Live Action Pleads With Trump Administration To Defund Planned Parenthood Before Dems Take Over Hous

[Oceander]

There you go again.

And there you go again, making a mockery of yourself and a liar, too boot, by not having the courage of your convictions to own what you said, and to retract the things you’ve changed your mind about.

Very dishonest.  I don’t think that sits too well with God, but then I don’t have a direct unmediated line to Him. 

[RoosGirl]

Ahhh, so you have a direct, unmediated line to God Himself.

Everyone does.

[goodwithagun]

So, six billion people are walking around still attached to their mother’s uterus by the umbilical cord?  Seriously?

Why did you have to bring up the millennial issue again?

[Sighlass]

I'm focused on things that will get better results. I want the situation that will have less horrifying outcomes.

Some posts I just shake my head, nothing more horrifying than dead babies and women who have to live with the mental problems of realizing what they have done to a separate human life with a soul. I know, my aunt is one of the key players in the Sav-a-life program here locally, she lived though such shame (she aborted her 3rd son) and shares her experience about it almost daily. It grieves her tremendously. 

[Oceander]

Everyone does.

No, they don’t. 

[RoosGirl]

And there you go again, making a mockery of yourself and a liar, too boot, by not having the courage of your convictions to own what you said, and to retract the things you’ve changed your mind about.

Very dishonest.  I don’t think that sits too well with God, but then I don’t have a direct unmediated line to Him.

I'm not taking anything back and I don't have to change a word.  Sorry you misunderstood what I wrote, but honestly, I don't care if you understand it or not.

[goodwithagun]

Ahhh, so you have a direct, unmediated line to God Himself.

Yep. We haven’t been getting along lately. I need to work on that.

[Oceander]

I'm not taking anything back and I don't have to change a word.  Sorry you misunderstood what I wrote, but honestly, I don't care if you understand it or not.

No, you’re disowning your own earlier statement that how your fellows were going to spend eternity was your business. 

You made that statement, and that statement necessarily implies that either (a) sticking your nose into someone else’s relationship with God is moral, or (b) it isn’t and therefore you are an immoral person.

Since I rather doubt you would ever make the second statement, that means that your statement logically implied the first conclusion. 

[Oceander]

Some posts I just shake my head, nothing more horrifying than dead babies and women who have to live with the mental problems of realizing what they have done to a separate human life with a soul. I know, my aunt is one of the key players in the Sav-a-life program here locally, she lived though such shame (she aborted her 3rd son) and shares her experience about it almost daily. It grieves her tremendously. 

I’m sorry for your aunt, but anecdote makes a poor basis from which to draw general conclusions. 

[Dexter]

Yep. We haven’t been getting along lately. I need to work on that.

God wants you to smoke pot.

[Oceander]

Yep. We haven’t been getting along lately. I need to work on that.

Well ain’t you the lucky one.

[Dexter]

Well ain’t you the lucky one.

Ain't ain't a word.

[RoosGirl]

No, you’re disowning your own earlier statement that how your fellows were going to spend eternity was your business. 

You made that statement, and that statement necessarily implies that either (a) sticking your nose into someone else’s relationship with God is moral, or (b) it isn’t and therefore you are an immoral person.

Since I rather doubt you would ever make the second statement, that means that your statement logically implied the first conclusion.

There's choice C, but I'm sure I'm wrong about what I meant.  Whatevs.

[Oceander]

Ain't ain't a word.

Sez who?

[Oceander]

There's choice C, but I'm sure I'm wrong about what I meant.  Whatevs.

Not here there isn’t.  You made a very simple, unequivocal statement that someone else’s standing with God was your business.  That statement is either consistent with morality or it is not - sometimes things follow binary logic. 

[goodwithagun]

God wants you to smoke pot.

Lol

[RoosGirl]

Not here there isn’t.  You made a very simple, unequivocal statement that someone else’s standing with God was your business.  That statement is either consistent with morality or it is not - sometimes things follow binary logic.

Yeah, and I already gave an example of how I address that, knucklehead, but like every other time you argue with someone you focus on just the words you want to and ignore anything else that doesn't support the thing you want to knit pick.

[goodwithagun]

Well ain’t you the lucky one.

I think so.

[Oceander]

Yeah, and I already gave an example of how I address that, knucklehead, but like every other time you argue with someone you focus on just the words you want to and ignore anything else that doesn't support the thing you want to knit pick.

No, you did not.   What is your problem that you cannot own your own statements, and then admit when in retrospect you were wrong?

[Dexter]

The horse has died. Cease the beating at your discretion.

[Oceander]

The horse has died. Cease the beating at your discretion.

Fair dinkum.  You’re right.  Good night. 

[Sighlass]

No, it doesn’t:  it’s killing something that could become a full-blown human being.  That doesn’t make it murder. That makes it killing. Like I said, murder is a legal conclusion, not a statement of fact.

It is funny that the 10 commandments in most versions of the Bible (non-KJV) has "Murder" forbidden instead of "killing". Then just a few verses down we have this

If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life,  eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Pro-choice people argue that the above verse proves that the baby is not as important as the mother. Interestingly enough, President George Bush wrote about this misinterpretation in a book he himself pinned.

https://www.amazon.com/Notes-Critical-Practical-Book-Exodus/dp/0260299693

 George Bush (Notes on Exodus, vol. 2, p. 19) also writing in the last century said,

    If the consequence were only the premature birth of the child, the aggressor was obliged to give her husband a recompense in money, according to his demand; but in order that his demand might not be unreasonable, it was subject to the final decision of the judges. On the other hand, if either the woman or her child was any way hurt or maimed, the law of retaliation at once took effect

The RSV version assumes the child dies, but the NIV version assumes the child lives. Thus giving the woman and child the same status of protection of life.

[Oceander]

It is funny that the 10 commandments in most versions of the Bible (non-KJV) has "Murder" forbidden instead of "killing". Then just a few verses down we have this

If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life,  eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Pro-choice people argue that the above verse proves that the baby is not as important as the mother. Interestingly enough, President George Bush wrote about this misinterpretation in a book he himself pinned.

https://www.amazon.com/Notes-Critical-Practical-Book-Exodus/dp/0260299693

 George Bush (Notes on Exodus, vol. 2, p. 19) also writing in the last century said,

    If the consequence were only the premature birth of the child, the aggressor was obliged to give her husband a recompense in money, according to his demand; but in order that his demand might not be unreasonable, it was subject to the final decision of the judges. On the other hand, if either the woman or her child was any way hurt or maimed, the law of retaliation at once took effect

The RSV version assumes the child dies, but the NIV version assumes the child lives. Thus giving the woman and child the same status of protection of life.

So, which version did the Founders enact as positive law for the Constitution and the United States?

[Sighlass]

So, which version did the Founders enact as positive law for the Constitution and the United States?

Perhaps a look at fornication laws at the time will clear it up for most.

Or perhaps...

http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/tay/tay_03foundingfather.html

James Wilson’s “Lectures on Law,” given at what eventually was to become the University of Pennsylvania, clearly affirm that the right to life encompasses the unborn. Wilson was one of only six men to sign both the Declaration and the Constitution, and was a Supreme Court justice from 1789 to 1798. Recognized as “the most learned and profound legal scholar of his generation,” Wilson’s lectures were attended by President George Washington, Vice President John Adams, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson and a “galaxy of other republican worthies.” For this reason, as constitutional scholar Walter Berns states, “Wilson, when speaking on the law, might be said to be speaking for the Founders generally.” So what do the Founders say about the right to life?
Wilson clearly answers this question: “With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and in some cases, from every degree of danger.”

______________________

The founders of course had a limited grasp on the jurisprudence of the subject at the time. Modern science has now shown life begins at conception of course.

[RoosGirl]

It is funny that the 10 commandments in most versions of the Bible (non-KJV) has "Murder" forbidden instead of "killing". Then just a few verses down we have this

If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life,  eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

Pro-choice people argue that the above verse proves that the baby is not as important as the mother. Interestingly enough, President George Bush wrote about this misinterpretation in a book he himself pinned.

https://www.amazon.com/Notes-Critical-Practical-Book-Exodus/dp/0260299693

 George Bush (Notes on Exodus, vol. 2, p. 19) also writing in the last century said,

    If the consequence were only the premature birth of the child, the aggressor was obliged to give her husband a recompense in money, according to his demand; but in order that his demand might not be unreasonable, it was subject to the final decision of the judges. On the other hand, if either the woman or her child was any way hurt or maimed, the law of retaliation at once took effect

The RSV version assumes the child dies, but the NIV version assumes the child lives. Thus giving the woman and child the same status of protection of life.

Not funny, accurate.  The literal translation is "murder", not "kill".