The Politics of the "Abortion" Word Games

[Carla_Danger]

the law does not consider humans who are not yet born as protected 'persons' under the constitution.

simple.

That was so very kind of you, signing your name to the post.

posting daily strawmen is for simpletons...

Here's the point, simple......numerous examples of "laws" being wrong are evident.

Is the Bible wrong?

Exodus 21:22
"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Ex. 21:22-25, The New American Standard Bible

1. Genesis 9:6 prescribed the death penalty for murder when it said that if a man “shed the blood” of another man, by man must his blood be shed. The only law repeated in all five of the books of the old testament. The death penalty is a value, values are eternal, as opposed to customs or traditions, such as stoning for adultery.

Oh, we're going by the Old Testament now? I thought the we were supposed to go by the New Testament now, you know, the "good news." Funny, I thought that instead of "eye for and eye, tooth for a tooth," we are now supposed to turn the other cheek.

Matthew 5:38-48New International Version (NIV)

Eye for Eye
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Christians sure like to pick and choose whatever suits their own needs.

So I say....BRING BACK STONING, BURN THOSE WITCHES!

Chant with me everyone!

BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! Hell, bring in Sharia law! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING!

 

[Carib Gyal]

That was so very kind of you, signing your name to the post.

posting daily strawmen is for simpletons...

Here's the point, simple......numerous examples of "laws" being wrong are evident.

Is the Bible wrong?

Exodus 21:22
"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Ex. 21:22-25, The New American Standard Bible

1. Genesis 9:6 prescribed the death penalty for murder when it said that if a man “shed the blood” of another man, by man must his blood be shed. The only law repeated in all five of the books of the old testament. The death penalty is a value, values are eternal, as opposed to customs or traditions, such as stoning for adultery.

Oh, we're going by the Old Testament now? I thought the we were supposed to go by the New Testament now, you know, the "good news." Funny, I thought that instead of "eye for and eye, tooth for a tooth," we are now supposed to turn the other cheek.

Matthew 5:38-48New International Version (NIV)

Eye for Eye
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Christians sure like to pick and choose whatever suits their own needs.

So I say....BRING BACK STONING, BURN THOSE WITCHES!

Chant with me everyone!

BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! Hell, bring in Sharia law! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING!

Why do you hate the Jews?

 

[Carla_Danger]

posting daily strawmen is for simpletons...

Here's the point, simple......numerous examples of "laws" being wrong are evident.

Is the Bible wrong?

Exodus 21:22
"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Ex. 21:22-25, The New American Standard Bible

1. Genesis 9:6 prescribed the death penalty for murder when it said that if a man “shed the blood” of another man, by man must his blood be shed. The only law repeated in all five of the books of the old testament. The death penalty is a value, values are eternal, as opposed to customs or traditions, such as stoning for adultery.

Oh, we're going by the Old Testament now? I thought the we were supposed to go by the New Testament now, you know, the "good news." Funny, I thought that instead of "eye for and eye, tooth for a tooth," we are now supposed to turn the other cheek.

Matthew 5:38-48New International Version (NIV)

Eye for Eye
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Christians sure like to pick and choose whatever suits their own needs.

So I say....BRING BACK STONING, BURN THOSE WITCHES!

Chant with me everyone!

BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! Hell, bring in Sharia law! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING!

Why do you hate the Jews?

I don't hate anyone.

 

[toxicmedia]

First of all, I don't hate babies...

Huh... Yet you advocate for the murder of babies.

I am in favor of killing human babies on demand by the mother, if that cute little human baby is in the first and second trimester of pregnancy

So, you don't hate babies, you just favor their being stripped of their lives...

We can therefore rest assured that you're also not antisemitic, just because you reject the right of the Israelis to defend themselves from mass-murderers intent upon their destruction.

ROFL! You people are a menace to the species.

You're a useless drama queen. Go try your emotional bullying on someone it'll work with.

You can use words like baby, murder, or whatever you want to emotionalize your completely unbalanced, judgmental, and half baked position.

Pro life folks are the biggest manipulators on the planet. The authors of the position use every trick they can to tap into the emotions and past grief everybody has who've ever loved their child instead of make a reasoned arguments about what it means to lack a cerebral cortex and ignore the results of the government forcing women to have unwanted babies.

You're being pushed around intellectually and don't even know it

1. "You can use words like baby, murder, or whatever you want to emotionalize your completely unbalanced, judgmental, and half baked position."

Hmmm.....who was it who wrote:
"I am in favor of killing human babies on demand by the mother...."

Oh....right....you did.


2. "Pro life folks are the biggest manipulators on the planet. The authors of the position use every trick they can to tap into the emotions and past grief everybody has who've ever loved their child ...."
When you sober up, even you will recognize how truly stupid this post is.....

Almost as stupid as "I am in favor of killing human babies on demand by the mother...."

Only a sociopath has to be 'manipulated' into caring about the murder of a baby.
Raise your paw.


3. "the government forcing women to have unwanted babies."
OK...your third strike.
No government forced her to have sex without considering the possible results.....but the Liberal government did essentially tell her, 'if it feels good do it, and we'll 'manipulate' the words to make abortion as a form of birth control.'

So....you must be a Liberal, huh?

You're actualy going to try and use my own words, OUT OF CONTEXT, to try and do what?!?!

Try again drama queen

 

[Carib Gyal]

Here's the point, simple......numerous examples of "laws" being wrong are evident.

Is the Bible wrong?

Exodus 21:22
"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Ex. 21:22-25, The New American Standard Bible

1. Genesis 9:6 prescribed the death penalty for murder when it said that if a man “shed the blood” of another man, by man must his blood be shed. The only law repeated in all five of the books of the old testament. The death penalty is a value, values are eternal, as opposed to customs or traditions, such as stoning for adultery.

Oh, we're going by the Old Testament now? I thought the we were supposed to go by the New Testament now, you know, the "good news." Funny, I thought that instead of "eye for and eye, tooth for a tooth," we are now supposed to turn the other cheek.

Matthew 5:38-48New International Version (NIV)

Eye for Eye
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Christians sure like to pick and choose whatever suits their own needs.

So I say....BRING BACK STONING, BURN THOSE WITCHES!

Chant with me everyone!

BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! Hell, bring in Sharia law! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING!

Why do you hate the Jews?

I don't hate anyone.

Yet you feel free to offend their sacred book. As we have learned from a few open-minded thinkers, offending anyone's religion is cause for murdering the offender. But don't worry, we won't blame ALL the Jews for avenging the honor of their prophet.

 

[toxicmedia]

Here's the point, simple......numerous examples of "laws" being wrong are evident.

Is the Bible wrong?

Exodus 21:22
"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Ex. 21:22-25, The New American Standard Bible

1. Genesis 9:6 prescribed the death penalty for murder when it said that if a man “shed the blood” of another man, by man must his blood be shed. The only law repeated in all five of the books of the old testament. The death penalty is a value, values are eternal, as opposed to customs or traditions, such as stoning for adultery.

Oh, we're going by the Old Testament now? I thought the we were supposed to go by the New Testament now, you know, the "good news." Funny, I thought that instead of "eye for and eye, tooth for a tooth," we are now supposed to turn the other cheek.

Matthew 5:38-48New International Version (NIV)

Eye for Eye
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Christians sure like to pick and choose whatever suits their own needs.

So I say....BRING BACK STONING, BURN THOSE WITCHES!

Chant with me everyone!

BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! Hell, bring in Sharia law! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING!

Why do you hate the Jews?

I don't hate anyone.

Did you just get the Nazi Card played on you?...albeit in a sideways kind of fashion?

While PC's heartstrings are getting plucked by the family values crowd, she'll only get crazier when you don't buy into her emotional torture scheme.

Misery loves company after all

 

[BlueGin]

A fetus is not a child. It would be called a child if it were. They're two different fucking things. Grow up, learn science, and stop trying to control women's bodies. The only body you have any right to is your own. You don't get to decide whether or not to force anyone to become or remain pregnant. You have no say in whether or when someone spawns. The only rights you have are to your own fucking self. Do you understand this? Do you understand that this is why nothing you said is even valid? They're not even real fucking opinions. You know they're wrong. You know why they're wrong. Now grow the fuck up and stop pretending to believe shit you have no right to believe.

You can call them Martians or Daisies if you like, that's the crux of the matter. One side calls them babies, the other calls them anything but. That's how you can allow their murders without conscience.

Calling pro-choicers murderers needs to end US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum It's not fucking murder. It's medicine. I will not allow you to use this slanderous word again.

You will not allow it? What are you going to do? Stomp your feet and hold your breath until you turn blue?

What a stupid comment.

 

[JoeMoma]

When does a person become a "person"? Apparently the surpreme court gets to decide this based on whatever arbitrary reason they see fit. At one time a fetus was a person, but that was before the Roe vs. Wade decision.
Perhaps in the future the supreme court will make a fetus a person again, or maybe it will be changed in the other direction and "it" will not be a person until 2 years after leaving the womb.

Perhaps there should be a constitutional amendment to state when a person becomes a person.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Is the Bible wrong?

Exodus 21:22
"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Ex. 21:22-25, The New American Standard Bible

1. Genesis 9:6 prescribed the death penalty for murder when it said that if a man “shed the blood” of another man, by man must his blood be shed. The only law repeated in all five of the books of the old testament. The death penalty is a value, values are eternal, as opposed to customs or traditions, such as stoning for adultery.

Oh, we're going by the Old Testament now? I thought the we were supposed to go by the New Testament now, you know, the "good news." Funny, I thought that instead of "eye for and eye, tooth for a tooth," we are now supposed to turn the other cheek.

Matthew 5:38-48New International Version (NIV)

Eye for Eye
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Christians sure like to pick and choose whatever suits their own needs.

So I say....BRING BACK STONING, BURN THOSE WITCHES!

Chant with me everyone!

BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! Hell, bring in Sharia law! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING!

Why do you hate the Jews?

I don't hate anyone.

Yet you feel free to offend their sacred book. As we have learned from a few open-minded thinkers, offending anyone's religion is cause for murdering the offender. But don't worry, we won't blame ALL the Jews for avenging the honor of their prophet.

So, do you believe that if a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die?"

 

[emilynghiem]

So she should never sign such an agreement in the first place, since she cannot guarantee she can keep it, right.

'Should'? We're getting into some uselessly subjective territory here. There's no contract that is a universal absolute. There is also the possibility of non-fulfillment. Which is why we have courts. The idea that one shouldn't enter into a contract unless there is a perfect, preordained knowledge of the outcome is ludicrous. There would never be contracts if that was the case.

so is this the best way to settle the issue?

Her right to deny the use of her body in express contradiction of the contract? Its a civil issue. So....fines if the plaintiff's can convince a jury. The same as any civil issue.

Well Skylar I found out the hard way
paying lawyers and losing time money sanity friends and health going through courts to DEFEND rights or justice you lost
After the Fact, is a burden and abridgement I never want to go through. I would never recommend this to anyone, not even myvworst enemy who deserves to lose, out of love for Constitutional freedom and equality ive seen smashed and demolished this way. Especially with religious diffetences, FU no. And with a life that one side considers viable, and has a time limit FU no way would I ever recommend going through court instead of prevention.The issue should be prevented at the start, or somebody is going to lose their rights if something goes wrong. Not worth the risk. Suing after the fact is no way to address a sensitive pressured situation by adding more pressure. I love and care about people too much to see them suffer, even someone i hate personally and think they deserve it i would still push them to mediate conflicts in advance and quit using courts to force things one way or another especially with religious beliefs and rights that are equal, and before there is a life on the line.

Sorry but I dont want to see another Terri Schiavo, where ppl and relations are destroyed by using judges and lawyers to take one sides beliefs and deny equal protection to the other. There is no way to win in court, one side is going to lose, unlessyou mediate and form a consensus so both sides are represented equally at all times. In Schiavo the lesson was to put things in writing so there is proof of beliefs. If you dont have the same beliefs you are gambling to contract with each other, so if one party is prolife and thinks abortion is murder dont contract with someone who believes it is a choice. Thats to protect both parties from going through hell if they end up suing.

Personally I find it is unconstitutional to adk judges and courts to intervene and force a decision in a religious case. If I were such a judge I would order both sides to find a better mediator to reach a consensus that includes and respects both their beliefs. But reading these cases, the last place they had equal rights and protections is before they agreed to contract with each other. Before getting married, or before having sex or before pregnancy , so that level of "should or should not" remains a private choice and even a judge is overstepping bounds to interfere there. The whole issue must be prevented or resolved by free choice, the whole thing is private and should never be dragged into courts or govt to decide.

So if your contract with someone is going to risk dragging the govt in bed with you, then dont go there at all. only make decisions youcan enforce personally and freely on your own without relying on gambling on courts or govt thinking you can restore rights or justice you feel should have been respected in thr first place. That is no guarantee. So dont take a risk with your rights and especially where people believe a human life could end up on the line. That is cruel to gamble with those stakes. Dont go there.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Is the Bible wrong?

Exodus 21:22
"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. 23 But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Ex. 21:22-25, The New American Standard Bible

1. Genesis 9:6 prescribed the death penalty for murder when it said that if a man “shed the blood” of another man, by man must his blood be shed. The only law repeated in all five of the books of the old testament. The death penalty is a value, values are eternal, as opposed to customs or traditions, such as stoning for adultery.

Oh, we're going by the Old Testament now? I thought the we were supposed to go by the New Testament now, you know, the "good news." Funny, I thought that instead of "eye for and eye, tooth for a tooth," we are now supposed to turn the other cheek.

Matthew 5:38-48New International Version (NIV)

Eye for Eye
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Christians sure like to pick and choose whatever suits their own needs.

So I say....BRING BACK STONING, BURN THOSE WITCHES!

Chant with me everyone!

BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! Hell, bring in Sharia law! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING!

Why do you hate the Jews?

I don't hate anyone.

Did you just get the Nazi Card played on you?...albeit in a sideways kind of fashion?

While PC's heartstrings are getting plucked by the family values crowd, she'll only get crazier when you don't buy into her emotional torture scheme.

Misery loves company after all

I've been accused of lots of things before, but this is the first time I've ever been accused of hating Jews.

 

[Carib Gyal]

1. Genesis 9:6 prescribed the death penalty for murder when it said that if a man “shed the blood” of another man, by man must his blood be shed. The only law repeated in all five of the books of the old testament. The death penalty is a value, values are eternal, as opposed to customs or traditions, such as stoning for adultery.

Oh, we're going by the Old Testament now? I thought the we were supposed to go by the New Testament now, you know, the "good news." Funny, I thought that instead of "eye for and eye, tooth for a tooth," we are now supposed to turn the other cheek.

Matthew 5:38-48New International Version (NIV)

Eye for Eye
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Christians sure like to pick and choose whatever suits their own needs.

So I say....BRING BACK STONING, BURN THOSE WITCHES!

Chant with me everyone!

BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! Hell, bring in Sharia law! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING!

Why do you hate the Jews?

I don't hate anyone.

Yet you feel free to offend their sacred book. As we have learned from a few open-minded thinkers, offending anyone's religion is cause for murdering the offender. But don't worry, we won't blame ALL the Jews for avenging the honor of their prophet.

So, do you believe that if a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die?"

First the Jews, now the Muslims. Be extremely careful. Mocking the Islamic religion gets people killed.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Oh, we're going by the Old Testament now? I thought the we were supposed to go by the New Testament now, you know, the "good news." Funny, I thought that instead of "eye for and eye, tooth for a tooth," we are now supposed to turn the other cheek.

Matthew 5:38-48New International Version (NIV)

Eye for Eye
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Christians sure like to pick and choose whatever suits their own needs.

So I say....BRING BACK STONING, BURN THOSE WITCHES!

Chant with me everyone!

BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! Hell, bring in Sharia law! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING!

Why do you hate the Jews?

I don't hate anyone.

Yet you feel free to offend their sacred book. As we have learned from a few open-minded thinkers, offending anyone's religion is cause for murdering the offender. But don't worry, we won't blame ALL the Jews for avenging the honor of their prophet.

So, do you believe that if a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die?"

First the Jews, now the Muslims. Be extremely careful. Mocking the Islamic religion gets people killed.

Deuteronomy 22:22 American Standard Version (ASV)
22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away the evil from Israel.


I underlined "American Standard Version" for you, idiot.

 

[Carib Gyal]

Why do you hate the Jews?

I don't hate anyone.

Yet you feel free to offend their sacred book. As we have learned from a few open-minded thinkers, offending anyone's religion is cause for murdering the offender. But don't worry, we won't blame ALL the Jews for avenging the honor of their prophet.

So, do you believe that if a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die?"

First the Jews, now the Muslims. Be extremely careful. Mocking the Islamic religion gets people killed.

Deuteronomy 22:22 American Standard Version (ASV)
22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away the evil from Israel.


I underlined "American Standard Version" for you, idiot.

So you were mocking both the Jewish and the Islamic religions.

You isn't two smart, is you Carla_Danger.

 

[toxicmedia]

When does a person become a "person"? Apparently the surpreme court gets to decide this based on whatever arbitrary reason they see fit. At one time a fetus was a person, but that was before the Roe vs. Wade decision.
Perhaps in the future the supreme court will make a fetus a person again, or maybe it will be changed in the other direction and "it" will not be a person until 2 years after leaving the womb.

Perhaps there should be a constitutional amendment to state when a person becomes a person.

You obviously have neither read, nor comprehend, Roe V Wade.

Medical professionals gave input form both sides, and the compromise the SCOTUS came up with was that 1st and 2nd trimester babies do not have a developed cerebral cortex...in simple terms, that's your thinker thingy in your brain. The part that pulls everything together to allow you to have feelings and thoughts.

One has to consider what it means to be "alive". Plants are "alive"

Some humans may be alive, but in a vegetative state, where they are merely tissue being fed like a plant. That's tough on the people who love the former "living" person they once were, so they're allowed to pull the plug on them.

If you are not yet, not now, or will never again, be a breathing person with cerebral activity, you are not 'living".

There is no difference in denying...every unfertilized egg, and one lucky sperm in a batch, fertilized eggs, zygotes, and 1st/2nd trimester fetuses...the chance to grow into a human baby........than there is with a fertiilized egg.

The difference being religious inclinations, and how some family values Christians have decided it's important to them, so every one else must embrace their purely emotional sensabilities.

On the other end of life, you have 3rd trimester fetuses, infants, toddlers, adolescents, teenagers, adults, etc....of that group, if they are not a breathing person with cerebral activity, the family values people don't get outraged over pulling the plug so much.

That's because the emotional argument put forth by family values Christians, needed to overcome the enlightened and reasoned compromise of Roe V Wade with their extremist proclaimation that fertilized eggs, zygotes, and 1st/2nd trimester fetuses, are "living" babies with breathing person with cerebral activity. They're breathing, and that's it. They had to support the rest by tapping into your parental instincts, to harness that same compassion every parent needs to keep from throwing the colicy baby out the window at 2:00am

 

[toxicmedia]

1. Genesis 9:6 prescribed the death penalty for murder when it said that if a man “shed the blood” of another man, by man must his blood be shed. The only law repeated in all five of the books of the old testament. The death penalty is a value, values are eternal, as opposed to customs or traditions, such as stoning for adultery.

Oh, we're going by the Old Testament now? I thought the we were supposed to go by the New Testament now, you know, the "good news." Funny, I thought that instead of "eye for and eye, tooth for a tooth," we are now supposed to turn the other cheek.

Matthew 5:38-48New International Version (NIV)

Eye for Eye
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Christians sure like to pick and choose whatever suits their own needs.

So I say....BRING BACK STONING, BURN THOSE WITCHES!

Chant with me everyone!

BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! Hell, bring in Sharia law! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING!

Why do you hate the Jews?

I don't hate anyone.

Did you just get the Nazi Card played on you?...albeit in a sideways kind of fashion?

While PC's heartstrings are getting plucked by the family values crowd, she'll only get crazier when you don't buy into her emotional torture scheme.

Misery loves company after all

I've been accused of lots of things before, but this is the first time I've ever been accused of hating Jews.

They're just lashing out. Grasping at straws

 

[Carla_Danger]

I don't hate anyone.

Yet you feel free to offend their sacred book. As we have learned from a few open-minded thinkers, offending anyone's religion is cause for murdering the offender. But don't worry, we won't blame ALL the Jews for avenging the honor of their prophet.

So, do you believe that if a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die?"

First the Jews, now the Muslims. Be extremely careful. Mocking the Islamic religion gets people killed.

Deuteronomy 22:22 American Standard Version (ASV)
22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away the evil from Israel.


I underlined "American Standard Version" for you, idiot.

So you were mocking both the Jewish and the Islamic religions.

You isn't two smart, is you Carla_Danger.

That's "too" smart, you idiot, "two" is a number.

Since you're not living by the Old Testament, I guess that makes you a Jew hater,... isn't that what you said?

 

[Carib Gyal]

Yet you feel free to offend their sacred book. As we have learned from a few open-minded thinkers, offending anyone's religion is cause for murdering the offender. But don't worry, we won't blame ALL the Jews for avenging the honor of their prophet.

So, do you believe that if a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die?"

First the Jews, now the Muslims. Be extremely careful. Mocking the Islamic religion gets people killed.

Deuteronomy 22:22 American Standard Version (ASV)
22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then they shall both of them die, the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away the evil from Israel.


I underlined "American Standard Version" for you, idiot.

So you were mocking both the Jewish and the Islamic religions.

You isn't two smart, is you Carla_Danger.

That's "too" smart, you idiot, "two" is a number.

Since you're not living by the Old Testament, I guess that makes you a Jew hater,... isn't that what you said?

It's "aren't too" smart, Carla_Danger. Which you ain't.

And no, I don't live by the Old Testament, but then again I'm not Jewish. I don't hate them and mock them like you do, though.

 

[emilynghiem]

1. Genesis 9:6 prescribed the death penalty for murder when it said that if a man “shed the blood” of another man, by man must his blood be shed. The only law repeated in all five of the books of the old testament. The death penalty is a value, values are eternal, as opposed to customs or traditions, such as stoning for adultery.

Oh, we're going by the Old Testament now? I thought the we were supposed to go by the New Testament now, you know, the "good news." Funny, I thought that instead of "eye for and eye, tooth for a tooth," we are now supposed to turn the other cheek.

Matthew 5:38-48New International Version (NIV)

Eye for Eye
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Christians sure like to pick and choose whatever suits their own needs.

So I say....BRING BACK STONING, BURN THOSE WITCHES!

Chant with me everyone!

BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! Hell, bring in Sharia law! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING! BRING BACK STONING!

Why do you hate the Jews?

I don't hate anyone.

Yet you feel free to offend their sacred book. As we have learned from a few open-minded thinkers, offending anyone's religion is cause for murdering the offender. But don't worry, we won't blame ALL the Jews for avenging the honor of their prophet.

So, do you believe that if a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die?"

1. Christians are called to respect human institutions and civil authority, which means due process. Only govt has legal authority todetermine or carry out capital punishment and even that authority is debated. It should be by consensus to prevent religious imposition or abuse by govt, much less anyone else,

2. the person seeking to enforce Biblical standards is held to the same. See matthew 18 15-20. So anyone who wants to take the woman to law follows that procedure to form a consensus with other witnesses and believers that the truth may be established and relations restored between neighbors.

3. We are supposed to establish truth by the spirit of the laws first and then the letter follows. Not the other way. You cannot tke the letter of the law out of context with the spirit or it isnt the whole truth as needed to resolve conflicts and establish equal justice for all. Taking one side out of context with the other isnt equal justice but onesided.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The real question is what does it mean to be 'human'?

And, it seems that the answer depends on where you reside on the political spectrum
For Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, a major selling point of their worldview is in allowing moral relativity, self-determined morality, and 'if it feels good, do it."

The corollary of same is that one must never, never be judgmental.
And with abortion, the right to kill "it" depends on how you define....or rationalize....what "it" is.

1. The abortion argument revolves around whether or not life begins at conception. For those who wish to see abortion as the mothers’ right, or decision, then there must be a separate understanding of the terms ‘life’ and ‘person:’ such a distinction is widely accepted today on the secular Left.

a. If life begins at one time, and ‘personhood’ comes into being some time later, then, clearly, they are two different things. The validation of this thinking can be found in Roe v. Wade, which found that a fetus is human from the beginning, but not a person until some time later, at 24 weeks, “the earliest point at which it can be proven that the fetus has the capacity to have a meaningful life as a person.”
Civil Rights of a Fetus - Law Philosophy and Religion

b. Dating back to antiquity, most cultures have assumed that a human being comprises both physical and spiritual elements: body and soul. Contemporary thought, it seems, has split these apart. In accordance with liberal or Postmodernist thinking, there is the autonomous self, the person versus the Modernist concept of a biochemical machine, the body.

1. 1. If one accepts this divided concept of human nature, i.e., person, and body, this aligns one with the liberal political view, which rejects moral limits on desire as a violation of its liberty.
   2. An interesting comment is that of Joseph Fletcher, founder of the theory of situational ethics: “What is critical is personal status, not merely human status.” In his view, fetuses and newborns are “sub-personal,” and therefore fail to qualify for the right to life. Joseph Fletcher, “Humanhood: Essays in Biomedical Ethics,” p. ll. "It struck me how similar this idea is to the Nazi concept of “untermenschen” for Jews, gypsies, slavs, any non-aryans." Pearcey, "Saving Leonardo," chapter three

1. As for the response ‘If you’re against abortion, don’t have one,” it’s not quite that easy…this rebuttal sidesteps the fact that once one accepts this view, it entails acceptance of the worldview that justifies same. It is less a private matter than one that dictates how people can behave toward each other...e.g., "if you don’t agree with robbing banks, then don’t rob any.”

If one has that that view so common in Liberals/Progressives/Democrats, .....this means that anything....anything, no matter how heartless or diabolical....one chooses to do with/to the pre-person stage.....it's all good.

That's why Liberals/Progressives/Democrats were fine with electing a President who had no problem with infanticide.

What gets me is how certain liberals seek to devalue human life by defining it as anything but, it then somehow justifies their "feel good" attitude when they do in fact go through with it. When we look at an embryo of a dog for example, we know it belongs to a dog. If it belongs to a snake, a snake. At that point in time, we know the life of those respective animal has begun. But if we look at a human embryo, it ceases to belong to the progenitor or of the species that spawned it. It is no longer life, but a clump of homologous cells to be treated as a pervasive disease.

Those liberals in class warfare arguments cry "if you stop welfare, you'll hurt the children!" Ironic they care about the welfare of a child outside of the womb, but not inside; both of them being one in the same. In more irony, almost everyone who commits murder is condemned for taking a life. That life only matters when it is outside of the womb, not inside. For example, let's use the dog and snake again. If we killed the unborn fetus inside, we would be condemned for killing an animal. The animal is an animal whether it be in the womb or outside. Wait, what?