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

[Jazzhead]

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.   

[INVAR]

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.

[Jazzhead]

 

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".       

[Hoodat]

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.

[Hoodat]

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.

[Hoodat]

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.

[INVAR]

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.

[musiclady]

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.   

[Jazzhead]

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.   

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?      

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. 

[INVAR]

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.

[Jazzhead]

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. 

[txradioguy]

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.   

Well said.

[txradioguy]

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.

[INVAR]

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.

[INVAR]

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.

[Hoodat]

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.

[musiclady]

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?      

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

[sneakypete]

LOTS of people claim life begins at erection,same as the party.

[Suppressed]

Anyone who stands up for barren infertile marriages.....

So, infertile couples have no business marrying?

Wow.

[bigheadfred]

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.

[TomSea]

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.

[Smokin Joe]

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.

[Smokin Joe]

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. 

Someone has a lot of Rights all wrong.

[verga]

So, infertile couples have no business marrying?

Wow.

@Suppressed Comments like that is why he is on my "ignore" list.

[Jazzhead]

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?