Liberals On Abortion

[PoliticalChic]

" Exceptions For Adultery "

* Least Protected Farce *

I said earlier that we can agree that you endorse murder of the least protected.
What more is there to say?

Ordeal of the bitter water - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

19 And the priest shall cause her to swear, and shall say unto the woman: 'If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness, being under thy husband, be thou free from this water of bitterness that causeth the curse;
20 but if thou hast gone aside, being under thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee besides thy husband--
21 then the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman--the LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to fall away, and thy belly to swell;
22 and this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, and make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to fall away'; and the woman shall say: 'Amen, Amen.'
23 And the priest shall write these curses in a scroll, and he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness. 24 And he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that causeth the curse; and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her and become bitter.

Amusing that one who lives by the law of the jungle, you, would feel it necessary to try to find absolution in a text you clearly don't live by.


But....there is this:

Question: "Why is 'You shall not murder' in the Ten Commandments?"

Answer: Simply stated, the sixth of the Ten Commandments forbids the unjustified taking of a human life.

 

[Rigby5]

I mean real Liberals, those with integrity and a reputable view of the world, not the mind numbed variety that adhere to the Democrats no matter how insane their current agenda is.

1.Perhaps you’ve noticed that today the strongest Liberals/Democrats are those with the least ability to analyze what they are supporting. As a result, just as Orwell predicted in 1984, they can’t keep straight whether they are at war with Eastasia, or Eurasia. They need not keep track, they simply agree that the enemy at the moment is whoever the leadership says it is.
And today it is the unborn.

Hence, the Liberals were against gay marriage before they were for it. They opposed socialism before they were for it. And they opposed nuclear weapons for Iran before they were in favor of it.
So, no big deal to want to exterminate the defenseless.....

They are clueless to 180° turns by the party. Morons simply march lock-step via the party’s orders.

I came across an interesting real-Liberal essay opposing abortion, and it is instructive to peruse.


2.“Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life From The Progressive magazine. Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life
Consistency demands concern for the unborn

The abortion issue, more than most, illustrates the occasional tendency of the Left to become so enthusiastic over what is called a "reform" that it forgets to think the issue through. It is ironic that so many on the Left have done on abortion what the conservatives and Cold War liberals did on Vietnam: They marched off in the wrong direction, to fight the wrong war, against the wrong people.

3. Some of us … are now active in the right-to-life movement. We do not enjoy opposing our old friends on the abortion issue, but we feel that we have no choice. We are moved by what pro-life feminists call the "consistency thing" -- the belief that respect for human life demands opposition to abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, and war. We don't think we have either the luxury or the right to choose some types of killing and say that they are all right, while others are not. A human life is a human life; and if equality means anything, it means that society may not value some human lives over others.


4. Until the last decade, people on the Left and Right generally agreed on one rule: We all protected the young. This was not merely agreement on an ethical question: It was also an expression of instinct, so deep and ancient that it scarcely required explanation. Protection of the young included protection of the unborn, for abortion was forbidden by state laws throughout the United States. Those laws reflected an ethical consensus, not based solely on religious tradition but also on scientific evidence that human life begins at conception. The prohibition of abortion in the ancient Hippocratic Oath is well known.

5. …it is important to ask why the Left in the United States generally accepted legalized abortion. One factor was the popular civil libertarian rationale for freedom of choice in abortion. Many feminists presented it as a right of women to control their own bodies. When the objection was raised that abortion ruins another person's body, they respond that a) it is not a body, just a "blob of protoplasm" (thereby displaying ignorance of biology); or b) it is not really a "person" until it is born.

When it was suggested that this is a wholly arbitrary decision, unsupported by any biology evidence, they said, "Well, that's your point of view. This is a matter of individual conscience, and in a pluralistic society people must be free to follow their consciences."


Thinking Liberals, largely an oxymoron today, continue embracing rectitude over party loyalty.

I get your point, but disagree.

Real liberals have always had to support abortion because they know the woman has greater legal authority over her own body and medical procedures than government does.
Humans raise children because of instinct, and if someone does not want to, they can not be proven wrong.

Trying to legislate against abortion is to attempt to dictate human nature, which can never be legal.
Abortion is not murder, not only because a fetus is not conscious yet, but because the alternative is slavery, and one has the right to kill in order to escape slavery.
On top of that is the fact a reproductive rate that causes population grown is an extinction threat to the entire human species.
Legislating abortion is practicing medicine without a license, as well as imposing religious dogma.

I have personal insight into this because my mother died due to my birth, so even as an infant I pondered what it meant to be alive and if I cared if I had been aborted instead. And clearly I should have been. It was just the archaic, false, religious dogma that prevented abortion and deprived the rest of the family of their mother.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I mean real Liberals, those with integrity and a reputable view of the world, not the mind numbed variety that adhere to the Democrats no matter how insane their current agenda is.

1.Perhaps you’ve noticed that today the strongest Liberals/Democrats are those with the least ability to analyze what they are supporting. As a result, just as Orwell predicted in 1984, they can’t keep straight whether they are at war with Eastasia, or Eurasia. They need not keep track, they simply agree that the enemy at the moment is whoever the leadership says it is.
And today it is the unborn.

Hence, the Liberals were against gay marriage before they were for it. They opposed socialism before they were for it. And they opposed nuclear weapons for Iran before they were in favor of it.
So, no big deal to want to exterminate the defenseless.....

They are clueless to 180° turns by the party. Morons simply march lock-step via the party’s orders.

I came across an interesting real-Liberal essay opposing abortion, and it is instructive to peruse.


2.“Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life From The Progressive magazine. Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life
Consistency demands concern for the unborn

The abortion issue, more than most, illustrates the occasional tendency of the Left to become so enthusiastic over what is called a "reform" that it forgets to think the issue through. It is ironic that so many on the Left have done on abortion what the conservatives and Cold War liberals did on Vietnam: They marched off in the wrong direction, to fight the wrong war, against the wrong people.

3. Some of us … are now active in the right-to-life movement. We do not enjoy opposing our old friends on the abortion issue, but we feel that we have no choice. We are moved by what pro-life feminists call the "consistency thing" -- the belief that respect for human life demands opposition to abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, and war. We don't think we have either the luxury or the right to choose some types of killing and say that they are all right, while others are not. A human life is a human life; and if equality means anything, it means that society may not value some human lives over others.


4. Until the last decade, people on the Left and Right generally agreed on one rule: We all protected the young. This was not merely agreement on an ethical question: It was also an expression of instinct, so deep and ancient that it scarcely required explanation. Protection of the young included protection of the unborn, for abortion was forbidden by state laws throughout the United States. Those laws reflected an ethical consensus, not based solely on religious tradition but also on scientific evidence that human life begins at conception. The prohibition of abortion in the ancient Hippocratic Oath is well known.

5. …it is important to ask why the Left in the United States generally accepted legalized abortion. One factor was the popular civil libertarian rationale for freedom of choice in abortion. Many feminists presented it as a right of women to control their own bodies. When the objection was raised that abortion ruins another person's body, they respond that a) it is not a body, just a "blob of protoplasm" (thereby displaying ignorance of biology); or b) it is not really a "person" until it is born.

When it was suggested that this is a wholly arbitrary decision, unsupported by any biology evidence, they said, "Well, that's your point of view. This is a matter of individual conscience, and in a pluralistic society people must be free to follow their consciences."


Thinking Liberals, largely an oxymoron today, continue embracing rectitude over party loyalty.

I get your point, but disagree.

Real liberals have always had to support abortion because they know the woman has greater legal authority over her own body and medical procedures than government does.
Humans raise children because of instinct, and if someone does not want to, they can not be proven wrong.

Trying to legislate against abortion is to attempt to dictate human nature, which can never be legal.
Abortion is not murder, not only because a fetus is not conscious yet, but because the alternative is slavery, and one has the right to kill in order to escape slavery.
On top of that is the fact a reproductive rate that causes population grown is an extinction threat to the entire human species.
Legislating abortion is practicing medicine without a license, as well as imposing religious dogma.

I have personal insight into this because my mother died due to my birth, so even as an infant I pondered what it meant to be alive and if I cared if I had been aborted instead. And clearly I should have been. It was just the archaic, false, religious dogma that prevented abortion and deprived the rest of the family of their mother.

"Real liberals have always had to support abortion because they know the woman has greater legal authority over her own body and medical procedures than government does. "


It's not her body.




The unborn human receiving sustenance from its mother, is, nonetheless, a separate and distinct human being.
Easily proven.

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"

Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2

1. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes

1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) p. 57.
2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.

Part of the Mother’s Body?

The slogan,

www.abort73.com

Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?

 

[Rigby5]

" Exceptions For Adultery "

* Least Protected Farce *

I said earlier that we can agree that you endorse murder of the least protected.
What more is there to say?

Ordeal of the bitter water - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

19 And the priest shall cause her to swear, and shall say unto the woman: 'If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness, being under thy husband, be thou free from this water of bitterness that causeth the curse;
20 but if thou hast gone aside, being under thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee besides thy husband--
21 then the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman--the LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to fall away, and thy belly to swell;
22 and this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, and make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to fall away'; and the woman shall say: 'Amen, Amen.'
23 And the priest shall write these curses in a scroll, and he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness. 24 And he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that causeth the curse; and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her and become bitter.

Amusing that one who lives by the law of the jungle, you, would feel it necessary to try to find absolution in a text you clearly don't live by.


But....there is this:

Question: "Why is 'You shall not murder' in the Ten Commandments?"

Answer: Simply stated, the sixth of the Ten Commandments forbids the unjustified taking of a human life.

Which first of all is not an absolute but merely advice, because it is part of religious beliefs.
When sins are proscribed, that is about whether nor not you get to heaven, and never to be incorporated into secular law.

Second is that since you can kill in defense, war, etc., murder is not the same as killing.
It would not at all be hard to justify abortion as for the safety of the mother, since child birth is far more risky than abortion.
And when you come right down to it, the greatest risk the whole human species faces, it is the threat of over population.
We can argue about that the population limit should be, but clearly at some point, the human reproductive rate is way too high, and evolved for a much higher infant mortality rate.

 

[PoliticalChic]

" Exceptions For Adultery "

* Least Protected Farce *

I said earlier that we can agree that you endorse murder of the least protected.
What more is there to say?

Ordeal of the bitter water - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

19 And the priest shall cause her to swear, and shall say unto the woman: 'If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness, being under thy husband, be thou free from this water of bitterness that causeth the curse;
20 but if thou hast gone aside, being under thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee besides thy husband--
21 then the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman--the LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to fall away, and thy belly to swell;
22 and this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, and make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to fall away'; and the woman shall say: 'Amen, Amen.'
23 And the priest shall write these curses in a scroll, and he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness. 24 And he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that causeth the curse; and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her and become bitter.

Amusing that one who lives by the law of the jungle, you, would feel it necessary to try to find absolution in a text you clearly don't live by.


But....there is this:

Question: "Why is 'You shall not murder' in the Ten Commandments?"

Answer: Simply stated, the sixth of the Ten Commandments forbids the unjustified taking of a human life.

Which first of all is not an absolute but merely advice, because it is part of religious beliefs.
When sins are proscribed, that is about whether nor not you get to heaven, and never to be incorporated into secular law.

Second is that since you can kill in defense, war, etc., murder is not the same as killing.
It would not at all be hard to justify abortion as for the safety of the mother, since child birth is far more risky than abortion.
And when you come right down to it, the greatest risk the whole human species faces, it is the threat of over population.
We can argue about that the population limit should be, but clearly at some point, the human reproductive rate is way too high, and evolved for a much higher infant mortality rate.

"Which first of all is not an absolute but merely advice, because it is part of religious beliefs."

Are you that ignorant???


Our nation was created based largely on the Judeo-Christian faith.

Our memorializing documents include references to the Bible.

There is even a reference to Jesus Christ in the Constitution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

" Exceptions For Adultery "

* Least Protected Farce *

I said earlier that we can agree that you endorse murder of the least protected.
What more is there to say?

Ordeal of the bitter water - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

19 And the priest shall cause her to swear, and shall say unto the woman: 'If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness, being under thy husband, be thou free from this water of bitterness that causeth the curse;
20 but if thou hast gone aside, being under thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee besides thy husband--
21 then the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman--the LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to fall away, and thy belly to swell;
22 and this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, and make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to fall away'; and the woman shall say: 'Amen, Amen.'
23 And the priest shall write these curses in a scroll, and he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness. 24 And he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that causeth the curse; and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her and become bitter.

Amusing that one who lives by the law of the jungle, you, would feel it necessary to try to find absolution in a text you clearly don't live by.


But....there is this:

Question: "Why is 'You shall not murder' in the Ten Commandments?"

Answer: Simply stated, the sixth of the Ten Commandments forbids the unjustified taking of a human life.

Which first of all is not an absolute but merely advice, because it is part of religious beliefs.
When sins are proscribed, that is about whether nor not you get to heaven, and never to be incorporated into secular law.

Second is that since you can kill in defense, war, etc., murder is not the same as killing.
It would not at all be hard to justify abortion as for the safety of the mother, since child birth is far more risky than abortion.
And when you come right down to it, the greatest risk the whole human species faces, it is the threat of over population.
We can argue about that the population limit should be, but clearly at some point, the human reproductive rate is way too high, and evolved for a much higher infant mortality rate.

"Second is that since you can kill in defense, war, etc., murder is not the same as killing. "


So your claim is that babies declared war on America?????


What the heck is wrong with you?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Feigning Quick Dispatch Cowering From Plenty To Contest "

* Neophyte Name Calling And Definition Failures *

I said earlier that we can agree that you endorse murder of the least protected.
What more is there to say?

One thing is that you do not understand the classical distinctions between the terms liberal and conservative and continue to promote its intellectual buffoonery .

You also espouse an absurd pretense to define abortion as murder by resorting to a disturbed emphasis that hue mammon is innocent while also promoting carnality by doctrine .

Many elements of nature are exploited by hue mammon from the inchoate to the sentient to the sapient .

Hue mammon finds very few ethical conflict for its exploitation of the inchoate , whether it be mineral , or plant or animal , except perhaps that such faces be allowed to persist , though there are a multitude of insignificant exceptions resigned to extinction .

Hue mammon does find some ethical conflict for its exploitation of sapient and sentient beings based upon empathy or necessity .

Yet for the stages of development on the scale where the hue mammon animal is inchoate and not sapient , you demand an exception .

So why not proffer an ideal such as jainism that all life be respected ?

Naturalism begs a question that given that a thing cannot be separated from itself and that if all of existence comes from a creator , whether that be nature itself , then " What would not be an image of its creator ? " .

While the religious reich espouses that all of existence comes from a creator and that hue mammon was made in the image of its creator , hue mammon does so to satisfy its own vanity by making gawd in its own image and by making itself a gawd .

 

[PoliticalChic]

" Exceptions For Adultery "

* Least Protected Farce *

I said earlier that we can agree that you endorse murder of the least protected.
What more is there to say?

Ordeal of the bitter water - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

19 And the priest shall cause her to swear, and shall say unto the woman: 'If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness, being under thy husband, be thou free from this water of bitterness that causeth the curse;
20 but if thou hast gone aside, being under thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee besides thy husband--
21 then the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman--the LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to fall away, and thy belly to swell;
22 and this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, and make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to fall away'; and the woman shall say: 'Amen, Amen.'
23 And the priest shall write these curses in a scroll, and he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness. 24 And he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that causeth the curse; and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her and become bitter.

Amusing that one who lives by the law of the jungle, you, would feel it necessary to try to find absolution in a text you clearly don't live by.


But....there is this:

Question: "Why is 'You shall not murder' in the Ten Commandments?"

Answer: Simply stated, the sixth of the Ten Commandments forbids the unjustified taking of a human life.

Which first of all is not an absolute but merely advice, because it is part of religious beliefs.
When sins are proscribed, that is about whether nor not you get to heaven, and never to be incorporated into secular law.

Second is that since you can kill in defense, war, etc., murder is not the same as killing.
It would not at all be hard to justify abortion as for the safety of the mother, since child birth is far more risky than abortion.
And when you come right down to it, the greatest risk the whole human species faces, it is the threat of over population.
We can argue about that the population limit should be, but clearly at some point, the human reproductive rate is way too high, and evolved for a much higher infant mortality rate.

"And when you come right down to it, the greatest risk the whole human species faces, it is the threat of over population. "


Truly one of the dumbest of claims.


1. "The entire world population could fit in the state of Texas and it’d only have the population density of New York City!
There are 6.8 billion people on Earth. Calculations show that if we wanted to make everyone in Earth live on a space that had the same population density as New York City, we could fit everyone in about 666,265 square kilometers, which is less than the size of Texas!.

Not only does that leave the other 49 United States open, but it leaves all the other countries clear and open, too. So, it is pretty safe to say that we have enough space, the entire world except Texas, to farm and ranch for our food supply.

Would water be a problem, though? It's calculated that we need 350 billion liters of water per day to properly hydrate 6.8 billion people. It seems like a lot, but the Columbia River alone could produce that amount in less than a day. By the way, the Columbia River is the U.S.’s fourth largest river. So, again, that leaves the rest of the world’s water supply open and ready to serve. So, we’re not really overpopulated." http://www.omgfacts.com/lists/10333...-have-the-population-density-of-New-York-City


"I don't know anything about the claim, but I will do the math for you. Using the square mileage you gave for Texas: 1 square mile = 5280 x 5280 square feet = 27,878,400 square feet. So 268,581 square miles = 7,487,608,550,400. For simplicity say 7.5 x 10^12. That divided by 7 x 10^9 is indeed over 1000 square feet per person. So if we made one giant one-story compound over Texas, land, water, and all, we would each get a 1,000 square foot unit. In 1984, it was proven by the economist Thomas Sowell that the entire world population (4.4 billion at the time) could live comfortably in the state of Texas. He wrote “Every human being on the face of the Earth could be housed in the state of Texas in one-story, single-family homes, each with a front and a back yard. A family of four would thus have 6,800 square feet- about the size of the typical middle-class American home with front and backyards.”(Carter 99) According to more recent research on the topic, all of the world’s 1997 population (5.84 billion) could fit on the small Island of Bali in Indonesia.(Stiefel 98)

....if we assume a world population of 6.7 billion, all the people in the world could fit into Texas and occupy an area of ~1,118 sq. ft. each."

http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=51292

Pleeeeeezzzzz learn to read books.

 

[Rigby5]

I mean real Liberals, those with integrity and a reputable view of the world, not the mind numbed variety that adhere to the Democrats no matter how insane their current agenda is.

1.Perhaps you’ve noticed that today the strongest Liberals/Democrats are those with the least ability to analyze what they are supporting. As a result, just as Orwell predicted in 1984, they can’t keep straight whether they are at war with Eastasia, or Eurasia. They need not keep track, they simply agree that the enemy at the moment is whoever the leadership says it is.
And today it is the unborn.

Hence, the Liberals were against gay marriage before they were for it. They opposed socialism before they were for it. And they opposed nuclear weapons for Iran before they were in favor of it.
So, no big deal to want to exterminate the defenseless.....

They are clueless to 180° turns by the party. Morons simply march lock-step via the party’s orders.

I came across an interesting real-Liberal essay opposing abortion, and it is instructive to peruse.


2.“Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life From The Progressive magazine. Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life
Consistency demands concern for the unborn

The abortion issue, more than most, illustrates the occasional tendency of the Left to become so enthusiastic over what is called a "reform" that it forgets to think the issue through. It is ironic that so many on the Left have done on abortion what the conservatives and Cold War liberals did on Vietnam: They marched off in the wrong direction, to fight the wrong war, against the wrong people.

3. Some of us … are now active in the right-to-life movement. We do not enjoy opposing our old friends on the abortion issue, but we feel that we have no choice. We are moved by what pro-life feminists call the "consistency thing" -- the belief that respect for human life demands opposition to abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, and war. We don't think we have either the luxury or the right to choose some types of killing and say that they are all right, while others are not. A human life is a human life; and if equality means anything, it means that society may not value some human lives over others.


4. Until the last decade, people on the Left and Right generally agreed on one rule: We all protected the young. This was not merely agreement on an ethical question: It was also an expression of instinct, so deep and ancient that it scarcely required explanation. Protection of the young included protection of the unborn, for abortion was forbidden by state laws throughout the United States. Those laws reflected an ethical consensus, not based solely on religious tradition but also on scientific evidence that human life begins at conception. The prohibition of abortion in the ancient Hippocratic Oath is well known.

5. …it is important to ask why the Left in the United States generally accepted legalized abortion. One factor was the popular civil libertarian rationale for freedom of choice in abortion. Many feminists presented it as a right of women to control their own bodies. When the objection was raised that abortion ruins another person's body, they respond that a) it is not a body, just a "blob of protoplasm" (thereby displaying ignorance of biology); or b) it is not really a "person" until it is born.

When it was suggested that this is a wholly arbitrary decision, unsupported by any biology evidence, they said, "Well, that's your point of view. This is a matter of individual conscience, and in a pluralistic society people must be free to follow their consciences."


Thinking Liberals, largely an oxymoron today, continue embracing rectitude over party loyalty.

I get your point, but disagree.

Real liberals have always had to support abortion because they know the woman has greater legal authority over her own body and medical procedures than government does.
Humans raise children because of instinct, and if someone does not want to, they can not be proven wrong.

Trying to legislate against abortion is to attempt to dictate human nature, which can never be legal.
Abortion is not murder, not only because a fetus is not conscious yet, but because the alternative is slavery, and one has the right to kill in order to escape slavery.
On top of that is the fact a reproductive rate that causes population grown is an extinction threat to the entire human species.
Legislating abortion is practicing medicine without a license, as well as imposing religious dogma.

I have personal insight into this because my mother died due to my birth, so even as an infant I pondered what it meant to be alive and if I cared if I had been aborted instead. And clearly I should have been. It was just the archaic, false, religious dogma that prevented abortion and deprived the rest of the family of their mother.

"Real liberals have always had to support abortion because they know the woman has greater legal authority over her own body and medical procedures than government does. "


It's not her body.




The unborn human receiving sustenance from its mother, is, nonetheless, a separate and distinct human being.
Easily proven.

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"

Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2

1. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes

1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) p. 57.
2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.

Part of the Mother’s Body?

The slogan,

www.abort73.com

Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?

The fetus does not have to be the mother's body in order to justify abortion to protect the woman's body from the fetal parasite. A tumor has different DNA than the human host as well, but that does not at all diminish the fact the host has totally rights over removing the tumor.
A fetus has no more right to the use of the mother's body than a person in need of an organ for transplant or blood for transfusion.

When government can not execute when a woman is pregnant does not mean the mother can not. Government is inferior because it has no rights or authority of its own, but only borrows delegated authority from its constituents it works for. The mother has absolute authority over its own body.

The Scott Peterson conviction was simply wrong.
There was no evidence presented at all.
Not even a motive.

Scott Peterson - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[PoliticalChic]

I mean real Liberals, those with integrity and a reputable view of the world, not the mind numbed variety that adhere to the Democrats no matter how insane their current agenda is.

1.Perhaps you’ve noticed that today the strongest Liberals/Democrats are those with the least ability to analyze what they are supporting. As a result, just as Orwell predicted in 1984, they can’t keep straight whether they are at war with Eastasia, or Eurasia. They need not keep track, they simply agree that the enemy at the moment is whoever the leadership says it is.
And today it is the unborn.

Hence, the Liberals were against gay marriage before they were for it. They opposed socialism before they were for it. And they opposed nuclear weapons for Iran before they were in favor of it.
So, no big deal to want to exterminate the defenseless.....

They are clueless to 180° turns by the party. Morons simply march lock-step via the party’s orders.

I came across an interesting real-Liberal essay opposing abortion, and it is instructive to peruse.


2.“Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life From The Progressive magazine. Abortion: The Left has betrayed the sanctity of life
Consistency demands concern for the unborn

The abortion issue, more than most, illustrates the occasional tendency of the Left to become so enthusiastic over what is called a "reform" that it forgets to think the issue through. It is ironic that so many on the Left have done on abortion what the conservatives and Cold War liberals did on Vietnam: They marched off in the wrong direction, to fight the wrong war, against the wrong people.

3. Some of us … are now active in the right-to-life movement. We do not enjoy opposing our old friends on the abortion issue, but we feel that we have no choice. We are moved by what pro-life feminists call the "consistency thing" -- the belief that respect for human life demands opposition to abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, and war. We don't think we have either the luxury or the right to choose some types of killing and say that they are all right, while others are not. A human life is a human life; and if equality means anything, it means that society may not value some human lives over others.


4. Until the last decade, people on the Left and Right generally agreed on one rule: We all protected the young. This was not merely agreement on an ethical question: It was also an expression of instinct, so deep and ancient that it scarcely required explanation. Protection of the young included protection of the unborn, for abortion was forbidden by state laws throughout the United States. Those laws reflected an ethical consensus, not based solely on religious tradition but also on scientific evidence that human life begins at conception. The prohibition of abortion in the ancient Hippocratic Oath is well known.

5. …it is important to ask why the Left in the United States generally accepted legalized abortion. One factor was the popular civil libertarian rationale for freedom of choice in abortion. Many feminists presented it as a right of women to control their own bodies. When the objection was raised that abortion ruins another person's body, they respond that a) it is not a body, just a "blob of protoplasm" (thereby displaying ignorance of biology); or b) it is not really a "person" until it is born.

When it was suggested that this is a wholly arbitrary decision, unsupported by any biology evidence, they said, "Well, that's your point of view. This is a matter of individual conscience, and in a pluralistic society people must be free to follow their consciences."


Thinking Liberals, largely an oxymoron today, continue embracing rectitude over party loyalty.

I get your point, but disagree.

Real liberals have always had to support abortion because they know the woman has greater legal authority over her own body and medical procedures than government does.
Humans raise children because of instinct, and if someone does not want to, they can not be proven wrong.

Trying to legislate against abortion is to attempt to dictate human nature, which can never be legal.
Abortion is not murder, not only because a fetus is not conscious yet, but because the alternative is slavery, and one has the right to kill in order to escape slavery.
On top of that is the fact a reproductive rate that causes population grown is an extinction threat to the entire human species.
Legislating abortion is practicing medicine without a license, as well as imposing religious dogma.

I have personal insight into this because my mother died due to my birth, so even as an infant I pondered what it meant to be alive and if I cared if I had been aborted instead. And clearly I should have been. It was just the archaic, false, religious dogma that prevented abortion and deprived the rest of the family of their mother.

"Real liberals have always had to support abortion because they know the woman has greater legal authority over her own body and medical procedures than government does. "


It's not her body.




The unborn human receiving sustenance from its mother, is, nonetheless, a separate and distinct human being.
Easily proven.

There are a number of clear biological facts, and all sorts of legal precedents, that easily refute the claim that the embryo or fetus is simply part of the mother's body.

1. An individual's body parts all share the same genetic code. If the unborn child were actually a part of the mother's body, the unborn's cells would have the same genetic code as the cells of the mother. This is not the case. Every cell of the unborn's body is genetically distinct from every cell in the mother's body.
2. In many cases, the blood type of the unborn child is different than the blood type of the mother. Since one body cannot function with two different blood types, this is clearly not the mother's blood.
3. In half of all pregnancies, the unborn child is a male, meaning that even the sex of the child is different from the mother.
4. As Randy Alcorn states in his book Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, "A Chinese zygote implanted in a Swedish woman will always be Chinese, not Swedish, because his identity is based on his genetic code, not on that of the body in which he resides."1
5. It is possible for a fetus to die while the mother lives, and it is possible for the mother to die while the fetus lives. This could not be true if the mother and child were simply one person.
6. When the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus, it emits chemical substances which weaken the woman's immune system within the uterus so that this tiny "foreign" body is not rejected by the woman's body. Were this tiny embryo simply "part of the woman's body" there would be no need to locally disable the woman's immunities.
7. It is illegal to execute a pregnant woman on death row because the fetus living inside her is a distinct human being who cannot be executed for the crimes of the mother (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Article 6.5).
8. When Scott Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Laci, he was convicted on two counts of murder.
9. Sir Albert Liley (the "Father of Fetology") made this observation in a 1970 speech entitled, "The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?"

Physiologically, we must accept that the conceptus is, in a very large measure, in charge of the pregnancy.... Biologically, at no stage can we subscribe to the view that the fetus is a mere appendage of the mother.2

1. The late Christopher Hitchens, a prominent public intellectual, atheist, and abortion advocate wrote the following in his book, God is Not Great:

As a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity, and not merely (as some really did used to argue) a growth on or in the female body. There used to be feminists who would say that it was more like an appendix or even—this was seriously maintained—a tumor. That nonsense seems to have stopped… Embryology confirms morality. The words “unborn child,” even when used in a politicized manner, describe a material reality.3

Hitchens had other reasons for supporting legal abortion, but he recognized the absurdity of claiming that unborn children are simply part of the mother's body.

No matter how you spin it, women don't have four arms and four legs when they're pregnant. Those extra appendages belong to the tiny human being(s) living inside of them. At no point in pregnancy is the developing embryo or fetus simply a part of the mother's body.

Footnotes

1. Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments (Multnomah Publishers, 2000) p. 57.
2. Sir William Albert Liley,“The Termination of Pregnancy or the Extermination of the Fetus?” cited by Randy Alcorn, Pro-Life Answers to Pro-Choice Arguments, 58.
3. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (Hachette Book Group. Kindle Edition, 2009), 378-379.

Part of the Mother’s Body?

The slogan,

www.abort73.com

Is there any argument for the "right" of a woman to authorize the killing of her unborn baby that would not apply to her authorizing the similar slaughter of a year old that she was breastfeeding?

The fetus does not have to be the mother's body in order to justify abortion to protect the woman's body from the fetal parasite. A tumor has different DNA than the human host as well, but that does not at all diminish the fact the host has totally rights over removing the tumor.
A fetus has no more right to the use of the mother's body than a person in need of an organ for transplant or blood for transfusion.

When government can not execute when a woman is pregnant does not mean the mother can not. Government is inferior because it has no rights or authority of its own, but only borrows delegated authority from its constituents it works for. The mother has absolute authority over its own body.

The Scott Peterson conviction was simply wrong.
There was no evidence presented at all.
Not even a motive.

Scott Peterson - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

How disgusting.


The unborn is not a 'parasite'......it is a blessing.


She gave it the right of passage in her body when she agreed to its creation.


Why does government school turn out monsters like you?

 

[Rigby5]

" Exceptions For Adultery "

* Least Protected Farce *

I said earlier that we can agree that you endorse murder of the least protected.
What more is there to say?

Ordeal of the bitter water - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

19 And the priest shall cause her to swear, and shall say unto the woman: 'If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness, being under thy husband, be thou free from this water of bitterness that causeth the curse;
20 but if thou hast gone aside, being under thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee besides thy husband--
21 then the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman--the LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to fall away, and thy belly to swell;
22 and this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, and make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to fall away'; and the woman shall say: 'Amen, Amen.'
23 And the priest shall write these curses in a scroll, and he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness. 24 And he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that causeth the curse; and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her and become bitter.

Amusing that one who lives by the law of the jungle, you, would feel it necessary to try to find absolution in a text you clearly don't live by.


But....there is this:

Question: "Why is 'You shall not murder' in the Ten Commandments?"

Answer: Simply stated, the sixth of the Ten Commandments forbids the unjustified taking of a human life.

Which first of all is not an absolute but merely advice, because it is part of religious beliefs.
When sins are proscribed, that is about whether nor not you get to heaven, and never to be incorporated into secular law.

Second is that since you can kill in defense, war, etc., murder is not the same as killing.
It would not at all be hard to justify abortion as for the safety of the mother, since child birth is far more risky than abortion.
And when you come right down to it, the greatest risk the whole human species faces, it is the threat of over population.
We can argue about that the population limit should be, but clearly at some point, the human reproductive rate is way too high, and evolved for a much higher infant mortality rate.

"And when you come right down to it, the greatest risk the whole human species faces, it is the threat of over population. "


Truly one of the dumbest of claims.


1. "The entire world population could fit in the state of Texas and it’d only have the population density of New York City!
There are 6.8 billion people on Earth. Calculations show that if we wanted to make everyone in Earth live on a space that had the same population density as New York City, we could fit everyone in about 666,265 square kilometers, which is less than the size of Texas!.

Not only does that leave the other 49 United States open, but it leaves all the other countries clear and open, too. So, it is pretty safe to say that we have enough space, the entire world except Texas, to farm and ranch for our food supply.

Would water be a problem, though? It's calculated that we need 350 billion liters of water per day to properly hydrate 6.8 billion people. It seems like a lot, but the Columbia River alone could produce that amount in less than a day. By the way, the Columbia River is the U.S.’s fourth largest river. So, again, that leaves the rest of the world’s water supply open and ready to serve. So, we’re not really overpopulated." http://www.omgfacts.com/lists/10333...-have-the-population-density-of-New-York-City


"I don't know anything about the claim, but I will do the math for you. Using the square mileage you gave for Texas: 1 square mile = 5280 x 5280 square feet = 27,878,400 square feet. So 268,581 square miles = 7,487,608,550,400. For simplicity say 7.5 x 10^12. That divided by 7 x 10^9 is indeed over 1000 square feet per person. So if we made one giant one-story compound over Texas, land, water, and all, we would each get a 1,000 square foot unit. In 1984, it was proven by the economist Thomas Sowell that the entire world population (4.4 billion at the time) could live comfortably in the state of Texas. He wrote “Every human being on the face of the Earth could be housed in the state of Texas in one-story, single-family homes, each with a front and a back yard. A family of four would thus have 6,800 square feet- about the size of the typical middle-class American home with front and backyards.”(Carter 99) According to more recent research on the topic, all of the world’s 1997 population (5.84 billion) could fit on the small Island of Bali in Indonesia.(Stiefel 98)

....if we assume a world population of 6.7 billion, all the people in the world could fit into Texas and occupy an area of ~1,118 sq. ft. each."

http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=51292

Pleeeeeezzzzz learn to read books.

Obviously incorrect.
Humans can not live in just the space their body occupies.
And I am not just talking about the space they need for privacy, exercise, house, employment, etc.
The space each human needs also includes the square footage the species needs to survive, such as the vast forests they need in order to have enough oxygen to breath.
If we deforested now, we could still survive for hundreds of year off the surplus oxygen, but eventually all mammalian life would eventually have to die, in less than a millennium.
In fact, it is pretty safe to say that since we evolved to succeed on the planet the way it was millions of years ago, that any significant alteration to the natural environment is a threat to our whole species. For example, it appear we are causing the extinction of bees and amphibian, which could lead to massive loss of human life. For without pollenators, food production would reduce half.
So very likely we already are well beyond the human population capacity of the planet.
What people often forget is that most of our food is produced from fertilizers made from fossil fuels, and that is not sustainable. Fossil fuels have only about 100 years left. And when they are gone, food production will be less than a third. So there will be massive starvation unless we greatly reduce the population.

 

[JoeB131]

I will never understand why leftists think, "I would not want to have a baby with this person. Perhaps I should therefore not have sex with this person" is a completely outrageous thought process that no one could ever possibly be expected to follow.

There's a whole lot of women out there I'd like to fuck but certainly wouldn't want to spend any time with. Most people don't look to make a baby when they have sex.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Gluttony And Pride Rewarding Sloth "

* Thanks For Noting A Common Theme Of Indifference To Any Thing Else *

Obviously incorrect.
Humans can not live in just the space their body occupies.
And I am not just talking about the space they need for privacy, exercise, house, employment, etc.
The space each human needs also includes the square footage the species needs to survive, such as the vast forests they need in order to have enough oxygen to breath.
If we deforested now, we could still survive for hundreds of year off the surplus oxygen, but eventually all mammalian life would eventually have to die, in less than a millennium.
In fact, it is pretty safe to say that since we evolved to succeed on the planet the way it was millions of years ago, that any significant alteration to the natural environment is a threat to our whole species. For example, it appear we are causing the extinction of bees and amphibian, which could lead to massive loss of human life. For without pollenators, food production would reduce half.
So very likely we already are well beyond the human population capacity of the planet.
What people often forget is that most of our food is produced from fertilizers made from fossil fuels, and that is not sustainable. Fossil fuels have only about 100 years left. And when they are gone, food production will be less than a third. So there will be massive starvation unless we greatly reduce the population.

The religious reich were instructed to go forth and multiply so that their genetic lineages could survive attrition but as with most deontological ethics it justifies its methods by dogma without regard for consequential ethics as none provided any directive for what to do when the planet became full .

Clearly , the religious reich is only about the anthropocentric vanity and gluttony of hue mammon population growth and there is a reason that PoliticalChic did not answer the question about jainism , or answer a challenge to justify why hue mammon deserves an exception of its inchoate selves on a universal scale of its own exploitation , and that is because such an ideal is more pompous than her own and undermines her own presumptions as being as equally unrealistic .

Carrying capacity - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

One way to estimate human demand compared to ecosystem's carrying capacity is "ecological footprint" accounting.[20] Rather than speculating about future possibilities and limitations imposed by carrying capacity constraints, Ecological Footprint accounting provides empirical, non-speculative assessments of the past. It compares historic regeneration rates, biocapacity, against historical human demand, ecological footprint, in the same year.[21][22] Most recent results from Global Footprint Network's data platform show that humanity's footprint exceeded the planet's biological capacity in 2016 by over 70% (a 2002 publication reported overshoot for 1999 at >20%[21]). However, this measurement does not take into account the depletion of the actual fossil fuels, "which would result in a carbon Footprint many hundreds of times higher than the current calculation."[23]

 

[beautress]

Yeah. Let’s go back to the fifties. Much better time.

Not if you were black. Or a woman. Or Gay.

I guess it was better for White Males...

But most of you guys fail to realize the reason it was is that you had unions and a government that put workers over corporations.

Not to worry, the GOP fixed that shit... and got dumb people like you to blame the darkies.

Please stop using the term "darkies." It's a racist slur.

 

[JoeB131]

Please stop using the term "darkies." It's a racist slur.

Exactly my point. If the Republicans didn't have racism to get stupid white people to vote against their own economic interests, they'd have nothing at all.

Trump won because he embraced racism, from claiming that Obama was born in Kenya, to calling Mexicans "rapists and murderers".

And then he went back to doing what Republicans do best. Screwing the working class on behalf of the wealthy.

 

[beautress]

Please stop using the term "darkies." It's a racist slur.

Exactly my point. If the Republicans didn't have racism to get stupid white people to vote against their own economic interests, they'd have nothing at all.

Trump won because he embraced racism, from claiming that Obama was born in Kenya, to calling Mexicans "rapists and murderers".

And then he went back to doing what Republicans do best. Screwing the working class on behalf of the wealthy.

Please stop using the term "stupid white people ." It's a racist slur in the same vein as "darkies."

 

[JoeB131]

Please stop using the term "stupid white people ." It's a racist slur in the same vein as "darkies."

But it describes people like you perfectly. For forty years, you stupid white people have been voting against your own economic interests because of racism, religion, and sexual fears.

 

[Cecilie1200]

" Exceptions For Adultery "

* Least Protected Farce *

I said earlier that we can agree that you endorse murder of the least protected.
What more is there to say?

Ordeal of the bitter water - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

19 And the priest shall cause her to swear, and shall say unto the woman: 'If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness, being under thy husband, be thou free from this water of bitterness that causeth the curse;
20 but if thou hast gone aside, being under thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee besides thy husband--
21 then the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman--the LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to fall away, and thy belly to swell;
22 and this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, and make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to fall away'; and the woman shall say: 'Amen, Amen.'
23 And the priest shall write these curses in a scroll, and he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness. 24 And he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that causeth the curse; and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her and become bitter.

Amusing that one who lives by the law of the jungle, you, would feel it necessary to try to find absolution in a text you clearly don't live by.


But....there is this:

Question: "Why is 'You shall not murder' in the Ten Commandments?"

Answer: Simply stated, the sixth of the Ten Commandments forbids the unjustified taking of a human life.

Which first of all is not an absolute but merely advice, because it is part of religious beliefs.
When sins are proscribed, that is about whether nor not you get to heaven, and never to be incorporated into secular law.

Second is that since you can kill in defense, war, etc., murder is not the same as killing.
It would not at all be hard to justify abortion as for the safety of the mother, since child birth is far more risky than abortion.
And when you come right down to it, the greatest risk the whole human species faces, it is the threat of over population.
We can argue about that the population limit should be, but clearly at some point, the human reproductive rate is way too high, and evolved for a much higher infant mortality rate.

"Second is that since you can kill in defense, war, etc., murder is not the same as killing. "


So your claim is that babies declared war on America?????


What the heck is wrong with you?

Maybe he's just admitting that the left has declared war on babies.

 

[hadit]

Liberals on abortion: "Safe, legal and rare"

That's it. It is that simple.

Except they don't want rare. If they did, we wouldn't see such wailing every time someone can't just walk down the street and get one. If they did, we would see celebrations from them every time fewer are done. We don't.

 

[hadit]

Please stop using the term "stupid white people ." It's a racist slur in the same vein as "darkies."

But it describes people like you perfectly. For forty years, you stupid white people have been voting against your own economic interests because of racism, religion, and sexual fears.

That's a stupid thing to believe.