Hillary, Democrats and their hatred of Catholics

[emilynghiem]

Dear ding That still does not explain when the human soul enters the body.
You are still talking about the body and yes that part is science.

But issues of the spirit of human identity and will, that goes far beyond the genes.

One person said they settled this matter of what makes a human being,
as "someone who is loved." So if you love the person then yes, that is a human being.
And that's how they defined it.

So everyone has the spiritual freedom to define it for themselves.
What the govt can legislate is where we AGREE to make it law.

So sure, if everyone can agree that since life begins genetically at conception
then THAT is the "legal starting point" sure, we can have a consensus.

But I think you'd get a consensus faster by saying
* if you want right to health care, you have to respect right to life
* then separate the funding and let both fund their own
* and when all the funding goes toward the right to life and spiritual healing side,
then that's where the policies and research are going to get done to teach everyone

So by free choice, more people will CHOOSE to respect prolife and beginning at conception

ding the only difference between what we are both saying:
* you are choosing to learn and understand this WITHOUT govt making it illegal
you have free choice and THAT'S ENOUGH to learn and decide to respect life before birth
I find that is SUPERIOR
I would rather people be like you and CHOOSE because they understand and decide it makes sense

Like CHOOSING to understand why Christianity is helping and CHOOSING to respect or follow or adopt it
that's better than forcing people to practice Christianity by govt mandate
(note: spiritual healing can be proven by science to heal disease and addiction,
but still, it must be freely chosen and cannot be forced by law or it doesn't work)

* if you want to pass a law recognizing this WITHOUT consent of others affected who don't share those beliefs, that isn't fair to people
who aren't given the free choice as you and I were allowed to
so the only difference is getting people"s understanding and consent FIRST
AND NOT PASSING THE LAW UNLESS THEY AGREE

Again this is why I find we'd be better off separating the funding
This still acknowledges that your belief has validity and you have the right to fund it

But it gives people a choice, just like with Christianity,
so they don't reject that choice just because govt is being abused to force it on them

That creates a second battle that distracts from the core issue.
So I do not recommend violating the beliefs of other people
to push your own beliefs, or it discredits the motivations and distracts from the goals.

When human life begins is not a religious discussion. The beginning of human life is a scientific discussion. When do you think science tells us when a human life begins?

Human life is spiritual. Spiritually I believe it begins before birth. That all life is connected.

And nobody should violate anyone's consent because that's violating
free will or free exercise of religion. And if we want govt to respect
free exercise free will or free choice, all people as the authority behind govt
must equally respect free will and free choice of others.

So I say it's bigger than science and is constant. At all times,
we should seek to reconcile to have agreement and consensus
on unifying truth, and not impose on or coerce others.

That's what I believe and it require more faith than just science.

"Human life is spiritual. Spiritually I believe it begins before birth. That all life is connected."

Soooo, it's OK to murder with abortion?

Hi Votto
1. No it's not okay
2. But the best way to prevent it is by free choice not by force of law unless people consent to that law
3. I have no problem with people passing a law banning abortion if all people under that law agree to it
4. I'm saying the same way you and me and ding and I see Penelope also believe in prolife
and against abortion all people deserve equal free choice to decide that as we did
on our own without govt making it illegal and forcing that argument on any of us.

Does that make sense?

Like with Christianity or spiritual healing.

No, I don't think it's okay for people to reject spiritual healing when it can cure their loved ones of demons.

But this cannot be forced on them by law.
The best way or only way it works is by freely choosing to go through spiritual healing
and then it works. But it has to be by free choice.

I find prolife arguments work better when the person has free choice
and it doesn't work when it is forced by govt against their will.

There is nothing wrong with people all choosing to change to prolife and then
agreeing to pass a law by consensus.

Some people may argue that is still faith based,
but as long as all the people agree to pass the law
it's not taking anyone's free choice to get to that point of agreeing.

Does it make any sense? Sure. So you are saying that so long as the consent of the people favors genocide you are OK with it.

Have you ever met people who agreed to that?
No, of course people are going to object.

As for killing and going to war which some people argue allows genocide:
Just because people agree to war as a legal choice,
doesn't mean we have to go there. If we use
military defense and arms correctly for deterrence
it actually prevents war.

Ask Police officers, w ho have the right to shoot and kill.
The peace and police officers I know who are most
effective, never have to use force or very seldom.

 

[Votto]

When human life begins is not a religious discussion. The beginning of human life is a scientific discussion. When do you think science tells us when a human life begins?

Human life is spiritual. Spiritually I believe it begins before birth. That all life is connected.

And nobody should violate anyone's consent because that's violating
free will or free exercise of religion. And if we want govt to respect
free exercise free will or free choice, all people as the authority behind govt
must equally respect free will and free choice of others.

So I say it's bigger than science and is constant. At all times,
we should seek to reconcile to have agreement and consensus
on unifying truth, and not impose on or coerce others.

That's what I believe and it require more faith than just science.

"Human life is spiritual. Spiritually I believe it begins before birth. That all life is connected."

Soooo, it's OK to murder with abortion?

Hi Votto
1. No it's not okay
2. But the best way to prevent it is by free choice not by force of law unless people consent to that law
3. I have no problem with people passing a law banning abortion if all people under that law agree to it
4. I'm saying the same way you and me and ding and I see Penelope also believe in prolife
and against abortion all people deserve equal free choice to decide that as we did
on our own without govt making it illegal and forcing that argument on any of us.

Does that make sense?

Like with Christianity or spiritual healing.

No, I don't think it's okay for people to reject spiritual healing when it can cure their loved ones of demons.

But this cannot be forced on them by law.
The best way or only way it works is by freely choosing to go through spiritual healing
and then it works. But it has to be by free choice.

I find prolife arguments work better when the person has free choice
and it doesn't work when it is forced by govt against their will.

There is nothing wrong with people all choosing to change to prolife and then
agreeing to pass a law by consensus.

Some people may argue that is still faith based,
but as long as all the people agree to pass the law
it's not taking anyone's free choice to get to that point of agreeing.

Does it make any sense? Sure. So you are saying that so long as the consent of the people favors genocide you are OK with it.

Have you ever met people who agreed to that?
No, of course people are going to object.

As for killing and going to war which some people argue allows genocide:
Just because people agree to war as a legal choice,
doesn't mean we have to go there. If we use
military defense and arms correctly for deterrence
it actually prevents war.

Ask Police officers, w ho have the right to shoot and kill.
The peace and police officers I know who are most
effective, never have to use force or very seldom.

People object to abortion, just like many objected to the rounding up of Jews and killing them. The only difference is...............I dunno, you tell me.

To justify killing Jews they referred to them as vermin and subhuman

Abortionists also do this by referring to the unborn as a fetus. I have also heard some refer to the unborn as parasites.

This is the thought process that needs to occur when embracing genocide, which is why it scares the hell out of me that nonreligious people think we are nothing more than glorified animals.

 

[Uncensored2008]

democrats hate ALL Christians, or any denomination.

Islam is the only religion the left embraces.

 

[emilynghiem]

When human life begins is not a religious discussion. The beginning of human life is a scientific discussion. When do you think science tells us when a human life begins?

Human life is spiritual. Spiritually I believe it begins before birth. That all life is connected.

And nobody should violate anyone's consent because that's violating
free will or free exercise of religion. And if we want govt to respect
free exercise free will or free choice, all people as the authority behind govt
must equally respect free will and free choice of others.

As a natural law and Golden rule, we shall do unto others as we ask others to us.
So if we want our consent respected, we respect the consent of others.
I believe in the power of loving including and forgiving one another,
as we make corrections, so that we arrive at decisions together;
and this involves no coercion but free choice through understanding
by sharing freely until all conflicts are resolved.

So I say it's bigger than science and is constant. At all times,
we should seek to reconcile to have agreement and consensus
on unifying truth, and not impose on or coerce others.

That's what I believe and it require more faith than just science.

No. Human life is biology. You have heard of DNA, right? Are you familiar with how science differentiates living organism from non-living matter?

So human life is only biology? So we are no different than animals?

Not when it comes to the definition of a living organism we aren't.

So work with me here. So if human life is just biology, then humans are merely glorified animals, right?

So what do we do with animals? We enslave them as beasts of burden. We lock them up in zoos for our entertainment, and we kill and eat them.

So if human life is equivalent to the animal kingdom, why can't we do the same to people?

Dear Votto
ding answered that humans have consciousness on a level animals don't have.
My mother calls it ego that distinguishes what humans have that animals do not.

I believe people carry karma in our conscience, from generations to this day,
and we share that in our relationships and in society and humanity as a whole.

We as humans have different spiritual responsibility for learning
and changing how we do things in society that animals do not have.

ding called this consciousness. I call it conscience.
I have friends who believe these are still connected
spiritually between animals and people, so we affect
the animals and they affect us. some people don't distinguish
animals and people but believe since we don't know what's
going on with animals, we should treat them equally
as people and err on the side of caution. that's fair, too.

 

[Votto]

Human life is spiritual. Spiritually I believe it begins before birth. That all life is connected.

And nobody should violate anyone's consent because that's violating
free will or free exercise of religion. And if we want govt to respect
free exercise free will or free choice, all people as the authority behind govt
must equally respect free will and free choice of others.

As a natural law and Golden rule, we shall do unto others as we ask others to us.
So if we want our consent respected, we respect the consent of others.
I believe in the power of loving including and forgiving one another,
as we make corrections, so that we arrive at decisions together;
and this involves no coercion but free choice through understanding
by sharing freely until all conflicts are resolved.

So I say it's bigger than science and is constant. At all times,
we should seek to reconcile to have agreement and consensus
on unifying truth, and not impose on or coerce others.

That's what I believe and it require more faith than just science.

No. Human life is biology. You have heard of DNA, right? Are you familiar with how science differentiates living organism from non-living matter?

So human life is only biology? So we are no different than animals?

Not when it comes to the definition of a living organism we aren't.

So work with me here. So if human life is just biology, then humans are merely glorified animals, right?

So what do we do with animals? We enslave them as beasts of burden. We lock them up in zoos for our entertainment, and we kill and eat them.

So if human life is equivalent to the animal kingdom, why can't we do the same to people?

Dear Votto
ding answered that humans have consciousness on a level animals don't have.
My mother calls it ego that distinguishes what humans have that animals do not.

I believe people carry karma in our conscience, from generations to this day,
and we share that in our relationships and in society and humanity as a whole.

We as humans have different spiritual responsibility for learning
and changing how we do things in society that animals do not have.

ding called this consciousness. I call it conscience.
I have friends who believe these are still connected
spiritually between animals and people, so we affect
the animals and they affect us. some people don't distinguish
animals and people but believe since we don't know what's
going on with animals, we should treat them equally
as people and err on the side of caution. that's fair, too.

So humans have a consciousness but animals don't? I dunno, my dog seems to have a consciousness. But assuming you are even correct, why does it matter?

 

[ding]

No. Human life is biology. You have heard of DNA, right? Are you familiar with how science differentiates living organism from non-living matter?

So human life is only biology? So we are no different than animals?

Not when it comes to the definition of a living organism we aren't.

So work with me here. So if human life is just biology, then humans are merely glorified animals, right?

So what do we do with animals? We enslave them as beasts of burden. We lock them up in zoos for our entertainment, and we kill and eat them.

So if human life is equivalent to the animal kingdom, why can't we do the same to people?

Dear Votto
ding answered that humans have consciousness on a level animals don't have.
My mother calls it ego that distinguishes what humans have that animals do not.

I believe people carry karma in our conscience, from generations to this day,
and we share that in our relationships and in society and humanity as a whole.

We as humans have different spiritual responsibility for learning
and changing how we do things in society that animals do not have.

ding called this consciousness. I call it conscience.
I have friends who believe these are still connected
spiritually between animals and people, so we affect
the animals and they affect us. some people don't distinguish
animals and people but believe since we don't know what's
going on with animals, we should treat them equally
as people and err on the side of caution. that's fair, too.

So humans have a consciousness but animals don't? I dunno, my dog seems to have a consciousness. But assuming you are even correct, why does it matter?

Sure dogs are conscious, but do you know if they are conscious like you and I. Are they self aware? Do they have a concept of right and wrong?

 

[emilynghiem]

Human life is spiritual. Spiritually I believe it begins before birth. That all life is connected.

And nobody should violate anyone's consent because that's violating
free will or free exercise of religion. And if we want govt to respect
free exercise free will or free choice, all people as the authority behind govt
must equally respect free will and free choice of others.

So I say it's bigger than science and is constant. At all times,
we should seek to reconcile to have agreement and consensus
on unifying truth, and not impose on or coerce others.

That's what I believe and it require more faith than just science.

"Human life is spiritual. Spiritually I believe it begins before birth. That all life is connected."

Soooo, it's OK to murder with abortion?

Hi Votto
1. No it's not okay
2. But the best way to prevent it is by free choice not by force of law unless people consent to that law
3. I have no problem with people passing a law banning abortion if all people under that law agree to it
4. I'm saying the same way you and me and ding and I see Penelope also believe in prolife
and against abortion all people deserve equal free choice to decide that as we did
on our own without govt making it illegal and forcing that argument on any of us.

Does that make sense?

Like with Christianity or spiritual healing.

No, I don't think it's okay for people to reject spiritual healing when it can cure their loved ones of demons.

But this cannot be forced on them by law.
The best way or only way it works is by freely choosing to go through spiritual healing
and then it works. But it has to be by free choice.

I find prolife arguments work better when the person has free choice
and it doesn't work when it is forced by govt against their will.

There is nothing wrong with people all choosing to change to prolife and then
agreeing to pass a law by consensus.

Some people may argue that is still faith based,
but as long as all the people agree to pass the law
it's not taking anyone's free choice to get to that point of agreeing.

Does it make any sense? Sure. So you are saying that so long as the consent of the people favors genocide you are OK with it.

Have you ever met people who agreed to that?
No, of course people are going to object.

As for killing and going to war which some people argue allows genocide:
Just because people agree to war as a legal choice,
doesn't mean we have to go there. If we use
military defense and arms correctly for deterrence
it actually prevents war.

Ask Police officers, w ho have the right to shoot and kill.
The peace and police officers I know who are most
effective, never have to use force or very seldom.

People object to abortion, just like many objected to the rounding up of Jews and killing them. The only difference is...............I dunno, you tell me.

Votto the choice of sex and pregnancy involves both the man and the woman.
if laws only start at the point of pregnancy, they affect the women more than the men.
So that's why the issue of rape isn't going away. It's not addressing the men
who put those women in that situation.

If we focus on what approaches hold men and women equally responsible
for preventing sex that leads to unwanted pregnancy and abortion,
this is a matter of education and spiritual choice not to have sex
if they don't want responsibility for a child, since pregnancy is always a possibility,

So that approach is fairest and most effective.

However it is not the role of govt to address that level.

And that's why prolife and prochoice groups should agree to work on the level of teaching prevention
BEFORE the act of sex.

By approaching it that way, this can be fair to both the men and women
who make the decision regarding sex.

So the issue is more than genocide Votto

It's about addressing relationships, healthy ones and abusive ones.
And making sure nobody abuses sex or relationships.

It's very personal, the level we need to address
to prevent worse consequences that lead to the genocide you speak of.

 

[Votto]

So human life is only biology? So we are no different than animals?

Not when it comes to the definition of a living organism we aren't.

So work with me here. So if human life is just biology, then humans are merely glorified animals, right?

So what do we do with animals? We enslave them as beasts of burden. We lock them up in zoos for our entertainment, and we kill and eat them.

So if human life is equivalent to the animal kingdom, why can't we do the same to people?

Dear Votto
ding answered that humans have consciousness on a level animals don't have.
My mother calls it ego that distinguishes what humans have that animals do not.

I believe people carry karma in our conscience, from generations to this day,
and we share that in our relationships and in society and humanity as a whole.

We as humans have different spiritual responsibility for learning
and changing how we do things in society that animals do not have.

ding called this consciousness. I call it conscience.
I have friends who believe these are still connected
spiritually between animals and people, so we affect
the animals and they affect us. some people don't distinguish
animals and people but believe since we don't know what's
going on with animals, we should treat them equally
as people and err on the side of caution. that's fair, too.

So humans have a consciousness but animals don't? I dunno, my dog seems to have a consciousness. But assuming you are even correct, why does it matter?

Sure dogs are conscious, but do you know if they are conscious like you and I. Are they self aware? Do they have a concept of right and wrong?

So if you are a sociopath you are not human?

 

[ding]

"Human life is spiritual. Spiritually I believe it begins before birth. That all life is connected."

Soooo, it's OK to murder with abortion?

Hi Votto
1. No it's not okay
2. But the best way to prevent it is by free choice not by force of law unless people consent to that law
3. I have no problem with people passing a law banning abortion if all people under that law agree to it
4. I'm saying the same way you and me and ding and I see Penelope also believe in prolife
and against abortion all people deserve equal free choice to decide that as we did
on our own without govt making it illegal and forcing that argument on any of us.

Does that make sense?

Like with Christianity or spiritual healing.

No, I don't think it's okay for people to reject spiritual healing when it can cure their loved ones of demons.

But this cannot be forced on them by law.
The best way or only way it works is by freely choosing to go through spiritual healing
and then it works. But it has to be by free choice.

I find prolife arguments work better when the person has free choice
and it doesn't work when it is forced by govt against their will.

There is nothing wrong with people all choosing to change to prolife and then
agreeing to pass a law by consensus.

Some people may argue that is still faith based,
but as long as all the people agree to pass the law
it's not taking anyone's free choice to get to that point of agreeing.

Why isn't it OK?

Neither the abortion, the abuse that caused that situation, or the act of both
groups pressuring each other to impose their viewpoint is natural or sustainable
but all of these involve abuse, suffering and disharmony.

The solution to all three is to resolve the conflicts by free choice,
reach a consensus and act in harmony in all relations without abuse or coercion.

So the same things that will stop and prevent abortion
also stop the conflict over abortion policy:
respect for consent of others and then this cycle of abuse will end.

Abortion is only one sign of abuse, but all of it is abusive.
The coercion, the sex when pregnancy was not desired,
all of it is involves abuse that has to be addressed as well to solve the problems.

I'm sorry but you didn't answer the question. So let me ask it a different way? Yes or no, is it right to end a human life?

No, it is not natural and causes suffering to do so.
It is more natural to either let the baby miscarry naturally
or better not to have sex if pregnancy is not desired or supported.

You can call it "right to end a human life" but
I think that is too limiting. It is also harmful spiritually
on more levels than just the way you frame it.

Votto called it genocide, and it is broader more like that.
It is more than just the one life, but the suffering is
on a collective spiritual scale because everything is connected.

As in Islam, the killing of one life is like killing all humanity.
It's like that, but the mother's spirit is being killed also,
It's more than just genetic life which is almost an insult
to limit it to that when the dynamics going on,
the karma as in Buddhism, are far greater in impact.

ding I am not going to say it the same as you do.
I can say it my way and you will have to intepret
or translate from there. Votto called it genocide
and that's another way to say it.

We all agree abortion should be prevented 100%
So if we agree on that language that's enough for me.
If you see it your way, that's why I'm saying by
free exercise of religion, your way of believing and
seeing it should be protected by law.
So people like you are why I'm saying we need
to wipe out and prevent abortion 100%
so your beliefs are not violated.

It's almost better I don't share your beliefs 100%
because that shows that as a Constitutionalist
even if I disagree with you, I STILL Defend your belief
the same as mine, and don't believe in any laws
violating your beliefs. i don't have to agree with your beliefs
in order to argue they should be Constitutionally included and protected.
I believe that is superior and enforces a higher standard of law
than only defending beliefs you agree with.

I am willing to defend solutions that prevent
abortion 100% so this never happens under the law.
We do need to strive for that, I agree that is the goal.

Ok, so you don't think it is right to end a human life because it is not natural, right?

Why do you believe it is ok to abort a human life in the womb?

 

[emilynghiem]

No. Human life is biology. You have heard of DNA, right? Are you familiar with how science differentiates living organism from non-living matter?

So human life is only biology? So we are no different than animals?

Not when it comes to the definition of a living organism we aren't.

So work with me here. So if human life is just biology, then humans are merely glorified animals, right?

So what do we do with animals? We enslave them as beasts of burden. We lock them up in zoos for our entertainment, and we kill and eat them.

So if human life is equivalent to the animal kingdom, why can't we do the same to people?

Dear Votto
ding answered that humans have consciousness on a level animals don't have.
My mother calls it ego that distinguishes what humans have that animals do not.

I believe people carry karma in our conscience, from generations to this day,
and we share that in our relationships and in society and humanity as a whole.

We as humans have different spiritual responsibility for learning
and changing how we do things in society that animals do not have.

ding called this consciousness. I call it conscience.
I have friends who believe these are still connected
spiritually between animals and people, so we affect
the animals and they affect us. some people don't distinguish
animals and people but believe since we don't know what's
going on with animals, we should treat them equally
as people and err on the side of caution. that's fair, too.

So humans have a consciousness but animals don't? I dunno, my dog seems to have a consciousness. But assuming you are even correct, why does it matter?

I agree that dogs and animals are tied to the same consciousness on a larger level.
Within the human realm, we have a collective conscience
where humanity is meant to come to agreement on
the spirit of the laws and the letter of the laws,
between the church and the state, and reach unifying consensus
by conscience or through Christ. this is the process of
establishing universal justice or Jesus authority for all humanity to come to peace.

People are involved in this process in a higher way
because we have ability to speak and communicate in writing
to assimilate all our collective knowledge and experiences,
to unite nations, political and religious groups, in unison
by organizing by internet and through schools to establish
agreement in all areas so we work in harmony.

Animals aren't directly involved as people are.

So there is a difference in our responsibilities
and purpose in life.

 

[ding]

Not when it comes to the definition of a living organism we aren't.

So work with me here. So if human life is just biology, then humans are merely glorified animals, right?

So what do we do with animals? We enslave them as beasts of burden. We lock them up in zoos for our entertainment, and we kill and eat them.

So if human life is equivalent to the animal kingdom, why can't we do the same to people?

Dear Votto
ding answered that humans have consciousness on a level animals don't have.
My mother calls it ego that distinguishes what humans have that animals do not.

I believe people carry karma in our conscience, from generations to this day,
and we share that in our relationships and in society and humanity as a whole.

We as humans have different spiritual responsibility for learning
and changing how we do things in society that animals do not have.

ding called this consciousness. I call it conscience.
I have friends who believe these are still connected
spiritually between animals and people, so we affect
the animals and they affect us. some people don't distinguish
animals and people but believe since we don't know what's
going on with animals, we should treat them equally
as people and err on the side of caution. that's fair, too.

So humans have a consciousness but animals don't? I dunno, my dog seems to have a consciousness. But assuming you are even correct, why does it matter?

Sure dogs are conscious, but do you know if they are conscious like you and I. Are they self aware? Do they have a concept of right and wrong?

So if you are a sociopath you are not human?

No. I don't believe I said that. You are confusing conscience with consciousness. Look, I agree with you, we are granted inalienable rights for no other reason than we are God's creatures, but in dealing with secularists I find it more effective to deal with them on their terms.

 

[Votto]

"Human life is spiritual. Spiritually I believe it begins before birth. That all life is connected."

Soooo, it's OK to murder with abortion?

Hi Votto
1. No it's not okay
2. But the best way to prevent it is by free choice not by force of law unless people consent to that law
3. I have no problem with people passing a law banning abortion if all people under that law agree to it
4. I'm saying the same way you and me and ding and I see Penelope also believe in prolife
and against abortion all people deserve equal free choice to decide that as we did
on our own without govt making it illegal and forcing that argument on any of us.

Does that make sense?

Like with Christianity or spiritual healing.

No, I don't think it's okay for people to reject spiritual healing when it can cure their loved ones of demons.

But this cannot be forced on them by law.
The best way or only way it works is by freely choosing to go through spiritual healing
and then it works. But it has to be by free choice.

I find prolife arguments work better when the person has free choice
and it doesn't work when it is forced by govt against their will.

There is nothing wrong with people all choosing to change to prolife and then
agreeing to pass a law by consensus.

Some people may argue that is still faith based,
but as long as all the people agree to pass the law
it's not taking anyone's free choice to get to that point of agreeing.

Does it make any sense? Sure. So you are saying that so long as the consent of the people favors genocide you are OK with it.

Have you ever met people who agreed to that?
No, of course people are going to object.

As for killing and going to war which some people argue allows genocide:
Just because people agree to war as a legal choice,
doesn't mean we have to go there. If we use
military defense and arms correctly for deterrence
it actually prevents war.

Ask Police officers, w ho have the right to shoot and kill.
The peace and police officers I know who are most
effective, never have to use force or very seldom.

People object to abortion, just like many objected to the rounding up of Jews and killing them. The only difference is...............I dunno, you tell me.

Votto the choice of sex and pregnancy involves both the man and the woman.
if laws only start at the point of pregnancy, they affect the women more than the men.
So that's why the issue of rape isn't going away. It's not addressing the men
who put those women in that situation.

If we focus on what approaches hold men and women equally responsible
for preventing sex that leads to unwanted pregnancy and abortion,
this is a matter of education and spiritual choice not to have sex
if they don't want responsibility for a child, since pregnancy is always a possibility,

So that approach is fairest and most effective.

However it is not the role of govt to address that level.

And that's why prolife and prochoice groups should agree to work on the level of teaching prevention
BEFORE the act of sex.

By approaching it that way, this can be fair to both the men and women
who make the decision regarding sex.

So the issue is more than genocide Votto

It's about addressing relationships, healthy ones and abusive ones.
And making sure nobody abuses sex or relationships.

It's very personal, the level we need to address
to prevent worse consequences that lead to the genocide you speak of.

It mostly just boils down to money.

Jews were hated in Europe because they were economically affluent. When they were kicked out of entire countries the economy would soon collapse. So essentially, they took their gold and sent them away to die.

The German people were lavished by the Nazi regime with a nanny state that gave the German people a very high standard of living, plus they went after the rich folk with high taxes. The response was that people loved it. Hitler bought their souls as they chose to look the other way as Jews were sent off to die

Today, abortion is not much different. The average abortion is done because of money concerns. Again, it's all about the bottom line.

In ancient times, people sacrificed their children in the gods in a similar fashion. They did it for fertility or success on the battle field, etc.

Some things never change.

 

[Votto]

So work with me here. So if human life is just biology, then humans are merely glorified animals, right?

So what do we do with animals? We enslave them as beasts of burden. We lock them up in zoos for our entertainment, and we kill and eat them.

So if human life is equivalent to the animal kingdom, why can't we do the same to people?

Dear Votto
ding answered that humans have consciousness on a level animals don't have.
My mother calls it ego that distinguishes what humans have that animals do not.

I believe people carry karma in our conscience, from generations to this day,
and we share that in our relationships and in society and humanity as a whole.

We as humans have different spiritual responsibility for learning
and changing how we do things in society that animals do not have.

ding called this consciousness. I call it conscience.
I have friends who believe these are still connected
spiritually between animals and people, so we affect
the animals and they affect us. some people don't distinguish
animals and people but believe since we don't know what's
going on with animals, we should treat them equally
as people and err on the side of caution. that's fair, too.

So humans have a consciousness but animals don't? I dunno, my dog seems to have a consciousness. But assuming you are even correct, why does it matter?

Sure dogs are conscious, but do you know if they are conscious like you and I. Are they self aware? Do they have a concept of right and wrong?

So if you are a sociopath you are not human?

No. I don't believe I said that. You are confusing conscience with consciousness. Look, I agree with you, we are granted inalienable rights for no other reason than we are God's creatures, but in dealing with secularists I find it more effective to deal with them on their terms.

If we deal with them on their terms, it leads to genocide.

The average secular humanists think that there are too many people on the planet. In effect, humanity is a virus to them.

Doesn't that make you nervous?

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Votto
1. No it's not okay
2. But the best way to prevent it is by free choice not by force of law unless people consent to that law
3. I have no problem with people passing a law banning abortion if all people under that law agree to it
4. I'm saying the same way you and me and ding and I see Penelope also believe in prolife
and against abortion all people deserve equal free choice to decide that as we did
on our own without govt making it illegal and forcing that argument on any of us.

Does that make sense?

Like with Christianity or spiritual healing.

No, I don't think it's okay for people to reject spiritual healing when it can cure their loved ones of demons.

But this cannot be forced on them by law.
The best way or only way it works is by freely choosing to go through spiritual healing
and then it works. But it has to be by free choice.

I find prolife arguments work better when the person has free choice
and it doesn't work when it is forced by govt against their will.

There is nothing wrong with people all choosing to change to prolife and then
agreeing to pass a law by consensus.

Some people may argue that is still faith based,
but as long as all the people agree to pass the law
it's not taking anyone's free choice to get to that point of agreeing.

Why isn't it OK?

Neither the abortion, the abuse that caused that situation, or the act of both
groups pressuring each other to impose their viewpoint is natural or sustainable
but all of these involve abuse, suffering and disharmony.

The solution to all three is to resolve the conflicts by free choice,
reach a consensus and act in harmony in all relations without abuse or coercion.

So the same things that will stop and prevent abortion
also stop the conflict over abortion policy:
respect for consent of others and then this cycle of abuse will end.

Abortion is only one sign of abuse, but all of it is abusive.
The coercion, the sex when pregnancy was not desired,
all of it is involves abuse that has to be addressed as well to solve the problems.

I'm sorry but you didn't answer the question. So let me ask it a different way? Yes or no, is it right to end a human life?

No, it is not natural and causes suffering to do so.
It is more natural to either let the baby miscarry naturally
or better not to have sex if pregnancy is not desired or supported.

You can call it "right to end a human life" but
I think that is too limiting. It is also harmful spiritually
on more levels than just the way you frame it.

Votto called it genocide, and it is broader more like that.
It is more than just the one life, but the suffering is
on a collective spiritual scale because everything is connected.

As in Islam, the killing of one life is like killing all humanity.
It's like that, but the mother's spirit is being killed also,
It's more than just genetic life which is almost an insult
to limit it to that when the dynamics going on,
the karma as in Buddhism, are far greater in impact.

ding I am not going to say it the same as you do.
I can say it my way and you will have to intepret
or translate from there. Votto called it genocide
and that's another way to say it.

We all agree abortion should be prevented 100%
So if we agree on that language that's enough for me.
If you see it your way, that's why I'm saying by
free exercise of religion, your way of believing and
seeing it should be protected by law.
So people like you are why I'm saying we need
to wipe out and prevent abortion 100%
so your beliefs are not violated.

It's almost better I don't share your beliefs 100%
because that shows that as a Constitutionalist
even if I disagree with you, I STILL Defend your belief
the same as mine, and don't believe in any laws
violating your beliefs. i don't have to agree with your beliefs
in order to argue they should be Constitutionally included and protected.
I believe that is superior and enforces a higher standard of law
than only defending beliefs you agree with.

I am willing to defend solutions that prevent
abortion 100% so this never happens under the law.
We do need to strive for that, I agree that is the goal.

Ok, so you don't think it is right to end a human life because it is not natural, right?

Why do you believe it is ok to abort a human life in the womb?

I thought that WAS your question.
I thought you WERE referring to abortion as ending a human life.
So I answered you why it was unnatural and it added to suffering and abuse,
instead of solving the cause of suffering and abuse.

I already ANSWERED your question ding. That WAS it.

I can say death penalty is wrong and believe in preventing 100%
but permit laws where death penalty is a legal choice.

I can agree abortion is wrong and believe in preventing it 100%
but permit laws where abortion is not illegal but a legal choice.

My argument is that you and I would not do anything to cause an abortion.
You and I believe in doing everything we can to prevent it.
And neither you nor I "need it to be illegal" in order to believe as we do.

All the prolife who teach against abortion and teach it is murder
do so by free choice. So all people can reach agreement by free choice.
You and I don't rely on laws to tell us to do that.
We get there by free choice by understanding.
So I believe in that way of getting there, the same way you and I go there, by free choice.

That doesn't make it right to have or give abortions.
It's just saying we teach that by free choice not forcing it by law before people agree as we do
that it's wrong and harmful.

 

[ding]

Dear Votto
ding answered that humans have consciousness on a level animals don't have.
My mother calls it ego that distinguishes what humans have that animals do not.

I believe people carry karma in our conscience, from generations to this day,
and we share that in our relationships and in society and humanity as a whole.

We as humans have different spiritual responsibility for learning
and changing how we do things in society that animals do not have.

ding called this consciousness. I call it conscience.
I have friends who believe these are still connected
spiritually between animals and people, so we affect
the animals and they affect us. some people don't distinguish
animals and people but believe since we don't know what's
going on with animals, we should treat them equally
as people and err on the side of caution. that's fair, too.

So humans have a consciousness but animals don't? I dunno, my dog seems to have a consciousness. But assuming you are even correct, why does it matter?

Sure dogs are conscious, but do you know if they are conscious like you and I. Are they self aware? Do they have a concept of right and wrong?

So if you are a sociopath you are not human?

No. I don't believe I said that. You are confusing conscience with consciousness. Look, I agree with you, we are granted inalienable rights for no other reason than we are God's creatures, but in dealing with secularists I find it more effective to deal with them on their terms.

If we deal with them on their terms, it leads to genocide.

It's probably going to lead to that anyway, or at least to the next big war. It is called the saeculum cycle. It takes two generations to forget. It is the account of the OT. We are doomed to repeat these cycles.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Votto
1. No it's not okay
2. But the best way to prevent it is by free choice not by force of law unless people consent to that law
3. I have no problem with people passing a law banning abortion if all people under that law agree to it
4. I'm saying the same way you and me and ding and I see Penelope also believe in prolife
and against abortion all people deserve equal free choice to decide that as we did
on our own without govt making it illegal and forcing that argument on any of us.

Does that make sense?

Like with Christianity or spiritual healing.

No, I don't think it's okay for people to reject spiritual healing when it can cure their loved ones of demons.

But this cannot be forced on them by law.
The best way or only way it works is by freely choosing to go through spiritual healing
and then it works. But it has to be by free choice.

I find prolife arguments work better when the person has free choice
and it doesn't work when it is forced by govt against their will.

There is nothing wrong with people all choosing to change to prolife and then
agreeing to pass a law by consensus.

Some people may argue that is still faith based,
but as long as all the people agree to pass the law
it's not taking anyone's free choice to get to that point of agreeing.

Does it make any sense? Sure. So you are saying that so long as the consent of the people favors genocide you are OK with it.

Have you ever met people who agreed to that?
No, of course people are going to object.

As for killing and going to war which some people argue allows genocide:
Just because people agree to war as a legal choice,
doesn't mean we have to go there. If we use
military defense and arms correctly for deterrence
it actually prevents war.

Ask Police officers, w ho have the right to shoot and kill.
The peace and police officers I know who are most
effective, never have to use force or very seldom.

People object to abortion, just like many objected to the rounding up of Jews and killing them. The only difference is...............I dunno, you tell me.

Votto the choice of sex and pregnancy involves both the man and the woman.
if laws only start at the point of pregnancy, they affect the women more than the men.
So that's why the issue of rape isn't going away. It's not addressing the men
who put those women in that situation.

If we focus on what approaches hold men and women equally responsible
for preventing sex that leads to unwanted pregnancy and abortion,
this is a matter of education and spiritual choice not to have sex
if they don't want responsibility for a child, since pregnancy is always a possibility,

So that approach is fairest and most effective.

However it is not the role of govt to address that level.

And that's why prolife and prochoice groups should agree to work on the level of teaching prevention
BEFORE the act of sex.

By approaching it that way, this can be fair to both the men and women
who make the decision regarding sex.

So the issue is more than genocide Votto

It's about addressing relationships, healthy ones and abusive ones.
And making sure nobody abuses sex or relationships.

It's very personal, the level we need to address
to prevent worse consequences that lead to the genocide you speak of.

It mostly just boils down to money.

Jews were hated in Europe because they were economically affluent. When they were kicked out of entire countries the economy would soon collapse. So essentially, they took their gold and sent them away to die.

The German people were lavished by the Nazi regime with a nanny state that gave the German people a very high standard of living, plus they went after the rich folk with high taxes. The response was that people loved it. Hitler bought their souls as they chose to look the other way as Jews were sent off to die

Today, abortion is not much different. The average abortion is done because of money concerns. Again, it's all about the bottom line.

In ancient times, people sacrificed their children in the gods in a similar fashion. They did it for fertility or success on the battle field, etc.

Some things never change.

Dear @Voss no it's more than money.
It's also fear of people pushing Christianity and religion.

I have a friend who won't take money from Christians.
He'd rather die. the religion and hatred of that
is more than just the money. It's the whole
power and control "free will" issue.

That's why I'm saying instead of fighting the "free choice"
issue, use the free choice as we do to help reach an
understanding and help wipe out abortion using "free choice."

I posted examples of groups that offer women better choices:
The Nurturing Network
http://www.choices4life.org

Why not set up more groups like this and billboards for those nonprofits
that help women not compromise but which offer women better choices?

 

[ding]

Why isn't it OK?

Neither the abortion, the abuse that caused that situation, or the act of both
groups pressuring each other to impose their viewpoint is natural or sustainable
but all of these involve abuse, suffering and disharmony.

The solution to all three is to resolve the conflicts by free choice,
reach a consensus and act in harmony in all relations without abuse or coercion.

So the same things that will stop and prevent abortion
also stop the conflict over abortion policy:
respect for consent of others and then this cycle of abuse will end.

Abortion is only one sign of abuse, but all of it is abusive.
The coercion, the sex when pregnancy was not desired,
all of it is involves abuse that has to be addressed as well to solve the problems.

I'm sorry but you didn't answer the question. So let me ask it a different way? Yes or no, is it right to end a human life?

No, it is not natural and causes suffering to do so.
It is more natural to either let the baby miscarry naturally
or better not to have sex if pregnancy is not desired or supported.

You can call it "right to end a human life" but
I think that is too limiting. It is also harmful spiritually
on more levels than just the way you frame it.

Votto called it genocide, and it is broader more like that.
It is more than just the one life, but the suffering is
on a collective spiritual scale because everything is connected.

As in Islam, the killing of one life is like killing all humanity.
It's like that, but the mother's spirit is being killed also,
It's more than just genetic life which is almost an insult
to limit it to that when the dynamics going on,
the karma as in Buddhism, are far greater in impact.

ding I am not going to say it the same as you do.
I can say it my way and you will have to intepret
or translate from there. Votto called it genocide
and that's another way to say it.

We all agree abortion should be prevented 100%
So if we agree on that language that's enough for me.
If you see it your way, that's why I'm saying by
free exercise of religion, your way of believing and
seeing it should be protected by law.
So people like you are why I'm saying we need
to wipe out and prevent abortion 100%
so your beliefs are not violated.

It's almost better I don't share your beliefs 100%
because that shows that as a Constitutionalist
even if I disagree with you, I STILL Defend your belief
the same as mine, and don't believe in any laws
violating your beliefs. i don't have to agree with your beliefs
in order to argue they should be Constitutionally included and protected.
I believe that is superior and enforces a higher standard of law
than only defending beliefs you agree with.

I am willing to defend solutions that prevent
abortion 100% so this never happens under the law.
We do need to strive for that, I agree that is the goal.

Ok, so you don't think it is right to end a human life because it is not natural, right?

Why do you believe it is ok to abort a human life in the womb?

I thought that WAS your question.
I thought you WERE referring to abortion as ending a human life.
So I answered you why it was unnatural and it added to suffering and abuse,
instead of solving the cause of suffering and abuse.

I already ANSWERED your question.

I can say death penalty is wrong and believe in preventing 100%
but permit laws where death penalty is a legal choice.

I can agree abortion is wrong and believe in preventing it 100%
but permit laws where abortion is not illegal but a legal choice.

My argument is that you and I would not do anything to cause an abortion.
You and I believe in doing everything we can to prevent it.
And neither you nor I "need it to be illegal" in order to believe as we do.

All the prolife who teach against abortion and teach it is murder
do so by free choice. So all people can reach agreement by free choice.
You and I don't rely on laws to tell us to do that.
We get there by free choice by understanding.
So I believe in that way of getting there, the same way you and I go there, by free choice.

That doesn't make it right to have or give abortions.
It's just saying we teach that by free choice not forcing it by law before people agree as we do
that it's wrong and harmful.

Sorry, but it seemed that you still didn't recognize that human life begins at conception. I apologize if I got that wrong.

 

[ding]

So now that at least two people agree that human life begins at conception and that it is wrong to end a human life, I'd like to ask this question...

Is it virtuous to do the right thing if someone is making you do it?

 

[Votto]

Does it make any sense? Sure. So you are saying that so long as the consent of the people favors genocide you are OK with it.

Have you ever met people who agreed to that?
No, of course people are going to object.

As for killing and going to war which some people argue allows genocide:
Just because people agree to war as a legal choice,
doesn't mean we have to go there. If we use
military defense and arms correctly for deterrence
it actually prevents war.

Ask Police officers, w ho have the right to shoot and kill.
The peace and police officers I know who are most
effective, never have to use force or very seldom.

People object to abortion, just like many objected to the rounding up of Jews and killing them. The only difference is...............I dunno, you tell me.

Votto the choice of sex and pregnancy involves both the man and the woman.
if laws only start at the point of pregnancy, they affect the women more than the men.
So that's why the issue of rape isn't going away. It's not addressing the men
who put those women in that situation.

If we focus on what approaches hold men and women equally responsible
for preventing sex that leads to unwanted pregnancy and abortion,
this is a matter of education and spiritual choice not to have sex
if they don't want responsibility for a child, since pregnancy is always a possibility,

So that approach is fairest and most effective.

However it is not the role of govt to address that level.

And that's why prolife and prochoice groups should agree to work on the level of teaching prevention
BEFORE the act of sex.

By approaching it that way, this can be fair to both the men and women
who make the decision regarding sex.

So the issue is more than genocide Votto

It's about addressing relationships, healthy ones and abusive ones.
And making sure nobody abuses sex or relationships.

It's very personal, the level we need to address
to prevent worse consequences that lead to the genocide you speak of.

It mostly just boils down to money.

Jews were hated in Europe because they were economically affluent. When they were kicked out of entire countries the economy would soon collapse. So essentially, they took their gold and sent them away to die.

The German people were lavished by the Nazi regime with a nanny state that gave the German people a very high standard of living, plus they went after the rich folk with high taxes. The response was that people loved it. Hitler bought their souls as they chose to look the other way as Jews were sent off to die

Today, abortion is not much different. The average abortion is done because of money concerns. Again, it's all about the bottom line.

In ancient times, people sacrificed their children in the gods in a similar fashion. They did it for fertility or success on the battle field, etc.

Some things never change.

Dear @Voss no it's more than money.
It's also fear of people pushing Christianity and religion.

I have a friend who won't take money from Christians.
He'd rather die. the religion and hatred of that
is more than just the money. It's the whole
power and control "free will" issue.

That's why I'm saying instead of fighting the "free choice"
issue, use the free choice as we do to help reach an
understanding and help wipe out abortion using "free choice."

I posted examples of groups that offer women better choices:
The Nurturing Network
http://www.choices4life.org

Why not set up more groups like this and billboards for those nonprofits
that help women not compromise but which offer women better choices?

It is about our humanity.

Should we have the free choice to kill?

 

[emilynghiem]

So humans have a consciousness but animals don't? I dunno, my dog seems to have a consciousness. But assuming you are even correct, why does it matter?

Sure dogs are conscious, but do you know if they are conscious like you and I. Are they self aware? Do they have a concept of right and wrong?

So if you are a sociopath you are not human?

No. I don't believe I said that. You are confusing conscience with consciousness. Look, I agree with you, we are granted inalienable rights for no other reason than we are God's creatures, but in dealing with secularists I find it more effective to deal with them on their terms.

If we deal with them on their terms, it leads to genocide.

It's probably going to lead to that anyway, or at least to the next big war. It is called the saeculum cycle. It takes two generations to forget. It is the account of the OT. We are doomed to repeat these cycles.

ding I compare the same way the Catholic church went through the Reformation
and people argued the Catholic authority was sold out to money and not following the laws,
today the US is going through this where the people rise up and argue the govt is following
money and not following the laws.

So we are going through the same Reformation through natural laws and not the govt acting as middle man,
as similar to when the Reformation put the focus on scriptural laws and not the church acting as middle man.