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

[INVAR]

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'.

[musiclady]

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.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

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?

[Jazzhead]

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.     
 

[Jazzhead]

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? 

[musiclady]

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.

[musiclady]

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.

[roamer_1]

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.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

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.

[INVAR]

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.

[Jazzhead]

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.     

[txradioguy]

Does separation of church and state ring a bell to you?

Does "that's not in the Constitution" ring a bell to you?

[Jazzhead]

Does "that's not in the Constitution" ring a bell to you?

First amendment.  Read it.   

[mountaineer]

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.

[INVAR]

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.

[txradioguy]

First amendment.  Read it.   

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.

[INVAR]

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.

[Jazzhead]

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. 

[Jazzhead]

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. 

[txradioguy]

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.

[txradioguy]

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.

[Jazzhead]

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".   

[verga]

Nope.  It's in the Constitution.

@Jazzhead Show us the exact words "separation of church and state" in the Constitution.

[mystery-ak]

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*

[txradioguy]

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.