equality with men if the state forces them to reproduce. That is a choice that can only be made by women themselves. For that reason, pro-lifers cannot win this battle - and if they truly want to save lives, the paradigm must shift from coercion to persuasion.
-
Stated simply, women cannot gain full equality with men if the state forces them to reproduce. That is a choice that can only be made by women themselves.
If it were the state impregnating them, you might have an argument.
-
I am of no importance. I maintain simply that a woman has dominion over the decision to reproduce. Not the state. Not until quickening or, perhaps, the point where pain can be felt.
@Jazzhead If a woman does not wish to reproduce than she should either not engage in intercourse, or have herself sterilized. Once conception has occurred the only decision is what to name the child.
-
@Jazzhead If a woman does not wish to reproduce than she should either not engage in intercourse, or have herself sterilized. Once conception has occurred the only decision is what to name the child.
That may well be your position as a father vis a vis your daughter. It is not a position that may be taken as a coercive matter by the state. Women are not chattel. The government may not deny a woman's fundamental liberty to decide FOR HERSELF whether to carry a non-viable fetus to term.
Don't like that? Then utilize your powers of persuasion. (I'd suggest a bit more empathy and compassion, but, hey, if you think sexist bullying helps, then go for it.)
-
That may well be your position as a father vis a vis your daughter. It is not a position that may be taken as a coercive matter by the state. Women are not chattel. The government may not deny a woman's fundamental liberty to decide FOR HERSELF whether to carry a non-viable fetus to term.
Don't like that? Then utilize your powers of persuasion. (I'd suggest a bit more empathy and compassion, but, hey, if you think sexist bullying helps, then go for it.)
88finger point
What's next? Muslims are our neighbors and friends while you slam a religion that feeds millions of the hungry a day?
Resorting to name-calling for arguments and again, accuses others of being coercive while he stands up for the state to take lives away just like in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s.
How sick, it's not a human life, we might as well have Cecil Richards, head of Planned Parenthood here, same demented arguments, "well, let's not trouble a woman from killing her child".
-
Abortion as a sake of convenience, to throw a life away. That is what we are talking about.
Why limit it to that? Allow parents to kill their children until their 18th birthday? Being facetious of course.
-
The abortion issue should be about creating the conditions for abortion to be unnecessary, or as rare as possible. Instead, it has become an existential struggle of women seeking to protect their right to self-determination against encroachment by the state in the name of religion.
Stated simply, women cannot gain full equality with men if the state forces them to reproduce. That is a choice that can only be made by women themselves. For that reason, pro-lifers cannot win this battle - and if they truly want to save lives, the paradigm must shift from coercion to persuasion.
Of all the nonsensical things you have said in defense of killing unborn children under the faux argument that it's good for women, and that somehow small government pro-life conservatives are villains, this is the DUMBEST.
You just don't care what the truth is, do you, @Jazzhead? You just keep repeating the lies ad nauseum.
The only question is whether you believe the stuff you vomit, or are you just playing a sick game.......
I am perhaps the only feminist on this board. I have been fighting for equality for women since my childhood. I am fully aware of the inequities, and I will defend women's equality to the death.
But what you are arguing is pure GARBAGE. Your pretense of wanting women equal is an exercise in abject absurdity.
You don't care one tiny bit about women, nor our supposed "rights."
And while I'm at it, you don't care about African-Americans either. Because what you are arguing for here, is the death of millions of minority children, as per the wishes of Margaret Sanger, to annihilate the black population.
Congratulations for being the most backwards, racist, sexist person on this board.
Keep it up. Keep belittling women. Keep advocating permanent emotional and physical damage for women.
Your vile, deceitful words make me sick.
-
Ron Paul, though many of us may not like what he often says, was a practicing gynecologist, he says life begins at birth and that he knew from personal experience, there have been doctors who performed many abortions but then, they stopped because they came to the conclusion they were doing a gross long.
We are really seeing a feminist argument put up here.
-
Of all the nonsensical things you have said in defense of killing unborn children under the faux argument that it's good for women, and that somehow small government pro-life conservatives are villains, this is the DUMBEST.
You just don't care what the truth is, do you, @Jazzhead? You just keep repeating the lies ad nauseum.
The only question is whether you believe the stuff you vomit, or are you just playing a sick game.......
I am perhaps the only feminist on this board. I have been fighting for equality for women since my childhood. I am fully aware of the inequities, and I will defend women's equality to the death.
But what you are arguing is pure GARBAGE. Your pretense of wanting women equal is an exercise in abject absurdity.
You don't care one tiny bit about women, nor our supposed "rights."
And while I'm at it, you don't care about African-Americans either. Because what you are arguing for here, is the death of millions of minority children, as per the wishes of Margaret Sanger, to annihilate the black population.
Congratulations for being the most backwards, racist, sexist person on this board.
Keep it up. Keep belittling women. Keep advocating permanent emotional and physical damage for women.
Your vile, deceitful words make me sick.
You support the notion of women as chattel. You are one phony feminist.
Abortion is as terrible as you say it is. Still, it is a woman's choice, not that state's. Why are you so afraid of your ability to persuade others to do the right thing? (Hint - lay off the name calling. The women you despise are human beings, caught on the horns of a terrible dilemma, often without a partner or other shoulder to cry on. Spend your time and energy to HELP THEM, not hector me because I dare to disagree with you.)
-
That may well be your position as a father vis a vis your daughter. It is not a position that may be taken as a coercive matter by the state. Women are not chattel. The government may not deny a woman's fundamental liberty to decide FOR HERSELF whether to carry a non-viable fetus to term.
Don't like that? Then utilize your powers of persuasion. (I'd suggest a bit more empathy and compassion, but, hey, if you think sexist bullying helps, then go for it.)
@Jazzhead Your position is completely amoral.
-
You support the notion of women as chattel. You are one phony feminist.
Abortion is as terrible as you say it is. Still, it is a woman's choice, not that state's. Why are you so afraid of your ability to persuade others to do the right thing? (Hint - lay off the name calling. The women you despise are human beings, caught on the horns of a terrible dilemma, often without a partner or other shoulder to cry on. Spend your time and energy to HELP THEM, not hector me because I dare to disagree with you.)
There is no such thing as a real feminist who supports the harm that abortion does against women, femicide, racism, and degradation............ not to mention the murder of innocents.
You're talking about politically leftist pseudo-feminism. That's what you believe in, and are arguing, and it's entirely made up of lies.
You have ZERO respect for women, and I'll put my 68 years of being a woman and fighting for equality against your phony internet copy and paste leftist nonsense any day.
You vomit what you are told. I LIVE what I believe.
It is YOU who want women in bondage, and every single time you get on a pro-life thread and argue for the death of children you prove that your desire is to keep women from true freedom.
Wake up, little boy. You know nothing, and you advertise it every time you get on these threads and spew your leftist lies.
Liberals hate women. Stop being a hater.
-
@Jazzhead Your position is completely amoral.
@Jazzhead's position is amoral, sexist, and bullying.
-
@Jazzhead Your position is completely amoral.
I support individual liberty. I oppose abortion. That means I seek to persuade, not coerce. If that makes me "amoral", then so be it.
-
I support individual liberty. I oppose abortion. That means I seek to persuade, not coerce. If that makes me "amoral", then so be it.
Just for the record, as a woman who believes in equality and respect for women, I am done arguing with you....... a typical sexist liberal who wants women in bondage, and tries to bully people on the internet into believing liberal swill. (Stop it with that "persuasion" poppycock).
Just realize that we've got your number here, @Jazzhead.
You don't care about women. You care about leftist politics. You want the state to keep women in slavery just like every other leftist shill.
Carry on..........
-
There is no such thing as a real feminist who supports the harm that abortion does against women, femicide, racism, and degradation............ not to mention the murder of innocents.
Stop hyperventilating. Calm down. And stop lying about my position: I DO NOT SUPPORT ABORTION.
You think criminalizing abortion is consistent with American values of individual liberty as protected by our Constitution. I disagree - when the fetus is not yet viable the woman must have the freedom to decide for herself. It is her body, and she has dominion over her body, not the state. How can you be a "feminist" and believe otherwise?
Note that NOTHING I have stated above prevents you and other pro-lifers from doing your utmost to persuade a woman in dire circumstances to do the right thing. IT CAN BE DONE. What are you so afraid of? Make your moral arguments, lend your sympathy, support and compassion. My point is simply and only that you cannot demand that your moral argument be imposed at the point of a government gun.
-
Just for the record, as a woman who believes in equality and respect for women, I am done arguing with you....... a typical sexist liberal who wants women in bondage, and tries to bully people on the internet into believing liberal swill. Carry on..........
Belief in individual liberty is "liberal swill"?
-
@Jazzhead's position is amoral, sexist, and bullying.
Immoral, amoral, deceitful, wicked, evil, despotic, and under the guise of being an angel of light.
He is just a willful tool for the god of this age.
-
Immoral, amoral, deceitful, wicked, evil, despotic, and under the guise of being an angel of light.
He is just a willful tool for the god of this age.
But my little dog Baxter loves me.
-
Of course life begins at conception (actually, at implantation, which is a significant difference). The question is who as a legal matter has dominion over a fetus that is not yet viable.
A baby two months after birth is just as non-viable as a baby two months before birth. Leave them alone, and both will die.
The woman or the state? I say the woman, you say the state.
Not true. You say the state, in the form of tyrants wearing black robes. You staunchly oppose society formulating its own policy in regard to this, preferring instead the mandates of an tyrannical court who bases its decision purely on fiat with zero regard for the Constitution of the United States of America.
The fundamental problem I have with social conservatism is that it is so cocksure of its moral position that it would force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.
If the pregnancy was unwanted, then why did the woman engage in a practice that leads to pregnancy? Can't have it both ways. At some point, we must be held accountable for our actions. Men certainly are. Why not women?
The way to advance that moral position is persuasion, not coercion. It's the better, more effective way.
The better, more effective way is to allow the members of a society to collectively determine the moral position under which that society will be bound. This of course is something that you vehemently oppose, which is typical of tyrants. You believe that your moral position should be imposed upon society instead - not allowing society to formulate its own voice with the establishment of its own laws.
It is also, philosophically, the more conservative way because it respects individual liberty and does not deploy the government gun.
The government gun? Seriously? It is you that is holding the government gun here, prohibiting the people of each state to formulate its own laws in this regard. You do the exact same thing with same-sex marriage, rejecting state law in favor of an overpowering federal judiciary holding a gun to the head of California.
-
I am of no importance. I maintain simply that a woman has dominion over the decision to reproduce.
Once a woman becomes pregnant with a separate unique human life living inside of her, she has reproduced. Yes, it was her decision. And yes, she has already made that choice.
Yet that is not what you advocate at all. You are advocating that AFTER a woman has reproduced, she should have the 'liberty' [sic] to kill the product of that reproduction - a unique singular human life with its very own unique DNA.
-
@Jazzhead's position is amoral, sexist, and bullying.
Getting this message heard is and has been the quintessential challenge for the pro-life position. A softer, more humane approach than the one illustrated in the above quoted post may be more successful. Finger pointing and virtue signaling have proven time and again to shut down meaningful, substantive dialogue and make enemies of those we are trying to befriend.
If we are essentially and profoundly right, then they are essentially and profoundly wrong. And this is no place to be if we truly want to make changes and save lives.
Explaining, not preaching, the affects of abortion on a woman's body and soul is a place to start. Tangible support along with attainable options beyond abortion are also needed --- and are our responsibility to provide.
Recognizing that in today's world changing one heart, one mind and helping one of God's gifts into the world may be more effective than trying to erase 44 years of "settled law" in the next speech, the next campaign promise, the next election. These are important, but not enough.
I am suggesting a change in strategy, not objective. Change enough hearts and minds --- one at a time --- and it won't matter what the Supreme Court says.
-
What makes your think I support abortion?
Because contrary to the Constitution of the United States of America, you vehemently advocate that the right of the State of Georgia be denied in formulating their own abortion laws according to the will of the people that live there. It is the type of tyranny that you support in order to maintain your previously stated position that "abortion must remain legal".
Typically, people who do not support abortion also do not ever utter statements like that.
It's a horrible choice. But it must, until viability or quickening or the point where fetal pain can be felt, be a legal choice.
Speaking of legal choice, do you have a legal basis for that? Or is your basis simply black-robed tyranny?
It is not the state's place, in a Constitutional republic that respects the right of the individual, to force a woman to reproduce.
No one is forcing a woman to reproduce. But then you know that already. Yet here you are once again lying about it.
Should she have kept her legs shut if she wasn't ready to have a baby? Of course - but so what.
So what? The consequence of that action can lead to the creation of human life. (i.e. reproducing)
You are making a moral argument, and backing it up by insisting that your moral condemnation of her mistake instead be a coercive directive backed up by force of law.
And you are making a moral argument and backing it up by insisting that your moral opinion of her situation be backed up - not by the force of law, but by the force of a gun.
And then there are those like myself who love the Constitution and who believe the members of a society should have the right to formulate their own laws.
That is where we disagree. I say persuade her to do the right thing. Give her some money and support to do the right thing. Tell her all the terrible consequences to her future psyche if she goes through with an abortion, and what is precious that will be lost even if she has to see her baby born only to be given over to be raised by another. It'll be more effective coming from you, spoken in an atmosphere of love and respect, than it ever will be coming from a punitive state.
That is not at all what you are saying. You are saying that the State of Arizona should ignore the Constitution, ignore the will of its own people, and ignore its very own laws, and accept the edict of someone wearing a black robe that happens to agree with you. Every person in America could vote for abortion to be illegal, yet you would still be supporting the tyranny of the court by advocating that 'it must remain legal'. And how do I know this? Because you are already ignoring the Constitution of the United States of America - choosing instead that very same tyranny of the court.
-
Belief in individual liberty is "liberal swill"?
What about the liberty of individuals to assemble, petition their government, and elect legislators to formulate laws that represent the will of that group of individuals? Because when it comes to that type of liberty, you side with tyranny every single time.
-
As of now, abortion is based on when life becomes viable, not when life begins.
No, it isn't. Abortion is based solely upon the fiat of unelected judges.
(We'll have to see how the administration's change affects the laws on the books.)
Laws are of no consequence here. (See: Fiat of unelected judges)
-
You manage to talk around the issue, evade, and use liberal talking points, all the while being deceitful about pro-lifers.
It is the pro-life movement that has been compassionate......... that has persuaded, that has provided for the needs of Moms and babies, that has treated women with respect.
It is you on the left, advocating abortion (yes you do, and on a daily basis here), who are in complete denial of the permanent harm abortion does to women.
Why did you not respond to my comments about the lack of compassion and degradation of women that abortion causes?
Why do you keep talking about the "state" as if people like you haven't used the state to make killing babies legal.
The whole "let women kill their babies" was from the left and the state, and was not done legally. The whole "reproductive rights" argument is a lie, and yet you believe it and promote it with your heart and soul.
Why not become a compassionate, caring human being, @Jazzhead , and oppose abortion to protect women and children?
Why don't you care about women? Why don't you care about children?
And most importantly here, why do you lie repeatedly about those of us who do? Why is it so important to you to malign the movement that respects women? Pro-life conservatives.
Why??
(https://media.giphy.com/media/b9aScKLxdv0Y0/giphy.gif)
-
Is not the essence of the debate when the fetus becomes a child? @thackney
Nope. That point was already decided in 1973 by five men wearing black robes with absolutely zero medical training. And ever since then, the introduction of any actual scientific data has been denied since States no longer have the right to determine their own abortion laws including Virginia. So please do not cloud the issue with lies about viability, since viability has absolutely zero to do with the power of the Court.
-
I am not describing viability, the definition is federal law.
No, it isn't federal law. It is the edict of tyrants wearing black robes. Federal law (or State law for that matter) is inconsequential.
-
You support the notion of women as chattel. You are one phony feminist.
You are the one here demeaning women by advocating that they are ignorant and irresponsible, and should not be held accountable for their action because they are adolescents.
Abortion is as terrible as you say it is. Still, it is a woman's choice, not that state's.
Based on what, exactly? Your own moral outlook? Because it is clear that there is no lawful basis for that statement.
-
No, it isn't. Abortion is based solely upon the fiat of unelected judges.
Laws are of no consequence here. (See: Fiat of unelected judges)
Yes, abortion rights were ultimately upheld by the fiat of unelected judges ... but we wouldn't be talking about abortion if there weren't consequences to the fiat.
Let's be careful not to replace clear thinking with passion @Hoodat The decades have proven passion alone does not win this argument.
-
If the pregnancy was unwanted, then why did the woman engage in a practice that leads to pregnancy?
Terrible logic.
Driving on a trip can result in you running out of gas, but the running out of gas was not wanted.
Engaging in sexual activity for bonding and/or pleasure can be an intent that can result in an unwanted occurrence.
-
I read black ministers say, they feel their race, their daughters are demeaned by having the abortionist go into their bodies the way they do.
If one studies the issues, people of color are receiving a disproportionate amount of the abortions. Something like 1 in 3 of all pregnancies by African American women end in abortion.
I think the US has been a downward slide morally at least, since widespread access to abortion.
-
Terrible logic.
Driving on a trip can result in you running out of gas, but the running out of gas was not wanted.
So the person CHOOSING TO DRIVE bears no responsibility for ensuring that they have enough gas to make the trip? Really?
Engaging in sexual activity for bonding and/or pleasure can be an intent that can result in an unwanted occurrence.
My bad. I assumed we were all grown-ups here. Clearly there are some such as yourself that approach this as some middle schooler thinking that there is nothing wrong with having unprotected sexual intercourse.
Can't wait to see some lawyer use that defense.
"Yes, your Honor. My client fired the gun directly into the chest of the victim. But he didn't intend for the victim to die."
-
Belief in individual liberty is "liberal swill"?
There is nothing about abortion that has a single thing to do with "individual liberty."
Stop advocating and bullying others into believing in the enslavement and debasement of women, and then we'll talk...........
You are a puppet for women hating leftists, and copy and paste their lies @Jazzhead.
Give it up.
Lies always lose in the end. And you're on the losing side in every aspect of the deceit you spew.
Stop pretending, and face the truth that what you are advocating is the murder of children and eternal harm to the women you are encouraging to commit the murder.
-
Can't wait to see some lawyer use that defense.
"Yes, your Honor. My client fired the gun directly into the chest of the victim. But he didn't intend for the victim to die."
We live in the age of Idiocracy, so it would be foolish to assume that such an argument would fail to win in court.
Today it will win hands-down.
Common sense and logic no longer applies or exists in the minds of a vast majority of both our rulers and the population.
-
So the person CHOOSING TO DRIVE bears no responsibility for ensuring that they have enough gas to make the trip? Really?
My bad. I assumed we were all grown-ups here. Clearly there are some such as yourself that approach this as some middle schooler thinking that there is nothing wrong with having unprotected sexual intercourse.
Can't wait to see some lawyer use that defense.
"Yes, your Honor. My client fired the gun directly into the chest of the victim. But he didn't intend for the victim to die."
One of the basic problems both @Suppressed and @Jazzhead have is their utter disrespect for women.
The leftist arguments for abortion presume that women are stupid and helpless.
It is the OPPOSITE of caring about, respecting and honoring women that leads to the leftist arguments for abortion.
And we can see them at play right here on this thread......
-
Immoral, amoral, deceitful, wicked, evil, despotic, and under the guise of being an angel of light.
He is just a willful tool for the god of this age.
It's interesting to see how the guise of an angel of light plays itself out in the arguments of the pro-abortion left.
They argue that they care about women, when they don't. They argue that they care about the welfare of children, by wanting them killed if they are "unwanted." They argue that pro-lifers and Christians who defend life want women to be "chattel." (Dumbest argument I've EVER seen).
They argue that black is white, and bad is good, and up is down, and left is right.
Angels of light presenting demonic arguments with accusations that morality is evil.
-
The abortion issue should be about creating the conditions for abortion to be unnecessary, or as rare as possible. Instead, it has become an existential struggle of women seeking to protect their right to self-determination against encroachment by the state in the name of religion.
That's plain crap. There has never been a time when woman has been more 'emancipated', in all history. If what you say is true, then right now would be the easiest time for a woman to keep her baby...
But, what you say not being true,this culture CLOSELY resembles the libertine state of nations just about to fall to their doom. And one of those hallmarks is most certainly when women no longer care for their own children. The stench of it doesn't ever go away, and yet you defend it.
Stated simply, women cannot gain full equality with men if the state forces them to reproduce. That is a choice that can only be made by women themselves. For that reason, pro-lifers cannot win this battle - and if they truly want to save lives, the paradigm must shift from coercion to persuasion.
LOL! Women will NEVER reach equality with men, because equality is the wrong metric. Woman is DIFFERENT from man, and your measurements are wholly invalid.
And in the mean time, the things of women the things that women have traditionally cared for and about, suffer and languish. Feminism has done more to destroy women than any other thing.
Equality my ass. And to use that as the reasoning to murder children... What a barren and decrepit argument.
-
Stop hyperventilating. Calm down. And stop lying about my position: I DO NOT SUPPORT ABORTION.
You think criminalizing abortion is consistent with American values of individual liberty as protected by our Constitution. I disagree - when the fetus is not yet viable the woman must have the freedom to decide for herself. It is her body, and she has dominion over her body, not the state. How can you be a "feminist" and believe otherwise?
Note that NOTHING I have stated above prevents you and other pro-lifers from doing your utmost to persuade a woman in dire circumstances to do the right thing. IT CAN BE DONE. What are you so afraid of? Make your moral arguments, lend your sympathy, support and compassion. My point is simply and only that you cannot demand that your moral argument be imposed at the point of a government gun.
You support the degradation and eternal harm of women, the wiping out of the African-American community, and argue against protecting the lives of the unborn.
If I seem to be "hyperventilating" to you, it is only because the lies you present harm women and kill children, and you are pretending to be the "good guy" here.
What you are, is either a deceiver, or the deceived, and it either case I need, rather than to become angry with you because you are lying, to pray for your cleansing through the blood of Jesus Christ.
-
The abortion issue should be about creating the conditions for abortion to be unnecessary, or as rare as possible. Instead, it has become an existential struggle of women seeking to protect their right to self-determination
Uh, no. It is about the right of a woman to evade the consequences of exercising their right to self-determination.
against encroachment by the state in the name of religion.
Actually, it is in the name of the people to shape their own society within the confines of their own State government - which is something you oppose.
btw, I know atheists who oppose abortion.
Stated simply, women cannot gain full equality with men if the state forces them to reproduce.
No one is forcing a woman to reproduce. No one. The decision is theirs on whether they will allow a man to ejaculate inside of them. They are empowered. No one is forcing them to open their legs. It is their choice, and theirs alone. So stop lying about forcing women to reproduce.
Secondly, once a woman becomes pregnant, she has already reproduce. No state forced that upon her. It was her own self-willed decision that allowed that.
That is a choice that can only be made by women themselves.
The woman already made a choice. Her choice led to reproduction - the creation of a singular human life.
For that reason, pro-lifers cannot win this battle
The battle here is a Constitutional one. Do we live by the Constitution? Or do we ignore the Constitution while imposing our will on the people? In regard to the second choice, you are no different from the 'religious zealots' you demonize.
I am pro-life. But unlike you, I would never advocate a court that takes away the right of States to legalize abortion.
-
Nope. That point was already decided in 1973 by five men wearing black robes with absolutely zero medical training. And ever since then, the introduction of any actual scientific data has been denied since States no longer have the right to determine their own abortion laws including Virginia. So please do not cloud the issue with lies about viability, since viability has absolutely zero to do with the power of the Court.
Excellent point, @Hoodat !
-
One of the basic problems both @Suppressed and @Jazzhead have is their utter disrespect for women.
LOL!
-
So the person CHOOSING TO DRIVE bears no responsibility for ensuring that they have enough gas to make the trip? Really?
Ah, I left it that way intentionally, so we can now go to this... there are sometimes breakdowns, even if you have enough gas.
-
LOL!
If you are here arguing FOR the "right" of a woman to kill her unborn child, you are disrespecting and demeaning women.
Period.
-
Because it is clear that there is no lawful basis for that statement.
Other than the Constitution of the United States.
-
Other than the Constitution of the United States.
OK. So THIS is the dumbest thing you've ever said on this forum.......
(Though, the "chattel" thing is dopier.......)
-
They argue that they care about the welfare of children, by wanting them killed if they are "unwanted." They argue that pro-lifers and Christians who defend life want women to be "chattel." (Dumbest argument I've EVER seen).
@musiclady
Please cite where I've done any of those things on this thread.
I've done two things.... added points to ponder, not state an opinion.
I've pointed out where @Hoodat used a fallacious logic in his argument. If I point out an argument is weak, does it mean I'm automatically on the opposite side? NO! I often point out flaws in my own position, so they can be fixed.
Similarly, I posted about how so many fertilized eggs/zygotes pass from the woman's body as a mere blastocyst, with a woman never to know. This was in the context of the discussion people were having of when life begins, and I brought up how that seems like a terrible waste of life if the soul truly enters at conception! For the "Life at Conception" side, it brings up the point that if we are truly being pro-life, don't we have a responsibility to try to save all of those little fertilized eggs?
Yet I've seen nobody out campaigning for developing means for that!
You have been dishonest in your portrayal of my position, as I've not even offered my position...only points to ponder. I have the utmost respect for women, as anyone with eyes and mind can see.
-
If you are here arguing FOR the "right" of a woman to kill her unborn child, you are disrespecting and demeaning women.
Period.
A) I haven't argued that, at all.
B) Even if I had, it wouldn't be disrespecting and demeaning women...it would be respecting their own choice, just as if I said a murderer could kill. It would be preposterous to say that was "disrespecting and demeaning" the murderer. So stop with the fake argument, please.
-
But, what you say not being true,this culture CLOSELY resembles the libertine state of nations just about to fall to their doom. And one of those hallmarks is most certainly when women no longer care for their own children. The stench of it doesn't ever go away, and yet you defend it.
You're paraphrasing II Timothy 3, and rightfully so.
A nation that justifies the slaughter of innocents in the womb as 'liberty' and 'freedom' while castigating those opposed to the genocide of an entire generation of infants, is a nation and people that does not deserve to survive.
-
A) I haven't argued that, at all.
B) Even if I had, it wouldn't be disrespecting and demeaning women...it would be respecting their own choice, just as if I said a murderer could kill. It would be preposterous to say that was "disrespecting and demeaning" the murderer. So stop with the fake argument, please.
B) is where you're dead wrong. The lie presented by the left is that the killing of a child is "respect" of a woman in any way, shape or form. As long as you are here arguing that allowing a woman to kill her child is respectful of that woman, totally disregarding the FACT that it does her harm for the rest of her life and puts her in bondage, I will continue to make the case for the disregard of women's well being that is being advocated.
The only "fake" argument is the one that says that abortion is respectful of women.
And it comes directly from the liberals who foisted this horror on us with the fake arguments in Roe v Wade.
-
@musiclady
Please cite where I've done any of those things on this thread.
I've done two things.... added points to ponder, not state an opinion.
I've pointed out where @Hoodat used a fallacious logic in his argument. If I point out an argument is weak, does it mean I'm automatically on the opposite side? NO! I often point out flaws in my own position, so they can be fixed.
Similarly, I posted about how so many fertilized eggs/zygotes pass from the woman's body as a mere blastocyst, with a woman never to know. This was in the context of the discussion people were having of when life begins, and I brought up how that seems like a terrible waste of life if the soul truly enters at conception! For the "Life at Conception" side, it brings up the point that if we are truly being pro-life, don't we have a responsibility to try to save all of those little fertilized eggs?
Yet I've seen nobody out campaigning for developing means for that!
You have been dishonest in your portrayal of my position, as I've not even offered my position...only points to ponder. I have the utmost respect for women, as anyone with eyes and mind can see.
I was combining your arguments with Jazzhead's............. who is on the same side of the debate as you are.
The arguments given are false, but if you don't concur with his "pro-lifers look at women as chattel and want the state to control them" HIDEOUS lie, then I apologize for putting you together in the same anti-woman boat as he is in.
However, your argument about respecting women and giving them a choice is completely bogus. It is a leftist lie, swallowed by too many unsuspecting folks trying to be nice, when what they are arguing for is degrading.
-
The only "fake" argument is the one that says that abortion is respectful of women.
I don't argue that abortion is respectful of women.
Perhaps I might be convinced to argue, however, that allowing a woman to choose her own path is respectful of women. Because I believe that I am no smarter than a woman regarding herself.
Now, if she's killing another creature, her own child, that's a different matter, isn't it?
-
I was combining your arguments with Jazzhead's............. who is on the same side of the debate as you are.
@Jazzhead
Nope. He believes life begins at implantation, I think.
I'm not sure when it does.
-
I don't argue that abortion is respectful of women.
Perhaps I might be convinced to argue, however, that allowing a woman to choose her own path is respectful of women. Because I believe that I am no smarter than a woman regarding herself.
Now, if she's killing another creature, her own child, that's a different matter, isn't it?
That's a bogus claim as well, because by supporting a woman's "right to choose" abortion (trying to be kind, and all that), you are supporting her right to kill someone else, and not "herself."
The whole "a woman has a right to do what she wants with her own body" is a horrid lie. A baby is NOT her body.
It's a separate human being, designed by God, and no more than you have a right to kill me, if my life makes yours inconvenient, a woman has NO right to kill another human being.
And it's not kind, nor generous, nor open-minded, nor civil, to say she does.
IOW, you cannot argue that you respect women's right to choose without saying you are OK with her killing her child.
It's not a tightrope you can walk, no matter how hard you try.
-
The lie presented by the left is that the killing of a child is "respect" of a woman in any way, shape or form. As long as you are here arguing that allowing a woman to kill her child is respectful of that woman, totally disregarding the FACT that it does her harm for the rest of her life and puts her in bondage, I will continue to make the case for the disregard of women's well being that is being advocated.
The only "fake" argument is the one that says that abortion is respectful of women.
And it comes directly from the liberals who foisted this horror on us with the fake arguments in Roe v Wade.
I advocate only for one's individual liberty, protected by the Constitution against encroachment by the state. A non-viable fetus is within the woman's dominion and control. Period. To argue otherwise and then claim one is a feminist is a crock of crap.
I do not defend abortion, nor do I defend a woman for making a poor or immoral choice. But it sure as heck needs to be HER choice, not that of the state or hyperventilating religious zealots.
the FACT that it does her harm for the rest of her life and puts her in bondage
Surely you know the difference between fact and opinion?
-
Other than the Constitution of the United States.
Nothing in the Constitution gives a woman the "right" to kill an unborn child.
-
That's a bogus claim as well, because by supporting a woman's "right to choose" abortion (trying to be kind, and all that), you are supporting her right to kill someone else, and not "herself."
You notice how they never finish the sentence when they say "right to choose"? They always leave off one important word right after choose.
And that word is murder.
-
You notice how they never finish the sentence when they say "right to choose"? They always leave off one important word right after choose.
And that word is murder.
I've read through this thread and no one here is saying abortion is right. So, can we stop with this straw man argument?
Can we, as a group, turn our attention and energies to strategies that will make abortion unnecessary and un-PC? Can we work on how to provide the support needed by the expectant mother---both financial and long term options?
Or are we going to continue the same, outdated war of words that keeps us chasing our collective tail?
-
I've read through this thread and no one here is saying abortion is right. So, can we stop with this straw man argument?
Can we, as a group, turn our attention and energies to strategies that will make abortion unnecessary and un-PC? Can we work on how to provide the support needed by the expectant mother---both financial and long term options?
Or are we going to continue the same, outdated war of words that keeps us chasing our collective tail?
Then your reading comprehension sucks.
Jazz has in the past advocated that abortion is a "right" and the made the ridiculous claim it's covered under the 14th Amendment.
Jazzy is very much saying that abortion is a right just a few posts above here.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,285911.msg1484681.html#msg1484681
and here as well:
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,285911.msg1484771.html#msg1484771
Instead of knee jerk reacting because of who is saying something...how about actually taking the time to read what people are saying before you claim that no one on this discussion is advocating for something when it's very clear the opposite is true
Might save you some future embarrassment..
-
Can we, as a group, turn our attention and energies to strategies that will make abortion unnecessary and un-PC? Can we work on how to provide the support needed by the expectant mother---both financial and long term options?
That's easy. Get a man.
The more this stupid nonsense is subsidized and approved of, the more of it you will get. Single-parent homes and bastard children have exploded since the sexual revolution, and there is only ONE way that will work to restore sanity.
Go back to what works. What's worked literally, for aeons. The 'brave new world' of feminism, sexual equality, and social 'justice' has failed (predictably).
You get more of what you subsidize and endorse.
So endorse LIFE. Endorse marriage- Life long. Endorse family. Entire family, to include grandparents. Allow families to amass wealth, and establish moral truth - Justice will follow.
Do that, and within a decade, most of our social problems will be diminishing.
-
That's easy. Get a man.
The more this stupid nonsense is subsidized and approved of, the more of it you will get. Single-parent homes and bastard children have exploded since the sexual revolution, and there is only ONE way that will work to restore sanity.
Go back to what works. What's worked literally, for aeons. The 'brave new world' of feminism, sexual equality, and social 'justice' has failed (predictably).
You get more of what you subsidize and endorse.
So endorse LIFE. Endorse marriage- Life long. Endorse family. Entire family, to include grandparents. Allow families to amass wealth, and establish moral truth - Justice will follow.
Do that, and within a decade, most of our social problems will be diminishing.
The big problem with that is the feminists and the PC left and a whole host of other sympathetic idiots have now completely turned the definition of "marriage" on it's ear with gay "marriage".
Abortion on demand used as birth control...fatherless homes with women and the Federal government raising kids and now gay "marriage" have all worked hand in glove to destroy traditional families and traditional family values.
-
The big problem with that is the feminists and the PC left and a whole host of other sympathetic idiots have now completely turned the definition of "marriage" on it's ear with gay "marriage".
Abortion on demand used as birth control...fatherless homes with women and the Federal government raising kids and now gay "marriage" have all worked hand in glove to destroy traditional families and traditional family values.
That's right. But it doesn't change a thing. The way forward on this path is certain doom. Anarchy at best, Tyranny at worst. For generations.
The answer remains the same. Go back to what works. STOP. Turn around.
Any other argument is just debating the position of the throttle.
-
Perhaps I might be convinced to argue, however, that allowing a woman to choose her own path is respectful of women.
We are all 'free' to choose our own path to do evil.
Allowing a 'woman' or anyone for that matter to 'choose their own path to do murder' and whatever other evil they feel entitled to commit, declared 'respectful' is absurd.
It is the consequences that no one wants, and no one wants judged for what they are. This people want the consequences of 'choice' declared to be right, good, and needing taxpayer funding to perform and medical cures to stop.
This people want to do what feels good without consequences, and then have others pay for those consequences while having the mouths of biblical morality sealed shut by social shaming or government mandate for the evil they do as a 'right' and therefore 'good' and deserving of 'respect'.
-
That's right. But it doesn't change a thing. The way forward on this path is certain doom. Anarchy at best, Tyranny at worst. For generations.
The answer remains the same. Go back to what works. STOP. Turn around.
Any other argument is just debating the position of the throttle.
I'm with you 100%. The old ways aren't always the bad ways just because some "progressive" wants to rewrite history and try to change facts in the minds of the young and impressionable.
I always love asking Liberals I know how they can support gay "marriage" and the theory of evolution at the same time...since one tends to cancel the other one out. LOL!
-
It is the consequences that no one wants, and no one wants judged for what they are. This people want the consequences of 'choice' declared to be right, good, and needing taxpayer funding to perform and medical cures to stop.
This people want to do what feels good without consequences, and then have others pay for those consequences while having the mouths of biblical morality sealed shut by social shaming or government mandate for the evil they do as a 'right' and therefore 'good' and deserving of 'respect'.
Shades of Baal and Marduk. Not even shades anymore - It is real and visceral.
-
I advocate only for one's individual liberty, protected by the Constitution against encroachment by the state.
Except when it comes to forcing someone to bake a homosexual cake to celebrate perversion. Then you are all for encroachment by the state.
Except when it comes to guns, when you insist that Texas gun culture should not be 'imposed' upon you by upholding the Second Amendment.
Except when it comes to Healthcare and insurance, when our individual liberty must be eradicated to force us to purchase government-mandated and approved services or receive punishment.
Except when it comes to individual wealth, whereby like all Marxists you have decreed that they should be forced to hand over more for the privilege of being permitted to have wealth as a cost of living here.
You advocate for license and tyranny, not liberty.
You advocate for punishment by the state to impose your perversions and your demand to feel safe.
You are not interested in individual liberty except when it comes to behaviors that are anathema to liberty, morality and a civil society.
We got your number pal.
You fool no one, despite your pedantic monologues explaining your re not what everyone already clearly sees you as an advocate for.
-
Then your reading comprehension sucks.
Jazz has in the past advocated that abortion is a "right" and the made the ridiculous claim it's covered under the 14th Amendment.
Jazzy is very much saying that abortion is a right just a few posts above here.
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,285911.msg1484681.html#msg1484681
and here as well:
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,285911.msg1484771.html#msg1484771
Instead of knee jerk reacting because of who is saying something...how about actually taking the time to read what people are saying before you claim that no one on this discussion is advocating for something when it's very clear the opposite is true
Might save you some future embarrassment..
Txradioguy, it's your reading comprehension that sucks. Yes, I've stated that abortion (that is, the right whether to go forward with an unplanned pregnancy) is a woman's legal right, guaranteed under the Constitution, but I've NEVER stated that "abortion is right". RIV is correct - every participant on this thread recognizes the moral wrong that is abortion.
The issue is how to reduce the number of abortions consistent with the woman's fundamental liberty. Obviously we disagree - some here callously dismiss the woman's dilemma as the result of "failing to keep her legs shut" and demand the state enforce their religious morality at the point of a gun (and call it feminism *****rollingeyes***** ). But there ought to be general agreement that the horrors of abortion can be minimized by actions that are perfectly Constitutional - persuasion, support for adoption, support for contraception and family planning. Many pro-lifers do such things, and deserve applause.
-
Except when it comes to forcing someone to bake a homosexual cake to celebrate perversion. Then you are all for encroachment by the state.
Except when it comes to guns, when you insist that Texas gun culture should not be 'imposed' upon you by upholding the Second Amendment.
Except when it comes to Healthcare and insurance, when our individual liberty must be eradicated to force us to purchase government-mandated and approved services or receive punishment.
Except when it comes to individual wealth, whereby like all Marxists you have decreed that they should be forced to hand over more for the privilege of being permitted to have wealth as a cost of living here.
You advocate for license and tyranny, not liberty.
You advocate for punishment by the state to impose your perversions and your demand to feel safe.
You are not interested in individual liberty except when it comes to behaviors that are anathema to liberty, morality and a civil society.
We got your number pal.
You fool no one, despite your pedantic monologues explaining your re not what everyone already clearly sees you as an advocate for.
Game. Set. Match.
-
Shades of Baal and Marduk. Not even shades anymore - It is real and visceral.
Biblical history teaches that once a nation of God's people have abandoned Him and His Laws for their own, and once the people do what is right in their own eyes - and justify their wickedness.... such people are wiped out and destroyed by their own consequences and by the Hand of Justice from Heaven.
Then there is secular history that teaches the same thing of nations that are no longer governed by their foundational principles, having embraced genocide of segments of their own population.
No nation that slaughters children for convenience or out of worshipping false gods escapes annihilation.
Somehow even Christians in this nation think we are immune from that inevitability, simply because they have constructed a Jesus that soothes their conscience, as if the words from scripture that state that God is the same yesterday, today and forever does not really mean what it says.
We deserve all that is coming upon us.
-
I'm with you 100%. The old ways aren't always the bad ways just because some "progressive" wants to rewrite history and try to change facts in the minds of the young and impressionable.
I always love asking Liberals I know how they can support gay "marriage" and the theory of evolution at the same time...since one tends to cancel the other one out. LOL!
It is easy to point at this or that and claim injustice. But it is flatly undeniable that generally things are worse today than they were a mere generation or two ago.
Mine is the third divorce in my family EVER. And mine is the last generation that remembers when most everyone came from a two parent-household, had only four grandparents, many with a surviving grandmother living in the house with them. I remember the struggle of single parent homes -- normally widowed by war or accident - How terrible it was for them, and that has now become the norm...
The sophistry today, that claims itself so smart and so cool, is nothing but a lie - and it is destroying people by the millions (not even mentioning babies in the womb).
-
Txradioguy, it's your reading comprehension that sucks. Yes, I've stated that abortion (that is, the right whether to go forward with an unplanned pregnancy) is a woman's legal right, guaranteed under the Constitution, but I've NEVER stated that "abortion is right". RIV is correct - every participant on this thread recognizes the moral wrong that is abortion.
The issue is how to reduce the number of abortions consistent with the woman's fundamental liberty. Obviously we disagree - some here callously dismiss the woman's dilemma as the result of "failing to keep her legs shut" and demand the state enforce their religious morality at the point of a gun (and call it feminism *****rollingeyes***** ). But there ought to be general agreement that the horrors of abortion can be minimized by actions that are perfectly Constitutional - persuasion, support for adoption, support for contraception and family planning. Many pro-lifers do such things, and deserve applause.
You can't have it both ways.
You defend and advocate for abortion on demand.
You're no different than your fellow Liberals on this subject.
And no matter how you try to parse words...split hairs and otherwise try to dissemble the facts...you are and always will be Pro Abortion. You are and always will be FOR the murder of living breathing children while they are still in the womb.
Do yourself a big favor and quit lying to us and yourself about what you are and what you stand for.
-
You can't have it both ways.
You defend and advocate for abortion on demand.
You're no different than your fellow Liberals on this subject.
And no matter how you try to parse words...split hairs and otherwise try to dissemble the facts...you are and always will be Pro Abortion. You are and always will be FOR the murder of living breathing children while they are still in the womb.
Do yourself a big favor and quit lying to us and yourself about what you are and what you stand for.
You lack the grace to apologize to RIV, but that doesn't surprise me. As for me, I don't give a damn what a religious zealot such as yourself thinks of me. This isn't a theocracy, bub. Women aren't chattal. You can't abide that one can be pro-life and respect a woman's liberty consistent with the Constitution. That's exactly what I am.
-
No nation that slaughters children for convenience or out of worshipping false gods escapes annihilation.
Inevitably, they wind up eating their own. Mark my words. The mind that would kill a child is not that far from eating a child. And that, inevitably, is the final degradation. Tribulation will come, as it always does - the difference being the mindset of the people, whether they will persevere, or succumb, and we are not immune.
A generation ago, folks knew 'that ain't right' inherently, as a people. Now, just about anything goes. There is no truth. Justice has flown.
We deserve all that is coming upon us.
Yes we do - But then we always have. I see the same doom as you - Abaddon rising...
But I will teach repentance, and preach repentance, to the very last man.
All we need to do is turn around.
-
So the person CHOOSING TO DRIVE bears no responsibility for ensuring that they have enough gas to make the trip? Really?
Ah, I left it that way intentionally, so we can now go to this... there are sometimes breakdowns, even if you have enough gas.
Your analogy makes no sense. If your car breaks down, you fix it. If you run out of gas, then you walk to a gas station, buy a container and gas, and get the car running again.
You certainly don't have your car towed to the chop shop simply because you run out of gas.
-
The leftist arguments for abortion presume that women are stupid and helpless.
It is the OPPOSITE of caring about, respecting and honoring women that leads to the leftist arguments for abortion.
And we can see them at play right here on this thread......
@musiclady
You are 100% correct, ma'am.
-
Biblical history teaches that once a nation of God's people have abandoned Him and His Laws for their own, and once the people do what is right in their own eyes - and justify their wickedness.... such people are wiped out and destroyed by their own consequences and by the Hand of Justice from Heaven.
Then there is secular history that teaches the same thing of nations that are no longer governed by their foundational principles, having embraced genocide of segments of their own population.
No nation that slaughters children for convenience or out of worshipping false gods escapes annihilation.
Somehow even Christians in this nation think we are immune from that inevitability, simply because they have constructed a Jesus that soothes their conscience, as if the words from scripture that state that God is the same yesterday, today and forever does not really mean what it says.
We deserve all that is coming upon us.
*****rollingeyes*****
We're the greatest nation on earth. We provide more assistance to the less fortunate - from our own pockets - than any nation on earth. We recognize the fundamental liberty and the law's equal protection with respect to all our citizens - yeah, even the women you consider chattel and the homosexuals you deem perverts. We are, as Reagan said, the shining city on the hill. Take your zealotry elsewhere.
-
Women aren't chattal.
Yes they are. Now more than ever. In their millions, doomed to slavish existence, desperate to raise children without a man, without a mother, without a grandmother, without any succor.
Such a sad state, when good is called evil and evil is called good.
-
Other than the Constitution of the United States.
Now that's funny. You have been asked countless times to pinpoint that part of the Constitution that prohibits States from formulating their own laws regarding abortion, murder, theft, etc. And each and every time, you fail to do so. And do you know why? Because deep down, you know your statement about the Constitution is complete BS.
-
Women aren't chattal.
And neither are unborn babies.
-
Yes we do - But then we always have. I see the same doom as you - Abaddon rising...
But I will teach repentance, and preach repentance, to the very last man.
All we need to do is turn around.
This people hate the very idea of repentance. Just look at the reactions you get when calling evil what it is. This nation's heart has hardened itself against God and will do to those of us preaching the message of repentance, the very thing Jesus said would happen to us in Matthew 24.
I'm not sure the remnant is ready to endure that, but it is at our door.
Too many people in this country hate God and love evil having traded Him for the god of their imaginations. It's not any different than the wholesale zeitgeist of those that hate this nation and it's foundations and love what is anathema to it's existence in embracing a false narrative and history they seek to fundamentally transform us from and into - by force if necessary.
This people have done exactly what Isaiah 5:20 warned against.
Woe to us all.
-
And neither are unborn babies.
The decision whether to reproduce is the woman's, not the state. That doesn't mean that "unborn babies" are chattel, it means that you're going to have to work at persuading moms to be to do the right thing. You can't just demand that the state enforce your religious morality. That's not how it works in the this country.
-
*****rollingeyes*****
We're the greatest nation on earth, God-boy. ... Take your hatefest elsewhere.
That will do, @Jazzhead. Don't call other Members names like that, consider yourself warned.
Mod 3
-
This people hate the very idea of repentance. Just look at the reactions you get when calling evil what it is. This nation's heart has hardened itself against God and will do to those of us preaching the message of repentance, the very thing Jesus said would happen to us in Matthew 24.
I'm not sure the remnant is ready to endure that, but it is at our door.
Too many people in this country hate God and love evil having traded Him for the god of their imaginations. It's not any different than the wholesale zeitgeist of those that hate this nation and it's foundations and love what is anathema to it's existence in embracing a false narrative and history they seek to fundamentally transform us from and into - by force if necessary.
This people have done exactly what Isaiah 5:20 warned against.
Woe to us all.
That's right. But remember the 7000. YHWH has many here that have not bent a knee to Baal.
Remember Nineveh.
It is what it is... But repentance as a nation remains an option right to the bitter end.
-
That will do, @Jazzhead. Don't call other Members names like that, consider yourself warned.
Mod 3
I edited my post, Mod3.
-
*****rollingeyes*****
We're the greatest nation on earth, God-boy ... Take your hatefest elsewhere.... Take your zealotry elsewhere.
Not gonna happen.
You of course are welcome to try and force me to do so, which is what you and your ilk are all about given the lip service you pay liberty.
-
I advocate only for one's individual liberty
You advocate against the most precious liberty of all - life itself.
protected by the Constitution against encroachment by the state.
Where can I find that part of the Constitution which prohibits States from enacting their own laws according to the will of the people of those States? I have been waiting months on end for you to reveal it. Yet time and time again, you make this Constitutional claim without any evidence. If it was a one-time deal, I would excuse it. But since you repeatedly make this baseless claim even after being challenged on it again and again and again, a person can only conclude that you are lying.
A non-viable fetus is within the woman's dominion and control. Period.
So is a two-year-old infant. Equally non-viable, if left on it's own, it will die. So according to you, there is a Constitutional right for women to kill their two-year-old children.
I do not defend abortion
Actually, you do. You continue to maintain that "abortion must remain legal" without regard to basis of law or the will of the people.
-
It is what it is... But repentance as a nation remains an option right to the bitter end.
Someone has to tell them what the consequences for disobedience are.
And of course, when one does - look at how it is received.
Nineveh was far more accommodating to the warning of impending judgment than this nation appears to be at the moment. But as catastrophic events unfold now, we will see whether this people will harden their hatred against God and those whom are His witnesses, or repent of what it has become.
Thus far I am not too hopeful.
-
I've read through this thread and no one here is saying abortion is right.
No one is saying that shoplifting is right either. Or murder. Or fraud. Yet States are given the right under the Constitution of the United States of America to regulate theft, fraud, and murder.
Yet when it comes to abortion, we are to forget all that and throw the Constitution out the window.
Can we, as a group, turn our attention and energies to strategies that will make abortion unnecessary and un-PC?
Can we first reject tyranny outright? And can we take the power of a society to form and shape itself based on the will of that society and give that power back to that society? Because without any of that, everything else is pointless.
Can we work on how to provide the support needed by the expectant mother---both financial and long term options?
Already done.
-
RIV is correct - every participant on this thread recognizes the moral wrong that is abortion.
If only every participant on this thread could recognize that tyranny was also morally wrong.
The issue is how to reduce the number of abortions consistent with the woman's fundamental liberty.
No. The issue is whether we accept tyranny as the basis of our government, or whether we choose the Constitution of the United States instead. You have already chosen the former. I choose the latter.
-
No one is saying that shoplifting is right either. Or murder. Or fraud. Yet States are given the right under the Constitution of the United States of America to regulate theft, fraud, and murder.
Yet when it comes to abortion, we are to forget all that and throw the Constitution out the window.
A woman's fundamental right trumps that of a State legislature seeking to deny it. No state may abrogate a woman's Constitutional right of self-determination for the same reason that no state may take away the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Constitutional rights are just that - rights accruing to INDIVIDUALS. Even individuals residing in states where a transient majority in the legislature prefers to take those rights away.
Although I'm curious enough to ask - would you be okay with the right of a state to criminalize abortion if it could also take away a Constitutional protection you favor? Why do you advocate for a state's right to force a citizen to reproduce, but not (I presume) to give up her guns?
-
No. The issue is whether we accept tyranny as the basis of our government, or whether we choose the Constitution of the United States instead. You have already chosen the former. I choose the latter.
You've got this whole "tyranny" thing ass-backwards. For the rights of an individual to be stripped by the whim of a transient majority is tyranny. For a transient majority to be prevented from taking our most fundamental individual rights away is the essence of our Constitution.
-
We recognize the fundamental liberty and the law's equal protection with respect to all our citizens - yeah, even the women you consider chattel...
You have absolutely NO comprehension or understanding of what women as chattel in the third world even looks like pal.
I do. I lived in the slums with women whose entire society regards them as chattel. I support those in a society that considers women half a human being until the business transaction of their arranged marriage is fulfilled by dowry - and then have watched widows beaten, abused and discarded as cursed creatures.
You can shove your perverted comparison of women in this country who want to have sex without consequences as 'chattel' - because you have absolutely no clue or idea of what the hell you are talking about or what that word even means.
-
The decision whether to reproduce is the woman's, not the state. That doesn't mean that "unborn babies" are chattel, it means that you're going to have to work at persuading moms to be to do the right thing. You can't just demand that the state enforce your religious morality. That's not how it works in the this country.
Dude. At the point there IS an unborn baby the decision has been made. The woman has reproduced. After that, the only question is whether she will let her child be born or kill it.
-
After that, the only question is whether she will let her child be born or kill it.
Bingo! Help her make the right decision. Support her to make the right decision. It's up to her - not the state.
-
A woman's fundamental right trumps that of a State legislature seeking to deny it.
Funny how the enumerated right to keep and bear arms can be trumped by state legislatures seeking to deny it according to you (Texas gun culture that you railed against) - but a 'right' constructed out of thin air to permit a woman to kill her infant in the womb because it is not convenient, cannot be denied by a state legislature.
Hypocrite does even begin to describe your posts to this board.
Why do you advocate for a state's right to force a citizen to reproduce, but not (I presume) to give up her guns?
Why do you advocate for the state to force us citizens to purchase specific health insurance plans against our will, and to surrender our wealth to fund your constituencies because 'it is the price they must pay to have wealth and live here', and advocate for the state to force us to violate our conscience to celebrate homosexuality or lose our livelihoods?
You are perfectly fine and good with using the state to impose tyranny that you like and advocate, so your arguments promoting the genocide of infants because the adult women have a right to have sex without consequences, is beyond insultingly stupid.
You've got this whole "tyranny" thing ass-backwards. For the rights of an individual to be stripped by the whim of a transient majority is tyranny. For a transient majority to be prevented from taking our most fundamental individual rights away is the essence of our Constitution.
Yet you advocate doing that very thing here on this board DAILY. You are the CHIEF purveyor of tyranny on this board. You advocate for the rights of individuals to not only be stripped of their rights by the hand of the courts and the state - but advocate punishment to be administered for refusing to violate their consciences, and their first Amendment rights of free exercise and speech in refusing to use their talents and livelihoods to celebrate homosexuality. You have no problem with a transient minority of homosexuals to take the most fundamental individual rights away from those whose morality conflicts with what you have empowered the state and their courts to administer.
Nearly all of us on this board know that you stand for what we recognize as abject tyranny while calling those of us refusing to capitulate to your advocacy of tyranny; bigots - and worse.
-
Funny how the enumerated right to keep and bear arms can be trumped by state legislatures seeking to deny it according to you (Texas gun culture that you railed against) - but a 'right' constructed out of thin air to permit a woman to kill her infant in the womb because it is not convenient, cannot be denied by a state legislature.
A Constitutional right is just as valid whether "enumerated" or recognized by the SCOTUS. In each case - whether it be the right to decide whether to reproduce or the right to keep and bear arms - the recognized right is nevertheless subject to reasonable regulation. See, e.g., Heller. States can and do regulate each of these rights, which is perfectly constitutional provided the fundamental right isn't taken away or rendered incapable of effective exercise. Hence, guns can be required to be registered, and women can be required to view sonograms of their moving fetuses.
No hypocrisy here, sir - I take the exact same position regarding the states' right to regulate with respect to each of these Constitutional rights. (And, for what it's worth, local laws concerning non-discrimination with respect to public accommodations represent reasonable regulation of the privilege of conducting business with members of the community. Your religious panic regarding homosexuals has no place in the conduct of a business with the GP.)
-
(And, for what it's worth, local laws concerning non-discrimination with respect to public accommodations represent reasonable regulation of the privilege of conducting business with members of the community. Your religious panic regarding homosexuals has no place in the conduct of a business with the GP.)
You're consistent in your argument. But then there's the issue of that little word "reasonable".
-
A woman's fundamental right trumps that of a State legislature seeking to deny it.
Fundamental right? What makes abortion a fundamental right (besides you calling it one)?
Does a woman also not have a fundamental right to eat? Yet a state can place restrictions on what and where she can eat. Go figure.
So where does that "fundamental right" come from? Clearly, it doesn't come from the Constitution of the United States of America. Because if it did, you would have cited it by now.
No state may abrogate a woman's Constitutional right of self-determination for the same reason that no state may take away the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Amendment II is where the 'right to keep and bear arms' is found. I don't see abortion mentioned in Amendment II. Care to try again?
Constitutional rights are just that - rights accruing to INDIVIDUALS.
So where can I find this Constitutional right to abortion? The Roe court certainly couldn't find it. Can you? Because if you can't, then you might want to stop lying about how it is a Constitutional right.
Even individuals residing in states where a transient majority in the legislature prefers to take those rights away.
You mean rights that are invented out of thin air with zero Constitutional basis?
Although I'm curious enough to ask - would you be okay with the right of a state to criminalize abortion if it could also take away a Constitutional protection you favor?
Not a fair comparison since a State's right to regulate abortion is a Constitutional protection. So you are effectively asking me to give up two Constitutional protections.
Why do you advocate for a state's right to force a citizen to reproduce
I don't. No one is advocating that a woman be forced to reproduce. No one. And you know that. Yet here you are lying. Lying again and again and again.
Besides, once a woman becomes pregnant, she has already reproduced.
-
A Constitutional right is just as valid whether "enumerated" or recognized by the SCOTUS.
Yes, like all the Marxists and Leftists that your views closely align themselves with - enumerated 'rights' can be abolished, regulated, infringed and ignored under the pretense of 'reasonable' while other 'rights' can be created out of thin air by justices in black robes and decree by fiat - that natural law from millennia and Providence is invalid in favor of new aberrations and perversions deemed inviolable and permanent beyond the reach of Providence and Religious conscience.
In your perverse world, a court can choose to recognize 'rights' or not recognize them; create rights; or deny rights that you deem 'legal'.
In short- your tyrannical worldview has abolished the concept and idea of "rights" to having made them mere privileges granted by the whim of men in robes and in offices of the legislature.
In your world, 'rights' are whatever men in power say they are - or are not.
Your religious panic regarding homosexuals has no place in the conduct of a business with the GP.)
Better send your government's agents with guns and body armor to raid my business then, because I have absolutely NO INTENTION of complying with such tyranny.
I will instead resist it - with all means at my disposal should people like you push it to where you and yours will take it.
-
Fundamental right? What makes abortion a fundamental right (besides you calling it one)?
Does a woman also not have a fundamental right to eat? Yet a state can place restrictions on what and where she can eat. Go figure.
So where does that "fundamental right" come from? Clearly, it doesn't come from the Constitution of the United States of America. Because if it did, you would have cited it by now.
Amendment II is where the 'right to keep and bear arms' is found. I don't see abortion mentioned in Amendment II. Care to try again?
So where can I find this Constitutional right to abortion? The Roe court certainly couldn't find it. Can you? Because if you can't, then you might want to stop lying about how it is a Constitutional right.
You mean rights that are invented out of thin air with zero Constitutional basis?
Not a fair comparison since a State's right to regulate abortion is a Constitutional protection. So you are effectively asking me to give up two Constitutional protections.
I don't. No one is advocating that a woman be forced to reproduce. No one. And you know that. Yet here you are lying. Lying again and again and again.
Besides, once a woman becomes pregnant, she has already reproduced.
Amusing and kinda sad how Jazzy's situational ethics are so strong for individual rights when it comes to murdering an unborn baby...but he gives way to the states right to force someone to bake a cake when it goes against their 1st Amendment rights.
-
I advocate only for one's individual liberty, protected by the Constitution against encroachment by the state. A non-viable fetus is within the woman's dominion and control. Period. To argue otherwise and then claim one is a feminist is a crock of crap.
I do not defend abortion, nor do I defend a woman for making a poor or immoral choice. But it sure as heck needs to be HER choice, not that of the state or hyperventilating religious zealots.
Surely you know the difference between fact and opinion?
Once again, you bring up the viability of a fetus which, as you already have admitted is a life whether viable or non-viable.
You have yet to state how one can determine the viability of a fetus BEFORE an abortion is performed. I asked this of you back here
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,285911.msg1483331.html#msg1483331 and you have yet to respond.
Since it is a life, this seems to be something that should be 100% certain so murder is not performed, right?
@Jazzhead
-
A Constitutional right is just as valid whether "enumerated" or recognized by the SCOTUS.
Except when it comes to a baker and his religious freedom.
Or a home owner and his or her right to own firearms.
-
The issue is how to reduce the number of abortions consistent with the woman's fundamental liberty.
And that is where your head is up your A___.
This is about the morality of killing an innocent who has guaranteed rights under the laws of this land for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is NOT about whether it is convenient or not for someone to murder that life.
-
A Constitutional right is just as valid whether "enumerated" or recognized by the SCOTUS.
So it's not in the Constitution after all. Glad we finally cleared that up. I wonder how many posts will go by before you again falsely claim it to be in the Constitution.
In each case - whether it be the right to decide whether to reproduce or the right to keep and bear arms - the recognized right is nevertheless subject to reasonable regulation.
Of course we aren't talking about a woman's right to reproduce here. No one is disputing a woman's right to reproduce. But then you knew that already.
The issue here is whether the people of a State have the right to protect the product of that reproduction - a singular life with a beating heart and its very own unique DNA.
A Constitutional right is just as valid whether "enumerated" or recognized by the SCOTUS.
How do you reconcile that statement with the fact that the Roe court specifically allows State regulation of abortion.
No hypocrisy here, sir - I take the exact same position regarding the states' right to regulate with respect to each of these Constitutional rights. (And, for what it's worth, local laws concerning non-discrimination with respect to public accommodations represent reasonable regulation of the privilege of conducting business with members of the community. Your religious panic regarding homosexuals has no place in the conduct of a business with the GP.)
As the self-anointed arbiter of rights, your inability to see the hypocrisy of your actions comes as no surprise.
-
Also, that "persuasion" is a flowery-worded cop-out, States have the right to legislate this.
We have "high abortion" states, we have "low abortion" states and we have states that are close to the national median. All of those stats can be looked up and are put out by the Guttmacher Institute which is connected to the "pro-choice" side, maybe even planned parenthood itself.
I'll just go with the two most recently admitted states, Hawaii and Alaska:
https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/state-facts-about-abortion-hawaii
https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/state-facts-about-abortion-alaska
Usually, they have graphs showing how states rates compare to the national average. It looks like they have changed their display, however I found this about Alaska.
Restrictions on Abortion
In Alaska, the following restrictions on abortion were in effect as of July 1, 2017:
A woman must receive state-directed counseling that includes information designed to discourage her from having an abortion.
And that is good, even if we look at Europe as liberal, if one checks their abortion laws, Germany has a waiting period and I believe mandatory counseling as well.
In France, there are no abortions after 12 weeks though, I'm sure there are loopholes to these kinds of laws. All of this can be researched.
So again, saying "persuasion", this is just flowery talk, we have mostly more liberal abortion laws than even Europe though some states are making a good challenge of it.
@Jazzhead : I am just saying for everyone, JH is going to speak in vague and general terms if this is like the past, a total lack of precision in speaking of planned parenthood, waiting periods, the government funding the nation's biggest abortion provider in Planned Parenthood, individual state legislation and so on.
-
Pretty sure this topic has been beaten to death, but carry on, anyway. 22222frying pan
-
Except when it comes to a baker and his religious freedom.
Or a home owner and his or her right to own firearms.
But . . . but . . . but that's different.
-
I don't mean to use a derisive term,
It's pretty clear, many liberals and pro-homosexual types (and for that matter, pro-Islam liberal types), like to slam Christianity and they do that by supporting abortion. It's a way to slight Christianity and I think we have seen that here before.
-
Bingo! Help her make the right decision. Support her to make the right decision. It's up to her - not the state.
Now you're done arguing about what's what, and quibbling over price.
I invoke the equal protection clause for those who haven't aged enough to speak for themselves. Equal protection under the law. You can't shred, poison, chemically burn, or deny nutrition to another adult, I want the same laws to apply equally to the humans who are unborn.
-
I want the same laws to apply equally to the humans who are unborn.
I know that's what you want, but that's not what the law is, or has ever been. The state isn't going to lock up millions of women for murder, or force today's modern women - who expect opportunities in life equal to men - to resort to the back alley. The religious patrimony you're nostalgic for is over and done. Women want and deserve dominion over their own bodies and their own lives.
So what you're doing is wasting your time. Some here paint me as critical of the pro-life movement. I'm not - their hearts are in the right place. But the effort they make, and the resources they expend, tilting at windmills trying to change the law back to what it was when men ruled the roost would be better served persuading and supporting women in crisis to do the right thing.
Persuasion, not coercion - why has that simple concept driven so many to the brink of madness in their anger towards me?
-
Persuasion, not coercion -
Funny how that little talking point proverb of yours does not apply when you're discussing the imposition of forcing Christians to violate their consciences and produce celebratory products for homosexuals.
In that case you are on record of applauding the state to force and punish those who refuse to do as you demand.
Coercion, not persuasion is your mantra there.
-
Funny how that little talking point proverb of yours does not apply when you're discussing the imposition of forcing Christians to violate their consciences and produce celebratory products for homosexuals.
In that case you are on record of applauding the state to force and punish those who refuse to do as you demand.
Coercion, not persuasion is your mantra there.
That's just silly. What coercion? No one's telling the baker what he can sell or not sell. He's free to sell wedding cakes or not. No one's forcing him to sell what he hasn't advertised to provide.
-
You're consistent in your argument. But then there's the issue of that little word "reasonable".
Of course. I think that requirements to register and insure the firearms one owns - just like everyone does with cars - is reasonable regulation. Obviously, some here disagree. But conceptually, the right to keep and bear arms and the right to abortion are not "absolute" and similarly subject to regulation. Indeed, the right to abortion is subject to expiration - go too long and the fetus is viable and the state can protect it under the Constitution. But the woman must have a meaningful opportunity to exercise dominion over her own body before the state imposes its strictures.
-
Anyone who stands up for barren infertile marriages..... can not persuade me about abortion... think about it. Persuade this.
Also, knocking the religion that feeds millions of hungry persons around the world with missionaries and other workers, risking their lives and often being killed while at the same time, "Muslims are our friends and neighbors".
Persuade this, this is just left-wing rubbish.
Oh, and called the President of the US a fascist.
-
That's just silly. What coercion? No one's telling the baker what he can sell or not sell. He's free to sell wedding cakes or not. No one's forcing him to sell what he hasn't advertised to provide.
Bullshit. You openly advocated for forcing the baker/photographer/florist to provide services and products to celebrate a perversion that violates their consciences. The baker does not make wedding cakes for homosexuals. The photographer does not document homosexual celebrations and the florist does not do arrangements for homosexual parties and 'weddings', yet you openly advocate punishing those who do not by the hand of the state. Coercion, by the hand of the state to force people to violate their first amendment, and fourth amendment rights, not to mention their right of conscience which you have stated is bigoted and therefore in need of punishment.
Out of one side of your mouth you pine talking point proverb of 'persuasion, not coercion' and in the other to promote your advocacy of perversion you insist on coercion/punishment instead of persuasion.
-
Bullshit. You openly advocated for forcing the baker/photographer/florist to provide services and products to celebrate a perversion that violates their consciences. The baker does not make wedding cakes for homosexuals. The photographer does not document homosexual celebrations and the florist does not do arrangements for homosexual parties and 'weddings', yet you openly advocate punishing those who do not by the hand of the state. Coercion, by the hand of the state to force people to violate their first amendment, and fourth amendment rights, not to mention their right of conscience which you have stated is bigoted and therefore in need of punishment.
Out of one side of your mouth you pine talking point proverb of 'persuasion, not coercion' and in the other to promote your advocacy of perversion you insist on coercion/punishment instead of persuasion.
*****rollingeyes*****
Again - no one is forcing the baker (or the florist or the photographer) to provide what they've not advertised to provide.
-
Anyone who stands up for barren infertile marriages..... can not persuade me about abortion... think about it. Persuade this.
Also, knocking the religion that feeds millions of hungry persons around the world with missionaries and other workers, risking their lives and often being killed while at the same time, "Muslims are our friends and neighbors".
Persuade this, this is just left-wing rubbish.
Oh, and called the President of the US a fascist.
I'm not knocking Christianity, TS. Jesus Christ is the greatest moral philosopher that ever lived. And plenty of Christians have received Christ's message of love, charity and compassion. Unfortunately, some Christians (like many Muslims) are patriarchal and seek to use the government to deny the fundamental liberty of women to find their own place in the world. That won't fly anymore.
-
*****rollingeyes*****
Again - no one is forcing the baker (or the florist or the photographer) to provide what they've not advertised to provide.
They do not and did not provide wedding cakes, flowers or photography for Homosexual celebrations masquerading as 'weddings'. YOU have called of the state to force them to do so, or punish them for refusing to do so. 'Punishing bigotry' I think was the term you used.
That's called "coercion" or better known as tyranny, of the likes not even King George III visited upon our forbears - but here you are, mandating worse. Then in the next breath justifying infanticide and softening your position with the faux magnanimity of 'persuasion not coercion' that only applies to a woman killing her infant because she does not want the consequences of free sex.
Free sex without consequences being what must be upheld as a sacred sacrament of permissibility - whether perverted, irresponsible and both.
-
*****rollingeyes*****
Again - they were not forced to provide what they had not advertised to provide. Their customers came to them for the specific services they advertised to provide, and were turned away because - why? You say because of the baker's "conscience", I say because of the baker's bigotry.
But no matter. It all comes back to the fact that that the baker set the rules of engagement- he advertised a specific service, and then reneged. To provide his aggrieved customer with a legal remedy is hardly "tyranny".
-
or force today's modern women - who expect opportunities in life equal to men - to resort to the back alley.
Are you suggesting that men be given abortion rights too so that men can expect the opportunities in life equal to women? Or is this where your double-standard kicks in once again.
The religious patrimony you're nostalgic for is over and done.
As is the Constitution of the United States of America. It has been supplanted by your version of tyranny.
Women want and deserve dominion over their own bodies and their own lives.
So much for the legal argument. The justification for tyranny is now defined as " Women want and deserve dominion over their own bodies and their own lives".
But then no one here is disputing a woman's control over her own body (which is what led to reproduction to begin with). The issue has always been about a woman's control over the body of a baby, and the right of society to protect that life.
Persuasion, not coercion - why has that simple concept driven so many to the brink of madness in their anger towards me?
The problem with your argument here is that you support state-sanction abortion on demand, while at the same time denying the right of society to determine and implement its own set of values through the mechanism of a representative government established under our Constitution. There is nothing that could possibly be more persuasive than that.
You have chosen a side, and have no qualms about using the power of a government gun to ensure that your moral viewpoint is imposed upon the rest of us. Contrast that with the viewpoint of those who believe that the people of a society should have the right and ability to formulate their own laws within the confines of the Constitution of the United States of America.
-
That's just silly. What coercion? No one's telling the baker what he can sell or not sell. He's free to sell wedding cakes or not. No one's forcing him to sell what he hasn't advertised to provide.
But if the baker does choose to sell wedding cakes, then he should be coerced by the state to bake a cake that he does not want to bake. Correct?
Likewise, if a woman choose to engage in sexual conduct leading to reproduction (i.e. the creation of a singular human life), then she should be coerced by the state to carry that life to term.
See where your hypocrisy kicks in? You embrace coercion against the baker. Yet you rail against that exact same coercion being used against the woman. You are on opposite sides here.
Yet there is one thing you are consistent with. And that thing is tyranny. In both cases, you deny the right of the people to write their own laws, preferring instead the tyranny of the fiat of black robed judges with no legal foundation for their decisions.
-
Again - they were not forced to provide what they had not advertised to provide. Their customers came to them for the specific services they advertised to provide, and were turned away
I see you are still peddling that lie.
-
*****rollingeyes*****
Again - they were not forced to provide what they had not advertised to provide.
They never advertised that they create products or services to cater to homosexual events. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Homosexual 'marriage' is a unicorn - there is no such thing, regardless what tyrants in black robes redefine on their own authority usurped from the Almighty.
and were turned away because - why? You say because of the baker's "conscience", I say because of the baker's bigotry.
Which you previously stated is something you advocate the government 'punish'.
Hoodat nailed you when he stated that you have no qualms about using the power of a government gun to ensure that your moral viewpoint is imposed upon the rest of us.
-
I'm not knocking Christianity, TS. Jesus Christ is the greatest moral philosopher that ever lived. And plenty of Christians have received Christ's message of love, charity and compassion. Unfortunately, some Christians (like many Muslims) are patriarchal and seek to use the government to deny the fundamental liberty of women to find their own place in the world. That won't fly anymore.
1. What you are referring to here is NOT Christianity. It is a secular philosophy about who Jesus was (not IS).
2. It's cute that you're quoting the lyrics of a Taylor Swift song here, but it's not the place of the state (that you adore), to ensure that a girl gets a "place in this world."
You just make things up as you go, don't you @Jazzhead ?
The problem is, you have no grounding in faith, in philosophy, in Constitutional governance, in logic, nor in truth.
That's why you have been tossed about by the winds of popular "thought" and while making excuses for murder, still think you're the rational one and a good guy.
I am, however, impressed with your perseverance in posting nonsense in the face of all the facts that have been posted on this thread.
You were clearly taught self-esteem as a little boy rather than encouraged to be intellectually honest, and morally strong. I'll bet you got a ribbon when you lost a race and were patted on the back and told you were amazing.
It's incredible to see such ignorant chutzpah at work. *****rollingeyes*****
-
You just make things up as you go, don't you @Jazzhead ?
The problem is, you have no grounding in faith, in philosophy, in Constitutional governance, in logic, nor in truth.
That's why you have been tossed about by the winds of popular "thought" and while making excuses for murder, still think you're the rational one and a good guy.
I am, however, impressed with your perseverance in posting nonsense in the face of all the facts that have been posted on this thread.
You were clearly taught self-esteem as a little boy rather than encouraged to be intellectually honest, and morally strong. I'll bet you got a ribbon when you lost a race and were patted on the back and told you were amazing.
It's incredible to see such ignorant chutzpah at work. *****rollingeyes*****
It's amusing to see you descend into madness, ML. I'm merely stating my opinions, same as you. And I do my best to explain myself and substantively respond to those who disagree with me.
Can I expect the same from you? Of course not, you lack the grace to do so. Heck, why don't you just ape INVAR and say I'm the devil himself? *****rollingeyes*****
Fact is, I want to reduce the rate of abortions, and I have no interest in tilting at windmills. I want to do what I know will WORK - persuasion, support for contraceptives and family planning, support for adoption. There's a whole lot of things that can work. You know it to be true.
What doesn't work is shrieking about banning abortion when it is perfectly clear that the Constitution respects women a hell of a lot more than you do. IMO you cannot be conservative while disrespecting the individual rights of the citizenry. A woman cannot be forced by the state to reproduce. It is non-negotiable. Can the abortion right be regulated? Of course - but it cannot be denied. It has been the law of the land for the entire adult lifetimes of every woman of child-bearing age in America.
There is no going back.
All I'm saying is that it is time to move on, for the sake of the millions who are aborted each year. Do something about it, don't just wallow in virtue-signaling that only you have the answers, and that those with whom you disagree - and who want to save lives just as you do - are worthy of nothing but insult.
-
All I'm saying is that it is time to move on, for the sake of the millions who are aborted each year. Do something about it, don't just wallow in virtue-signaling that only you have the answers
Yet when the biblical answer to the entire problem is offered, protagonists of wickedness and hatred for God declare that advising people keep it in their pants until marriage and then not stray from their spouse is greeted with ridicule, condescension and dismissal.
Because doing what feels good; free sex without consequences and making others pay the price for those consequences - is all you and the Leftists have to offer. Done so that licentiousness and depravity might abound under the color of 'freedom' so that such morality is lofted as superior to God whom created sex in the first place.
Because after all, you people think you know better than the Creator, having made yourselves god in your own eyes.
-
Yet when the biblical answer to the entire problem is offered, protagonists of wickedness and hatred for God declare that advising people keep it in their pants until marriage and then not stray from their spouse is greeted with ridicule, condescension and dismissal.
Bullshit. How many Christians on this board have been divorced? Christians who won't put the work in to keep their marriages afloat have no moral basis to condemn gay couples who commit to marry and stay true to each other.
-
1. What you are referring to here is NOT Christianity. It is a secular philosophy about who Jesus was (not IS).
2. It's cute that you're quoting the lyrics of a Taylor Swift song here, but it's not the place of the state (that you adore), to ensure that a girl gets a "place in this world."
You just make things up as you go, don't you @Jazzhead ?
The problem is, you have no grounding in faith, in philosophy, in Constitutional governance, in logic, nor in truth.
That's why you have been tossed about by the winds of popular "thought" and while making excuses for murder, still think you're the rational one and a good guy.
I am, however, impressed with your perseverance in posting nonsense in the face of all the facts that have been posted on this thread.
You were clearly taught self-esteem as a little boy rather than encouraged to be intellectually honest, and morally strong. I'll bet you got a ribbon when you lost a race and were patted on the back and told you were amazing.
It's incredible to see such ignorant chutzpah at work. *****rollingeyes*****
Well said.
-
Bullshit. How many Christians on this board have been divorced? Christians who won't put the work in to keep their marriages afloat have no moral basis to condemn gay couples who commit to marry and stay true to each other.
Only one problem with your new age view on this.
There were instances where divorce was permitted in the Bible for married couples...it's mentioned in the New as well as the Old Testament.
There is no place in either Testament of the Bible where homosexuality is condoned permitted or accepted.
There are a myriad of instances in the here and now where the person who is a Christian, through no fault of their own is faced with divorce because of actions of their spouse. It doesn't make the person not a fault any less of a Christian because their spouse decides to end the union...especially if they've done everything within their power to make the marriage work.
So your attempt at making Christians who have suffered the pain of divorce out to be hypocritical is just more Liberal weaksauce on your part.
-
Bullshit. How many Christians on this board have been divorced? Christians who won't put the work in to keep their marriages afloat have no moral basis to condemn gay couples who commit to marry and stay true to each other.
I've never been divorced pal, and scripture condemns homosexuality. The Word of God plainly declares that men having sex with men and women having sex with women (regardless of whether people declare such perversion "marriage") to be an abomination to Him, and those practicing such behavior will NOT be permitted in the Kingdom of God according to scripture itself.
-
Only one problem with your new age view on this.
There were instances where divorce was permitted in the Bible for married couples...it's mentioned in the New as well as the Old Testament.
Divorce was only permitted because of the hardness of hearts according to Jesus in Matthew 19:8, but that was not the intention God ordained Marriage from the beginning.
Adultery kills trust - which is difficult if nearly impossible to overcome, and thus divorce was permitted.
There is no place in either Testament of the Bible where homosexuality is condoned permitted or accepted.
No. None. It is soundly condemned and named among those sins that will bar entry into the Kingdom of God any who practice them.
-
It's amusing to see you descend into madness, ML. I'm merely stating my opinions, same as you.
Here's the part I am having difficulty with. Let's consider for a moment a man who has spent his entire life inside a cave. Not once in his entire life has he stepped outside of that cave and experienced the light of day.
This does not deter the man from stating his opinion about the color of the sky. He insists that the sky is green, and goes on and on about it, insisting over and over again that green must be the color because it is fundamental.
One day, the man is confronted with photos of the deep blue sky. He is then confronted with scientific explanations explaining wave frequencies and wave lengths, laws of defraction, and detailed scientific explanations of why the sky is blue.
Yet when confronted with this mountain of evidence, he is not deterred. He continues to state his opinion that the sky is green.
That is you, Jazzhead.
Fact is, I want to reduce the rate of abortions
I am having a very hard time believing that statement when considering your obstinate insistence that "abortion must remain legal" - based not upon written law, but instead based solely upon your own wishful thinking.
I want to do what I know will WORK - persuasion, support for contraceptives and family planning, support for adoption.
Clearly, that is not working. But even more disturbing is your completely erroneous belief that it is. Family planning? Contraceptives? Tell me how much the abortion rate has fallen since those two got forced down the throats of local schools by the very same tyrants you embrace.
It isn't difficult to find an example that does work. History is a great teacher. And abortion rates were lowest when the citizens of States were still allowed to mold and shape their societies by the enactment of laws through their legislatures. Yet the fact that you reject this outright shows that your claim about wanting to reduce the number of abortion is complete unadulterated bullshit. At the very least, such a claim certainly take a back seat to a society where promiscuity in women is encouraged by mandating an additional safety net that will let you off the hook just in case you happen to knock one of them up.
But hey, if you were honest about it, we wouldn't have to endure all these lies about abortion being a woman's right protected by the Constitution.
What doesn't work is shrieking about banning abortion when it is perfectly clear that the Constitution respects women a hell of a lot more than you do.
Respects women? This ought to be good. Let's see that part of the Constitution that identifies 'respecting women' as providing men with an 18-year financial out after having treated a woman as a sperm receptacle.
I seriously doubt that you have even read the Constitution. Because you surely have no clue as to what it actually says. You simply borrow the word to apply the term 'Constitutional' to back up any thoughts you may have on what government or anybody else should be allowed to do.
IMO you cannot be conservative while disrespecting the individual rights of the citizenry.
You mean like the right of the citizenry to petition their own State governments to formulate laws and set rules on how their society is to be based, per the Constitution of the United States of America?
A woman cannot be forced by the state to reproduce.
Again, you are a liar. No one here is forcing a woman to reproduce. No one. Your statement is 100% false. And you know it to be 100% false. Yet you knowingly and willfully are stating something you know to be false in an attempt to deceive others. That makes you a liar.
Can the abortion right be regulated? Of course - but it cannot be denied.
You clearly have zero understanding of the word 'regulated'. You do not get to be the arbiter of that regulation. Either States have that right, or they do not. You seem to be conceding here that States do have that right. Yet you anoint yourself as having final say over them, just in case you don't like the regulation they implement.
This is what tyrants do.
It has been the law of the land for the entire adult lifetimes of every woman of child-bearing age in America.
Yes, we have been down this road before. This is where you say that abortion must remain legal, yet fail miserably at citing any law at all which says this. All we have is your dictatorial command. No written law. No Constitution. Not even a court case. Nothing but your tyrannical espousal.
There is no going back.
Just like with Plessy v. Ferguson? Sorry, but that argument didn't work for the defendants in Brown v. Board of Education. But it is quite entertaining to see you once again embrace the same arguments as the racist Democrat segregationists of the 1950s.
All I'm saying is that it is time to move on, for the sake of the millions who are aborted each year.
Sorry, your impassioned argument to keep your own personal safety net (just in case) is completely devoid of any legal or lawful substance. Personally, I am not willing to surrender the Constitution of the United States of America just because you suggest I move on.
-
It's amusing to see you descend into madness, ML. I'm merely stating my opinions, same as you. And I do my best to explain myself and substantively respond to those who disagree with me.
Can I expect the same from you? Of course not, you lack the grace to do so. Heck, why don't you just ape INVAR and say I'm the devil himself? *****rollingeyes*****
Fact is, I want to reduce the rate of abortions, and I have no interest in tilting at windmills. I want to do what I know will WORK - persuasion, support for contraceptives and family planning, support for adoption. There's a whole lot of things that can work. You know it to be true.
What doesn't work is shrieking about banning abortion when it is perfectly clear that the Constitution respects women a hell of a lot more than you do. IMO you cannot be conservative while disrespecting the individual rights of the citizenry. A woman cannot be forced by the state to reproduce. It is non-negotiable. Can the abortion right be regulated? Of course - but it cannot be denied. It has been the law of the land for the entire adult lifetimes of every woman of child-bearing age in America.
There is no going back.
All I'm saying is that it is time to move on, for the sake of the millions who are aborted each year. Do something about it, don't just wallow in virtue-signaling that only you have the answers, and that those with whom you disagree - and who want to save lives just as you do - are worthy of nothing but insult.
There's no point in trying further to convince you that the lies you have been inculcated with by your leftist mentors and are parroting here, are actually proof that you have absolutely NO respect for women.
Abortion is the most heinous, most harmful thing that has happened to women in this country, and you are here cheering it on, continuing the lie that it is a Constitutional right. (What a joke!)
I knew you were a liberal, Jazz. But I didn't know how deep your disdain for the dignity and worth of women really is.
I will keep in my mind going forward, that you are an enemy of women, and that you are ruthless in defending the harm done to us by the abortion mills and leftist lies.
If it is "madness" to stay on this thread to continue to defend honor, respect, worth, value and emotional, mental, physical health of women while defending the right of the life of the millions of children they have killed, then so be it..... I am mad.
@Jazzhead
-
LOTS of people claim life begins at erection,same as the party.
-
Anyone who stands up for barren infertile marriages.....
So, infertile couples have no business marrying?
Wow.
-
A new human is created at conception. But the life is there before that. You don't put a dead sperm and a dead egg together and life begins. IMO, anyone who kills that life after conception is guilty of murder. Except is not an unlawful killing according to the state. Abortion is state sanctioned murder. That doesn't change the fact that it is murder. It is merely okay according to the state. So the question for me is whether or not I support the state that sanctions murder. And I do. Through forced taxation.
-
So, infertile couples have no business marrying?
Wow.
If they are the same sex they don't. At least, not to the same sex, they have the same rights as all of us, a marriage is between a man and a woman.
-
*****rollingeyes*****
Again - they were not forced to provide what they had not advertised to provide. Their customers came to them for the specific services they advertised to provide, and were turned away because - why? You say because of the baker's "conscience", I say because of the baker's bigotry.
But no matter. It all comes back to the fact that that the baker set the rules of engagement- he advertised a specific service, and then reneged. To provide his aggrieved customer with a legal remedy is hardly "tyranny".
Exam question:
If I am a sign painter, and I advertise that service, am I free to turn down a customer who wants a billboard saying "F*ck all Ni**ers!!"?
I paint signs for a living. I offer a service to the public. Can I exclude one group and still continue to practice my trade?
How is this not bigotry to refuse to paint a sign that I find offensive?
How is refusing to create anything I find offensive not 'bigotry' or 'discrimination'?
Is it okay for the government to punish me for not complying with their orders to create something I find offensive?
When is it okay for the Government to force me to create something, regardless of whether I find it offensive?
For extra credit, list fundamental civil rights, in order of importance.
-
They never advertised that they create products or services to cater to homosexual events. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Homosexual 'marriage' is a unicorn - there is no such thing, regardless what tyrants in black robes redefine on their own authority usurped from the Almighty.
Not only that, but at the time Colorado did not recognize same-sex "marriage" so there should have been no reasonable expectation that he would create or provide a product for something that did not exist under the law.
Which you previously stated is something you advocate the government 'punish'.
Any recognition of a law which did not exist at the time of the alleged offense as a basis to exert punitive force upon the person or commerce of the baker would render that law an ex post facto law, something specifically prohibited by the Constitution. Hoodat nailed you when he stated that you have no qualms about using the power of a government gun to ensure that your moral viewpoint is imposed upon the rest of us.
He advocates using the government's guns to impose upon others the 'right' to murder children in the womb, wholesale, to force others to create that which they find incompatible with their religious beliefs, and in the name of "liberty' wants to use the Government to infringe my enumerated Right to Keep and Bear Arms, even though while in my possession those arms have not taken any life. **nononono*
Someone has a lot of Rights all wrong. :shrug:
-
So, infertile couples have no business marrying?
Wow.
@Suppressed Comments like that is why he is on my "ignore" list.
-
A new human is created at conception. But the life is there before that. You don't put a dead sperm and a dead egg together and life begins. IMO, anyone who kills that life after conception is guilty of murder.
Do you think women who have abortions should go to jail for life? That is, after all, the accepted penalty for intentional murder. Are you willing to pay the taxes to build the jails that will be needed to house the millions?
-
Exam question:
If I am a sign painter, and I advertise that service, am I free to turn down a customer who wants a billboard saying "F*ck all Ni**ers!!"?
I paint signs for a living. I offer a service to the public. Can I exclude one group and still continue to practice my trade?
How is this not bigotry to refuse to paint a sign that I find offensive?
How is refusing to create anything I find offensive not 'bigotry' or 'discrimination'?
Is it okay for the government to punish me for not complying with their orders to create something I find offensive?
When is it okay for the Government to force me to create something, regardless of whether I find it offensive?
For extra credit, list fundamental civil rights, in order of importance.
Easy exam. Of course you can refuse to paint a message you find offensive. Just as the baker can refuse to write words on a cake he finds offensive.
But that's not what the baker did. He advertised wedding cakes, and then refused service to a gay couple without any discussion whatsoever regarding the design or message on the cake. The message wasn't the issue. The baker's arbitrary bigotry was.
-
Easy exam. Of course you can refuse to paint a message you find offensive. Just as the baker can refuse to write words on a cake he finds offensive.
But that's not what the baker did. He advertised wedding cakes, and then refused service to a gay couple without any discussion whatsoever regarding the design or message on the cake. The message wasn't the issue. The baker's arbitrary bigotry was.
The message WAS the issue. The entire sham idea of a gay "wedding" is a "message".
It's amazing how in just the span of a few sentences you can take both sides of one issue.
I guess that's the upside to having situational ethics like you do. You can be for something before you're against it.
-
The message WAS the issue. The entire sham idea of a gay "wedding" is a "message".
.
A customer can't expect to be able to read the baker's mind. All the customer knows is that the baker advertises that he makes wedding cakes. The customer entered the shop seeking the advertised service. And that service was rejected for no valid reason at all (message, design), but rather ONLY because of the baker's religious antipathy to gays.
Again - why is the existence of a legal remedy for such bigotry "tyranny"?
-
A new human is created at conception. But the life is there before that. You don't put a dead sperm and a dead egg together and life begins. IMO, anyone who kills that life after conception is guilty of murder. Except is not an unlawful killing according to the state. Abortion is state sanctioned murder. That doesn't change the fact that it is murder. It is merely okay according to the state. So the question for me is whether or not I support the state that sanctions murder. And I do. Through forced taxation.
@bigheadfred
Don't feel put upon,Fred. Those of us who aren't superstitious support organized religions against our will though forced taxation. Nobody wins but the taxman.
-
A customer can't expect to be able to read the baker's mind. All the customer knows is that the baker advertises that he makes wedding cakes. The customer entered the shop seeking the advertised service. And that service was rejected for no valid reason at all (message, design), but rather ONLY because of the baker's religious antipathy to gays.
Why should the baker have violated Colorado law at the time? At the end of the day...it wasn't his biblical belief that...correctly...homosexuality is a sin and that marriange is between a woman and a man though that did play a part.
It was the one point you ignore from everyone here that points it out. At the time his bakery was targeted...gay "marriage" wasn't recognized in Colorado. Hence it wasn't legal.
Why should this baker be forced to produce something for a ceremony that wasn't even legal in the state at the time?
Again - why is the existence of a legal remedy for such bigotry "tyranny"?
You tell me...you're the one that wants tyrannical fixes to issues clearly defined in the Bible as well as the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
-
@bigheadfred
Don't feel put upon,Fred. Those of us who aren't superstitious support organized religions against our will though forced taxation. Nobody wins but the taxman.
What church are you being forced to support?
-
If they are the same sex they don't. At least, not to the same sex, they have the same rights as all of us, a marriage is between a man and a woman.
@TomSea
You DO realize that is the same thing as telling a heterosexual sexual man he has the "right" to marry any man he wants to marry,right?
Are there any other "rights" you are willing to allow your fellow Americans to enjoy? Is there a list somewhere so we can look at it and see what is,and what is NOT,permissible in this "Free Country"?
-
*****rollingeyes*****
Again - they were not forced to provide what they had not advertised to provide. Their customers came to them for the specific services they advertised to provide, and were turned away because - why? You say because of the baker's "conscience", I say because of the baker's bigotry.
You can say you can flap your hands and fly to the moon if you want,but that doesn't mean you are right.
Correct me if I am wrong,but isn't the baker an American citizen or legal resident,with the SAME RIGHTS AS ANY OTHER AMERICAN CITIZEN OR LEGAL RESIDENT?
As such,he has the right to refuse to perform services that he finds morally or legally wrong. He bought a license to operate a business and perform a service,not to become a slave to the state with no more rights than a trained dancing monkey.
The customers were not harmed by his refusal because there was and is absolutely nothing preventing them from finding a bakery that would happily produce what the wanted.
The ONLY damage done here was done to the previously unquestioned RIGHT to individual freedoms.
Which may well come back to bite both you AND the homosexuals who filed the law suit in the ass,since we are either ALL free or NONE of us are free. Be VEWWY,WEWWY careful what you ask for,or you might get it.
But no matter. It all comes back to the fact that that the baker set the rules of engagement- he advertised a specific service, and then reneged.
The baker is a businessman or businesswoman,NOT a slave to the public. In a FREE country,which the United States USED to be,businesses had an absolute right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. This right,as well as the US Constitution was upset by those bogus "Civil Wrongs Laws" that have done more to destroy this nation than any external enemy we have ever had.
To provide his aggrieved customer with a legal remedy is hardly "tyranny".
It is nothing less,and if you can't see this you are blinded by your own bigotry.
-
A new human is created at conception. But the life is there before that. You don't put a dead sperm and a dead egg together and life begins.
That means that more than 100 million times per year, lives are lost before the mother even knows they're there. She will never even notice them.
Why would God do such a thing? I'm serious...I'm curious why you think God would be putting lives into unviable zygotes that will never implant nor develop.
IMO, anyone who kills that life after conception is guilty of murder. Except is not an unlawful killing according to the state. Abortion is state sanctioned murder. That doesn't change the fact that it is murder.
If that's murder, then there are negligent homicides, reckless endangerments, and manslaughters being committed. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-05/uoh-cda051315.php
Alcohol drunk by a mouse in early pregnancy changes the way genes function in the brains of the offspring, shows the recent study conducted at the University of Helsinki. The early exposure was also later apparent in the brain structure of the adult offspring. The timing of the exposure corresponds to the human gestational weeks 3-6 in terms of fetal development.
In addition, the exposure to alcohol was found to cause similar changes to gene function in other tissues of the infant mice. These results suggest that alcohol causes permanent changes to gene regulation in the first cells of developing embryo.
It seems that by following your logic, any sexually active woman must be banned from drinking, under severe penalty, because the effects can result even before she is aware she's pregnant.
Clearly, this HHS draft would have broad implications, were we to use logic.
-
Why should this baker be forced to produce something for a ceremony that wasn't even legal in the state at the time?
@txradioguy
You completely miss the main point,which is the baker has the SAME rights as the customer. The baker has the same right to refuse to bake the cake as the customer does to go some other bakery to spend his money. WHEN BOTH HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS,NO ONE CAN PROVE HARM.
If the state has the legal authority to DEMAND the baker bake something he finds offensive,he is no longer a free man,but a slave of the state.
-
What church are you being forced to support?
@txradioguy
ALL of them,via their tax-exempt status.
-
@txradioguy
ALL of them,via their tax-exempt status.
Ummm yeah ok. Whatever. *****rollingeyes*****
-
That means that more than 100 million times per year, lives are lost before the mother even knows they're there. She will never even notice them.
Why would God do such a thing? I'm serious...I'm curious why you think God would be putting lives into unviable zygotes that will never implant nor develop.
If that's murder, then there are negligent homicides, reckless endangerments, and manslaughters being committed. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-05/uoh-cda051315.php
It seems that by following your logic, any sexually active woman must be banned from drinking, under severe penalty, because the effects can result even before she is aware she's pregnant.
Clearly, this HHS draft would have broad implications, were we to use logic.
The answer to your question is covered on page 337, Section A, Subsection 1703a in The book The Law Of Creation--First Edition. Sooo, you either skimmed over it or you have lost your copy, Andrei (obscure reference to the movie The Hunt for Red October).
Seriously, though, I think it is one of those things that is unknowable. So if you can't know it then don't worry about it.
-
@txradioguy
ALL of them,via their tax-exempt status.
Tax the churches? I'm all for it!
-
(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4138d490ad25f6f809311c16fc81061dc78f79bdd26ad26c64109ea2ac3e63f9.jpg)
-
(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4138d490ad25f6f809311c16fc81061dc78f79bdd26ad26c64109ea2ac3e63f9.jpg)
+1000
-
Tax the churches? I'm all for it!
That will not be the only thing you will applaud be done to Christian churches and Believers either.
I think punishments are what you said you applaud government imposing upon those you have decreed to be 'fanatics' and 'bigots'.
-
That will not be the only thing you will applaud be done to Christian churches and Believers either.
I think punishments are what you said you applaud government imposing upon those you have decreed to be 'fanatics' and 'bigots'.
I think if you tax the churches there will be more money to fund abortions. Whether they be human beings or wedding cakes.
-
Taxing the churches (and the mosques and the synagogues) will never happen - but in my perfect world they'd be taxed on all property and income not associated with their charitable and educational endeavors. It might encourage more churches to focus on their charitable missions as opposed to proselytizing.
-
(https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4138d490ad25f6f809311c16fc81061dc78f79bdd26ad26c64109ea2ac3e63f9.jpg)
Indeed. What should unite us all is the desire to see the need for abortions to be as rare as possible.
Every child should be a wanted child. Effective contraception to enable family planning holds the key.
-
Indeed. What should unite us all is the desire to see the need for abortions to be as rare as possible.
Every child should be a wanted child. Effective contraception to enable family planning holds the key.
And that effective contraception begins with sharing the Good Word with the morality it involves.
-
It seems that by following your logic, any sexually active woman must be banned from drinking, under severe penalty, because the effects can result even before she is aware she's pregnant.
Related existing law:
First Woman Charged Under Tennessee's Controversial Drugs-During-Pregnancy Law
http://time.com/2983767/first-woman-charged-on-tennessees-controversial-drugs-during-pregnancy-law/Jul 14, 2014
2 women charged with felonies after drug use during pregnancy, authorities say
http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2017/03/2_women_charged_felonies_after.html
March 21, 2017
Utah Mother Charged With A Felony For Using Meth While Pregnant
https://thinkprogress.org/utah-mother-charged-with-a-felony-for-using-meth-while-pregnant-1b916dd2cca/
APR 22, 2014
-
Tax the churches? I'm all for it!
All non-profits? Or just religious based community organizations?
-
(https://goldenviewultrasound.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/28-weeks-1-day-favorite.jpg?w=450&h=313)
Ok someone explain to me how this is considered an "unviable fetus".
That's a baby at 4 months old...or 16 weeks...4 weeks LESS than what most states who allow abortion state as their limit as to how far along a woman can be in order to perform an abortion. That's right a baby in some states can be aborted at the 5th month of pregnancy.
Anyone who can look at that 3D ultrasound and still refer to that living breathing baby as an "unviable fetus" is a ghoul that has no soul.
-
Taxing the churches (and the mosques and the synagogues) will never happen - but in my perfect world they'd be taxed on all property and income not associated with their charitable and educational endeavors. It might encourage more churches to focus on their charitable missions as opposed to proselytizing.
Excuse me? You want the churches to not preach the Gospel now? **nononono* *****rollingeyes*****
-
(https://goldenviewultrasound.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/28-weeks-1-day-favorite.jpg?w=450&h=313)
Ok someone explain to me how this is considered an "unviable fetus".
That's a baby at 4 months old...or 16 weeks...4 weeks LESS than what most states who allow abortion state as their limit as to how far along a woman can be in order to perform an abortion. That's right a baby in some states can be aborted at the 5th month of pregnancy.
Anyone who can look at that 3D ultrasound and still refer to that living breathing baby as an "unviable fetus" is a ghoul that has no soul.
No one's disputing what is the right thing to do. But a woman must, as a matter of law, be able to make that choice for herself. There can be no compromise, or else women become second class citizens.
-
No one's disputing what is the right thing to do. But a woman must, as a matter of law, be able to make that choice for herself. There can be no compromise, or else women become second class citizens.
Quit calling me a second class citizen because my body can grow humans.
-
Quit calling me a second class citizen because my body can grow humans.
888high58888
Beautiful!
I keep trying to convince this male person that by supporting abortion "rights" he is supporting damaging women, physically, emotionally and mentally, but he keeps singing the same sexist song right out of the socialist psalter. :shrug:
-
Quit calling me a second class citizen because my body can grow humans.
I didn't call you a second class citizen. But if the state demanded your body grow humans, you would be.
No one's telling you what choice to make. I'd hope you'd choose life. But it's your choice, not the state's.
-
But the state doesn't demand a woman grow humans.
-
Excuse me? You want the churches to not preach the Gospel now? **nononono* *****rollingeyes*****
That is EXACTLY what he wants, because out of his own mouth over several months of reading his crusade against biblical Christianity - it is plain to see that he considers Matthew 28:19-20 to be evil.
He is only interested in the social gospel and social justice, and only tolerates the Name of Jesus Christ if it is limited to the Sermon on the Mount, which is what the Red Letter Marxists use to insist that Jesus was a Communist.
-
No one's disputing what is the right thing to do. But a woman must, as a matter of law, be able to make that choice for herself. There can be no compromise, or else women become second class citizens.
But it is okay to make the baby far beneath a second class citizens, without even the right to continue to live.
-
But the state doesn't demand a woman grow humans.
You've got him there.
He keeps insisting that we want women to be chattel and want the state to force women to give birth.
It's quite odd, actually.......
-
Call me when "the state" knocks up somebody.
-
Taxing the churches (and the mosques and the synagogues) will never happen - but in my perfect world they'd be taxed on all property and income not associated with their charitable and educational endeavors. It might encourage more churches to focus on their charitable missions as opposed to proselytizing.
@Jazzhead
If I had my way,ALL religous organizations would be barred from bidding on or accepting government contracts to provide services to the poor or needy. After all,that is why they exist,and why they get tax breaks.
-
All non-profits? Or just religious based community organizations?
@thackney
Speaking only for myself,I am in favor of taxing ALL non-profits,and if I had MY way,there would be no such legal creature because the reality is there is no such thing as a ongoing non-profit organization. They all turn profits or they would all shut their doors.
-
Excuse me? You want the churches to not preach the Gospel now? **nononono* *****rollingeyes*****
@Not all religious organizations preach "the gospel" now.
-
888high58888
Beautiful!
I keep trying to convince this male person that by supporting abortion "rights" he is supporting damaging women, physically, emotionally and mentally, but he keeps singing the same sexist song right out of the socialist psalter. :shrug:
@musiclady @goodwithagun
I am of the opinion that if you are not willing to pay the piper,you shouldn't be asking for the tune to be played. This is regardless of your gender. If a woman isn't willing to take a chance on getting impregnated by a man,maybe she shouldn't be taking a chance on a getting pregnant by him by not having sex with him?
If a man isn't willing to pay child support and otherwise support the child of any woman he impregnates,maybe he shouldn't be having sex with those women?
If either/both do decide to take the chance,they need to accept responsibility for the outcome,if any.
-
@thackney
Speaking only for myself,I am in favor of taxing ALL non-profits,and if I had MY way,there would be no such legal creature because the reality is there is no such thing as a ongoing non-profit organization. They all turn profits or they would all shut their doors.
@Allegra
BTW,what's with the weird highlighted and underlined words? I sure didn't do that on purpose.
My computer is acting weird anyhow,and I can't figure out why. I have ran 3 different virus and malware programs twice today,and still having random windows pop open trying to sell me something. Another one just popped up trying to sell me a Toyota truck while I was tying this.
-
The answer to your question is covered on page 337, Section A, Subsection 1703a in The book The Law Of Creation--First Edition. Sooo, you either skimmed over it or you have lost your copy, Andrei (obscure reference to the movie The Hunt for Red October).
Cute. But all my submarines are accounted for!
Seriously, though, I think it is one of those things that is unknowable. So if you can't know it then don't worry about it.
But churches state firm beliefs in all kinds of things that are unknowable! What's your best hypothesis?
-
Speaking only for myself,I am in favor of taxing ALL non-profits
Since business are taxed on profit, not revenue, what would you be taxing?
and if I had MY way,there would be no such legal creature because the reality is there is no such thing as a ongoing non-profit organization. They all turn profits or they would all shut their doors.
I don't understand why you think there is no such thing as an ongoing non-profit. There is no owners taking in profit. What is gathered in is spent going out. It doesn't matter if it is a church, food-bank, our community ball field. Salaries of any paid workers pay income taxes same as workers in a profit organization.
-
Call me when "the state" knocks up somebody.
(http://www.animatedimages.org/data/media/325/animated-telephone-image-0081.gif)
Representative Tim Murphy (R-PA) is calling you.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/us/politics/tim-murphy-resigns-abortion-scandal.html
WASHINGTON — Representative Tim Murphy, an outspoken abortion opponent embattled by allegations that he encouraged his lover to terminate a pregnancy, announced Thursday that he would step down from his House seat this month.
-
Since business are taxed on profit, not revenue, what would you be taxing?
I don't understand why you think there is no such thing as an ongoing non-profit. There is no owners taking in profit. What is gathered in is spent going out. It doesn't matter if it is a church, food-bank, our community ball field. Salaries of any paid workers pay income taxes same as workers in a profit organization.
@thacney
ROFLMAO! The second biggest lie ever told. Or are you going to try to tell me the Clintons,for example,don't profit from the Clinton Foundation?
-
@thacney
ROFLMAO! The second biggest lie ever told. Or are you going to try to tell me the Clintons,for example,don't profit from the Clinton Foundation?
No, I'm not claiming there is never abuse. I suspect every aspect of tax law has it share of cheats. But it hardly means that churches and other community non-profits do not exist lasting decades.
-
I keep trying to convince this male person that by supporting abortion "rights" he is supporting damaging women, physically, emotionally and mentally ...
That's the same sort of "logic" that says allowing people to buy cigarettes or alcohol or sugary drinks is "supporting damaging" them. That's a bit of sophistry that isn't usually seen used on the conservative side, so I admire your turnabout with it. But still, it doesn't hold water.
If abortion is killing, then it might very well be included in "legalized murder". And that would be a fine point to argue on. But claiming women are too __[fill in the blank]__ to make a decision about what is damaging to themselves, well, that's downright demeaning to every person, male or female.
-
If abortion is killing, then it might very well be included in "legalized murder". And that would be a fine point to argue on.
Most states include laws of manslaughter and homicide when actions result in death of an unborn child:
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx
Why is the mother and abortionist exempt? Why would the birth act change the legal status of the mother or the abortionist?
-
Speaking only for myself,I am in favor of taxing ALL non-profits,and if I had MY way,there would be no such legal creature because the reality is there is no such thing as a ongoing non-profit organization. They all turn profits or they would all shut their doors.
Uhhmmmm NO... wrong.
It may be that way for MOST corporate charities, but the ministry I operate does not earn a profit whatsoever. Every single cent donated goes to those my ministry supports and all overhead I pay for out of pocket, along with the donation of my time and efforts.
My ministry IS an ongoing non-profit organization, because all we are is a conduit to get support to those we serve.
-
That's the same sort of "logic" that says allowing people to buy cigarettes or alcohol or sugary drinks is "supporting damaging" them. That's a bit of sophistry that isn't usually seen used on the conservative side, so I admire your turnabout with it. But still, it doesn't hold water.
If abortion is killing, then it might very well be included in "legalized murder". And that would be a fine point to argue on. But claiming women are too __[fill in the blank]__ to make a decision about what is damaging to themselves, well, that's downright demeaning to every person, male or female.
In your first sentence you compared killing a child with smoking a cigarette.
I see no reason to read farther. Your entire premise is absurd.
Abortion demeans, degrades and harms women............ completely aside from the fact that millions of babies die, which is obviously the greater abomination.
It is illogical, and idiotic to claim support for women while supporting abortion and the imaginary "right" to kill ones own child.
I will repeat.......... abortion is the worst thing to happen to women in this country.
If Jazz cared about us (or you)...... you would both be pro-life, and not liberals.
I hope you take the time to try to understand what is being said. You're on the wrong side here, @Suppressed. Against babies. Against women. Against the Constitution.
-
Since business are taxed on profit, not revenue, what would you be taxing?
I don't understand why you think there is no such thing as an ongoing non-profit. There is no owners taking in profit. What is gathered in is spent going out. It doesn't matter if it is a church, food-bank, our community ball field. Salaries of any paid workers pay income taxes same as workers in a profit organization.
Now? only high priced real estate downtown.
Most of the benefit churches received from their non-profit status was involved in charity, primarily in hospitals, clinics, orphanages and sanitoriums. Since there was real profit in that game, it paid for the charity given to the poor in that regard.
Since the fed levered churches out of that market, there really isn't a grand income anymore, but be of good cheer - Out of their being driven from the market, the modern insurance/healthcare oligarchy was born.
-
Cute. But all my submarines are accounted for!
But churches state firm beliefs in all kinds of things that are unknowable! What's your best hypothesis?
That that point of conception is the only thing, or all that "person" needs to know, or understand, about the human experience. At that "time".
-
.
If Jazz cared about us (or you)...... you would both be pro-life, and not liberals.
Sigh. I'm not a liberal. And I am pro-life.
I'm pro-life because I believe abortion is morally wrong, and I want to see abortions made as rare as possible, consistent with the Constitution.
If I were a liberal I wouldn't give a rat's ass about the Constitution. Individual rights? Who cares, you say - it's more important to criminalize abortion from the moment of conception. But women DO have rights under the Constitution, and I can think of few more fundamental than the right of self-determination. A woman should not be beholden to any man, and certainly not to the state's enforcement of religious/patriarchal morality. The Supreme Court determined, over 40 years ago, that the Constitution protected a woman's right to decide whether to reproduce, at least during the first trimester, and gave the states leeway to protect the fetus after that, especially in the third trimester.
You may not like that decision, but it's the law and the choice right is as much a part of the Constitution as the right to keep and bear arms. Subject to regulation, but NOT subject to being denied.
Respect for the Constitution is most meaningful when the facts are tough. It is difficult to defend Nazis marching through Skokie, but a true conservative will recognize why it is important to do so. It is difficult to see pictures of fetuses kicking and moving, and defend the right of a woman to decide for herself whether to reproduce. But it is necessary, especially IMO for a true conservative, to do so, because if the state can deny a woman the ability to decide whether to have children, it is shackling her to a life of servitude, and denying her something basic and fundamental to her dignity as a human being.
But abortion doesn't have to be the answer. Contraceptives, properly used, can eliminate the need for most abortions because most are the result of unplanned pregnancies. Moral education can help too - including the benefits of abstinence until marriage. The most tragic cases are those where abortion is sought because the woman's partner has, after she finds herself pregnant, abandoned her. And here, financial support to assist a woman to ride out a pregnancy and give the child up for adoption can save a life.
Lives are saved, one by one by one. It's hard work, and so many pro-lifers have made a difference. But it is folly to waste energy and resources trying to reverse and criminalize a woman's fundamental right to decide for herself how her life will unfold. The abortion right is a Constitutional right, for reasons that ought to be apparent to any conservative who values individual liberty, and there is no going back.
-
@musiclady @goodwithagun
I am of the opinion that if you are not willing to pay the piper,you shouldn't be asking for the tune to be played. This is regardless of your gender. If a woman isn't willing to take a chance on getting impregnated by a man,maybe she shouldn't be taking a chance on a getting pregnant by him by not having sex with him?
If a man isn't willing to pay child support and otherwise support the child of any woman he impregnates,maybe he shouldn't be having sex with those women?
If either/both do decide to take the chance,they need to accept responsibility for the outcome,if any.
Correct.
But what the left is saying (and their representatives here on this thread), is that women aren't able to take responsibility for themselves. That they need the state to protect them from their own willful choices because they can't do it for themselves.
In a sense, the left is treating women as they treated Native Americans...... like children.
If they truly want women to be empowered, as they claim, then they need to stop defending things that degrade, debase, and diminish personal responsibility with the women in this country.
But then again, the left always has things backwards, and this is no exception.
@sneakypete @goodwithagun @Jazzhead
-
Taxing the churches (and the mosques and the synagogues) will never happen - but in my perfect world they'd be taxed on all property and income not associated with their charitable and educational endeavors. It might encourage more churches to focus on their charitable missions as opposed to proselytizing.
You seem to be suggesting the purpose of a church is to focus on charity work rather than exposing people to God.
Could that be right? If it is, you have no idea of the true purpose of a church.
-
You seem to be suggesting the purpose of a church is to focus on charity work rather than exposing people to God.
Could that be right? If it is, you have no idea of the true purpose of a church.
This is a true statement.
-
@musiclady @goodwithagun
I am of the opinion that if you are not willing to pay the piper,you shouldn't be asking for the tune to be played. This is regardless of your gender. If a woman isn't willing to take a chance on getting impregnated by a man,maybe she shouldn't be taking a chance on a getting pregnant by him by not having sex with him?
If a man isn't willing to pay child support and otherwise support the child of any woman he impregnates,maybe he shouldn't be having sex with those women?
If either/both do decide to take the chance,they need to accept responsibility for the outcome,if any.
Exactly. Only a loser would support abortion. That's not the guy you take home to mom. If he can't help support his own actions he's a loser. Humans were made to bring life into this world and he's not even capable of doing what he's been genetically programmed to do?!
-
A customer can't expect to be able to read the baker's mind.
Yet you pretend to do exactly that.
All the customer knows is that the baker advertises that he makes wedding cakes.
Still waiting for you to produce the baker's ad for same-sex wedding cakes. Heck, I'm still waiting for you to produce any ad at all. In the absence of that, and considering your past and current posting history, I can only conclude that you are lying about the ad.
The customer entered the shop seeking the advertised service.
The customer entered the shop seeking a cake for an event not sanctioned according to Colorado law. In other words, the customer submitted their own definition of 'wedding' that contradicted both the baker's definition and the State of Colorado's definition of 'wedding'. At no time did the baker ever advertise wedding cakes for anything other than a wedding between one man and one woman. Never. Not once. Yet here you are once again giving a false narrative of what happened. And you do so willfully, knowing that your account is false.
And that service was rejected for no valid reason at all (message, design), but rather ONLY because of the baker's religious antipathy to gays.
See? There you go lying again. And you do it by pretending to read the mind of the baker. (See above). You also do it knowing full well that the baker offered any of his other products to the customer. You know the truth, yet choose to lie. Again and again and again, you lie.
-
Taxing the churches (and the mosques and the synagogues) will never happen
Why not? What is stopping it?
- but in my perfect world they'd be taxed on all property and income not associated with their charitable and educational endeavors. It might encourage more churches to focus on their charitable missions as opposed to proselytizing.
How do you propose projecting your perfect world on the rest of society? Should a law be passed removing that tax-exempt status? Or do you prefer someone in a black robe declaring it just like you do with abortion and same-sex marriage?
-
No one's disputing what is the right thing to do. But a woman must, as a matter of law, be able to make that choice for herself.
As a matter of law? What law? Where is this law you keep referring to? You have been asked this question for months on end now. Yet you know full well that there is no law. Nothing. Nada. Only the tyranny of the court. Yet here you are once again lying about this being a matter of law. It isn't.
-
If I were a liberal I wouldn't give a rat's ass about the Constitution.
But that's just it. You don't. I seriously doubt you have even read the Constitution.
Individual rights? Who cares, you say - it's more important to criminalize abortion from the moment of conception.
Uh, no. It is more important to allow States to determine their own laws according to the will of the people of those States. It is the very foundation of this Constitutional Republic. And it is one that you soundly reject.
A woman should not be beholden to any man,
Do you uphold this same standard when it comes to child support?
and certainly not to the state's enforcement of religious/patriarchal morality.
Do you uphold this same standard when it comes to laws against murder, theft, etc?
The Supreme Court determined, over 40 years ago, that the Constitution protected a woman's right to decide whether to reproduce
But we're not talking about the right to reproduce here. We are talking about the right to kill the product of that reproduction.
You may not like that decision, but it's the law and the choice right is as much a part of the Constitution as the right to keep and bear arms.
Uh, no. Not a law at all. Not part of the Constitution either.
Respect for the Constitution is most meaningful when the facts are tough.
That's funny considering that you don't seem to care what the Constitution actually says.
because if the state can deny a woman the ability to decide whether to have children
No State is denying a woman that ability. And not one person here is suggesting otherwise. Yet here you are again giving a false account. This isn't about the woman. It is about the new singular reproduced life that is the result of a free conscientious and consequential action that a woman took. There is something called 'accountability' that you pretend not to be aware of.
it is shackling her to a life of servitude, and denying her something basic and fundamental to her dignity as a human being.
Words fail me.
But abortion doesn't have to be the answer. Contraceptives, properly used, can eliminate the need for most abortions because most are the result of unplanned pregnancies.
You really don't get it. Abortion is being used as a contraceptive.
The most tragic cases are those where abortion is sought because the woman's partner has, after she finds herself pregnant, abandoned her. And here, financial support to assist a woman to ride out a pregnancy and give the child up for adoption can save a life.
That's because the big secret here is that abortion is for men - not for women. Most men have an expectation that if they knock some woman up, that she can go get an abortion. So of course a man is going to leave if the woman doesn't exercise the very right that you champion.
Before Roe, that was the exception. After Roe, it has become the rule.
-
I can only conclude that you are lying about the ad. ... See? There you go lying again. And you do it by pretending to read the mind of the baker. (See above). You also do it knowing full well that the baker offered any of his other products to the customer. You know the truth, yet choose to lie. Again and again and again, you lie.
That is all he does is lie.
He lies about who and what he is and goes to great lengths to explain himself to those who are on to what he actually is based on his own words and fruits, depicting himself as an angel of light while spewing evil as a good.
Who and what he is is already clear to the majority here on this board.
We appreciate his presence here so we can hone our skills in using him for target practice.
-
it is shackling her to a life of servitude, and denying her something basic and fundamental to her dignity as a human being.
This is the most hideous thing you've said so far, @Jazzhead.
You really don't respect life. You don't understand what being a parent means. You don't understand the incredible blessing of a new life.
I really, REALLY hope you never reproduce if you think your wife will be "shackled" with your child, and that being a mother is being in servitude.
I'm detecting some issues you have that cannot possibly be addressed here on this thread.
And your being a liberal is NOT your biggest problem. There is a callousness in your soul here that I've never seen before.
And I am afraid for you......
-
Correct.
But what the left is saying (and their representatives here on this thread), is that women aren't able to take responsibility for themselves. That they need the state to protect them from their own willful choices because they can't do it for themselves.
In a sense, the left is treating women as they treated Native Americans...... like children.
If they truly want women to be empowered, as they claim, then they need to stop defending things that degrade, debase, and diminish personal responsibility with the women in this country.
But then again, the left always has things backwards, and this is no exception.
@sneakypete @goodwithagun @Jazzhead
@musiclady
It has been my experience that the bible-thumping right is even more guilty of this than the radical left. This is one of the areas where they agree.
-
This is the most hideous thing you've said so far, @Jazzhead.
You really don't respect life. You don't understand what being a parent means. You don't understand the incredible blessing of a new life.
I really, REALLY hope you never reproduce if you think your wife will be "shackled" with your child, and that being a mother is being in servitude.
I'm detecting some issues you have that cannot possibly be addressed here on this thread.
And your being a liberal is NOT your biggest problem. There is a callousness in your soul here that I've never seen before.
And I am afraid for you......
I have the two greatest kids in the world, ML. They're doing what they want to do in life, and I couldn't be prouder of them.
I was damn lucky with my kids, and their amazing mom.
Women who seek abortions aren't lucky as I was. Their partner may have abandoned them. Like Hoodat suggests, their partner may be pressuring them to "wash it away, as if it isn't real" (in the words of the best anti-abortion song I've ever heard, by Graham Parker. )
I share your concern for the unborn. But walk a mile in someone else's shoes. Desperation is not a reason to lock up a woman for murder. The need is for compassion, not a regime that forces women into back alleys.
The choice is the woman's. Period. It is up to those who defend life to help her make the right choice, and give her the support to do so.
-
Exactly. Only a loser would support abortion. That's not the guy you take home to mom. If he can't help support his own actions he's a loser. Humans were made to bring life into this world and he's not even capable of doing what he's been genetically programmed to do?!
@goodwithagun
I'm going to step this discussion up a few steps with the statement that women should be the sole decision makers on having an abortion or not when they reach the point where they can get pregnant by themselves. If the father of the future child wants that baby and is willing to sign legal papers that frees her from any obligations AS WELL AS TO ANY DOMINION OVER the child once it is born,she should be,as a matter of law,REQUIRED to carry the child to term or face prison time for causing an unlawful death of some sort.
Everybody wants to talk about the rights of a woman,but what about the rights of the man that impregnated her?
-
I have the two greatest kids in the world, ML. They're doing what they want to do in life, and I couldn't be prouder of them.
I was damn lucky with my kids, and their amazing mom.
Women who seek abortions aren't lucky as I was. Their partner may have abandoned them. Like Hoodat suggests, their partner may be pressuring them to "wash it away, as if it isn't real" (in the words of the best anti-abortion song I've ever heard, by Graham Parker. )
I share your concern for the unborn. But walk a mile in someone else's shoes. Desperation is not a reason to lock up a woman for murder. The need is for compassion, not a regime that forces women into back alleys.
The choice is the woman's. Period. It is up to those who defend life to help her make the right choice, and give her the support to do so.
More abortions are performed for convenience than anything else.
But I do feel very sorry for the children of people (like you) who support abortion. If they realize that their parents (their Moms AND their Dads) would have killed them because they didn't want them, what kind of fear does that create when they do wrong things and risk being "unwanted" as older kids.
Your arguments are ALL fallacious, and your tenacity in keeping to the lie you are desperately clinging to is frightening.
You are wrong. Your excuses for murder are wrong. Your pretense in caring about women is idiotic. And your claiming to be pro-life while spending hours arguing on behalf of death almost bizarre.
Why don't you try to be honest for a change? If I were your kid I'd be scared to death of you. Because underneath your claims to be compassionate, you are clinging to evil.
Try facing the truth in Christ Jesus. It will set you free.
-
The Supreme Court determined, over 40 years ago, that the Constitution protected a woman's right to decide whether to reproduce, at least during the first trimester, and gave the states leeway to protect the fetus after that, especially in the third trimester.
You may not like that decision, but it's the law and the choice right is as much a part of the Constitution as the right to keep and bear arms. Subject to regulation, but NOT subject to being denied.
First off, No. The right to keep and bear arms is spelled out.
Now, maybe I missed something in one of the many times I have read the Constitution, so please point to the part that gives anyone the right to deprive a baby of life with neither charge, nor trial, nor conviction by a jury of their peers. I missed it, and I thought I was passably familiar with the Document and Amendments.
The right to reproduce or not is most simply exercised prior to coitus. In fact people decide to not reproduce daily, tens to thousands of times, whether any decision to at least go through the motions is followed up on and completed or not. Somehow, I envision you as one who has seen that look, that "Not if you were the last man on earth" expression of rejected prospective reproductive activity, but if you're hanging with liberal chicks, you're probably only getting that from the pear-shaped ones with flattop haircuts and dunlop's syndrome.
Most often, that decision is made prior (as in long prior) to any hint of physical activity, while communication is still in digital form (one sole digit, middle, extended, back of hand displayed with digit pointing upward) or its verbal equivalent, or perhaps a more courteous rejection.
No one acting within out laws has ever denied a woman her right to choose not to reproduce. Up to and even after the moment of penetration, the woman is (and remains) free to call a halt to such proceedings and send the fellow forth nursing his painfully azure appendages and wounded pride. It has ever been thus, and laws exist in our terribly sexist society to punish the wretch who fails to fully honor her demand that any further activity immediately cease, with prosecution and prison, or in some cases where a fellow becomes too tumescent to apply reason and restraint and desist on demand, even the death penalty, although that usually applies for those who impose themselves throughout the process.
So women have ever had the right to determine whether or not they reproduce, and in the fashion of Western Chivalry (as horribly decried as it may be by the vagina-hat wearing and vocal contingent who claim it "sexist"--which admittedly, it is), predicated on the protection of and esteem for those precious and wonderful human vessels who bring forth our sons and daughters and who make our lives heaven or hell or sometimes both, our culture has wholly acknowledged the right of a woman to choose within some social constrictions whether or not she wishes to, colloquially, make a baby, and with whom. Severe punishment awaits the man who refuses to abide by that choice.
So choice is not the issue, the question becomes one of timing.
The accepted time frame for making that choice has been until the moment of conception. The very last acceptable opt-out (AKA: "pull and pray") has been practiced, with limited success, since people figured out that storks and cabbages were only coincidentally involved and not essential to reproduction.
Many methods of achieving those ends have been invented, from the most basic to biochemical and mechanical means of preventing conception.
However, like all things, that option has a use-by date, a point where the second hand sweeps past the deadline, the DNA combine, the embryo implants, and reproduction is a fait acompli.
As Gene Wilder, in one of his best cinematic moments might have said, "Life! I have created life!", and indeed you have.
Now the question has changed. It is not one of whether to reproduce, but one of what to do about it.
Whether that result of all the hormone and pheronome-charged activity is a lovingly welcomed addition to an established family, an approaching awkward moment with her parents on the way to the altar, or will it end in a death so horrible we would decry the practice from those who are masters of public and horrible executions, but they won't even do to their enemies what that growing innocent has in store in its brief future.
Consider that. For the accused criminal, we appoint an attorney, we quail at depriving one of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, we provide for years of appeals to avoid the death penalty, and if all fails to produce a verdict of "not guilty" of one of those most heinous and evil crimes (including, in some instances the imposition of reproductive activity), only then do we, as humanely as possible, terminate the life of that person we have deemed by virtue of their horrible acts to be someone we don't even want loose in a prison population.
We still regard protections against the cruel or unusual termination of that convicted criminal's life.
We even make allowances for those not capable of or of expressing rational thought and refuse to convict them in such a way that they suffer the ultimate penalty for their ill deeds.
We would not consider mechanically shredding them.
We would not inject them with or subject them to chemicals which effectively burn them to death.
We would not pull them feet first through an orifice, millimeters from freedom and cut the base of their skulls open and suck out their brains.
Such acts would be considered by any civilized society far too cruel and unusual to be practiced as a mode of execution for people convicted of even the most horrible crimes, in fact would be considered among them and by any standard, inhuman.
By now, you may well see exactly where I am going with this.
That is the punishment reserved for those who have never had a chance to commit any crime, whose only 'evil' is their inconvenient presence.
The intentional destruction of those humans, (statistically speaking, half or whom are female) is demanded as a "right" by those whose very decision to reproduce brought them into existence. It is no longer a decision of whether or not to reproduce, that decision has been made, it is now a decision regarding the future of an existing life, one which has not had any opportunity to lie or steal or cause harm to any other person other than be the inconvenient by-product of their choice to reproduce.
For decades of the development of modern medicine, we grappled with the moral quandary of whether to save the mother at the expense of the child in medical situations where the mother's life was endangered by the position of that developing child (ectopic and Fallopian pregnancies).
In some cases, acknowledging the demise of both if nothing was done, we grudgingly permitted the taking of that small life in order to save that of the mother. In other instances, the mother, herself, has opted to not take medical treatments which would have saved her life but cost the life of her baby, that her child might live even if she would not. Such is the measure of the love a mother can have for her child, sacrificing her very life for her progeny.
On the other hand, there are those who would go to any lengths to recant that decision to reproduce, by taking the life that grows within them.
Traditionally, we had legally forbidden such, we had even gone to great lengths to provide for the means to permit the inconvenient results of the illicit couplings of adults who had decided against social convention to reproduce to be born and be raised, and albeit bastardy was not granted the full keys to the castle in most cases, even royal bloodlines have their unsanctioned branches. There is even an heraldic device for such on coats of arms. Even for the more ordinary folks, the means to discreetly deliver and raise those children existed, often the result of churches putting their money where their mouths were and providing for them or the adoption services to ensure those children would lead lives where they were loved, or at least wanted.
It is only since five people in black robes decided that the "right to choose" whether to reproduce could be invoked after the fact, retroactively, opened the door to the question of where the cut-off date is for committing the murder of those who are inarguably innocent--a decision which opens other doors to darker places which are beyond the scope of this writing.
Oddly enough, despite all Western precedent, despite that such actions undertaken against prisoners of war or heinous admitted and convicted criminals, would be seen as war crimes or unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment, respectively, those justices decided in one of the worst decisions in the context of western jurisprudence that performing those acts on babies was just hunky-dory, and decreed that women had a right to slaughter their offspring.
It wasn't that such wasn't ever done in the past, under the threat of being found out and prosecuted or reviled by their peers, with that decision it became official policy.
How can a nation which decried the eugenics programs of totalitarian governments, reviled the evils of concentration camps and gulags for the punishment and extermination of everyone inconvenient in their society from political dissidents to actual criminals to children guilty only of being born to parents of whom the State did not approve, which pointed its moral finger at apartheid and intertribal genocide in Africa, consider itself a bastion of freedom and the moral light of a free world and yet sanction the practice of infanticide which has murdered more than any single political ideology or -ism in the past century, a century which fairly swam in human blood?
The Roe decision heralded the modern era of cognitive dissonance in this Republic, when those who are charged with the protection of the very Rights with which Our Creator endowed us, and which Rights we attempted to protect from just such Governmental edicts via the Constitution and Bill of Rights, hand down a decision so juxtaposed to the entire cultural fabric and moral fiber from which this Republic was made to sanction limitless murder of the most innocent among us, especially in a time when there are so many ways for a woman to decide not to reproduce before the fact.
One thing is certain, while a woman may invoke this retroactive 'right' to avoid the results of her decision to reproduce, there remains the fact that once that action is taken, that decision to end that life can't be reconsidered nor reversed. Some things just can't be undone.
Many, convinced by the charlatans who have decried that life as a 'lump of tissue', will bear the scars of their decision for the rest of their life. Some will find consolation in repentance of that decision and the love of a forgiving God, but all, misled by those who tout a 'right' crafted by five people in black robes, will suffer from their decision.
How anyone who claims to stand for the 'rights of women' can countenance such an abortion of jurisprudence is beyond me, but such is life (and death) in the era of cognitive dissonance.
-
Man can you write, @Smokin Joe. :patriot:
All I know is there are a lot of ignorant people in the world. They can't see that sometimes the "things that set you free" enslave them the most.
-
An eloquent post, SJ. The moral case against abortion needs to shouted from the rooftops.
But it still must be the woman's choice, if only because who else is qualified to make it? It's the woman's body, not the state's. It's the woman's burden and responsibility, not the state's. The father's usually way gone, and the woman is alone in the world.
Support her, persuade her to do the right thing. Engage all your eloquence and passion. Appeal to her intellect, appeal to her emotions, appeal to her wallet. Tell her that potential life in her belly that she may now resent can be the joy of her own life. Tell her that nine months of burden is a small price to pay to give someone else the chance to be a parent.
But the state should have no role.
-
An eloquent post, SJ. The moral case against abortion needs to shouted from the rooftops.
But it still must be the woman's choice, if only because who else is qualified to make it? It's the woman's body, not the state's. It's the woman's burden and responsibility, not the state's. The father's usually way gone, and the woman is alone in the world.
Support her, persuade her to do the right thing. Engage all your eloquence and passion. Appeal to her intellect, appeal to her emotions, appeal to her wallet. Tell her that potential life in her belly that she may now resent can be the joy of her own life. Tell her that nine months of burden is a small price to pay to give someone else the chance to be a parent.
But the state should have no role.
A women has many choices she can make. ALL of them occur before there is another living human being growing inside her!
-
One thing is certain, while a woman may invoke this retroactive 'right' to avoid the results of her decision to reproduce, there remains the fact that once that action is taken, that decision to end that life can't be reconsidered nor reversed. Some things just can't be undone.
Many, convinced by the charlatans who have decried that life as a 'lump of tissue', will bear the scars of their decision for the rest of their life. Some will find consolation in repentance of that decision and the love of a forgiving God, but all, misled by those who tout a 'right' crafted by five people in black robes, will suffer from their decision.
How anyone who claims to stand for the 'rights of women' can countenance such an abortion of jurisprudence is beyond me, but such is life (and death) in the era of cognitive dissonance.
A more astute, well-written and cogent indictment of Jazzhead's entire argument and premise, one can never read.
Bravo! Well done sir!
And well articulated and irrefutable.
Unless one is governed by evil and talking points.
-
But the state should have no role.
Funny how you say that yet at the same time you point to the state as your justification as to why a women should be allowed to murder an unborn baby.
It is the very "state" that you claim should have no role that created this "right" out of the ether a mere 45 years ago.
If "the state" should have no role...they shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place.
-
But it still must be the woman's choice, if only because who else is qualified to make it?
No one - Including her. Thai's the point. The choice should not be.
It's the woman's body, not the state's.
No. it's the CHILD's body, not the woman's. THE CHILD'S. It is the child who is torn asunder and destroyed.
It's the woman's burden and responsibility, not the state's.
No, that is not true. the father shares that burden.
The father's usually way gone
And if he's not, what then? the child is quite literally 50% his.
and the woman is alone in the world.
Which is why the bonds of marriage exist, and why for thousands of years, women saved themselves for that act. Your observations only exist through the very faulty prism of 'modern' culture, and will disappear when it meets it's predictable and primal end. An end that should be prayed for.
God, the barbarity of it, that this conversation should even exist! The answer is so very apparent, and it would bring shame to those who are insulated from that answer, if they were capable of it, where defilement is made sacrosanct and marriage is made null.
Where the right to rut like an animal is a matter of course, and the right of a child to breathe his first breath is easily discarded.
shame.
-
Shaming isn't going to do much good, I'm afraid, roamer. Religious values are well and good, but they cannot and must not be imposed by the State.
It's the woman's body, the woman's burden, the woman's choice. Period. Help her make the right one.
-
A more astute, well-written and cogent indictment of Jazzhead's entire argument and premise, one can never read.
Bravo! Well done sir!
And well articulated and irrefutable.
Unless one is governed by evil and talking points.
Except we all want the same thing - to reduce the number of abortions. Yes, I want to do it consistent with the Constitution and its guarantee of individual liberty protected from the coercion of the state. But the bottom line is that the triad of contraception, moral persuasion and financial support is simply more effective than coercion.
Let's try what works, and forget about the windmill-tilting. There's no going back to the days of the back alley.
-
Shaming isn't going to do much good, I'm afraid, roamer. Religious values are well and good, but they cannot and must not be imposed by the State.
It's the woman's body, the woman's burden, the woman's choice. Period. Help her make the right one.
Cannot and must not be imposed by the State?
Give me an example of even one law which does not impose a moral boundary found in religion.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor (Perjury).
Thou shalt not Murder (including two counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman).
Thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother (unruly child).
Thou shalt keep the Lord's day holy. (Blue Laws)
Our entire legal system is rife with laws which have their basis in, or are, religious values. Why do you make the exception the taking of the life of innocents?
Your argument fails.
A law, making abortion illegal certainly helps a woman make the right choice, it makes the practice of performing abortions socially unacceptable, as was the practice of getting one. People will not choose to do something so readily if they cannot obtain it. The law was helping women make the right choice, until the State stepped in in the form of five people, each of which can bask in the blood of over ten million innocents.
-
Except we all want the same thing
No, we don't.
You insist the state cannot force anyone to stop murdering their child so they can have sex without consequences and in the same breath insist the state has the right to force someone to celebrate and serve homosexuality and 'punish bigots' as you have previously asserted you endorse.
Every evil thing, every practice and idea anathema to true liberty - you support and make excuses for, while attacking the very foundations and morality that made it possible.
We do not want the same things. We want evil stopped, not 'reduced'.
Were this Nazi Germany you would be arguing that reducing the number of Jews gassed is what we all want, while arguing for it's continued practice as a 'right'.
-
A more astute, well-written and cogent indictment of Jazzhead's entire argument and premise, one can never read.
Bravo! Well done sir!
And well articulated and irrefutable.
Unless one is governed by evil and talking points.
I echo the BRAVO! to @Smokin Joe ! And am astounded by the talking points informed by evil response by @Jazzhead .
And @roamer_1 's cry of anguish.....
God, the barbarity of it, that this conversation should even exist! The answer is so very apparent, and it would bring shame to those who are insulated from that answer, if they were capable of it, where defilement is made sacrosanct and marriage is made null.
Where the right to rut like an animal is a matter of course, and the right of a child to breathe his first breath is easily discarded.
shame.
And wonder as well how we, as a nation, have sunk so low and are so blinded by evil that this discussion is even taking place.
The barbarity of ripping a child to shreds DEFENDED here in the name of compassion for the woman and disdain for the state?? Bizarre. Jazzhead's mindless response to SJ's articulate, eloquent spelling out of the injustice of not only ending, but painfully torturing a human being because that human being is inconvenient, and a woman's RIGHT not to reproduce abandoned??
It's breath-taking in the depth of evil.
Breath-taking.
-
Shaming isn't going to do much good, I'm afraid, roamer. Religious values are well and good, but they cannot and must not be imposed by the State.
It's the woman's body, the woman's burden, the woman's choice. Period. Help her make the right one.
In a nutshell, you missed out on the entire nature of how this country got its beginnings.
The Founders were men of God who believed we are subject to His direction, and constituted a government based upon that belief.
One nation, under God ring a bell to you?
-
I echo the BRAVO! to @Smokin Joe ! And am astounded by the talking points informed by evil response by @Jazzhead .
And @roamer_1 's cry of anguish.....
And wonder as well how we, as a nation, have sunk so low and are so blinded by evil that this discussion is even taking place.
The barbarity of ripping a child to shreds DEFENDED here in the name of compassion for the woman and disdain for the state?? Bizarre. Jazzhead's mindless response to SJ's articulate, eloquent spelling out of the injustice of not only ending, but painfully torturing a human being because that human being is inconvenient, and a woman's RIGHT not to reproduce abandoned??
It's breath-taking in the depth of evil.
Breath-taking.
What I advocate will prevent more abortions than what you advocate. That's the bottom line, or should be. All your hectoring doesn't prevent a single abortion - not one. The Constitution supports a woman's right to choose. Deal with it, and move on to advocate for what works, and what's legal.
And I am sick and tired of your lying. I have never defended abortion. Never. But I live in the real world, where woman aren't chattel, to men, to the state, to anyone else. Every woman has the right to decide her own destiny for herself. Help her make the right and moral decision. That's how you prevent abortions.
-
In a nutshell, you missed out on the entire nature of how this country got its beginnings.
The Founders were men of God who believed we are subject to His direction, and constituted a government based upon that belief.
One nation, under God ring a bell to you?
Does separation of church and state ring a bell to you?
-
What I advocate will prevent more abortions than what you advocate. That's the bottom line, or should be. All your hectoring doesn't prevent a single abortion - not one. The Constitution supports a woman's right to choose. Deal with it, and move on to advocate for what works, and what's legal.
More vomited talking points guided by evil.
Your stubbornness in refusing to accept the hideous barbarity of what you are advocating truly IS breath-taking.
You should just be honest and say, "I am pro-abortion, I am anti-Constitution, I am anti-female, I am anti-choice, and I don't give a rip about the torture of innocent human beings."
THEN some of us might respect you more, because at least then, we could see you are honest.......
As it is, you are playing the leftist fool, whose refusal to accept truth would be comical if it weren't so tragic.
-
Your pro-abortion words speak for themselves, @Jazzhead.
You can deny that you agree with the ripping apart of living human beings all you want, but you have been here for days proving that it is EXACTLY what you believe.
If you want anyone to believe you are pro-life, stop the inane, amoral, vile, deceitful arguments in defense of torturing human beings for convenience.
Admit you were wrong, that you ARE a leftist and move on.
Don't keep arguing the idiotic lies you've presented here.
No one is lying but YOU.
-
Shaming isn't going to do much good, I'm afraid, roamer. Religious values are well and good, but they cannot and must not be imposed by the State.
Funny that you would defend a right to be shame-free, when the blindness of 'culture' itself was my point.
It's the woman's body
It's the BABY's body. Genetically unique and different in signature from the body of the woman.
the woman's burden, the woman's choice. Period.
Bullshit. Period.
Help her make the right one.
I am.
-
Does separation of church and state ring a bell to you?
Point to where that bell resides.
I can point to the Declaration of Independence and easily obtain my source.
We were not founded on isolation from God, but dependent upon Him.
-
Does separation of church and state ring a bell to you?
What Article and Clause are those words actually found in the Constitution?
Please cite them specifically. If they are not present there in the document, then there is no such thing except a private letter Jefferson wrote the Danbury Baptists in 1801 explaining why he had no power to revoke the charter of another church at their request.
It has no power of law, only the incitement of those who hate God and despise the existence of biblical faith being exercised or existing at all.
-
Your pro-abortion words speak for themselves, @Jazzhead.
You can deny that you agree with the ripping apart of living human beings all you want, but you have been here for days proving that it is EXACTLY what you believe.
If you want anyone to believe you are pro-life, stop the inane, amoral, vile, deceitful arguments in defense of torturing human beings for convenience.
Admit you were wrong, that you ARE a leftist and move on.
Don't keep arguing the idiotic lies you've presented here.
No one is lying but YOU.
Go pound sand, ML. I want to prevent abortions consistent with the Constitution. You do not. That doesn't make me "evil", just realistic. Woman aren't going back to the back alley. Ever.
-
Does separation of church and state ring a bell to you?
Does "that's not in the Constitution" ring a bell to you?
-
Does "that's not in the Constitution" ring a bell to you?
First amendment. Read it. *****rollingeyes*****
-
It's not in the First Amendment, sorry.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
-
Go pound sand, ML. I want to prevent abortions consistent with the Constitution. You do not. That doesn't make me "evil", just realistic. Woman aren't going back to the back alley. Ever.
Because in your perverted and twisted worldview, institutional execution and genocide is cleaner and much preferred over individuals performing messy murder of infants in the womb in that mythical alleyway.
Kindof like how gas chambers were more efficient than mass graves people were machine-gunned into.
-
First amendment. Read it. *****rollingeyes*****
I have...there is no mention of a "separation of church and state in there."
Here let me show you.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Nope no mention of a separation of Church and State in there.
What you are referring to...is not in the Constitution...but is in private correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Church in Danbury, CT dated October 7, 1801.
-
First amendment. Read it.
It's obvious you never have, not with any honesty.
I still cannot find the words 'Separation, Church and State' anywhere in that Amendment. Amazing how you magically insist those words are in there when they are clearly not there.
Must be right next to the words that declare Abortion and homosexual marriage sacred rights.
-
It's not in the First Amendment, sorry.
Yes it is. See Everson v. Board of Education: "the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation' between Church and State."
See also Lemon v. Kurtzman and its progeny.
The Supreme Court has held to this view consistently - the Constitution's establishment clause created a separation of church and state. (Note that the First Amendment also includes the free exercise clause - that protects the religious freedom of individuals. But the establishment clause says the government can't be in the business of promoting one religion over another.
That's the law. Sorry.
-
IWhat you are referring to...is not in the Constitution...but is in private correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Church in Danbury, CT dated October 7, 1801.
Nope. It's in the Constitution.
-
Yes it is. See Everson v. Board of Education: "the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation' between Church and State."
See also Lemon v. Kurtzman and its progeny.
The Supreme Court has held to this view consistently - the Constitution's establishment clause created a separation of church and state. (Note that the First Amendment also includes the free exercise clause - that protects the religious freedom of individuals. But the establishment clause says the government can't be in the business of promoting one religion over another.
That's the law. Sorry.
You're citing case law not the Constitution. You've been shown the clear plain written 1st Amendment.
Here I'll show you again:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That is the First Amendment to The Constitution right there. All of it...every letter and word.
Please show me in there where the phrase "wall of separation" is.
-
Nope. It's in the Constitution.
No it's not. That is a bald face and blatant lie.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That is the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States right there.
It's not in there.
-
No it's not. That is a bald face and blatant lie.
That is the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States right there.
It's not in there.
The Supreme Court has specifically interpreted the Establishment Clause as erecting a wall of separation.
That's the law. Sorry.
You know, folks like you and ML destroy your credibility by throwing around the "liar" charge like confetti. We have a difference of opinion. The Supreme Court is Constitutionally charged with interpreting and applying the words of the Constitution. It has specifically held that the Establishment Clause erects a wall of separation between church and state, and has in subsequent rulings established tests for determining whether such separation exists.
You cannot deny any of that reality.
However, I respect the authority of the Supreme Court. You do not. Having a difference of opinion is not "lying".
-
Nope. It's in the Constitution.
@Jazzhead Show us the exact words "separation of church and state" in the Constitution.
-
Please no personal insults...Sorry musiclady I had to remove your post.
Jazz...what do you expect when you tell someone to *go pound sound*
-
The Supreme Court has specifically interpreted the Establishment Clause as erecting a wall of separation.
That's the law. Sorry.
You know, folks like you and ML destroy your credibility by throwing around the "liar" charge like confetti. We have a difference of opinion. The Supreme Court is Constitutionally charged with interpreting and applying the words of the Constitution. It has specifically held that the Establishment Clause erects a wall of separation between church and state, and has in subsequent rulings established tests for determining whether such separation exists.
You cannot deny any of that reality.
However, I respect the authority of the Supreme Court. You do not. Having a difference of opinion is not "lying".
The Supreme Court of the United States is NOT the Constitution.
The Constitution is very clear in what the First Amendment says.
And there is no wall if separation in there.
So you are very clearly lyng when you say it's in there. Anyone with a 6th grade reading level can see it's not.
But here again we are dealing with your use of situational ethics. In this case you're hiding behind the black robes of the SCOTUS to defend an indefensible position and claim something is in the Constitution that clearly isn't there.
But when it comes to guns and the Supreme Court siding with gun owners or some other favorite Liberal hot button issue where the Supremes might rule against you...you'll rail against judicial over reach and how the courts have no right to rule on then issue.
As for your whining about insults...make sure you're not calling people bigots and instructing them to pound sand before you start complaining about mean words headed your direction.
-
However, I respect the authority of the Supreme Court. You do not. Having a difference of opinion is not "lying".
And that is a lie.
You are saying you supported the Dred Scott decision then.
I respect the authority of the Supreme Court when it is a moral decision.
-
And that is a lie.
You are saying you supported the Dred Scott decision then.
I respect the authority of the Supreme Court when it is a moral decision.
It also means he supported Korematsu.
-
The Supreme Court has specifically interpreted the Establishment Clause as erecting a wall of separation.
That's the law. Sorry.
I pray for the day that this same court that you champion as having the power to create rights out of thin air and remake the Constitution to fit their ideology without ratification of the 50 states to give it the power of the Supreme Law of the Land - decrees that the first amendment does not apply to persons engaged in aberrant sexual behavior and that states are legally permitted to criminalize and penalize aberrant sexuality. I also hope for the day that SCOTUS decrees that anyone practicing abortion or aborting their baby are committing murder and that the death penalty applies to those convicted of that crime via the states.
Then we'll watch you screech at the top of your lungs about the Constitution and case-law.
We can crow about "the Law" and shout in your face "sorry".
Goose and gander and all that since case law and precedent is the Constitution in your ever-changing situational immoral ethos.
-
Please no personal insults...Sorry musiclady I had to remove your post.
Jazz...what do you expect when you tell someone to *go pound sound*
No problem, @mystery-ak .
I actually AM glad that @Jazzhead's Mom didn't have him burned up, ripped to shreds, or have his brain sucked out before he was born. And in that post I said that I knew he wasn't stupid.
But the opinions he is stating here are based on willful stupidity due to the inculcation of mindless propaganda and denial of truth, and a willful misinterpretation of what is, and what is NOT in the Constitution.
I will stand on that, on the rock, not the sand, as long as the Lord gives me breath.
-
I remember a message that was on a handwritten sign during a pro-life march in Washington a few years ago. I framed it so I wouldn't forget it. The message read: "The greatest insult to God is to return His gift of life -- unopened".
I think we all agree with this message. Where we split is on how best to change the trajectory of abortion in the United States.
Some want women to keep their legs closed, others want the state to make abortion illegal--presumably with jail time for the formerly expectant mother and her doctor, and still others want to try and expand "pro-choice" to include options other than abortion, including financial and emotional support during pregnancy and more and less arduous avenues to adoption.
Can we please let go of words like "evil" and the debate over who is the purest pro-lifer? Can we turn to a discussion about which one of the above options holds the greatest hope for welcoming one of God's gifts into the world?
-
No problem, @mystery-ak .
I actually AM glad that @Jazzhead's Mom didn't have him burned up, ripped to shreds, or have his brain sucked out before he was born. And in that post I said that I knew he wasn't stupid.
But the opinions he is stating here are based on willful stupidity due to the inculcation of mindless propaganda and denial of truth, and a willful misinterpretation of what is, and what is NOT in the Constitution.
I will stand on that, on the rock, not the sand, as long as the Lord gives me breath.
I share your views re abortion you know that.
I have to step aside from my views and opinions sometimes to run a forum and keep civility...which is very hard at times like these.
-
And that is a lie.
You are saying you supported the Dred Scott decision then.
I respect the authority of the Supreme Court when it is a moral decision.
That is the problem when one rests one's values on a handful of men in black robes.
I guarantee that, in the day, he would be arguing FOR the Dred Scott decision because it was "Constitutional." (As were the Democrats of the day). Because the arguments of the left are not based on any core values, but politics, and derisive elitism.
That's what we're seeing on display here, and that's why it's so dreadfully frustrating to witness.
It's like debating with a brick wall.
-
It also means he supported Korematsu.
More lies. I said I respected the authority of the SCOTUS. That hardly means I would not criticize a particular decision of the Court.
But the SCOTUS's rulings, unless and until overturned, ARE the law of the land. That's what the Constitution provides. So it is fact, not fantasy - the Establishment Clause erects a wall of separation.
-
It's like debating with a brick wall.
Only if you are debating dishonestly.
-
I remember a message that was on a handwritten sign during a pro-life march in Washington a few years ago. I framed it so I wouldn't forget it. The message read: "The greatest insult to God is to return His gift of life -- unopened".
I think we all agree with this message. Where we split is on how best to change the trajectory of abortion in the United States.
Some want women to keep their legs closed, others want the state to make abortion illegal--presumably with jail time for the formerly expectant mother and her doctor, and still others want to try and expand "pro-choice" to include options other than abortion, including financial and emotional support during pregnancy and more and less arduous avenues to adoption.
Can we please let go of words like "evil" and the debate over who is the purest pro-lifer? Can we turn to a discussion about which one of the above options holds the greatest hope for welcoming one of God's gifts into the world?
-
I share your views re abortion you know that.
I have to step aside from my views and opinions sometimes to run a forum and keep civility...which is very hard at times like these.
I know that, and I respect that.
But it is very difficult to see the bullheaded defense of the butchering of innocent children in the name of women's "rights" and not become angry.
If I stepped over the line, I apologize. (I didn't think I did, and assume I was "reported," but I respect your decision).
-
Only if you are debating dishonestly.
*****rollingeyes*****
As you are, of course.......... every single word in defense of the death of human children under the phony mantle of "women's rights."
I assume you wanted Mengele's experiments on the Jews "reduced," right??
Before the pro-abortion group reacts in horror to that comparison........... it is the SAME THING.
-
*****rollingeyes*****
As you are, of course.......... every single word.
PLEASE STOP IT!!! Take your bickering off line and make room for a reasonable discussion.
@musiclady
@Jazzhead
-
Can we please let go of words like "evil" and the debate over who is the purest pro-lifer?
NO.
Emphatically NO.
Slaughtering infants in the womb for convenience because a people want to have illicit sex without the consequences IS ABJECT EVIL.
Whitewashing the genocide of an ENTIRE GENERATION of Americans in the womb by refusing to call it evil so we can placate ourselves with notions of 'reducing' genocide to acceptable levels' is no less evil in itself.
God is not mocked and a nation that no longer values life and is willing to slaughter infants is a nation that does not deserve to survive or exist for long.
Can we turn to a discussion about which one of the above options holds the greatest hope for welcoming one of God's gifts into the world?
We cannot discuss God or morality in this society without condescension and ridicule. Society says that if you leave God out of everything, discussing hope via science and politics is moral.
Take your bickering off line and make room for a reasonable discussion.
Who determines what is "reasonable"?
You?
-
*****rollingeyes*****
As you are, of course.......... every single word in defense of the death of human children under the phony mantle of "women's rights."
I assume you wanted Mengele's experiments on the Jews "reduced," right??
Before the pro-abortion group reacts in horror to that comparison........... it is the SAME THING.
So now I'm a Nazi? *****rollingeyes*****
Look, this is my last response to you on this thread. I agree with RIV - it is time to take this to PM, if you're so inclined. Then we can spit like cobras at each other.
But once again - I AM NOT DEFENDING ABORTION. To the contrary, I am advocating that we do what works, and what is Constitutional, to reduce the need for abortion in this country. Abortion is a moral horror - but so are laws that would imprison young women for making a decision regarding their own bodies that they never, ever wanted to make - but were forced to because of desperate circumstance, such as abandonment by a partner.
It is cliché to say you should not criticize a person until you've walked a mile in his or her mocassins. The circumstances that prompt abortion are many, and few of them are pleasant, and it helps no one to hector woman about closing their legs, and similar varieties of slut-shaming that I hear far too often from "Christians". Christ is about love, and compassion, and empathy. No one wants to "butcher" babies. NO ONE. Abortion is a sorry response to desperate circumstance, and we fulfill our faithfulness to Christ by empathizing with folks placed in this predicament, and HELPING them to do the right thing.
And we fulfill our faithfulness to the Constitution by recognizing that a profoundly personal decision like abortion must be made by the woman alone. It's her body, her burden, her responsibility, her conscience. IT IS HER CHOICE.
-
I remember a message that was on a handwritten sign during a pro-life march in Washington a few years ago. I framed it so I wouldn't forget it. The message read: "The greatest insult to God is to return His gift of life -- unopened".
I think we all agree with this message. Where we split is on how best to change the trajectory of abortion in the United States.
Thanks, RIV, for your level-headedness. Think about how much could be done if we could settle the abortion wars and focus on empathy, persuasion and support for women in crisis.
-
NO.
Slaughtering infants in the womb for convenience because a people want to have illicit sex without the consequences IS ABJECT EVIL.
Fundamentally dishonest and cruel slut-shaming. How does that further the work of Christ?
-
So now I'm a Nazi? *****rollingeyes*****
And we fulfill our faithfulness to the Constitution by recognizing that a profoundly personal decision like abortion must be made by the woman alone. It's her body, her burden, her responsibility, her conscience. IT IS HER CHOICE.
@Jazzhead WRONG 100% WRONG God alone is the decider of life, Her choice ends the second she finds out she is pregnant. any other point of view is completely amoral. And this is my ;last post to you on this matter.
-
PLEASE STOP IT!!! Take your bickering off line and make room for a reasonable discussion.
@musiclady
@Jazzhead
You're not a Mod.
-
Fundamentally dishonest and cruel slut-shaming. How does that further the work of Christ?
If you have to ask that particular question...
-
Fundamentally dishonest and cruel slut-shaming. How does that further the work of Christ?
Since Azazeal introduced abortion to humans, anything you do to unwrought his rotting wroughting furthers the work of the Christ.
-
Fundamentally dishonest and cruel slut-shaming. How does that further the work of Christ?
Saves people heading to eternal death to turn to Life. That is the entire purpose of the Gospel to begin with.
Christ said "Go and sin no more".
Your morality is to shout that we must go and sin when convenient because a court of men declared infanticide right and good. Condemnation reserved for those who dare point it out as sin and evil with the bogus suggestion that somehow Jesus approves of it.
You are truly the servant of the god of this age.
Free illicit sex without consequences is all people like you see as a sacrosanct doctrine - even if it entails the slaughter of an entire generation of infants in the womb.
And when called upon your advocacy of genocide that you attempt to disguise by pretending you are against it - you cry 'victim' and suggest that Christ would approve of such behavior and the murder of infants because THAT somehow will endear followers to Him.
You have replaced 'Thou shalt NOT murder' with "Thous shalt uphold the murder of infants in the womb - because men in robes decreed it an inalienable right".
-
Free illicit sex without consequences is all people like you see as a sacrosanct doctrine - even if it entails the slaughter of an entire generation of infants in the womb.
The reasons why women seek abortions are far more complicated than suggested by your cruel slut-shaming. Good Christian men abandon their partners, good Christian men beat their partners and otherwise pressure them to take care of the little problem. Women who seek abortions are desperate and deserve compassion, they are hardly seeking "free illicit sex without consequences".
You are an embarrassment to Christ. One of the best reasons to believe in Him and His justice is the comfort that hypocrites like you will have to face Him and explain yourselves.
-
I gotta admit @Jazzhead. That one made me laugh out loud.
-
I gotta admit @Jazzhead. That one made me laugh out loud.
So you, too, think that women who seek abortions want "free illicit sex without consequences"?
Grow the flip up.
-
You are an embarrassment to Christ. One of the best reasons to believe in Him and His justice is the comfort that hypocrites like you will have to face Him and explain yourselves.
Now you're just mouthing what the Accuser himself has to say.
I'm not afraid of standing up for His Word that you reject for the god of your imagination and the fact you attempt to hide behind a "right" that is not there except by the whim of evil men who spit in the face of the Creator to declare murdering infants as a form of birth control is "legal".
Those who fed their infants to the sacrificial fires of Molech do not hold a candle to what you and yours advocate.
The pure abject evil of stating that 'compassion' is helping a woman kill her infant is more grotesque than all the excuses the Nazis made for exterminating Jews and other undesirables.
I'll take your statement that I am an embarrassment to Christ as confirmation that evil and it's minions are pissed off by what I have to say.
-
Now you're just mouthing what the Accuser himself has to say.
I'm not afraid of standing up for His Word that you reject for the god of your imagination and the fact you attempt to hide behind a "right" that is not there except by the whim of evil men who spit in the face of the Creator to declare murdering infants as a form of birth control is "legal".
Those who fed their infants to the sacrificial fires of Molech do not hold a candle to what you and yours advocate.
The pure abject evil of stating that 'compassion' is helping a woman kill her infant is more grotesque than all the excuses the Nazis made for exterminating Jews and other undesirables.
I'll take your statement that I am an embarrassment to Christ as confirmation that evil and it's minions are pissed off by what I have to say.
Compassion is helping and supporting a woman to understand and do the right thing. Your attitude of belittling women as seeking free illicit sex without consequences just drives them to Planned Parenthood.
Attitudes like yours promote abortion, and drive decent people from the church. You should be ashamed of yourself.
-
Compassion is helping and supporting a woman to understand and do the right thing. Your attitude of belittling women as seeking free illicit sex without consequences just drives them to Planned Parenthood.
Attitudes like yours promote abortion, and drive decent people from the church. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Right, compassion is helping and supporting a woman to kill her infant because it is inconvenient and a consequence of illicit sexual behavior out of wedlock.
The Accuser likes to whisper that stuff in the ears of the saints in order to get them to condone and accommodate evil or remain silent in it's presence - which is presented as an angel of light by folks like yourself.
I'm not ignorant of his devices, even if puppets like you are willing to be his messengers.
-
So you, too, think that women who seek abortions want "free illicit sex without consequences"?
Grow the flip up.
I don't know if it is gravity, DNA, age. But all I can do now, it seems, is mushroom out.
It was actually the last part that made me laugh. I should have bolded it. My bad.
Take the "illicit" out and yeah, I agree.
You want to hear a story? Yes, yes you do.
A former g-friend of my BIL turned up pregnant after they had broken up. (The baby was most likely his) and later took an abortion pill to kill the kid. Almost late term. Since it was winter she put the baby in a shoe box on the back porch. She planned a funeral later in the spring when the ground was thawed enough to dig a grave.
She told my wife about it and, with my advice, my wife called the police to investigate. My wife got an absolute rash of shit from people all over the country for that. The state ended up paying out for a wrongful prosecution.
It is a messed up world we live in. That is one thing I do know fer shur.
-
So now I'm a Nazi? *****rollingeyes*****
OF COURSE you are not a Nazi! *****rollingeyes*****
The abortionists are the Nazis. They slaughter Innocents after their mothers send them to the Mengeles.
THAT is (obviously) the comparison I was making. Most certainly not with you personally.
(However, the people claiming to be pro-life, but who actually aren't, claim they want the slaughter "reduced," not eliminated. You can draw whatever parallel you want to the part that plays in the continued slaughter of millions of innocent human beings).
@Jazzhead
No need to take this to a PM. I don't have much more to say to you than I have already said......
Your claim to support women is false. Your claim to believe in the Constitution is false. Your claim that a human baby is a woman's body is scientifically daft, and false. And your claim that it is a woman's "choice" to commit murder, and that stopping it is treating her as "chattel" is so false that it's beyond absurdity.
You're wrong about everything. And you're not compassionate.
I've said all that before, but before this thread finishes, it all needs to be said again.
That is all.
-
Right, compassion is helping and supporting a woman to kill her infant because it is inconvenient and a consequence of illicit sexual behavior out of wedlock.
No, compassion is helping and supporting a woman to NOT kill her infant. Your abject dishonesty in accusing me of supporting abortion is disgusting.
The Constitution guarantees to every woman the right to decide for herself the direction her life will take. That is self-determination, a fundamental and natural right. It is up to us who defend life to do the hard part of helping shape and mold that choice so that an unborn life can be preserved. It's hard work, but you'd rather virtue-signal and slut-shame. And replace our Constitutional republic with a Taliban-like theocracy.
-
I don't know if it is gravity, DNA, age. But all I can do now, it seems, is mushroom out.
I am beginning to suspect that is not gravity, but gravy... Jussayin... :shrug:
-
I am beginning to suspect that is not gravity, but gravy... Jussayin... :shrug:
I think you nailed it. My wife made some potato soup the other day. It was so superbly creamy....I cried when it was gone.
-
I think you nailed. My wife made some potato soup the other day. It was so superbly creamy....I cried when it was gone.
I was just thinking of that my own self - I have a whole bunch of celery fixin to go bad, and the only thing I have to use it all up is tater soup. Man, that's some guuuud fall food right there.
-
No, compassion is helping and supporting a woman to NOT kill her infant. Your abject dishonesty in accusing me of supporting abortion is disgusting.
The fact you think we have short memories or are stupid on this board is astounding.
You were the person who stated repeatedly that making abortion murder is the equivalent of the state forcing a woman to procreate, notwithstanding the numerous outrages you posted to this thread to justify abortion.
What has been disgusting is your posts, and more than just I pointed that out to you.
The Constitution guarantees to every woman the right to decide for herself the direction her life will take. That is self-determination, a fundamental and natural right.
Killing infants as a fundamental and 'natural right' is as heinous and disgusting a position as any genocidal regime of men has ever perpetrated. Yet here you post it, when the foundational documents of this nation repeatedly mention the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - which somehow in your perverted theology means a woman can kill her baby when it's inconvenient and a consequence of sex outside of marriage.
It is up to us who defend life to do the hard part of helping shape and mold that choice so that an unborn life can be preserved.
It is an amazing feat to witness someone talk out their mouth and ass at the exact same time. But - given what spirit you speak from - I've witnessed weirder things animate those possessed with similar spirits.
It's hard work, but you'd rather virtue-signal and slut-shame. And replace our Constitutional republic with a Taliban-like theocracy.
I find it enlightening that anytime someone points out evil as biblically defined, immediately the purveyors of wickedness accuse us of installing a Taliban-esque theocracy.
And yes, at one time in this country - sin brought shame and shaming was an effective method of causing repentance or thwarting institutionalized wickedness.
You've done no "hard work" to preserve life except to promote evil as a virtue.
Edited by Mod8 to correct misquote.
-
No, compassion is helping and supporting a woman to NOT kill her infant. Your abject dishonesty in accusing me of supporting abortion is disgusting.
The Constitution guarantees to every woman the right to decide for herself the direction her life will take. That is self-determination, a fundamental and natural right. It is up to us who defend life to do the hard part of helping shape and mold that choice so that an unborn life can be preserved. It's hard work, but you'd rather virtue-signal and slut-shame. And replace our Constitutional republic with a Taliban-like theocracy.
You know, I don't care how many times you tell a lie, it is still a lie.
And you really like to tell a lot of lies.
-
You were the person who stated repeatedly that making abortion murder is the equivalent of the state forcing a woman to procreate
How is it not? Why should a woman be denied by the state the ability to decide for herself the direction her life will take? Persuasion - that's fine, that's what a Christian should do. Coercion - that's what the Taliban does.
And by the way, you edited a quote of mine and made no indication you had done so. That's dishonest.
-
You know, I don't care how many times you tell a lie, it is still a lie.
And you really like to tell a lot of lies.
How is that statement a lie?
-
Why should a woman be denied by the state the ability to decide for herself the direction her life
Does that apply to late term abortion?
-
How is that statement a lie?
There are always boundaries to every, how did you put it?, 'direction her life will take'.
-
How is it not? Why should a woman be denied by the state the ability to decide for herself the direction her life will take? Persuasion - that's fine, that's what a Christian should do. Coercion - that's what the Taliban does.
Again, you have applauded using the government to coerce business owners to cater to and serve homosexual celebrations against their consciences, faith and religious exercise. Not to mention you approve abolishing their freedom of association and imposition of forced labor to serve a behavior they find repugnant and evil.
You have stated you applaud efforts in using the government to 'punish bigots'. Coercion is perfectly acceptable good with you when it serves your imposition of tyranny. You are your own perverted version of the Taliban that is engaged in pushing homosexual Sharia.
There there's the fact you have opined nearly the same coercion when it comes to healthcare insurance and taxation on the wealthy. Coercion via government is applauded by you in those cases. Persuasion - not so much.
-
Does that apply to late term abortion?
Not in my view. The right to choose must be able to be effectively exercised, but that doesn't mean it is unlimited. Some states have enacted laws which restrict abortion after 20 weeks. I have no objection to such laws (so long as there's an exception to save the life of the mother); a woman can in normal situations be expected to be responsible and make her decision before the fetus becomes viable and/or can feel pain.
I liken the situation to that of the legal status of a fiduciary - a fiduciary is legally responsible to protect and "do no harm" to the individual in his or her charge, but no one can be compelled to be a fiduciary without consent. I'd say it's reasonable to tell a woman that, for the first 20 -25 weeks of pregnancy, the decision to proceed is hers. After that, she will be deemed to have assumed a fiduciary duty of care toward her unborn child, and to do it no harm so that it can be born (and relinquished for adoption, if that is her choice).
-
How is it not? Why should a woman be denied by the state the ability to decide for herself the direction her life will take? Persuasion - that's fine, that's what a Christian should do. Coercion - that's what the Taliban does.
Who coerced her into engaging in sexual relations without taking contraceptive precautions?
-
The logic of evil is amazing to behold. The right to kill your infant must be able to be effectively exercised, but that doesn't mean it is unlimited. Some states have enacted laws which restrict murder after 20 weeks. A woman can in normal situations be expected to be responsible and make her decision whether or not to kill her baby before it becomes obvious to even her that she is committing murder.
I liken the situation to that of the Nazi extermination camps which were roundly asserted to be a beneficial service to the Fatherland and those eliminated were not considered murdered because those people were not really viable human beings in the eyes of the state to begin with.
Which by the way - we have murdered more innocent human beings than the Nazis did.
-
How is it not? Why should a woman be denied by the state the ability to decide for herself the direction her life will take?
It isn't her life that is the question.
It is conceivable that the consequence for her bad decision is served upon her for a mere 9 months, whereupon she can turn the child over to his father, or any adoption service and be on her way - As awful and unconcerned as that would be, it is still more in line with sanctifying the life that she bears.
And being (and containing) the crucible of life within her, that consequence must necessarily and needfully be there, if one is to protect the sanctity of life at all.
The consequence for a man who sows his seed is generally recognized and enforced - He will marry her, or he will pay out of his treasure for 20 years of his life for the sake of the child, whether he wants it or not, or even recognizes the child as his own. That consequence is just assigned, often without trial, or even according to his ability, and is not dissolved by any means, to include bankruptcy, with the singular exception of disability.
What comparable consequence is upon the woman who can kill her child with abandon, and go right back to her poor decisions?
-
Not in my view. The right to choose must be able to be effectively exercised, but that doesn't mean it is unlimited. Some states have enacted laws which restrict abortion after 20 weeks. I have no objection to such laws (so long as there's an exception to save the life of the mother); a woman can in normal situations be expected to be responsible and make her decision before the fetus becomes viable and/or can feel pain.
I liken the situation to that of the legal status of a fiduciary - a fiduciary is legally responsible to protect and "do no harm" to the individual in his or her charge, but no one can be compelled to be a fiduciary without consent. I'd say it's reasonable to tell a woman that, for the first 20 -25 weeks of pregnancy, the decision to proceed is hers. After that, she will be deemed to have assumed a fiduciary duty of care toward her unborn child, and to do it no harm so that it can be born (and relinquished for adoption, if that is her choice).
Then we agree the government does have the right for a woman be denied the ability to decide for herself the direction her life, because it impacts the life of another.
We just disagree on when that time starts.
-
The logic of evil is amazing to behold. The right to kill your infant must be able to be effectively exercised, but that doesn't mean it is unlimited. Some states have enacted laws which restrict murder after 20 weeks. A woman can in normal situations be expected to be responsible and make her decision whether or not to kill her baby before it becomes obvious to even her that she is committing murder.
I liken the situation to that of the Nazi extermination camps which were roundly asserted to be a beneficial service to the Fatherland and those eliminated were not considered murdered because those people were not really viable human beings in the eyes of the state to begin with.
Which by the way - we have murdered more innocent human beings than the Nazis did.
The latest count I saw indicated we have lost over a thousand times more babies to Roe than killed and MIA servicemen in the Vietnam War. Over 50 million now, and approaching 60. **nononono*
Jesus wept.
edit to correct numbers. SJ
-
The latest count I saw indicated we have lost more babies to Roe than killed and MIA servicemen in the Vietnam War. Over 50 million now, and approaching 60. **nononono*
Jesus wept.
Joe. I just got home from work, but that seems off by a zero or two. I think "only" 50,000+ lives were lost in Viet nam. Not 50 Million. What I am am saying is there is a difference in numbers, but not to the horror..
-
First off, No. The right to keep and bear arms is spelled out.
Now, maybe I missed something in one of the many times I have read the Constitution, so please point to the part that gives anyone the right to deprive a baby of life with neither charge, nor trial, nor conviction by a jury of their peers. I missed it, and I thought I was passably familiar with the Document and Amendments.
@Smokin Joe
The right to self-defense is a universal right. It doesn't need to be codified.
Granted,the genuine "to preserve the life of the mother" abortions are rare,but they can't be ignored.
-
Joe. I just got home from work, but that seems off by a zero or two. I think "only" 50,000+ lives were lost in Viet nam. Not 50 Million. What I am am saying is there is a difference in numbers, but not to the horror..
You are correct. Thanks for catching that, @bigheadfred ! I will edit it to correct that.
It is a full order of magnitude greater, not thousands, but millions.
Ironically enough, people of the same stripe marched against both our servicemen and the rights of babies, and had the gall to call our servicemen "baby killers".
-
@goodwithagun
I'm going to step this discussion up a few steps with the statement that women should be the sole decision makers on having an abortion or not when they reach the point where they can get pregnant by themselves. If the father of the future child wants that baby and is willing to sign legal papers that frees her from any obligations AS WELL AS TO ANY DOMINION OVER the child once it is born,she should be,as a matter of law,REQUIRED to carry the child to term or face prison time for causing an unlawful death of some sort.
Everybody wants to talk about the rights of a woman,but what about the rights of the man that impregnated her?
When it comes to child support, @Jazzhead 's beloved "state" forces men to pay child support. After all, it takes two to make a child. So likewise, shouldn't the father get a say in whether or not the child is aborted?
As a side note, Rachel's Vinyard is a world wide org that treats and supports all who've been affected by abortion. Yes, even men.
-
Then we agree the government does have the right for a woman be denied the ability to decide for herself the direction her life, because it impacts the life of another.
We just disagree on when that time starts.
Well, yes, simplistically, that's true. But I contend that a woman has to have a meaningful opportunity to decide for herself whether to proceed with a pregnancy. It should be a relatively brief window of opportunity (e.g, the first 20 weeks), but the existence of that opportunity is critical to preserving her rights from encroachment by the state.
When do you think the government's time starts to forbid a woman from terminating a pregnancy?
-
Well, yes, simplistically, that's true. But I contend that a woman has to have a meaningful opportunity to decide for herself whether to proceed with a pregnancy. It should be a relatively brief window of opportunity (e.g, the first 20 weeks), but the existence of that opportunity is critical to preserving her rights from encroachment by the state.
When do you think the government's time starts to forbid a woman from terminating a pregnancy?
But the fetus has rights too; and should be protected from encroachment and coercion of the state as well as irresponsible parents. The fetus is a human being, it is truly disgusting to read these feminist and planned parenthood arguments here. As far as I'm concerned those arguments totally lack integrity.
-
When it comes to child support, @Jazzhead 's beloved "state" forces men to pay child support. After all, it takes two to make a child. So likewise, shouldn't the father get a say in whether or not the child is aborted?
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.
I know there are exceptions, but I think most of the time the man is the true culprit behind an abortion. The man abandons his partner, leaving her alone in the world with the prospect of bearing and raising a child. Or, perhaps worse, the man threatens his partner to have the abortion, to spare him the trouble of having to help raise it.
The scenario of a man sticking by his partner is not the scenario behind most abortions. As the man goes, so goes the abortion.
In a perverse way, the responsibility that the community imposes on the man to financially support his progeny could lie behind some abortions. As noted above, the man's desire to escape such responsibility can lead to his pressuring the woman to abort. He may, for example, threaten to stay with her only if she makes their little problem go away.
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.
-
Well, yes, simplistically, that's true. But I contend that a woman has to have a meaningful opportunity to decide for herself whether to proceed with a pregnancy. It should be a relatively brief window of opportunity (e.g, the first 20 weeks), but the existence of that opportunity is critical to preserving her rights from encroachment by the state.
When do you think the government's time starts to forbid a woman from terminating a pregnancy?
I think the couple have the time to make those decisions prior to the act that started the pregnancy. Legal abortion is the justification too many men use to walk away from their responsibilities and the acceptance of others in society for them to do so.
My wife would likely never had been born in today's society. She was the result of an affair between a young woman and a man married to another. Their embarrassment and inconvenience should not comdem her to death. It should not be legal for them to kill her.
-
These arguments embrace the culture of death, really similar to the way the Nazis saw some humans as not being worthy of having life. Truly morally depraved.
-
This thread has run it's course, and is probably about 5 days old. We can concentrate on more current news as well.
-
Compassion is helping and supporting a woman to understand and do the right thing. Your attitude of belittling women as seeking free illicit sex without consequences just drives them to Planned Parenthood.
Attitudes like yours promote abortion, and drive decent people from the church. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Your post reminded me of this quote @Jazzhead
(http://manofdepravity.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/ghandi-quote.png)
-
I think the couple have the time to make those decisions prior to the act that started the pregnancy. Legal abortion is the justification too many men use to walk away from their responsibilities and the acceptance of others in society for them to do so.
My wife would likely never had been born in today's society. She was the result of an affair between a young woman and a man married to another. Their embarrassment and inconvenience should not comdem her to death. It should not be legal for them to kill her.
Thanks for acknowledging that men are often the true force behind abortions. But I don't see why the legality of abortion plays a role. At least nowadays when a man forces his partner to abort, the deed is done without also butchering the mother.
The problem lies with the culture, not the laws. Women in today's world have demanded and earned their autonomy. But that doesn't mean they are absolved from the responsibility to do the right thing. That's where the pro-life movement can and should play its most important role. My intent on this thread is not to denigrate the pro-life movement, but to suggest that its priorities are askew. Tilting at legal windmills doesn't save lives. The cat's been out of the bag regarding the abortion right for over 40 years now. There's no going back. The patriarchy is dead for most of us outside the Bible belt. Women have the same right as men to self-determination.
And so, IMO, the pro-life movement should emphasize saving lives, changing hearts and minds, not the Constitution.
And when one takes responsibility, so should the other. If a woman decides to bear and raise a child alone - bless her! - the father should pay his fair share of the financial burden. I have no objection to the community's laws that compel a father to support his child.
-
Your post reminded me of this quote @Jazzhead
(http://manofdepravity.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/ghandi-quote.png)
:amen:
-
Well, yes, simplistically, that's true. But I contend that a woman has to have a meaningful opportunity to decide for herself whether to proceed with a pregnancy. It should be a relatively brief window of opportunity (e.g, the first 20 weeks), but the existence of that opportunity is critical to preserving her rights from encroachment by the state.
When do you think the government's time starts to forbid a woman from terminating a pregnancy?
An interesting question. Because abortion is a complicated matter. In the most simplistic form the state involvement, IMO, should only come when the viability of the "parents" comes in to question. And then the determination wouldn't be for termination of the new life. Only who gets to pay for it.
-
Your post reminded me of this quote @Jazzhead
(http://manofdepravity.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/ghandi-quote.png)
Not quite, if its Muslims, they are referred to as "Friends and Neighbors", there is never any problem with some in criticizing a religion that feeds millions of hungry every day. If one reads the remarks, Christians are lower on the totem pole than Muslims and it doesn't take much observation to note this.
But of course, many say the left and the Muslims are indeed partners, @Jazzhead bashes Christianity on a daily basis.
-
Thanks for acknowledging that men are often the true force behind abortions. But I don't see why the legality of abortion plays a role. At least nowadays when a man forces his partner to abort, the deed is done without also butchering the mother.
Having a legal, easy and all too common means of killing the infant isn't a part of the decision? Really?
The problem lies with the culture, not the laws.
The current laws are only a reflection of the culture.
Women in today's world have demanded and earned their autonomy. But that doesn't mean they are absolved from the responsibility to do the right thing. That's where the pro-life movement can and should play its most important role. My intent on this thread is not to denigrate the pro-life movement, but to suggest that its priorities are askew. Tilting at legal windmills doesn't save lives. The cat's been out of the bag regarding the abortion right for over 40 years now. There's no going back. The patriarchy is dead for most of us outside the Bible belt. Women have the same right as men to self-determination.
And so, IMO, the pro-life movement should emphasize saving lives, changing hearts and minds, not the Constitution.
And when one takes responsibility, so should the other. If a woman decides to bear and raise a child alone - bless her! - the father should pay his fair share of the financial burden. I have no objection to the community's laws that compel a father to support his child.
The father should have a say as well as the responsibility. A mother should not be legally allowed to kill his child.
-
(http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1358/2245/1600/LeftandIslam.jpg)
-
@Jazzhead bashes Christianity on a daily basis.
I don't bash Christianity. I bash (some) Christians who seem to have forgetten Christ's message.
-
Just read a Roy Moore thread, he was called a "religious zealot", it's very easy to find this general slant against Christianity, maybe specifically "Evangelical Christianity" but Muslims and Islam are defended, Christians are much the same thing as trash, the way Hitler viewed them. The way the unborn is seen. A terrible view if you ask me. Christian charities feed millions of hungry a day, you never hear about this or that other religions are limited in doing the same.
-
(http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/1358/2245/1600/LeftandIslam.jpg)
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
-
I don't bash Christianity. I bash (some) Christians who seem to have forgetten Christ's message.
Christ's message is not to kill babies and harm women.
Wrong again.
-
When do you think the government's time starts to forbid a woman from terminating a pregnancy?
When life begins, which you have already said begins at conception. http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,285911.msg1483035.html#msg1483035
You cannot give a 100% certain, not just a legal one, definition of viability of a child that causes an abortion to not be called murder; hence, it has to be at conception.
-
I don't bash Christianity. I bash (some) Christians who seem to have forgetten Christ's message.
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.
-
Christ's message is not to kill babies and harm women.
Wrong again.
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"?
-
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.
Thanks, DCP - I appreciate it! And I'll send the kudos right back at ya!
-
The father should have a say as well as the responsibility. A mother should not be legally allowed to kill his child.
As a matter of law, how do you propose that to work?
-
When life begins, which you have already said begins at conception. http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,285911.msg1483035.html#msg1483035
You cannot give a 100% certain, not just a legal one, definition of viability of a child that causes an abortion to not be called murder; hence, it has to be at conception.
The legal definition on when an abortion is permitted, and when it is not, is inherently arbitrary. The intent is to provide the woman with a meaningful opportunity to decide, so it is usually described as a designated period of time following implantation. My own view is that, morally, the limit should be set at about the time the fetus can feel pain.
(BTW, I never said life begins at conception, but rather that it begins at implantation. That's a significant difference, IMO. The woman's body must accept the conjoined sperm and egg. In millions of cases, implantation of the conjoined sperm and egg fails to occur, and is simply flushed away. In other words, God doesn't create life - the woman does.)
-
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"?
Out for the day. I'll respond when I get back this afternoon.
-
As a matter of law, how do you propose that to work?
Before the abortion, the mother either has to claim rape or name the father. Sure, there will be plenty of cheats who name a willing accomplice. But it would be a step in establishing father's legal rights along with his responsibility. Those claiming rape will need to at least file a police report. The named father would have to sign off on the procedure. False claims punishable by law.
But as a matter of my preference of law, the abortion should be illegals, but I'm willing to consider rape exceptions.
-
The legal definition on when an abortion is permitted, and when it is not, is inherently arbitrary. The intent is to provide the woman with a meaningful opportunity to decide, so it is usually described as a designated period of time following implantation. My own view is that, morally, the limit should be set at about the time the fetus can feel pain.
(BTW, I never said life begins at conception, but rather that it begins at implantation. That's a significant difference, IMO. The woman's body must accept the conjoined sperm and egg. In millions of cases, implantation of the conjoined sperm and egg fails to occur, and is simply flushed away. In other words, God doesn't create life - the woman does.)
Are you serious? God is not the Creator?
-
Are you serious? God is not the Creator?
:2popcorn:
-
Are you serious? God is not the Creator?
@IsailedawayfromFR you notice too how the man doesn't figure into the equations in ANY positive way in any of Jazzy's pontifications?
Putting the part you stated about God creating life aside for the moment...In what you quoted he puts the creation of life squarely and completely on the woman. No man is involved.
In his other red herring arguments the man is always "absent" or "long gone" or "just trying to get laid".
I'm sensing a theme here.
-
Are you serious? God is not the Creator?
If we assume arguendo that God creates the union of sperm and egg, then what accounts for the reality that millions of such unions fail because they do not implant in the woman's uterus?
That's why I say that life begins at implantation - and that is a function of the woman's body, not God.
Does it make a difference morally? Reasonable minds can differ - it's a deep question. But if life begins at implantation, then couldn't you say that a woman who aborts isn't denying God, she's simply reversing a function undertaken by her own body?
Sometimes abortions (miscarriages) occur spontaneously. That was the case with Mrs. Jazz; we lost our first child about four months into the pregnancy, just a day after announcing to her family that we were expecting. My wife and I were crushed. But a year later, she became pregnant with our son. He's the light of my life - and he would never have existed had that miscarriage not occurred.
That's how I choose to view faith - that God helps things work out for the best. A woman who aborts a fetus because her partner has abandoned her goes on to have child with a loving partner a couple of years later. That child wouldn't have existed had the abortion not taken place. Who's to say what God wants for us?
-
I'm sensing a theme here.
You're right - too many men are pigs. :tongue2:
-
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.
OK. That is felonious bullcrap. (bolded)
I do agree that @Jazzhead is an important and allegedly legibly , albeit incredibly , substaintially usubstantious participant.
-
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.
Mega dittos @DCPatriot and @Jazzhead
-
... @Jazzhead bashes Christianity on a daily basis.
I don't agree with your opinion on this @TomSea
-
Mega dittos @DCPatriot and @Jazzhead
And I strongly disagree with you both on this! EVERYthing he writes is a needless disturbance of innocent electrons IMHO!
-
Mega dittos @DCPatriot and @Jazzhead
Thanks, RIV :beer:
-
@DCPatriot
Not a personal attack, just using you as a reference point.
Now. Have you scene the movie "Animal House"? It came out when I was in college. There was a part where the "plebe" had a girl in the back of a car , ready and willing, and she passed out. And he ask the audience---yes---no.
It was a highly debated issue at that time on that campus in my time. The consensus, between both men and women, was that there is a point where personal responsibility was the core of the issue.
-
And I strongly disagree with you both on this! EVERYthing he writes is a needless disturbance of innocent electrons IMHO!
@Bigun
She's only cheerleading because the same people that take issue with them are taking issue with Jazzy and they all three share common ground.
-
But the fetus has rights too; and should be protected from encroachment and coercion of the state as well as irresponsible parents. The fetus is a human being, it is truly disgusting to read these feminist and planned parenthood arguments here. As far as I'm concerned those arguments totally lack integrity.
@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.
Don't confuse dogma with reality.
-
@Bigun
She's only cheerleading because the same people that take issue with them are taking issue with Jazzy and they all three share common ground.
Ah ... more deep thoughts from @txradioguy (AKA comic relief 88devil )
Bless your heart txradioguy, you're a treasure.
-
I think the couple have the time to make those decisions prior to the act that started the pregnancy.
Many people do,but still end up with an "OOPS!" moment and there is no rebooting. There are many reasons to not want that pregnancy to result in a birth,and the burden for making that decision,which is no doubt one of the most serious decisions a woman,man,or couple has to make,IS theirs to make,not yours and not mind.
Legal abortion is the justification too many men use to walk away from their responsibilities and the acceptance of others in society for them to do so.
That's very true. It is also the justification many women make to "punish" their husband or male companion,just because they can.
Both are irrelevant to the legality,if not to the morality,and morality is a pretty personal and cultural thing.
My wife would likely never had been born in today's society. She was the result of an affair between a young woman and a man married to another. Their embarrassment and inconvenience should not comdem her to death. It should not be legal for them to kill her.
The same can be said for me,but my birth mother chose to give birth to me and give me to someone else. It WAS her decision to make as a mentally competent adult.
-
These arguments embrace the culture of death, really similar to the way the Nazis saw some humans as not being worthy of having life. Truly morally depraved.
@TomSea
Blah,blah,mindless blah. ALL cultures seem to be "the culture of death",and there is no culture where this is more true than the Christian culture that celebrates the death and the alleged resurrection of Jesus. It would be a fair statement to say that Christianity is a death cult that embraces murder and other forms of death so God can resurrect the dead. Without Resurrection,Christianity has nothing to offer but guilt and punishment.
In all fairness,I suspect the same,or worse,can be said about every other religion,also.
-
Your post reminded me of this quote @Jazzhead
(http://manofdepravity.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/ghandi-quote.png)
@Right_in_Virginia
Says one of the world's most famous perverts and child molesters.
Proving that even perverts can occasionally be right about something.
-
@Right_in_Virginia
Says one of the world's most famous perverts and child molesters.
Proving that even perverts can occasionally be right about something.
The broken clock syndrome ... @sneakypete
-
@Bigun
She's only cheerleading because the same people that take issue with them are taking issue with Jazzy and they all three share common ground.
@txradioguy
Virtually never get on threads with abortion-themed topics in a title.
Know how they all end up, and nobody's going to change anybody's mind. So, why get all worked up?
Why do I want to read some sanctimonious screed whose primary purpose is to dazzle the reader regarding their intimacy with The Good Book?
You can 'see' them looking down the bridge of their nose in any general direction.
That said, like @Jazzhead , I am Pro-Life. As a parent, how could I be anything else?
But abortion is a woman's right. No talking about late term. I'm talking you find out you're pregnant on Monday and you take care of it within the week.
The ONLY way you get to change that law is to change the attitude and thinking. Society won't allow it with the Feminist/Glass Ceiling equal pay issues. Thank God for parochial schools. Hopefully, ones where patent leather shoes aren't forbidden. /s
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.
Technology exists today, where abortions are completed in a sterile and safe environment.
[Removed by Mod8]
ME? I'm way out there. Anybody on welfare for more than nine months? Get snipped, tied or be denied.
-
OK. That is felonious bullcrap. (bolded)
I do agree that @Jazzhead is an important and allegedly legibly , albeit incredibly , substaintially usubstantious participant.
:beer: :laugh:
-
@TomSea
Blah,blah,mindless blah. ALL cultures seem to be "the culture of death",and there is no culture where this is more true than the Christian culture that celebrates the death and the alleged resurrection of Jesus. It would be a fair statement to say that Christianity is a death cult that embraces murder and other forms of death so God can resurrect the dead. Without Resurrection,Christianity has nothing to offer but guilt and punishment.
In all fairness,I suspect the same,or worse,can be said about every other religion,also.
I disagree with what you say or how you put it but would fight for your right to say it.
@sneakypete
-
@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.
Don't confuse dogma with reality.
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
-
@txradioguy
Virtually never get on threads with abortion-themed topics in a title.
Know how they all end up, and nobody's going to change anybody's mind. So, why get all worked up?
Why do I want to read some sanctimonious screed whose primary purpose is to dazzle the reader regarding their intimacy with The Good Book?
You can 'see' them looking down the bridge of their nose in any general direction.
That said, like @Jazzhead , I am Pro-Life. As a parent, how could I be anything else?
But abortion is a woman's right. No talking about late term. I'm talking you find out you're pregnant on Monday and you take care of it within the week.
The ONLY way you get to change that law is to change the attitude and thinking. Society won't allow it with the Feminist/Glass Ceiling equal pay issues. Thank God for parochial schools. Hopefully, ones where patent leather shoes aren't forbidden. /s
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.
Technology exists today, where abortions are completed in a sterile and safe environment.
[Removed by Mod8]
ME? I'm way out there. Anybody on welfare for more than nine months? Get snipped, tied or be denied.
I'd say previous to Roe V. Wade, the US was a more moral place with some exceptions and abortion and other issues have played into the decline of America.
Out of wedlock births were much fewer.
-
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.
-
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.
(https://www.billhuntillustration.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Keep-on-Trumpin-SM.jpg)
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
@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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
What a load, resurrecting the Christian boogie man
May the record show that I did not refer to INVAR as the Christian boogie man. :tongue2:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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'.
-
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!
-
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?
-
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.
-
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'.
-
in·al·ien·a·ble
-
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. :shrug:
It is so heartbreaking. But that is the nature of the lie.
-
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......
-
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. *****rollingeyes*****
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :shrug:
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'.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
@thackney
Huh,when did pregnancy become technical? It's physical,although technology is used to monitor and protect both the mother and child.
-
Ain't you "special",comrade?
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!
Come on, Pete. Breathe.
They come back with "...that's Old Testament...."
But before civilization took hold they had their own take on the adage: "Give me your children and I'll give you the future".
If one has suffered the horrors of war with the same tribe every 15-20 years, it suddenly dawns on one where the warriors and leaders come from. Kill them all!
Is God capable of giving such an order? For a greater good. A greater peace?
-
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.
The reason most women abort is not to "allow them to continue to be promiscuous". I simply cannot believe your self-characterization as a feminist, spouting slut-shaming nonsense like that. INVAR I expect it from - but you?
What Margaret Sanger may have said close to a century ago isn't the point - woman abort for a myriad of reasons, mostly reflecting desperate circumstances such as abandonment by a partner in circumstances where the woman is afraid of the possibility of raising a child in poverty and alone. Such women need help and support to do the right thing.
Why not provide it?
-
The reason most women abort is not to "allow them to continue to be promiscuous". I simply cannot believe your self-characterization as a feminist, spouting slut-shaming nonsense like that. INVAR I expect it from - but you?
What Margaret Sanger may have said close to a century ago isn't the point - woman abort for a myriad of reasons, mostly reflecting desperate circumstances such as abandonment by a partner in circumstances where the woman is afraid of the possibility of raising a child in poverty and alone. Such women need help and support to do the right thing.
Why not provide it?
EXCUSE me!!! I know you're bound and determined to sing the same old song here, but it has been pointed out to you, and if you are even slightly honest, you KNOW that the people who are actually PROVIDING the support for these women ARE the Pro-lifers. It is WE who are providing help and support to "do the right thing," NOT the pro-abortion left that you ally yourself with.
The idea that I am "slut shaming" is preposterous and disgustingly dishonest.
The ideals of Margaret Sanger live on, and pervade the abortion mills where women are given NO help to do the right thing, and are many times forced to abort their babies by lies, and will suffer their entire lives because of the crime they committed against their own baby.
If we are talking about compassion and caring, you are looking to the wrong people, Jazz. You are looking to a murderous enemy, and not to the community that saves lives and ministers to women, men and takes care of their needs.
Why are you so willfully blind to the truth about what is really going on? WHY??
IF you care about these women, start volunteering at a pro-life Christian crisis pregnancy center and do something that shows compassion and not the faux concern of the political left that has gotten fat and rich on the corpses of millions of innocent children.
You are on the WRONG side, if you are even close to what you claim to be.
Edited to ping you @Jazzhead
-
The reason most women abort is not to "allow them to continue to be promiscuous".
In the aggregate, that is indeed the purpose. Those who preach promiscuity know full well the consequences bourn by that woman in the grandular sense. And her choice is incidental in the grand scheme. Either she will abort, adding to her sin without understanding - to continue the curse that is upon her, or she will become enthralled to the state, to raise yet another generation of state dependent children to rise up and carry the curse forward.
-
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!
The answer to your question is ultimately found in the question: Why were some merely conquered and others annihilated? Annihilated to the point that everything was burned and nothing taken as spoil. How strange, eh?
-
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![/size]
Hey Pete, I love you man. I really do.
I get where you are coming from having been an Atheist for awhile myself. I get the hostility and recognize in part why it is there - I was there myself once.
I do not expect you to get where I am coming from - you make no pretense whatsoever to be something you are not. Despite our differing beliefs in terms of Providence or lack thereof, your comments on this board showcase your moral center in regards to liberty is a lot closer to where mine is in comparison to the few who claim Christ but advocate behaviors anathema to Him.
I know it's hard to stomach or comprehend initially why it is God demanded sacrifices in the OT and commanded his nation to decimate whole tribes and cities down to every man, woman and child - and I do not expect you to accept or understand why it is that was done. Do note that it was not to force anyone to convert or die. It was judgment, even if you and I in our feeble understanding think it was unjust.
God is consistent. It is humans who are not.
-
Trump administration: ‘Life begins at conception’
The Department of Health and Human Services has published a draft of a new strategic plan that states in its introduction that life begins at conception.
The personhood of the unborn child is central to the abortion debate — as even the justice who wrote the landmark Roe v. Wade opinion has acknowledged — because, if established in law, it would nullify a “right” to abortion.
http://www.wnd.com/2017/10/trump-administration-life-begins-at-conception/
Again, that this is even being spoken about is because HHS has chosen to make it a part of its platform.
Keep On Trumpin'
-
The legal definition on when an abortion is permitted, and when it is not, is inherently arbitrary.
Nothing at all arbitrary about it. The Constitution is clear. It is a decision left to the States.
The intent is to provide the woman with a meaningful opportunity to decide, so it is usually described as a designated period of time following implantation.
That may be your intent. But it is not the intent of the Constitution of the United States of America. I prefer going by what the Constitution says instead of forfeiting my rights as a citizen to the tyranny of people like you who think they know best.
My own view is that, morally, the limit should be set at about the time the fetus can feel pain.
Not everyone shares your view. Which is why we have a system of government where society is shaped by the voice of the people through their State and Local legislatures. So that the will of the people in one state is not overruled by tyrants such as yourself who have no qualms about imposing your will on people in other parts of the country at the point of a gun. It is what separates you from people such as myself. I will choose the Constitution over tyranny every time. I would never ever subject the people of any State to my position on abortion contrary to the will of the people of that State. Yet you have no qualms at all about doing exactly that.
And I don't believe your claim either. If they found out today that this newly created life experienced pain about the same the heart began beating, then I highly suspect that your view would suddenly change. Because you have already stated multiple times that abortion must remain legal without regard to anything else.
-
That's how I choose to view faith - that God helps things work out for the best.
Wow, this paints the Holocaust in a totally different light.
A woman who aborts a fetus because her partner has abandoned her . . .
The partner abandoned her because he considers abortion to be a valid method of birth control. Take it off the table, and you will have a heck of a lot less men knocking up women and then abandoning them. Once again, you fail to recognize that abortion benefits the man - not the woman.
-
@TomSea
Blah,blah,mindless blah. ALL cultures seem to be "the culture of death",and there is no culture where this is more true than the Christian culture that celebrates the death and the alleged resurrection of Jesus.
Jesus isn't dead. Don't know where you are getting your information from, but this Christian doesn't celebrate Christ's death. I celebrate the relationship I have with the Father through the Son, and because of that, the relationship I have with Holy Spirit.
It is about relationship. It always has been, ever since the Garden.
It would be a fair statement to say that Christianity is a death cult that embraces murder and other forms of death so God can resurrect the dead.
No, not a fair statement, but an ignorant statement.
Without Resurrection,Christianity has nothing to offer but guilt and punishment.
But it does have the Resurrection - a testimony of God's love for you.
Again, the kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and hid; and for joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.
Matthew 13:44
You are the treasure @sneakypete . That is how God looks at you. No guilt. No punishment. Only love.
-
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.
@DCPatriot @Right_in_Virginia
What about the Christians here who happen to believe in our Constitution - who believe that the Commonwealth of Virginia should determine its own laws when it comes to fraud, theft, murder, assault, cohabitation, ear piercings, tattoos, car insurance, rape, marriage, and abortion?
Because that is what I have been arguing since the very beginning. I prefer to go by what the Constitution says. Perhaps like Jazzhead, you do not.
-
@DCPatriot @Right_in_Virginia
What about the Christians here who happen to believe in our Constitution - who believe that the Commonwealth of Virginia should determine its own laws when it comes to fraud, theft, murder, assault, cohabitation, ear piercings, tattoos, car insurance, rape, marriage, and abortion?
Because that is what I have been arguing since the very beginning. I prefer to go by what the Constitution says. Perhaps like Jazzhead, you do not.
Christians who believe in the Constitution are the ones who have been debating against abortion here, @Hoodat.
And WE are the ones the anti-social conservatives despise and call "trolls."
That's why I don't feed either of them. *****rollingeyes*****
-
But no one on this thread is defending abortion.
No one but you. When you declare again and again that abortion must remain legal despite what the people want or what the Constitution says, then you are 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.
Nope. The question is whether the people of State (with Christians representing but a small minority) have the right to determine their own laws when it comes to abortion, just as they do with everything else. (See: shoplifting, running red lights, hitting people over the head with baseball bats, shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, taxing the sale of newspapers, awarding State scholarship money to attend private religious institutions, etc.)
btw, the woman has already made her decision. She willfully chose to engage in the activity which caused her pregnancy.
With everything else in life, actions have consequences. If we could only abort jail sentences after we get caught robbing banks. Or abort our houses burning down after we failed to replace faulty wiring. Or abort the need for a lung transplant because the ones we have now are rife with cancer from years of smoking cigarettes.
If they had only warned us that smoking causes cancer. Or that having unprotected sex causes cancer.
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.
Conservatives believe the role of a State is to do what the people want, which is why we have State legislatures. Go figure.
Contrast that with your view that the State doesn't get a choice in the matter, but must accept the tyranny you dish out without regard to any written law.
Incidentally, what is your view on laws against stealing?
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.
Let me see if I got this right. You deny the voice of the people in shaping society through representative government. Yet you have the effrontery to tell us that we need to voice our views to others? Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds?
I feel quite safe in saying that is not the attitude that Christ would have
Based on what?
-
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!
Old Testament Christian soldiers?
-
@sneakypete
GOD is a baby killer. But they were some really big babies.
-
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' .
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
All of this raises the question of whether a woman has the 'right' to compel a doctor who will not perform abortions for religious reasons to do so. It isn't baking a cake, but it is the same principle.
-
@INVAR @sneakypete
I do not expect you to accept or understand why it is that was done. Do note that it was not to force anyone to convert or die. It was judgment, even if you and I in our feeble understanding think it was unjust.
I understand it. And I agree with it.
-
@DCPatriot @Right_in_Virginia
What about the Christians here who happen to believe in our Constitution - who believe that the Commonwealth of Virginia should determine its own laws when it comes to fraud, theft, murder, assault, cohabitation, ear piercings, tattoos, car insurance, rape, marriage, and abortion?
Because that is what I have been arguing since the very beginning. I prefer to go by what the Constitution says. Perhaps like Jazzhead, you do not.
I believe it's a State's Rights issue, period.
I said I was avidly Pro-Life, but I don't advocate for the repeal of Roe v Wade.
Start by mimicking those heart-breaking mistreated animal PSA's, where for $19 a month, you can save and care for them.
If the St. Jude or Shriner's PSAs don't grab you by the throat....you're not human.
Get young girls to see the value of their offspring...not some excess tissue to destroyed.
Maybe that horse has left the barn...but "there's got to be a pony in there somewhere."
-
Jesus isn't dead. Don't know where you are getting your information from, but this Christian doesn't celebrate Christ's death. I celebrate the relationship I have with the Father through the Son, and because of that, the relationship I have with Holy Spirit.
It is about relationship. It always has been, ever since the Garden.
But it does have the Resurrection - a testimony of God's love for you.
@Hoodat
WAIT A MINUTE! If Jesus didn't die,how could he have been Resurrected?
-
Old Testament Christian soldiers?
@Hoodat
Maybe it was the "NEW,AND IMPROVED NEW TESTAMENT? I haven't read that superstitious nonsense since I was in the 5th grade,and that was a couple of years ago.
I do believe it was the ORIGINAL TRUE TESTAMENT of Gods thoughts and actions,though. Best I remember,God was around before Jesus. If he wasn't,he wouldn't have been able to impregnate another man's wife.
BTW,can you imagine the conversation when Mary's husband came back home and discovered a pregnant wife? "Uh,hun,I was faithful to you,honest! It was GOD that knocked me up in my sleep while I was dreaming off you! HONEST!"
Has to be THE best cover story EVER.
-
All of this raises the question of whether a woman has the 'right' to compel a doctor who will not perform abortions for religious reasons to do so. It isn't baking a cake, but it is the same principle.
@Smokin Joe
There is no question at all. She has an absolute right to ASK,not "compel" him to give her an abortion,just like he has an absolute right to tell her to go urinate up a rope. He's a doctor,not a slave or servant.
-
I believe it's a State's Rights issue, period.
I said I was avidly Pro-Life, but I don't advocate for the repeal of Roe v Wade.
Start by mimicking those heart-breaking mistreated animal PSA's, where for $19 a month, you can save and care for them.
If the St. Jude or Shriner's PSAs don't grab you by the throat....you're not human.
Get young girls to see the value of their offspring...not some excess tissue to destroyed.
Maybe that horse has left the barn...but "there's got to be a pony in there somewhere."
Roe is not based on anything in the Constitution. Its something made up out of whole cloth by its writers and as such isn't worth the paper it's written on IMHO.
The feral government has no dog in this at all.
-
I do believe it was the ORIGINAL TRUE TESTAMENT of Gods thoughts and actions,though. Best I remember,God was around before Jesus. If he wasn't,he wouldn't have been able to impregnate another man's wife.
Actually - (I do not expect you to buy this - but hey - I'm just stating what I understand), Jesus was WITH the Father at Creation. In fact, HE was the One whom created and did everything, doing the will of the Father. John 1:1-3 tells us that The Word was with the Father at the beginning and made everything, and when you jump down to verse 14 it tells us that He emptied Himself of divinity to become flesh, and whom became names Yeshua, or the Christ.
BTW,can you imagine the conversation when Mary's husband came back home and discovered a pregnant wife? "Uh,hun,I was faithful to you,honest! It was GOD that knocked me up in my sleep while I was dreaming off you! HONEST!"
Has to be THE best cover story EVER.
Good discernment! You are actually more right than you know.
Joseph ( the guy who was betrothed *engaged* to Mary) was a bit put off by his intended being knocked up:
"Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly." Matthew 1:19
Yup. Was probably not a pleasant time in the old homestead in Nazareth a that time. I took an Angel in a dream to explain to Joseph that the kid was from God and not from another man having his way with his fiancé.
-
Sooo...both times I knocked up my wife and she was saying oh God! oh God! it wasn't me???? (Hangs head)
-
@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.
@sneakypete
It's certainly not a testament to its validity but it is interesting, religious people reproduce a lot more than atheists, those stats can be tracked down, combine that that Christianity in the Middle Ages saved us from where we might now be bowing to Mecca 3 times a day is another plus. I admit, this does nothing to attest to whether it is true or not but it's something.