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

[IsailedawayfromFR]

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.

[txradioguy]

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.

[INVAR]

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.

[musiclady]

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.

[Right_in_Virginia]

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?

[mystery-ak]

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.

[musiclady]

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.

[Jazzhead]

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.

 

[Jazzhead]

It's like debating with a brick wall.

Only if you are debating dishonestly. 

[Right_in_Virginia]

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?

[musiclady]

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).

[musiclady]

Only if you are debating dishonestly.

 


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.

[Right_in_Virginia]

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

[INVAR]

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?

[Jazzhead]

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?   

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.   

[Jazzhead]

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.   

[Jazzhead]

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?   

[verga]

So now I'm a Nazi?   
     

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.

[txradioguy]

PLEASE STOP IT!!!  Take your bickering off line and make room for a reasonable discussion.

@musiclady
@Jazzhead

You're not a Mod.

[txradioguy]

Fundamentally dishonest and cruel slut-shaming.  How does that further the work of Christ?

If you have to ask that particular question...

[bigheadfred]

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.

[INVAR]

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".

[Jazzhead]

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.   

[bigheadfred]

I gotta admit @Jazzhead. That one made me laugh out loud.

[Jazzhead]

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.