The Personhood of the unborn needs to be settled

[TemplarKormac]

First off, you don’t get to say who is and ain’t a Christian.

And what makes you so entitled to determine who is or isn't Christian? Your conjured up sense of superiority?

SHE made that claim, not me. Second, the fact that you got to jump in on it tells me you are of the same ilk.

Nah, "she's a ho" was essentially the only argument you had.

You and trash like Mrs. fake Christian are no better then the pro abortion crowed. Just as loud, just as obnoxious.

Eh, if you really knew what a Christian was, and what the Christian faith was about, you would notice once common theme being stressed. Redemption. Salvation.

Since according to the High Pious Crixus, because we are pro-life or some variant thereof, we are irredeemable, soulless people.

That's not how Christianity works.

And unless God decided to quit heaven and put you in charge, you don't get to judge the Christian worthiness of someone simply because they disagree with you.

 

[emilynghiem]

With the recent ruling in Alabama regarding abortion, and the eventual path towards SCOTUS to settle the issue, the obvious thing to do is to define what exactly the unborn is, something Roe vs. Wade shied away from doing. After all, the reason blacks were mistreated under the Constitution was because they were not identified as equals, they were 3/5 a human being.

There are but two possibilities from my vantage point.

1. They are a parasite, defined as an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

2. Or they are a human being.

Which camp do you fall in?

Dear Votto regardless of which person or group believes what,
the fact that people HAVE different beliefs is enough for Govt to recognize that
no laws can be made biased toward or against one set of beliefs over another,
or it constituties Govt establishing beliefs and discriminating against other creeds.

Just the fact that people have beliefs about this which Govt can neither establish nor prohibit
makes it where people need to resolve their own policy issues and either
A. AGREE on what policies they consent for the govt to represent at either state or federal levels
B. AGREE to SEPARATE funding, jurisdiction and terms if they CANNOT agree on those areas of policy

The most I can see Govt doing is defending the rights of people of conflicting beliefs
to SEPARATE from each other and quit imposing one belief over others.

Govt has the duty to protect equal representation for people REGARDLESS of creed.
So unless all citizens of a state AGREE to a centralized policy for all,
they should have protected means of separate representation and terms of funding
their own programs and policies they believe in. Where this does not interfere
with people of other parties, groups or beliefs to do the same to protect their interests as well!

 

[beautress]

it is human 'life' but a post born PERSON is a human being.

AS for the illustration you got off on that implied human embryos could be a bird, reptile or pig, that is total hogwash. It is a human being in an early stage of development. A human being who cuts a first tooth is in a stage of development in which his pain is translated into a cry for help. A human being who commits to an act of unprotected sex that results in a mass of human cells implanting into its mother's womb is in the first stages of human development. The male participant in this pleasant gift of sex is the father, and the female participant is the mother. Their genes are combined into a brand new and separate human being, who like the father needing some female pleasure, needs a home. The time for her to elect not giving a new human being in his first stage of development should have read a book instead of having sex with someone who considered her just an object and possibly, vice-versa.

If you can kill a fetus, don't be surprised if the world doesn't just decide killing anyone who makes you feel obligated will just live with your murder and won't care for you or think of you ever again since your death was just an unpleasant occurance in a world full of murderous killers looking for a thrill of killing, which is the wont of serial killers.

As ye sow, so shall ye reap. It was true then, and it will be true when women change the world into a place that accepts murderers without the blink of an eye or one iota of caring.

You kill your own, you get a world of killing ahead of you, and that's how it is. I did not make the rules of the world, I just know what they are. Don't shoot the messenger because you support killing unborn human beings (who will never be pigs, by the way), you're going to find the dice roll will be on you sooner than you think.

I hope that was actually addressed to PLAYTIME, not to me, because I agree with you, I was not the one who posted that illustration. I was the one who posted the meme mocking the misconceptions people have about the preborn. I think you accidentally quoted me instead of him.

Sorry. I thought you posted the gravestone picture that said "The fetus isn't human," "Skin cells are human too", "Ejaculation kills millions of humans", the cold-hearted commentary that "The Fetus is a Parasite," "Life doesn't begin at conception" (a lie), "The fetus is a clump of cells." (no, it's still the first stage in the life of a human being, and drinking alcohol at this time can render that infant without body parts or with a severely disfigured face.) "It's (only) a part of the woman's body" (not true, it is not like its mother genetically, and is the starting stage of an entirely different human being's life), and "the embryo isn't even alive." If it weren't alive it would not be forming cells to become organs, limbs, and features similar to other human beings by the DNA of that INDIVIDUAL life that is damn certainly not its mother, and it's not it's father. It is a new human being in its formative stage. Cute little sayings that are little white lies will never amount to the value of one unborn American that is savagely and brutally murdered and drug out of a woman's body. Not ever.

So I was answering the post you put in. Most people put something in their posts in the form of an answer to the person they are communicating with. I wish you had indicated the gravestone picture with the natty false narrative sayings in it was someone else's contribution, Buttercup. the right thing to do is to credit the "picture" to whoever posted that picture, and not leave it to the guesswork that it was your idea to bring it here.

I did post that, but it was a meme showing those false statements with an image of a grave with the words "Here lies basic biology." In other words, people who say those things don't know basic biology.

I'm sorry if that meme was confusing at first glance, but as you can see by all my other posts, rest assured I am firmly pro-life.

Ok, ok. I'm convinced. My study of communications mentioned that sarcasm is the most confusing of all communications. Your post confirms that warning.

 

[Votto]

With the recent ruling in Alabama regarding abortion, and the eventual path towards SCOTUS to settle the issue, the obvious thing to do is to define what exactly the unborn is, something Roe vs. Wade shied away from doing. After all, the reason blacks were mistreated under the Constitution was because they were not identified as equals, they were 3/5 a human being.

There are but two possibilities from my vantage point.

1. They are a parasite, defined as an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

2. Or they are a human being.

Which camp do you fall in?

Dear Votto regardless of which person or group believes what,
the fact that people HAVE different beliefs is enough for Govt to recognize that
no laws can be made biased toward or against one set of beliefs over another,
or it constituties Govt establishing beliefs and discriminating against other creeds.

Just the fact that people have beliefs about this which Govt can neither establish nor prohibit
makes it where people need to resolve their own policy issues and either
A. AGREE on what policies they consent for the govt to represent at either state or federal levels
B. AGREE to SEPARATE funding, jurisdiction and terms if they CANNOT agree on those areas of policy

The most I can see Govt doing is defending the rights of people of conflicting beliefs
to SEPARATE from each other and quit imposing one belief over others.

Govt has the duty to protect equal representation for people REGARDLESS of creed.
So unless all citizens of a state AGREE to a centralized policy for all,
they should have protected means of separate representation and terms of funding
their own programs and policies they believe in. Where this does not interfere
with people of other parties, groups or beliefs to do the same to protect their interests as well!

Wrong!

Laws are created by a belief system as to what is "good": or "bad". There is no divorcing morality from the law, the only question becomes, whose beliefs? That is why human beings have many rights animals don't. The belief is that human beings have innate rights from God that animals do not have because God made man in his own image and not animals. That is why we are free to lock animals up in zoos, keep them as pets for our personal amusement, use them as beasts of burden, or kill and eat them.

Now many on the godless Left has seen this and disagreed with this, and rightly so since they deny the belief that man has innate rights. At least they are consistent with those beliefs. But this is dangerous territory. You could then make the presumption that since man has no innate rights under God, then our rights are subject to the whims of lawmakers. Next thing you know all of our rights might go bye, bye, or we will end up treating animals better than we treat ourselves.

That seems to be where Progressives seem to be headed.

 

[dblack]

Laws are created by a belief system as to what is "good": or "bad".

Fundamental to the belief system embodied in the US Constitution is the conviction that individual freedom is "good", and that authoritarian government is "bad". And the core of individual freedom is the concept of self-ownership.

 

[progressive hunter]

Laws are created by a belief system as to what is "good": or "bad".

Fundamental to the belief system embodied in the US Constitution is the conviction that individual freedom is "good", and that authoritarian government is "bad". And the core of individual freedom is the concept of self-ownership.

what about the individual freedom of the child???

 

[Votto]

Laws are created by a belief system as to what is "good": or "bad".

Fundamental to the belief system embodied in the US Constitution is the conviction that individual freedom is "good", and that authoritarian government is "bad". And the core of individual freedom is the concept of self-ownership.

what about the individual freedom of the child???

What about it?

Children, although human beings, are given a limited amount of freedom until they are deemed to be fully developed enough to make all decisions for themselves.

Funny how murdering them is not one of those freedoms we have over them.

 

[danielpalos]

With the recent ruling in Alabama regarding abortion, and the eventual path towards SCOTUS to settle the issue, the obvious thing to do is to define what exactly the unborn is, something Roe vs. Wade shied away from doing. After all, the reason blacks were mistreated under the Constitution was because they were not identified as equals, they were 3/5 a human being.

There are but two possibilities from my vantage point.

1. They are a parasite, defined as an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

2. Or they are a human being.

Which camp do you fall in?

Dear Votto regardless of which person or group believes what,
the fact that people HAVE different beliefs is enough for Govt to recognize that
no laws can be made biased toward or against one set of beliefs over another,
or it constituties Govt establishing beliefs and discriminating against other creeds.

Just the fact that people have beliefs about this which Govt can neither establish nor prohibit
makes it where people need to resolve their own policy issues and either
A. AGREE on what policies they consent for the govt to represent at either state or federal levels
B. AGREE to SEPARATE funding, jurisdiction and terms if they CANNOT agree on those areas of policy

The most I can see Govt doing is defending the rights of people of conflicting beliefs
to SEPARATE from each other and quit imposing one belief over others.

Govt has the duty to protect equal representation for people REGARDLESS of creed.
So unless all citizens of a state AGREE to a centralized policy for all,
they should have protected means of separate representation and terms of funding
their own programs and policies they believe in. Where this does not interfere
with people of other parties, groups or beliefs to do the same to protect their interests as well!

Wrong!

Laws are created by a belief system as to what is "good": or "bad". There is no divorcing morality from the law, the only question becomes, whose beliefs? That is why human beings have many rights animals don't. The belief is that human beings have innate rights from God that animals do not have because God made man in his own image and not animals. That is why we are free to lock animals up in zoos, keep them as pets for our personal amusement, use them as beasts of burden, or kill and eat them.

Now many on the godless Left has seen this and disagreed with this, and rightly so since they deny the belief that man has innate rights. At least they are consistent with those beliefs. But this is dangerous territory. You could then make the presumption that since man has no innate rights under God, then our rights are subject to the whims of lawmakers. Next thing you know all of our rights might go bye, bye, or we will end up treating animals better than we treat ourselves.

That seems to be where Progressives seem to be headed.

True persons of morals don't eat eggs on Fridays because they engender chickens.

The right wing is all talk.

 

[dblack]

Laws are created by a belief system as to what is "good": or "bad".

Fundamental to the belief system embodied in the US Constitution is the conviction that individual freedom is "good", and that authoritarian government is "bad". And the core of individual freedom is the concept of self-ownership.

what about the individual freedom of the child???

The "child" has exactly no freedom until they are born.

As I've said before, the question examines the limits of what laws can achieve. Laws that attempt to control the internals of a person's body or mind are inevitably abusive and do more harm than good. Laws that tell people what to eat, drink, or smoke, laws that tell people what to think, laws that tell people how to take care of themselves, laws that lay a claim on the individual as "property" of the state, a "resource" to be managed and controlled by government - will drive us further down the road toward a totalitarian state.

 

[Votto]

Laws are created by a belief system as to what is "good": or "bad".

Fundamental to the belief system embodied in the US Constitution is the conviction that individual freedom is "good", and that authoritarian government is "bad". And the core of individual freedom is the concept of self-ownership.

Yet Progressives have insisted on their collective agenda to empower the Federal government towards an authoritarian like state?

In fact, don't you support things like the Green New Deal? Don't you want the authoritarian state to "save" us from carbon emissions? Don't you want them to raise our taxes as they see fit, limit what we drive and what we live in and limit our travels as they see fit to accomplish this? Don't you want us to be forced to give up fossil fuels no matter what a financial burden this may place on the individual if it means "saving" the planet?

 

[progressive hunter]

Laws are created by a belief system as to what is "good": or "bad".

Fundamental to the belief system embodied in the US Constitution is the conviction that individual freedom is "good", and that authoritarian government is "bad". And the core of individual freedom is the concept of self-ownership.

what about the individual freedom of the child???

The "child" has exactly no freedom until they are born.

As I've said before, the question examines the limits of what laws can achieve. Laws that attempt to control the internals of a person's body or mind are inevitably abusive and do more harm than good. Laws that tell people what to eat, drink, or smoke, laws that tell people what to think, laws that tell people how to take care of themselves, laws that lay a claim on the individual as "property" of the state, a "resource" to be managed and controlled by government - will drive us further down the road toward a totalitarian state.

thats just your opinion,,,

and wouldnt that mean you think we can kill them right up til birth??

if so thats the sickest thing I have ever heard a person say,,,

 

[dblack]

Laws are created by a belief system as to what is "good": or "bad".

Fundamental to the belief system embodied in the US Constitution is the conviction that individual freedom is "good", and that authoritarian government is "bad". And the core of individual freedom is the concept of self-ownership.

Yet Progressives have insisted on their collective agenda to empower the Federal government towards an authoritarian like state?

In fact, don't you support things like the Green New Deal? Don't you want the authoritarian state to "save" us from carbon emissions? Don't you want them to raise our taxes as they see fit, limit what we drive and what we live in and limit our travels as they see fit to accomplish this? Don't you want us to be forced to give up fossil fuels no matter what a financial burden this may place on the individual if it means "saving" the planet?

No. Your stereotypes fail you. I support none of those things. Progressives are promoting their own brand of fascism. Sadly, Republicans are no better.

 

[progressive hunter]

Laws are created by a belief system as to what is "good": or "bad".

Fundamental to the belief system embodied in the US Constitution is the conviction that individual freedom is "good", and that authoritarian government is "bad". And the core of individual freedom is the concept of self-ownership.

Yet Progressives have insisted on their collective agenda to empower the Federal government towards an authoritarian like state?

In fact, don't you support things like the Green New Deal? Don't you want the authoritarian state to "save" us from carbon emissions? Don't you want them to raise our taxes as they see fit, limit what we drive and what we live in and limit our travels as they see fit to accomplish this? Don't you want us to be forced to give up fossil fuels no matter what a financial burden this may place on the individual if it means "saving" the planet?

No. Your stereotypes fail you. I support none of those things. Progressives are promoting their own brand of fascism. Sadly, Republicans are no better.

dont leave out the democrats,,,

 

[dblack]

Laws are created by a belief system as to what is "good": or "bad".

Fundamental to the belief system embodied in the US Constitution is the conviction that individual freedom is "good", and that authoritarian government is "bad". And the core of individual freedom is the concept of self-ownership.

what about the individual freedom of the child???

The "child" has exactly no freedom until they are born.

As I've said before, the question examines the limits of what laws can achieve. Laws that attempt to control the internals of a person's body or mind are inevitably abusive and do more harm than good. Laws that tell people what to eat, drink, or smoke, laws that tell people what to think, laws that tell people how to take care of themselves, laws that lay a claim on the individual as "property" of the state, a "resource" to be managed and controlled by government - will drive us further down the road toward a totalitarian state.

thats just your opinion,,,

and wouldnt that mean you think we can kill them right up til birth??

if so thats the sickest thing I have ever heard a person say,,,

I didn't say I approve of it - I said it shouldn't be illegal. I said making it illegal will do more harm than good.

Both the left and the right are deeply invested in the notion that government can solve all our problems, that it can right all wrongs and "create" virtuous society. That's sheer delusion. And like most delusion, it is destructive and guides us into making bad decisions.

 

[BlindBoo]

With the recent ruling in Alabama regarding abortion, and the eventual path towards SCOTUS to settle the issue, the obvious thing to do is to define what exactly the unborn is, something Roe vs. Wade shied away from doing. After all, the reason blacks were mistreated under the Constitution was because they were not identified as equals, they were 3/5 a human being.

There are but two possibilities from my vantage point.

1. They are a parasite, defined as an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

2. Or they are a human being.

Which camp do you fall in?

Dear Votto regardless of which person or group believes what,
the fact that people HAVE different beliefs is enough for Govt to recognize that
no laws can be made biased toward or against one set of beliefs over another,
or it constituties Govt establishing beliefs and discriminating against other creeds.

Just the fact that people have beliefs about this which Govt can neither establish nor prohibit
makes it where people need to resolve their own policy issues and either
A. AGREE on what policies they consent for the govt to represent at either state or federal levels
B. AGREE to SEPARATE funding, jurisdiction and terms if they CANNOT agree on those areas of policy

The most I can see Govt doing is defending the rights of people of conflicting beliefs
to SEPARATE from each other and quit imposing one belief over others.

Govt has the duty to protect equal representation for people REGARDLESS of creed.
So unless all citizens of a state AGREE to a centralized policy for all,
they should have protected means of separate representation and terms of funding
their own programs and policies they believe in. Where this does not interfere
with people of other parties, groups or beliefs to do the same to protect their interests as well!

Wrong!

Laws are created by a belief system as to what is "good": or "bad". There is no divorcing morality from the law, the only question becomes, whose beliefs? That is why human beings have many rights animals don't. The belief is that human beings have innate rights from God that animals do not have because God made man in his own image and not animals. That is why we are free to lock animals up in zoos, keep them as pets for our personal amusement, use them as beasts of burden, or kill and eat them.

Now many on the godless Left has seen this and disagreed with this, and rightly so since they deny the belief that man has innate rights. At least they are consistent with those beliefs. But this is dangerous territory. You could then make the presumption that since man has no innate rights under God, then our rights are subject to the whims of lawmakers. Next thing you know all of our rights might go bye, bye, or we will end up treating animals better than we treat ourselves.

That seems to be where Progressives seem to be headed.

I have to disagree. Morality comes form man sine man created God. We have dominion over the animals because of our brains, not because some supernatural being created us. We are the apex predator and I believe will be eating other the other animals forever.

The lawmakers should always be constrained by the Constitution. Like the Anti-gun folks, the Anti-choice crows should go for a new Amendment to ban it nationwide.

 

[progressive hunter]

Laws are created by a belief system as to what is "good": or "bad".

Fundamental to the belief system embodied in the US Constitution is the conviction that individual freedom is "good", and that authoritarian government is "bad". And the core of individual freedom is the concept of self-ownership.

what about the individual freedom of the child???

The "child" has exactly no freedom until they are born.

As I've said before, the question examines the limits of what laws can achieve. Laws that attempt to control the internals of a person's body or mind are inevitably abusive and do more harm than good. Laws that tell people what to eat, drink, or smoke, laws that tell people what to think, laws that tell people how to take care of themselves, laws that lay a claim on the individual as "property" of the state, a "resource" to be managed and controlled by government - will drive us further down the road toward a totalitarian state.

thats just your opinion,,,

and wouldnt that mean you think we can kill them right up til birth??

if so thats the sickest thing I have ever heard a person say,,,

I didn't say I approve of it - I said it shouldn't be illegal. I said making it illegal will do more harm than good.

Both the left and the right are deeply invested in the notion that government can solve all our problems, that it can right all wrongs and "create" virtuous society. That's sheer delusion. And like most delusion, it is destructive and guides us into making bad decisions.

by saying it shouldnt be illegal means you approve of it,,,

and protecting the life of children has nothing to do with solving the worlds problems or the individuals,,,

and dont confuse the left and right with dems and repubes,,,it can get you in trouble making decisions,,,

I have both left and right views but at no time think they should be forced on another like dems and repubes do,,,

 

[dblack]

by saying it shouldnt be illegal means you approve of it,,,

No, it doesn't.

 

[Votto]

With the recent ruling in Alabama regarding abortion, and the eventual path towards SCOTUS to settle the issue, the obvious thing to do is to define what exactly the unborn is, something Roe vs. Wade shied away from doing. After all, the reason blacks were mistreated under the Constitution was because they were not identified as equals, they were 3/5 a human being.

There are but two possibilities from my vantage point.

1. They are a parasite, defined as an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism

2. Or they are a human being.

Which camp do you fall in?

Dear Votto regardless of which person or group believes what,
the fact that people HAVE different beliefs is enough for Govt to recognize that
no laws can be made biased toward or against one set of beliefs over another,
or it constituties Govt establishing beliefs and discriminating against other creeds.

Just the fact that people have beliefs about this which Govt can neither establish nor prohibit
makes it where people need to resolve their own policy issues and either
A. AGREE on what policies they consent for the govt to represent at either state or federal levels
B. AGREE to SEPARATE funding, jurisdiction and terms if they CANNOT agree on those areas of policy

The most I can see Govt doing is defending the rights of people of conflicting beliefs
to SEPARATE from each other and quit imposing one belief over others.

Govt has the duty to protect equal representation for people REGARDLESS of creed.
So unless all citizens of a state AGREE to a centralized policy for all,
they should have protected means of separate representation and terms of funding
their own programs and policies they believe in. Where this does not interfere
with people of other parties, groups or beliefs to do the same to protect their interests as well!

Wrong!

Laws are created by a belief system as to what is "good": or "bad". There is no divorcing morality from the law, the only question becomes, whose beliefs? That is why human beings have many rights animals don't. The belief is that human beings have innate rights from God that animals do not have because God made man in his own image and not animals. That is why we are free to lock animals up in zoos, keep them as pets for our personal amusement, use them as beasts of burden, or kill and eat them.

Now many on the godless Left has seen this and disagreed with this, and rightly so since they deny the belief that man has innate rights. At least they are consistent with those beliefs. But this is dangerous territory. You could then make the presumption that since man has no innate rights under God, then our rights are subject to the whims of lawmakers. Next thing you know all of our rights might go bye, bye, or we will end up treating animals better than we treat ourselves.

That seems to be where Progressives seem to be headed.

I have to disagree. Morality comes form man sine man created God. We have dominion over the animals because of our brains, not because some supernatural being created us. We are the apex predator and I believe will be eating other the other animals forever.

The lawmakers should always be constrained by the Constitution. Like the Anti-gun folks, the Anti-choice crows should go for a new Amendment to ban it nationwide.

Then from your vantage point a dolphin should have more rights than a severely brain damaged human being.

Also, those who are deemed mentally challenged by the state might some day be rounded up and treated like animals.

Duly noted.

 

[Votto]

Laws are created by a belief system as to what is "good": or "bad".

Fundamental to the belief system embodied in the US Constitution is the conviction that individual freedom is "good", and that authoritarian government is "bad". And the core of individual freedom is the concept of self-ownership.

Yet Progressives have insisted on their collective agenda to empower the Federal government towards an authoritarian like state?

In fact, don't you support things like the Green New Deal? Don't you want the authoritarian state to "save" us from carbon emissions? Don't you want them to raise our taxes as they see fit, limit what we drive and what we live in and limit our travels as they see fit to accomplish this? Don't you want us to be forced to give up fossil fuels no matter what a financial burden this may place on the individual if it means "saving" the planet?

No. Your stereotypes fail you. I support none of those things. Progressives are promoting their own brand of fascism. Sadly, Republicans are no better.

But fascism is at the heart of power, so all those who support collectivism promote fascism.

This is why the Founding Fathers attempted Federalism. They wanted the states to run their own affairs, but over the years Progressives centralized power to what we have today.

Interestingly, Teddy Roosevelt, who was a Republican, was said to have started the whole Progressive movement.

 

[BlindBoo]

Then from your vantage point a dolphin should have more rights than a severely brain damaged human being.

Only in the ocean. One of the reasons we have been so successful is our ability to have compassion. I just don't think that was given to us by some external force.

Also, those who are deemed mentally challenged by the state might some day be rounded up and treated like animals.

Those who are mentally challenged and who have no one to care or look after them are already treated like animals in many places.