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

[Jazzhead]

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.     

[goodwithagun]

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.

[musiclady]

Quit calling me a second class citizen because my body can grow humans.

 

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.   

[Jazzhead]

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.   

[goodwithagun]

But the state doesn't demand a woman grow humans.

[INVAR]

Excuse me? You want the churches to not preach the Gospel now? 

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.

[thackney]

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.

[musiclady]

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.......

[goodwithagun]

Call me when "the state" knocks up somebody.

[sneakypete]

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.

[sneakypete]

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.

[sneakypete]

Excuse me? You want the churches to not preach the Gospel now? 

@Not all religious organizations preach "the gospel" now.

[sneakypete]

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.   

@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.

[sneakypete]

@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.

[Suppressed]

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?

[thackney]

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.

[Suppressed]

Call me when "the state" knocks up somebody.

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.

[sneakypete]

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?

[thackney]

@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.

[Suppressed]

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.

[thackney]

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?

[INVAR]

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.

[musiclady]

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.

[roamer_1]

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.

[bigheadfred]

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".