DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on February 02, 2013, 04:29:14 PM
-
What Babies Would Say (http://townhall.com/columnists/billoreilly/2013/02/02/what-the-babies-would-say-n1502442)
It is one of life's great mysteries that so many liberal people are so callous when it comes to aborting fetuses. I mean, the Democratic convention last summer was almost a pro-abortion pep rally, as a variety of pro-choice speakers, including the self-proclaimed "Catholic woman" Caroline Kennedy, knelt at the altar of "reproductive rights."
Recently, another woman who calls herself a Catholic, Mary Elizabeth Williams, wrote a shocking article for Salon. Entitled "So What if Abortion Ends Life?" Williams starkly states: "I believe that life starts at conception. And it's never stopped me from being pro-choice."
In the body of the article, Williams says this about her own pregnancies: "I never wavered for a moment in the belief that I was carrying a human life inside of me."
And she continues, "Here's the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That's a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about... (A) fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She's the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always."
So now a developing fetus or viable baby ingesting in the womb is a "non-autonomous entity." Good grief!
The measure of a decent human being is how he or she treats the defenseless. The philosophy of Williams echoes past tyranny: Might makes right! What gives Williams the right to determine that her life is better than the baby she carries? Who appointed Williams the arbiter of who lives and who dies? Always, Williams? Abortion is acceptable always?
We are not talking about life endangerment or catastrophic damage to the mother here. No. What Williams believes, and she's not alone, is that a woman can execute her fetus simply because "she's the boss."
You may remember the late-term abortion doctor George Tiller. For $5,000, Tiller would drill a hole into the skull of a baby anytime up until birth. Tiller had an assistant in his Kansas clinic, Dr. Ann Kristin Neuhaus, whose assignment was to put on paper a reason for the late termination. Pretty much any reason would do, including "anxiety."
On May 31, 2009, Tiller was shot through the eye while attending a church service. His killer, Scott Roeder, is serving life in prison. The murder made national headlines, and in many press dispatches, Tiller was portrayed as a martyr. People like me who had criticized Tiller before the vicious crime were accused by far-left loons of encouraging the assassination.
On June 22, 2012, Neuhaus was informed that Kansas authorities had revoked her medical license. A judge ruled that she did not perform adequate mental health examinations of 11 abortion patients. The prosecution said that Neuhaus was a "threat to any future patients she might have."
Not to mention the babies she helped Tiller abort.
There comes a time when a human being has to either face evil or admit to allowing it. Abortion is legal in the United States, but it should not be celebrated or used as a political tool. Viable babies are human beings. If they could talk, they would tell Williams and other pro-choice zealots that their lives should not be marginalized by someone who thinks she's the boss. That's what the babies would say.
-
Recently, another woman who calls herself a Catholic, Mary Elizabeth Williams, wrote a shocking article for Salon. Entitled "So What if Abortion Ends Life?" Williams starkly states: "I believe that life starts at conception. And it's never stopped me from being ......
Mary Elizabeth Williams,has been honest with herself and with her readers, she is escuing the use of euphimism.
-
I think Williams is using the term non-autonomous to be the equivalent of non-viable. In which case her views are not much different than settled law.
In this forum we discussed the acquisition of personhood as a process that evolves as the fetus grows ever closer to viability. With viability coming earlier and earlier if one most abort it should be within the first trimester. Give or take a week or two.
-
I think Williams is using the term non-autonomous to be the equivalent of non-viable. In which case her views are not much different than settled law.
In this forum we discussed the acquisition of personhood as a process that evolves as the fetus grows ever closer to viability. With viability coming earlier and earlier if one most abort it should be within the first trimester. Give or take a week or two.
that would be a step in the right direction
the way that giving this person the rights[ of a lab mouse is if they hae none
-
the way that giving this person the rights[ of a lab mouse is if they hae none
I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
-
the way that giving this person the rights[ of a lab mouse is if they hae none
I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
There are laws that make animal cruelty a felony in Georgia.
But there is no such protection for a person who has a day yet to be born.
-
But there is no such protection for a person who has a day yet to be born.
Are you sure that is a true statement?
-
Yes, I am sure as Hell that a fetus is (a) NOT a person and (b) has no civil rights. Nor should it. Nor should we bestow rights upon your sperm.
-
Yes, I am sure as Hell that a fetus is (a) NOT a person and (b) has no civil rights. Nor should it. Nor should we bestow rights upon your sperm.
Are you sure that you will never be declared a non person?
-
A pregnant Georgia woman, who led police on a high speed chase, will likely be charged in the death of the 24-week-old baby she was carrying.
Police said Jessica Bruce, 21, refused to stop her car Wednesday night when they tried to pull her over for speeding. Bruce fled, struck a car, spun into oncoming traffic and was hit by another car, totaling her vehicle and killing the fetus, authorities said.
The results of those tests will determine how prosecutors proceed. Based on preliminary information, it is likely Bruce will be charged with "feticide by vehicle," according to Douglas County District Attorney David McDade.
"The preliminary investigation leads us to believe she was under the influence of alcohol," McDade told ABCNews.com. "She was fleeing police at a high rate of speed and driving dangerously."
The maximum penalty in Georgia for vehicular feticide carries a 15-year prison sentence.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cops-pregnant-mom-killed-fetus-drunk-driving-crash/story?id=10638814&page=2 (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cops-pregnant-mom-killed-fetus-drunk-driving-crash/story?id=10638814&page=2)
-
They should charge the baby as well.
If she had not been pregnant, perhaps she would not have been drunk.
It is unlikely that she premeditated an auto accident to kill the fetus. This is stupid posturing by the state and I really doubt that the state will get away with this. They can prosecute her for drunk driving and causing harm to other drivers at best.
The State of Georgia seems to have its head up its ass on this one.
-
The feticide laws offer a token form of protection for the unborn; if the law acts as a deterrent.
-
It does not seem to me that any pregnant woman would be deterred from drinking and deriving recklessly more than a non pregnant one.
If this stupid law is supposed to be a deterrent, it is not a logical one.
Men cannot become pregnant. Why pass a law that punishes a pregnant woman more than a man or a non pregnant woman?
Again, the State of Georgia is being ridiculous here.
-
It does not seem to me that any pregnant woman would be deterred from drinking and deriving recklessly more than a non pregnant one.
If this stupid law is supposed to be a deterrent, it is not a logical one.
Men cannot become pregnant. Why pass a law that punishes a pregnant woman more than a man or a non pregnant woman?
Again, the State of Georgia is being ridiculous here.
The law affects men too. If the woman were sober and hit by another driver who was drunk and the accident resulted in the death of the fetus the man could be charged with feticide.
BTW 38 other states have similar laws.
-
Just dumb, that is all there is to it.
-
I did not know about this.
So there is a greater penalty for killing a featal person accidentally than deliberately?
-
I did not know about this.
So there is a greater penalty for killing a featal person accidentally than deliberately?
It doesn't just cover accidental feticides. Say a disgruntled ex lover decides to kill the object of his affections and she is pregnant. If he kills the mother as well as the child he can be charged with homicide and feticide.
-
Imagine that.....2 murders, as in 2 PERSONS
-
Imagine that.....2 murders, as in 2 PERSONS
I'm pretty sure personhood was bestowed upon viability.
-
Imagine that.....2 murders, as in 2 PERSONS
I'm pretty sure personhood was bestowed upon viability.
Can the definition of "viable" be made firm?
-
As far as i know viable means able to maintain life outside the womb by natural means.
-
Imagine that.....2 murders, as in 2 PERSONS
I'm pretty sure personhood was bestowed upon viability.
And I've made that reluctant compromise......viability starts at about 26 weeks. Still waiting to see the compromise from the the so-called "pro-choice" side
-
Didn't think so
-
Didn't think so
You have no idea how annoying that is .
-
"You have no idea how annoying that is ."
Amen
BSB
-
Didn't think so
You have no idea how annoying that is .
and yet it's not a personal attack, its not a demeaning slur, its not a derrogatory reference to someone's intellect, in which I get far more annoyed with, than you can imagine. It's only done once in a while, and only done once in a thread, when a point, that doesn't have to even be mine, is demonstrably avoided. I'd opine "let it go", since I have no intention of not highlighting when a serious question goes unanswered ::) The left doesn't get a pass, when they try to punt. Hell maybe they "missed it", and I'm providing a 1 time serive of reminding them the question they avoided...I mean missed
-
When God reveals the exact moment during a pregnancy when He inserts an immortal soul, then that can be incorporated into the law. Until then, abortion should be the sole prerogative of the pregnant woman, since she must raise the child or decide its fate if it is born.
-
When God reveals the exact moment during a pregnancy when He inserts an immortal soul, then that can be incorporated into the law.
And for legal/court purposes, when approximately is that?? Or is that just a half hearted transparent reference to no compromise??
-
Didn't think so
You have no idea how annoying that is .
and yet it's not a personal attack, its not a demeaning slur, its not a derrogatory reference to someone's intellect, in which I get far more annoyed with, than you can imagine. It's only done once in a while, and only done once in a thread, when a point, that doesn't have to even be mine, is demonstrably avoided. I'd opine "let it go", since I have no intention of not highlighting when a serious question goes unanswered ::) The left doesn't get a pass, when they try to punt. Hell maybe they "missed it", and I'm providing a 1 time serive of reminding them the question they avoided...I mean missed
Justify it all you like, it still is annoying.
-
Ditto, though at least it's not some spewed vitriolic rhetoric aimed at another poster, which apparent doesn't pompt even a bit of annoyance, nor some nefarious stealth demand for an answer
-
Ditto, though at least it's not some spewed vitriolic rhetoric aimed at another poster, which apparent doesn't pompt even a bit of annoyance, nor some nefarious stealth demand for an answer
Still annoying
-
To each, their own
-
And for legal/court purposes, when approximately is that??
===============================================
It is when God appears, presents his ID and proves He is the Supreme Being and Demiurge and then states precisely when he inserts the soul.
I don't see why you find this confusing.
-
Oh I don't find that confusing at all. There will be no compromise by the Pro-abortion side, end of story. Yea, I kinda figured the lack of a response, or in your case, a ridiculous response, validated that conclusion, and the title of the thread.......the measure of a decent human being is how he or she treats the defenseless
Thanks
-
When God reveals the exact moment during a pregnancy when He inserts an immortal soul, then that can be incorporated into the law. Until then, abortion should be the sole prerogative of the pregnant woman, since she must raise the child or decide its fate if it is born.
No sooner said than done .
Jeremiah 1:5
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+1:5&version=NIV (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+1:5&version=NIV)
Sooner indeed by about three k years.
-
Bah!
That is not the word of God, it is just the Bible.
Lots of wacko stuff in the Bible.
-
We're talking about the law here Mr. Plane. Not religion. There is a separation of church and state in this country. You can believe any mumbo jumbo you like but it when comes down to the law it means nothing. Abortion is the law of the land. Your religious beliefs only count in your house. They don't count under my roof, nor under the legal roof of this great nation. The point during a pregnancy at which it becomes illegal to have an abortion will be decided by the courts. Not by what someone wrote down in a book, long before this country existed, and some like to pretend is the word of a super natural being.
This isn't Saudi Arabia. This is a secular nation. A nation of laws.
BSB
-
We're talking about the law here Mr. Plane....This isn't Saudi Arabia. This is a secular nation. A nation of laws
Funny you should mention that B. Because the law here in the U.S. makes it painfully clear that the Government can NOT mandate that ANY religious organization, which the catholic church happens to be, any action that runs counter to their religious doctrine
That'd be the law of the land. By all means, you may amend our constitution, if you feel so strongly about this. Start whipping up members to bring about a Constitutional convention, and hey....you just might be able to amend the right to bear arms, while your at it.
Good luck with that
-
SIRS....why does current law provide more protection to unborn turtles than unborn human beings?
Liberal moronic logic....no fine to kill an unborn human, but $20,000 fine to kill an unborn turtle!
(http://www.lifesitenews.com/images/sized/images/news/turtle_egg-240x200.jpg)
(http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/turtle.gif)
-
SIRS....fine/imprison those disturbing/killing unborn eagles,
but hey kill unborn humans and it's ok!
(http://media.mwcradio.com/mimesis/2012-05/09/U.S.%20Fish%20and%20Wildlife%20Service%20logo_gif_475x310_q85.jpg)
This law, originally passed in 1940, provides for the protection of the bald eagle and the golden eagle (as amended in 1962) by prohibiting the take, possession, sale, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, of any bald or golden eagle, alive or dead, including any part, nest, or egg, unless allowed by permit (16 U.S.C. 668(a); 50 CFR 22). "Take" includes pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb (16 U.S.C. 668c; 50 CFR 22.3). The 1972 amendments increased civil penalties for violating provisions of the Act to a maximum fine of $5,000 or one year imprisonment with $10,000 or not more than two years in prison for a second conviction. Felony convictions carry a maximum fine of $250,000 or two years of imprisonment.
http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/protect/laws.html (http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/protect/laws.html)
-
Eagles are endangered. Humans are not. That simple.
-
SIRS....why does current law provide more protection to unborn turtles than unborn human beings?
Liberal moronic logic....no fine to kill an unborn human, but $20,000 fine to kill an unborn turtle!
fine/imprison those disturbing/killing unborn eagles, but hey kill unborn humans and it's ok!
Scary, isn't it. And its those same folks that want to disarm us as well
-
Bah!
That is not the word of God, it is just the Bible.
Lots of wacko stuff in the Bible.
You asked for it.
I found what you asked for.
Now I learn that you are the arbiter of Gods will and interpreter of Gods word.
Wern't you criticiseing the Pope the other day?
I didn't realise then that you were angling for his job.
-
We're talking about the law here Mr. Plane. Not religion. There is a separation of church and state in this country. You can believe any mumbo jumbo you like but it when comes down to the law it means nothing. Abortion is the law of the land. Your religious beliefs only count in your house. They don't count under my roof, nor under the legal roof of this great nation. The point during a pregnancy at which it becomes illegal to have an abortion will be decided by the courts. Not by what someone wrote down in a book, long before this country existed, and some like to pretend is the word of a super natural being.
This isn't Saudi Arabia. This is a secular nation. A nation of laws.
BSB
In answer to a statement that references God , I attempt a Christian answer.
So I do not feel chasened by your misdirected criticism, rather I ask that you attempt to provide the religious perspective that you feel answers the question asked.
Re: The measure of a decent human being is how he or she treats the defenseless
« Reply #26 on: February 05, 2013, 12:09:57 PM »
Quote
When God reveals the exact moment during a pregnancy when He inserts an immortal soul, then that can be incorporated into the law. Until then, abortion should be the sole prerogative of the pregnant woman, since she must raise the child or decide its fate if it is born.
-
The government can NOT mandate that ANY religious organization, which the catholic church happens to be, any action that runs counter to their religious doctrine
==============================================
Gimme a break.
The government refused to allow Utah to enter the Union until the LDS abandoned polygamy in the 1880's. Luckily, God told the Mormon Prophet that polygamy was no longer to be allowed.
The citizens are protected by the Constitution. The wacko beliefs of churches are not.
-
The government can NOT mandate that ANY religious organization, which the catholic church happens to be, any action that runs counter to their religious doctrine==============================================
The citizens are protected by the Constitution. The wacko beliefs of churches are not.
1st amendment to the Constitution, says otherwise
-
No, it does not.
That is simply untrue.
-
That would make you....*drum roll*.....wrong, yet again. What part of Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, does not apply to Churches of any kind??
-
Eagles are endangered. Humans are not. That simple.
Love it....Love it!
Forcing the Left to advocate totally kooky positions.
The eagle and turtle unborn are "eagles and turtles" or at least soon to be...by some.
But the human unborn is not a human or soon to be by some!
Yes protect turtle and eagle unborn but not the human unborn!
-
What's worse is the left is obviously forcing female eagles and turtles to lay eggs, and be a mother, when they may not even want to. The eagle & turtle should have complete control of their body. Perhaps set up a program, payed for with tax dollars, and call it planned turtlehood to properly council female turtles on their various options, including use of a hammer
-
How much can a government mandate a person to violate his conscience?
Women who have no insurance at all are not having this right infringed, but offer her an insurance package and the government steps in to tell you what it must include.
I don't know what the outcome will be with Hobby Lobby, but they are poorly fixed to fight, I hope the right of a person to follow his conscience does not expire when they run a business.
By the way , are there indeed any Hobby Lobby employees complaining?
-
Go fry yourself an embryo or two, sirs, over easy.
Try embryos rancheros, with a dollop of salsa.
-
Brilliant rebuttal. Really, I tried applying the xo school of hyperbole. Was it not to your ususal standards?
-
"I hope the right of a person to follow his conscience does not expire when they run a business."
My conscience says I should run a sweat shop, in a fire trap, hiring only handicapped illegals, and paying them at 1/3 of minimum wage. I pray that god helps me reach my goal.
BSB
-
Good luck with that
-
"I hope the right of a person to follow his conscience does not expire when they run a business."
My conscience says I should run a sweat shop, in a fire trap, hiring only handicapped illegals, and paying them at 1/3 of minimum wage. I pray that god helps me reach my goal.
BSB
So why "illeagals"?
-
"I hope the right of a person to follow his conscience does not expire when they run a business."
My conscience says I should run a sweat shop, in a fire trap, hiring only handicapped illegals, and paying them at 1/3 of minimum wage. I pray that god helps me reach my goal.
BSB
More to the point .
Do you feel that your conscience is less dependable than government oversight?
-
What are the odds that God will reward you with success, do you think?
Apparently, God rewarded a lot of slave plantation owners in years past.
-
What are the odds that God will reward you with success, do you think?
Apparently, God rewarded a lot of slave plantation owners in years past.
Well, that isn't a question about odds. If God has a purpose , he is not frustrated by anything.
Job had buddys that took his failures and troubles as evidence of Gods ire with Job, I doubt not that some American slave owners took their prosperity as evidence that God was pleased with them. This is the same mistake , Gods ultimate purpose in anyones life is not realised in this life, "Why do the wicked prosper?" "Why do bad things happen to good people?" are old questions that are addressed in the books of Job and in Ecclesiastes.
Although God can and will bless some with success and some with frustration he is not obliged to do so contrary to his deeper purposes.
If I need to learn something that only sickness , poverty and humilation will teach me , it is Gods perrogative to bless me with the learning he thinks I need, or use my condition as a lesson to someone elese. From Gods perspective the shaping of caricter is of greater importance than the wealth and power a person might accrue.
Why indeed would God desire that all "his" people be wealthy? What would he get that way?
-
Oh, get serious.
The Bible is not the word of God.
There never was a Job.
You cannot teach people a lesson by torturing them or drowning them ir inflicting the Holocaust on them.
-
Oh, get serious.
The Bible is not the word of God.
LOL.......spoken like a true heathen. That is PRECISELY what it is
-
Oh, get serious.
The Bible is not the word of God.
LOL.......spoken like a true heathen. That is PRECISELY what it is
It is the word of God if you believe it is the word of God. Thus it is a matter faith.
-
Indeed. And for someone to blatantly tell me or any other Christian that it is not, then I have no problem with the heathen label
-
The only way to keep things in their place is to label them.
But just for giggles, would the bible be as valuable as a collection of the mores and morals of the old ones or does its value rest in the faith that it is the word of God.
Would the 10 commandments be less valuable if it was Moses who wrote them?
-
Is heathen being used as a slur or as recognition of a different set of beliefs?
And how does spanish moss get on those live oak trees
-
If you check the definition, you'd note it was the latter
-
It is hardly necessary to believe that the Bible is the word of God to believe that there is a God.
There either is or is not a God. That is a matter of faith.
That God either is responsible for the Bible or He is not. That is another, different matter of faith.
The Bible claiming that it is the word of God because it says it is the word of God is circular reasoning and therefore illogical.
The Bible contradicts itself in numerous occasions; this can he ascertained quite easily online.
This is not the same as saying that everything that the Bible says is false. There are true statements in the Bible, false statements in the Bible and rather a lot of gibberish. You have but to read it, which I have done.
Believing that the Bible is the word of God makes it the word of God is like believing that once my grandfather's dog, whom I have never seen, could fly, means that my grandfather's dog could fly.
We are not watching a play, so believing that Tinkerbelle and the fairies are real does not bestow them with existence, nor does it give them the power of flight or to work magic or anything else.
In this country we have decided to believe that all religions worship the same god(s) and believe the same things. Any study of any two religions reveal that this is simply not so.
The only way that all religions could be equal with regard to belief structure would be for all of them to be wrong. It is possible that they all are wrong, but that cannot be proven scientifically, nor would proving it cause everyone to disbelieve.
Most of the time, religion does not get in the way of living. Some people need religion more than others, but this is a matter of nurture rather than nature.
-
If you do not think I am serious , you do not know what I am saying.
If you do not think the Bible is the word of God , why say that the word of God is required for your opinion to include babys as persons ?
What sort of "God" are you looking for?
-
It is hardly necessary to believe that the Bible is the word of God to believe that there is a God.
No one claimed you had to (more straw alert). For the vast majority of Christians however, that's exactly what it is. And yes, that is a matter of faith. But without some concrete proof on your part, to proclaim that The Bible is not the word of God, or that There never was a Job, wreaks of being an unbelieving heathen to that vast majority of Christians
-
The burden of proof is NOT to disprove that the Bible is the word of God, it is to PROVE that it is.
If I say the moon of made of green cheese, I have the obligation to prove it.
That is the way that science and logic work.
YOU must prove that Job existed. YOU must prove that the Bible is the word of God.
We already know that God did not write the Bible. Not even the Bible claims this.
The burden of proof always lies with the person making the allegation.
No one can disprove a negative statement, either, by the way.
How could anyone prove that Job never existed?
The same way that one proves that Tinkerbelle does not exist. The fact is, it cannot be done. I imagine that with proper laser 3-D holographic technology, we could cause a very convincing Tinkerbelle to appear, one convincing enough for medieval people unaware of the technology. Surely those who disbelieved would attribute the appearance to magic, which it is for them, at least.
So, go on, PROVE that the Bible is the word of God. I dare you.
Or start off with something easy. Try disproving a negative. Prove that faeries do not exist. Prove that the chupacabra does not exist.
-
If you do not think the Bible is the word of God , why say that the word of God is required for your opinion to include babys as persons ?
You are confounding two assumptions here (1) that there is a God capable of putting in an appearance, and (2) that the same Being produced the Bible. One can believe in a Deity without believing in the Hebrew version of that Deity. One can believe in Ahuru-Mazda or Brahma or the Great Spirit.
What sort of "God" are you looking for?
If I say that God should put in a personal appearance affirming at what point a fetus becomes a human (ie the insertion of a soul), then that is the sort of God to which I am referring.
As described in the Bible, God is rather enigmatic. Genesis claims that God spoke to Adam & Eve personally. It states that God made Man in His own image.
However, when God appears later in Exodus to Moses, he chooses to appear as flaming shrubbery. We know for sure that God did not create Man in the image of burning bushes, don't we?
In the other relatively few appearances. God appears to people noted for being rather mentally unstable, like Jeremiah or the wacky author of the Book of Revelation, allegedly John of Patmos.
God does appear in films as George Burns, Morgan Fairchild, and other actors, and there is that bit in The Ten Commandments, but those are not taken as authentic by anyone as anything but whimsy or pious speculation.
I do not expect that God will be putting in an appearance on behalf of fetuses. After all, He did not appear one hundred times life size and say in the booming James Earl Jones voice, simultaneously in German, Polish, Yiddish and whatever, "NOW CUT THAT OUT!", which would surely have been the most logical thing to do.
Jesus, who some claim to be God, said He would return before the last of the group with whom He was speaking had died. Unless there is a 2000 year old disciple still roaming about, we know that this is not what happened. Jesus still has not returned.
-
The burden of proof is NOT to disprove that the Bible is the word of God, it is to PROVE that it is.
I'm not required to prove to you anything.....ITS CALLED FAITH FOR A REASON, Not CSI Babylon. You are completely free not to believe, but you have squat in trying to claim to Christians that the Bible is not the word of God
-
I can claim anything to anyone.
Again. the burden of proof ALWAYS lies with the person making the claim. It is ALWAYS impossible to prove a negative.
You can also believe in Tinkerbelle. If you try really hard, you can probably convince yourself that you are Napoleon, or Jesus Himself.
But you are not logical and you either know this or are stupid.
-
I can claim anything to anyone.
Of course you can. You can spout your 99% wrong opinion to anyone, anytime. Whoever claimed you couldn't?? I relish disproving your claims over, and over, and over again, when its issues not of faith, but of facts and politics. By all means, keep'em coming 8)
-
I can claim anything to anyone.
Of course you can. You can spout your 99% wrong opinion to anyone, anytime. Whoever claimed you couldn't?? I relish disproving your claims over, and over, and over again, when its issues not of faith, but of facts and politics. By all means, keep'em coming 8)
Well ... where is the proof that the Bible was written by God?
-
And who claimed it was written by God? oy ::)
-
And who claimed it was written by God? oy ::)
Apparently someone did, because why else would this subject be up for debate?
Do you believe the Bible was written by God?
-
As a Christian, it's the word of God, NOT written by him. Though you could go on to say those that wrote the Bible were inspired by God communicating to them, in however way he did
Which is all based on FAITH, which of course you're well aware of, which of course begs the question why are you asking proof, ala Xo, in something that's faith based, at at no time claimed as some proven fact? Do you require proof of my faith?? Seriously??
-
No theologian of any repute claims that the Bible was actually written by God. This is because the Bible itself attributes authorship to men, not God.
Generally, it is alleged that it was written by several, perhaps many authors, who were inspired by God.
Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were so named because they reputedly were written by those evangelists. Note that Luke and Mark are NOT Hebrew names, though all the Apostles were Jews. The same is true of the letters of Paul and Peter. God was allegedly inspired to write about some pretty petty matters in Paul's letters: specific parishioners in specific churches whose actions could not conceivably be of a fraction of the importance of the Crusades or the Holocaust. God apparently considered it of vital importance to the World that the Apostle Timothy personally circumcised himself, for example, and then Paul mentions that this was actually unnecessary later on.
-
Christians across the globe believe that the Bible is the word of God, while very few actually claim it was written by God. So, why you're arguing a point never made is.......well, SOP I guess
-
Which is all based on FAITH, which of course you're well aware of, which of course begs the question why are you asking proof, ala Xo, in something that's faith based, at at no time claimed as some proven fact? Do you require proof of my faith?? Seriously??
==========================================
I am asking YOU for proof that it IS the word of God precisely because YOU asked ME to prove that it was not,and that Job did not exist.
You apparently were unaware that it is not possible to prove a negative.
Knowing you, I am pretty sure you are still likely unaware of this basic premise of logic.
No one questions your faith, sirs. We all know that you have oodles and oodles of faith.
I imagine that you are capable of believing seventeen impossible things before breakfast.
-
The reason i ask is that if you claim the the Bible is inspired by God and XO claims that the Bible is not inspired by God and both positions are based on Faith or lack thereof, why is XO wrong and you are right?
-
Which is all based on FAITH, which of course you're well aware of, which of course begs the question why are you asking proof, ala Xo, in something that's faith based, at at no time claimed as some proven fact? Do you require proof of my faith?? Seriously??
==========================================
I am asking YOU for proof that it IS the word of God precisely because YOU asked ME to prove that it was not,and that Job did not exist.
Good gravy, I'm not required to prove to you anything. ITS FAITH. That's how God intended it to be. You either believe in him, or you don't. YOUR CHOICE. I'm not here to convert you ::) Now, if your goal is to try and disprove him to me, its going to take far more than your 99% wrong opinion that the Bible is not the word of God, or that job did not exist
Good luck with that
-
The reason i ask is that if you claim the the Bible is inspired by God and XO claims that the Bible is not inspired by God and both positions are based on Faith or lack thereof, why is XO wrong and you are right?
Because I'm on the record as referencing that its an act of faith. I'm not proclaiming it as some logical fact based conclusion
-
I said that the Bible was not the word of God.
That does not rule out the possibility that PARTS of it could be inspired by God, which is not the same thing.
To say that something is :the word of Xavier Onassis", for example, it stands to reason for most logical thinkers that it is something I said.
Something I INSPIRED someone else to say could be a totally different thing.
We could say that Henry Ford built the Model T.
We could say also that Henry Ford, by building the Model T and selling millions of Model T's, INSPIRED paved roads.
That is not the same thing as saying that Henry Ford paved the roads.
Another example: Steve Jobs may have INSPIRED the fourth generation iPod, but he did not create it.
Here is my statement: THE BIBLE IS NOT THE WORD OF GOD.
Consider what this means.
-
So far, sirs has claimed that he BELIEVES that the Bible is the word of God, though what he actually believes is a bit murky.
sirs thinks that I should PROVE that a guy named Job did not exist, though strangely, he has no obligation to even say why he thinks that Job did exist.
That sounds like one of those famous double standards to me.
-
The reason i ask is that if you claim the the Bible is inspired by God and XO claims that the Bible is not inspired by God and both positions are based on Faith or lack thereof, why is XO wrong and you are right?
Because I'm on the record as referencing that its an act of faith. I'm not proclaiming it as some logical fact based conclusion
That does not answer my question. Why are you right and xo wrong on a faith based position?
-
I said that the Bible was not the word of God.
That does not rule out the possibility that PARTS of it could be inspired by God, which is not the same thing.
LOL.....that is pretty much the same thing. So, you're applying the literal card, that not every single word was the word of God, just parts of it. Ok, fine, I can agree. I doubt that words like "the" and "and" were probably not, but yea the vast majority is precisely the word of God, as inspired by those who wrote it
oy
Here is my statement: THE BIBLE IS NOT THE WORD OF GOD.
Consider what this means.
I did, ....spoken like a true Heathen, since that's PRECISELY WHAT IT IS
Now, if you wish to continue this discussion of FAITH, by all means, introduce it into the MATTERS OF FAITH section of the Saloon. We're done here
-
The reason i ask is that if you claim the the Bible is inspired by God and XO claims that the Bible is not inspired by God and both positions are based on Faith or lack thereof, why is XO wrong and you are right?
Because I'm on the record as referencing that its an act of faith. I'm not proclaiming it as some logical fact based conclusion
That does not answer my question. Why are you right and xo wrong on a faith based position?
Asked and answered already. Now, if you wish to continue this discussion of FAITH, by all means, you too may introduce it into the MATTERS OF FAITH section of the Saloon. We're done here
-
The reason i ask is that if you claim the the Bible is inspired by God and XO claims that the Bible is not inspired by God and both positions are based on Faith or lack thereof, why is XO wrong and you are right?
Because I'm on the record as referencing that its an act of faith. I'm not proclaiming it as some logical fact based conclusion
That does not answer my question. Why are you right and xo wrong on a faith based position?
Asked and answered already. Now, if you wish to continue this discussion of FAITH, by all means, you too may introduce it into the MATTERS OF FAITH section of the Saloon. We're done here
1 you don't tell me where to post
2 if you can't answer a simple question, say so. Which of course will speak volumes. Because you certainly did not answer why your faith based position is correct and xo's faith based position is not.
-
1) I didn't tell you where you can post, only that IF you wish to continue THIS discussion of FAITH, there's a more appropriate room in the saloon to post
2) I DID answer it. You just don't like the answer. If you wish more detail or satisfaction to the answer provided, see 1)
-
2 if you can't answer a simple question, say so. Which of course will speak volumes. Because you certainly did not answer why your faith based position is correct and xo's faith based position is not.
=================================================
I beg your pardon?
I do not have a "faith based" position. I simply said that the Bible is not the word of God,and explained why it is entirely logical to say this. I am an agnostic. I do not claim to know what the ultimate truth is, I only go as far as logic will take me by stating what is illogical and therefore as untrue as other beliefs that people mention, such as the belief that the Earth is 6000 years old: I cannot prove that the Earth did not exist before that time, but there seems to be overwhelming evidence that this must logically be true.
Nearly all assumptions involve faith to some degree.
I think I can say that I have FAITH to the degree that I can say that I have FAITH that most Hydrogen atoms consist of one proton or one electron. There is rather a lot of logical proof to have this faith, even though it is likely that no one will ever see an electron spinning around a proton, since even smaller particles would have to exist to see them.
A scientist has FAITH that certain chemical reactions will occur and others will not. A cook has FAITH that a steak will be properly cooked after 5 minutes per side at a specific setting on the burner.
I would write about this in the other forum, except no one would see what I have written there. This is the only active part of 3DHS.
-
1) I didn't tell you where you can post, only that IF you wish to continue THIS discussion of FAITH, there's a more appropriate room in the saloon to post,
Your suggestion is ignored.
2) I DID answer it. You just don't like the answer. If you wish more detail or satisfaction to the answer provided, see 1)
Actually you did not explain how your faith based position was right and xo's faith based position was wrong.
You dodged it, deflected it, ran away from it , and your lack of a reply speaks volumes.
-
Do you have faith in your ability to reason, to apply logic to a question?
-
Speaking volumes again,are we?
Getting back to the topic, which was a woman's right to choose or reject an abortion:
If God were to appear and personally state His opinion on abortion, then I imagine that we could follow His will on the subject. This seems to come down to the precise moment in which a zygote becomes a human being. Most believe that this has to do with whether it has a soul or not. We can eat chicken eggs as well as chickens based on the belief that chickens and the eggs have no souls, whereas we do have souls. I have no proof that chickens or humans have souls, by the way. I enjoyed TWO "Chicken Littles" from the KFC last night, so I guess I am more comfortable with the premise of chickens not having souls. I hate to think that $2.58 plus 18¢ tax is all that a chicken's being exterminated is worth.
What I said was that until we know God's rules for creation, we cannot be sure that a fetus becomes a living human being with a soul. God, we assume, knows this and could tell us.
Until then, it seems entirely logical to me to leave the fate of all fetuses up to the woman carrying said fetus. It certainly is more important to her than it is to sirs, or me, or the state or federal government. I am neither for or against abortions in any specific case,and am entirely content to leave it with the pregnant woman, since she has more to benefit or suffer depending on her life.
Perhaps animals all have souls, as the Jains believe.
The Western tradition is that we leave killing the chickens up to the Colonel so we can enjoy the Chicken Littles.
I see this as quite similar to leaving the abortion decision up to the pregnant woman. I am not guilty of her having or not having an abortion since I have logically no part in the process.
Perhaps she will join the Colonel in Hades, perhaps not. Maybe I will have to suffer in the afterlife because of all the livestock that have died as a result of me not wanting to live on salad and veggies.
Will St.Peter tell me that I am being sent downstairs because I have been directly instrumental in the massacre of 5000 chickens and a lot of fish, cattle, pigs and even that rattlesnake I ate in Tlaxcala? Who knows?
-
So , rejecting the idea that God has already left guidence where you can find it.
You are willing to assume that the human being before birth has no soul.
You make the same assumption of adult Chickens and their eggs.
-
I assume nothing about the souls of humans or chickens.
The existence is a soul has never been proven nor disproved. We find it convenient to assume that chickens have no souls, primarily because that chickens, when fried, are delicious. Naturally, we do not wish to feel guilt about eating chickens or other animals. Pigs are especially smart, but no matter, bacon is especially delicious.
It would seem that there is as much reason to assume that some animals have souls. We share something like 97% of our DNA with chimpanzees, after all.
What we do know is that if the soul does exist after death, wherever it goes, it does not come back and tell us about it. Jesus came back, we hear, but he really did not say much about life in Heaven. We seem to have gotten the idea that there will be a lot of singing in the Choir Celestial, and also that this singing and listening to others sing, will be particularly pleasant. Having sung in choirs, I have noticed that even the best singing gig gets pretty tedious after an hour or so, even if you do not have to pee.
God's guidance, if there is any, is to be found,not in the Bible or Koran, but in our DNA and our manner of thinking, or so it seems to me.
-
I hope I am not delicious.
Do you think there is any reason for the law to protect anyone from murder?
Or only those who are prepared to prove themselves soulfull and/or not delicious.
-
Again, my position is crystal clear. I am not for abortion or against abortion. I am for the pregnant woman deciding on her own, with the advice of her doctor.
All the rest is speculation about how you righties want to meddle around with some strange woman's womb and rights.
-
Again, my position is crystal clear. I am not for abortion or against abortion.
Actually, this issue is all about abortion. It's not abut choice, its not about life, it's about abortion. You're either pro-abortion or anti-abortion. That's what's crystal clear
-
No one is for compulsory abortion.
It is about the RIGHT of a woman to make decisions about her own life for herself.
-
It's about abortion. I'm on record as being anti-abortion. I think we all know where you stand
-
It is too bad you will not wake up pregnant tomorrow.
Really.
-
Yea, it is.
Really
::)
-
There is probably no other way to knock some sense into you.
Morning sickness, cramps, it would surely do you some good.
-
....or choice to not have sex, or to purchase my own Birth control, if I did, and didn't want children. Wow, what a concept...Choice...Free Will...and no innocent dies
-
no birth control is 100% effective.
I am saying that a woman's decision is absolute. You say you want to control her body. That is the difference,
-
And I am saying that abortion is the killing of an innocent unborn child. The woman has a choice to do ANYTHING she wants, so no, I have no interest in controlling anyone's body. She can choose to do anything......except abortion, which again is why this issue is about abortion
-
Who says the child is INNOCENT?
The Holy Mother Church teaches that all are born in sin!
From the stench of the diaper to the reek of the shroud, yes, the Church says that is humanity.
-
No one is for compulsory abortion.
It is about the RIGHT of a woman to make decisions about her own life for herself.
Do you have a nutral position on Slavery or Murder .
As long as there is little danger that you will be involved , why not be nutral?
-
I am against both.
-
I am against both.
For no apparent reason.
-
Not apparent to you, which does not surprise me a bit.
-
no birth control is 100% effective.
I am saying that a woman's decision is absolute. You say you want to control her body. That is the difference,
No.
A woman should have primary right and choice over her body, no question.
Just as you should, but if you use your body to interact with another human being that other human also has rights.
When a person has a right to make a choice , they make the choice and accept the responsibility that making the choice creates.
-
Again, you want the government to impose laws upon that woman.I do not.
-
Who says the child is INNOCENT?
What crime has it committed?? What sin has it committed?? There in lies your answer
-
Again, you want the government to impose laws upon that woman.I do not.
That does seem to be a quandary for the small government types.
-
Again, you want the government to impose laws upon that woman.I do not.
Does this government not impose laws upon the woman constantly?
Taxes for instance?
Are women exempt from having laws imposed on them?
The complete set of laws that apply to women is a liabrary too large to carry with a dump truck.
You want Women to be exempted from law?
Women do not need the right to kill their children, or should men have this same right?
-
Men are not told whether or not they must father children. This whole thing is about controlling the lives of women.
This does not have one goddamn thing to do with taxes.
-
And no one is trying to "control" the woman. She can do any damn thing she wants, and with who she wants, and how ever many times she wants.
Just don't kill any innocent unborn child is all. Otherwise, party on
-
Just don't kill any innocent unborn child is all. Otherwise, party on
Doesn't that bring us full circle as to when personhood begins?
-
To which I've compromised to 26weeks, which equates to viability, and indeed, personhood, to which the other side intends on no compromise
So yea, for the 1st 25weeks, she can murder at will
-
So why is the first 25 weeks still considered murder if personhood aka viability is not achieved until week 26? Doesn't sound like much of a compromise.
-
Little confused as to the question. Viability starts at 26weeks, ergo personhood, as it relates to the biological measure of a person being able to exist outside the womb
The compromise is in that personhood really starts at conception. That's when all the biological agents have been combined, and a new life begins
So how is that not a compromise??
-
How do you murder a non person? your compromise says 26 weeks. so why at 25 is it murder. Are you reneging on your agreement?
-
Oh good gravy......I'm calling it murder because life starts at conception. The compromise is that I'm willing to allow the child to be murdered up until the 26th week. Is it any clearer now?? ::)
-
So your compromise is a lie. Because you aren't compromising anything.
So much for rule of law.
-
See, this is why you lose so much respect from me. Completely misrepresent what I've clearly said, then top it off with calling me a liar.
How the hell is it NOT a compromise?? If "the right" believes life starts at conception, and the child be treated as such from that point, and "the left" believes that the woman should be allowed to abort at any time, how the hell is my giving ground to allow abortion to occur thru the 1st 25weeks, not a compromise on my part?? I'm trying to find some version of how abortions, and the murder of these innocents can be lessened, and if viability is the legal key.......
So why do you pull this kind of crap?? I mean you're on a roll here, moving my thread from where I intended it to be, here, and refusing to explain that, now this crap
-
Sperms are not dead. Neither are eggs. They are undeniably human as well.
Every time a woman has her period, a whole bunch of potential little sirs get flushed or disposed of by the natural process. Some fish lay 10,000 eggs and only one survives if it is lucky.
Ignorance of biology makes for crappy theology.
-
Sperms are not dead. Neither are eggs.
Yes, that is correct
They are undeniably human as well.
No, they are not. They have the DNA to make a human, WHEN they connect with each other, and the sperm fertilizes the egg.
Every time a woman has her period, a whole bunch of potential little sirs get flushed or disposed of by the natural process.
Good thing none of them are fertilized and can become a human now, isn't it ::) Your ignorance of biology is only matched with your ignorance of guns and their usage
-
Nonetheless, they are alive and human.
The fact is that Nature obviously does not care much about eggs, fertilized or otherwise. Or even the newborn. Of 1000 baby tortoises, maybe 990 are something's breakfast, lunch or dinner within a month.
-
Nonetheless, they are alive and human.
Nonetheless, they are not, until the egg is fertilized
The fact is that Nature obviously does not care much about eggs, fertilized or otherwise. Or even the newborn. Of 1000 baby tortoises, maybe 990 are something's breakfast, lunch or dinner within a month.
Perhaps had turtles been given the gift of opposing thumbs, progressive intellect, a governmental body including a judicial system, and access to frearms, that # would be a lot less. Alas, that's not the case, but the weak deflection effort is noted
-
Take your deflection crap and shove it, sirs. Use your opposable thumbs for something useful.
-
I do.....I, and most everyone else, use them, with our other fingers to type how wrong you are so very very often, on topic, after topic, after topic
-
How the hell is it NOT a compromise??
Because rule of law says life begins at viability. You stipulated that viability is at 26 weeks. You aren't giving ground. You aren't allowing abortions, you are following the law.
That was your compromise. Mighty generous for a rule of law guy.
If you are now arguing that viability begins at conception, you are reneging on your compromise.
That is how in the hell it is not a compromise.
BTW your respect or lack of respect means little to me.
-
How the hell is it NOT a compromise??
Because rule of law says life begins at viability. You stipulated that viability is at 26 weeks. You aren't giving ground. You aren't allowing abortions, you are following the law.
Abortions can and DO occur after 26weeks
BIOLOGICALLY AND REALISTICALLY, an unborn child can live outside the mother's womb as early as 26weeks. In other words, they pass the viability test, per the rule of law. I DON'T THINK ABORTIONS SHOULD OCCUR AT ANY TIME, outside of the extremely rare rape/incest caused pregnancies. That's my personal position. However, I'm willing to compromise to lessen abortions that currently can occur, pretty much anytime, even into the last trimester, to abortions that can only occur within the 1st 25weeks.
How the hell you can call that not compromising, and then top it off with some asanine reference to lying about it, really does reach a new low
BTW your respect or lack of respect means little to me.
That's too bad, as I greatly respect others, that have earned it, and it means alot to me when received in return.
Any chance you're going to divulge why you moved my thread I started in its more appropriate venue, to this one? You know, the one that hasn't had any other responses, but stands there like some big neon light, on top of everything else posted?
-
There is no reason to respect sirs. He is a fanatic and a headwedge.
-
And the immature namecalling shows no end in sight. Sad
-
Your stupidity shows no sign of ending. That is even sadder. At least Lintball gets PAID for spouting nonsense.
-
How the hell you can call that not compromising, and then top it off with some asanine reference to lying about it, really does reach a new low
Because you did not compromise anything. You simply said you would follow the law.
But let's clear up some misconceptions you may have.
1. it is not up to you to allow or disallow abortions up to viability.
2. The fact that abortions occur after viability is on those who are to enforce the various state laws, and again that is not you.
Any chance you're going to divulge why you moved my thread I started in its more appropriate venue, to this one?
I already answered you. Moderating the various boards is not your concern.
Clear enough?
That's too bad, as I greatly respect others, that have earned it, and it means alot to me when received in return.
Oh. Perhaps you misunderstood. I don't care if you respect me or not.
-
Let's clear something else up, a misconception you've apparently been under.....abortions can occur at any time, even into the last trimester, as in AFTER 26weeks, in this country. This isn't a debate on when viability occurs. This was a debate on when LEGALLY they should stop. My compromise was to limit any and all abortions to no more than 25weeks, at which time viability becomes the issue. It's still murder, but I'm willing to allow the woman to legally murder thru the 1st 25weeks
And no, your move didn't clear anything up. It made no sense, outside of....well, I have some good ideas, given your track record, but I'll keep them to myself for now
And no, I didn't misunderstand you in the least. As I said, I greatly respect others, that have earned it, and it means alot to me when received in return. I guess it doesn't mean much to you, which is fine. Your call
-
And no, your move didn't clear anything up. It made no sense, outside of....well, I have some good ideas, given your track record, but I'll keep them to myself for now
Read into it what you will. But take a look at the discussions in 3DHS and you will see that many discuss faith based positions. In fact one of the dead horses is God.
It's still murder, but I'm willing to allow the woman to legally murder thru the 1st 25weeks
How would you stop them if you decided to not allow these women their medical procedures?
This isn't a debate on when viability occurs. This was a debate on when LEGALLY they should stop.
That is settled law. SCOTUS set out the framework, the states were to set out laws within that framework, and enforcement was left to the states. Your beef is with the states.
-
What the frell.......I have no power to stop anything. THIS IS A DEBATE FORUM, and my beef is that abortion is still good for any unborn child at any time. Yes, we have concluded when viability occurs, however that's not at issue. The issue is how to lessen abortions. So instead of supporting the legal ability to abort at any time, in many locations here in the U.S., I'd support that the legality have cut off after 25weeks. It's still murder, it's still abortion, but .....watch this....I'm trying to compromise to lessen the total amount of abortions, since I don't think ANY abortions should occur, outside of the parameters I referenced. How you can keep calling up is down, harkens back to the days when Tee debated
And yea, many discuss faith based positions......when they introduce them, where they want to. What's this power need to pull my thread from another more appropriate location of dicsussion, where I was perfectly willing to debate it, now making it look ridiculous as some Jay Leno Headlines skit. If I had wanted to discuss it in more detail here, I would have facilitated that. And then to hide in this cloak of "its not my concern" really provides how shallow a move it was on your part. If YOU wanted to discuss it in this thread, then YOU should have intiated something in this thread
I just keep wondering why
-
We were discussing why you were right and xo was wrong in your opinion, but you declared that you were done with it in this thread.
And lo and behold you start a new thread in matters of faith which was started by the way at the request of _jsov and mirstkim for respectful discussions of comparative religions.
Your post and it's follow up delusional victory dance was out of place in that forum.
Thus it was moved.
THIS IS A DEBATE FORUM, and my beef is that abortion is still good for any unborn child at any time.
Please provide a list of states that allow for abortion on demand at any time during the pregnancy up to and including during labor.
-
So it is like the 3/5 compromise .
Between the abolitionists and the slave states .
The compromise prevented the slaves from being counted by the slave states for representation as full persons. Counting for less reduced the clout of the south in Congress..
The Free states thought it unfair that they should count at all , since they were not allowed to vote.
The Slave owing states thought they should count as persons whether they voted or not , lots of people count without voting , women , children etc..
So the compromise was reached, the compromise allowed the nation to be formed, but it also did not really solve the problem . The origional problem continued to grow worse and fester .
Accepting viability as a real border of personhood is a compromise like that, it has some good effect , without really being a solution.
-
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_PLTA.pdf (http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_PLTA.pdf)
Although the vast majority of states restrict later-term abortions, many of these restrictions have been struck down. Most often, courts have voided the limitations because they do not contain a health exception; contain an unacceptably narrow health exception; or do not permit a physician to determine viability in each individual case, but rather rely on a rigid construct based on specific weeks of gestation or trimester.
Nonetheless, statutes conflicting with the Supreme Court’s requirements remain on the books in some states. For example, the law in Michigan permits a postviability abortion only if the woman’s life is endangered and laws in several other states ban abortion at a specific point in gestation. Most recently, several states have enacted laws that ban abortion at 20 weeks’ post-fertilization—well before viability—based on the spurious assertion that a fetus can feel pain at that point.
Spurious?
Has someone really proven that there is no pain for the fetus to feel as he/she is pulled apart ?
-
"The law is an ass" some famous person
-
“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.”
ATTRIBUTION: CHARLES DICKENS, Oliver Twist, chapter 51, p. 489 (1970). First published serially 1837–1839.
http://www.bartleby.com/73/1002.html (http://www.bartleby.com/73/1002.html)
-
Bt already answered his own question, per what I said, in that abortions, depending on their locations, can be performed into the 3rd trimester. States get to decide the specifics
As far as moving the thread, I guess what you're trying to claim is that when Xo reinforced my answer, you felt compelled.....to let everyone else see? That makes about as much sense as the nonsense of moving it from where it belonged in the 1st place, to begin with.
Whatever
So, where exactly are the parameters displayed so we know what specific faith guidelines are required to be followed, in order to discuss matters of faith, in the matters of faith section of the saloon?
-
So, where exactly are the parameters displayed so we know what specific faith guidelines are required to be followed, in order to discuss matters of faith, in the matters of faith section of the saloon?
Seek and ye shall find.... a wise man once if you want to know where a trail leads it is best to start at the beginning. There really aren't that many posts.
As far as moving the thread, I guess what you're trying to claim is that when Xo reinforced my answer, you felt compelled.....to let everyone else see? That makes about as much sense as the nonsense of moving it from where it belonged in the 1st place, to begin with.
I gave my reasons for moving your post. I am not concerned with whether you agree with them or not.
But lately it seems that you are very unhappy with the way i moderate this forum. Perhaps you would be happier somewhere else?
Your choice.
-
Bt already answered his own question, per what I said, in that abortions, depending on their locations, can be performed into the 3rd trimester. States get to decide the specifics
Sorry. I did not answer my own question. I asked for a list of states that allow unfettered abortions. Did I provide my own list? No.
Plane provided the list.
-
And yea, many discuss faith based positions......when they introduce them, where they want to. What's this power need to pull my thread from another more appropriate location of dicsussion, where I was perfectly willing to debate it, now making it look ridiculous as some Jay Leno Headlines skit. If I had wanted to discuss it in more detail here, I would have facilitated that. And then to hide in this cloak of "its not my concern" really provides how shallow a move it was on your part. If YOU wanted to discuss it in this thread, then YOU should have intiated something in this thread
I just keep wondering why
You are starting to worry me. Have you thought about counseling?
-
I am sure that any woman can get an abortion somewhere at any time she chooses. I would never interfere. I see this as her business and none of my own. I see this as the way that human beings are obviously designed.
Therefore, we are really talking about how sirs and Plane and whoever think the government should CONTROL the lives of women too poor to go to that place.
The whole idea of jailing doctors and poor women for managing their own lives as they see fit is repugnant to me.
-
And yea, many discuss faith based positions......when they introduce them, where they want to. What's this power need to pull my thread from another more appropriate location of dicsussion, where I was perfectly willing to debate it, now making it look ridiculous as some Jay Leno Headlines skit. If I had wanted to discuss it in more detail here, I would have facilitated that. And then to hide in this cloak of "its not my concern" really provides how shallow a move it was on your part. If YOU wanted to discuss it in this thread, then YOU should have intiated something in this thread
I just keep wondering why
You are starting to worry me. Have you thought about counseling?
Oh the irony. I will keep you in my prayers
-
::)
-
::) No different than your crack. I merely responded in kind
-
Except mine was sincere. Yours per your own admission simple tit for perceived tat.
Carry on. Consider my remarks or not.
-
LOL....counseling is your reponse to my sincere conclusion as to your "why"? Yea, that's categorized as a crack. You can accept it or discard it, it matters not
-
discarded
-
BTW my suggesting counseling was as serious as a heart attack. I mean that sincerely.
-
Because your degree is in.....?, and the diagnosis is......?
Perhaps I'm learning from you to not take what you say as sincere. Perhaps.
Anyways, moving on
-
Because your degree is in.....?, and the diagnosis is......?
Perhaps I'm learning from you to not take what you say as sincere. Perhaps.
Anyways, moving on
Perhaps you can show where i claimed to have a degree in counseling? I wondered even hazard a guess as to a diagnosis.
But it doesn't take a degree to know when something isn't quite right. A parent or grandparent picks up those skills as a matter of course.
Perhaps it would help, perhaps it wouldn't. Perhaps you feel you don't need it. It was a suggestion, not a requirement to maintain your posting privileges.
And sure moveon.
-
"isn't quite right" :o So it was crack. Yea, I got that the 1st time. oy
-
"isn't quite right" :o So it was crack. Yea, I got that the 1st time. oy
Don't know how you can come to that conclusion, but you would be wrong.
Are you a parent?
-
Yea, I am. As a parent, I'm intimate with the family, their idiosyncrasies, what's "normal", and what "isn't quite right"
Moving on.....at least hopefully
-
Yea, I am. As a parent, I'm intimate with the family, their idiosyncrasies, what's "normal", and what "isn't quite right"
So how do you act on that intuition? When behavior isn't quite right and doesn't fit the norm?
-
It's based on knowing them intimately, in determining what "isn't right", and subsequent appropriate follow-up. I have no business claiming someone seek help without knowing the person, or at least have an extremely good relationship with them. Otherwise its extremely inappropriate if supposedly "sincere", and a crack if not
-
Nonsense. I have been reading your posts for 10+ years. You think that you don't pick up patterns over that time. Besides I thought you were moving on, don't see why you are obsessing over a simple suggestion. Have the last word, another pattern, btw.
-
And yet you
a) asked a question, and then another question.......I guess I'm not supposed to answer?
b) fail to identify what pattern is off, to come to some conclusion that something "isn't quite right"
c) don't know me near as much as you think you do, which is why your latest effort was indeed a crack vs something supposedly sincere. When we've mended fences, so that I may then take you as being sincere with counseling recommendations, vs some crack that it was
Yea, I think we're done....unless of course you're going to ask more questions I'm not supposed to answer. Now if you really need the last word, then I'd recommend not to ask any more questions here
-
When we've mended fences, so that I may then take you as being sincere with counseling recommendations, vs some crack that it was
When was that? What fences needed mending?
-
So more questions, I guess we're not done. The fence of respect and, at least for me, friendship, even if it only existed over these internet chat forums. I greatly respected you, and still respect the hard work you provide in trying to keep the saloon running. Cudos on that effort
-
So more questions, I guess we're not done. The fence of respect and, at least for me, friendship, even if it only existed over these internet chat forums. I greatly respected you, and still respect the hard work you provide in trying to keep the saloon running. Cudos on that effort
So what made you think fences needed mending?
-
I think I just answered that one above, already....but I can type it again....The fence of respect and, at least for me, friendship. Can we be done now?
-
No. So specifically this mending took place by whom and how, and no you didn't answer why you thought fences need mending, you simply named the fences.
-
I'll leave the attempted microsemanticanalysis for another time. I answered what fences, as in those are the ones that needed mending before I can consider some of your "health" recommendations as sincere once again, vs the cracks that they currently are. Hoping they can be mended at some point. Only time will tell
-
I'll leave the attempted microsemanticanalysis for another time. I answered what fences, as in those are the ones that needed mending before I can consider some of your "health" recommendations as sincere once again, vs the cracks that they currently are. Hoping they can be mended at some point. Only time will tell
So you have nothing? A simple declaration that can not be questioned? Hmmm.
-
I am sure that any woman can get an abortion somewhere at any time she chooses. I would never interfere. I see this as her business and none of my own. I see this as the way that human beings are obviously designed.
Therefore, we are really talking about how sirs and Plane and whoever think the government should CONTROL the lives of women too poor to go to that place.
The whole idea of jailing doctors and poor women for managing their own lives as they see fit is repugnant to me.
This makes no sense to me.
If a woman were strangleing her sixteen year old child you would be OK with that?
Where you see a clear difference , I see an artificial distinction.
The respect for human life generally is harmed by this across our entire society.
-
You are simply weird.
Again a fetus is not a person.It is not up to you to decide whether someone else reproduces or not.
You want to jail a pregnant woman? You want to jail doctors?
-
You are simply weird.
Again a fetus is not a person.It is not up to you to decide whether someone else reproduces or not.
You want to jail a pregnant woman? You want to jail doctors?
There is no reason to call you a person , that would not apply just as well to yourself three months before you were born.
Jailing some Doctors might work, but only if the sentences are quite long.
Jailing Pregnant women probly isn't happening, but better contraception might be.
-
Sorry you have to be BORN to be a person. You have to hatch to be a chicken or a turtle or whatever.
Rich women can always get safe and effective abortions, anyway.
-
Sorry you have to be BORN to be a person. You have to hatch to be a chicken or a turtle or whatever.
Rich women can always get safe and effective abortions, anyway.
No.
Your attitude is antique.
No offense ment.
But for many years ,perfectly normal persons defended the notion that you had to be WHITE to be a person. This, in a strictly logical sense, is indefensable, but defend it they did.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=100-years-ago-presidential-letter (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=100-years-ago-presidential-letter)
Patents
“From inquiries repeatedly made of us as to who are the legitimate owners of inventions issued under various circumstances, a few items of information under this head will interest our inventor readers at least. In regard to inventions made by slaves, it has been the practice of the Patent Office to reject such applications, as they are considered legally incompetent alike to receive the patent and to transfer their interest to others. In reference to free colored men, we believe them also to be incompetent to receive a patent, as under the United States Laws they are not regarded as citizens, and could not therefore defend a patent against infringers in the United States courts.”
The Dred Scott decision of 1857 that legalized this situation was nullified by the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments to the Constitution.
-
"Has someone really proven that there is no pain for the fetus to feel as he/she is pulled apart ?"
Momentary, if at all, vs. the pain of being an unloved child, which goes on for an entire lifetime. Only the extraordinarily selfish can't see that.
BSB
-
Personally, I'll give the innocent child the benefit of the doubt, especially considering the many families that would perfectly wish to adopt and love them....for their entire lifetime
Only extraordinarily indecent can't see that
Sirs
-
personally, it's up to you ONLY if it is your fetus.
-
The unborn child has no say and is the innocent being murdered, which is why others like me are fighting for it. And since you & B demonstrate no compromising on this issue, I suppose I won't either. It's a person at conception....period
-
There could be some value in compromise , if it allowed something good to happen while the best is not possible.
But for the pro-Abortion the "best" is pretty much what they already have, have they any motive for compromise?
-
The unborn child has no say and is the innocent being murdered, which is why others like me are fighting for it. And since you & B demonstrate no compromising on this issue, I suppose I won't either. It's a person at conception....period
Based on what authority, in a nation of laws, do you make this declaration?
-
sirs does not run this or any other country.
-
The unborn child has no say and is the innocent being murdered, which is why others like me are fighting for it. And since you & B demonstrate no compromising on this issue, I suppose I won't either. It's a person at conception....period
Based on what authority, in a nation of laws, do you make this declaration?
We've already been over the "legal" debate. This position is merely a moral one, mine, based on the no compromise track the left is applying.
sirs does not run this or any other country.
Good thing then this has nothing to do with running the country, since I'd be scared to death at how trashed the likes of you and B would cause it to become, if the hard core left was running it
-
Then don't get an abortion. Your moral authority doesn't extend beyond yourself.
-
If your logic is perfect.
Then no one has moral authority to have an abortion.
Certainly not to perform one.
-
If your logic is perfect.
Then no one has moral authority to have an abortion.
Certainly not to perform one.
I have never claimed my logic to be perfect.
But if the decision maker has the belief that the fetus has not achieved personhood, then using secular reasoning she is within her rights to make the decision that best serves her belief system. And that decision will weigh on her as much as the decision to give a child to adoption often weighs on the birth mother, or not.
When a fetus achieves personhood is debatable i say viability others say conception. And so it goes.
But as a male i don't believe i have the final say as to whether a woman aborts or not, even if it from my own seed. And i don't believe the government should be directly or indirectly funding this elective surgery in any way shape or form.
-
Then don't get an abortion. Your moral authority doesn't extend beyond yourself.
So, in other words, I'm not allowed to voice an opinion on the matter. Good to know where we stand here ::)
-
Then don't get an abortion. Your moral authority doesn't extend beyond yourself.
So, in other words, I'm not allowed to voice an opinion on the matter. Good to know where we stand here ::)
Sure you are allowed to voice your opinion. And if you argument is persuasive to one expectant mother then good on you. But i don't believe your declarations carry any more weight than xo or b's opinion or mine, us being males and all. Because in the end, the decision is up to that mother and her conscience.
-
Strange how I never claimed my opinion came with such proclamations. One wonders how you came to think so :o
-
Of course you didn't.
-
Sirs "Personally, I'll give the innocent child the benefit of the doubt, especially considering the many families that would perfectly wish to adopt and love them....for their entire lifetime"
Who says the mother is going to put the child up for adoption? I suspect over 90% of unloved, unwanted, children are NOT put up for adoption. Instead they wind up in prison, on drugs, uneducated, and miserable.
BSB
-
"But for the pro-Abortion the "best" is pretty much what they already have, have they any motive for compromise?"
There is no best when it comes to abortion. Only varying amounts of pain, confusion, depression, and disappointment. As for compromise? How the hell do you compromise? Have a semi-abortion?
BSB
-
No, you either give the child up for adoption or keep it yourself. There's your compromise
-
If your logic is perfect.
Then no one has moral authority to have an abortion.
Certainly not to perform one.
I have never claimed my logic to be perfect.
But if the decision maker has the belief that the fetus has not achieved personhood, then using secular reasoning she is within her rights to make the decision that best serves her belief system. And that decision will weigh on her as much as the decision to give a child to adoption often weighs on the birth mother, or not.
When a fetus achieves personhood is debatable i say viability others say conception. And so it goes.
But as a male i don't believe i have the final say as to whether a woman aborts or not, even if it from my own seed. And i don't believe the government should be directly or indirectly funding this elective surgery in any way shape or form.
As a Male you and I have a unique and singular oppurtunity to choose.
By abstenence, or by otherwise preventing conception.
At all times past this point , our obligation is complete,total , but our right to choose otherwise is gone.
And this is widely seen as an Advantage?
-
And this is widely seen as an Advantage?
Are we talking about having sex or procreation? I don't believe they are one and the same.
-
And this is widely seen as an Advantage?
Are we talking about having sex or procreation? I don't believe they are one and the same.
\
How much are they not relivant to each other?
Neither Men nor Women can ensure that they will have procreation.
Either or both can forget responsibility .
When a child is concieved responsibility devolves on a man leagally , his responsibility starts right away.
Isn't this proper?
-
The man does not know whether he has caused the pregnancy or not. The woman always knows that she had a hand in it.
That is why she has the right to end it.