On abortion, I say let's go with what we know.

There are 330 instances where the Bible tells you not to do what you are doing. It is called baring false witness. That includes perverting the verses in the Bible to mean something other then what the writer intended it to mean. Further, I direct you attention to Revelations 20:18-19

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

My last word on the subject!!!

 

Two points

(1) Male bovine excrement
(2) Male bovine excrement

As yourself this. If a person can get charged with two counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman, then how is killing an unborn baby not murder??????

 

Because abortion is sanctioned killing of a ZEF. Killing a pregnant woman which also kills the ZEF is not sanctioned and therefore murder. Is using the death penalty murder? Nope. Its sanctioned killing. Is killing someone in self defense murder? Nope. Its sanctioned killing.

 

Since when is sanctioning a justification of murder? Isn't assisted suicides not still illegal in this country? In the case of Assisted Suicides, the doctor aids patients that want to die to kill themselves. So, if it is illegal for a doctor to assist in a suicide, then why is killing an unborn baby that does not want to die considered legal?

BTW, the only legal sanctioned killings are Federal or State executions. But then the same liberals that are for Abortions are against executions. It is all right to kill an unborn baby that has broken no laws, but it is not alright to execute someone that has committed a capital crime. Liberal hypocrisy at it's best.

 

No the question is whether the person in the womb can legally be killed by another person at their discretion.


The life in the womb is an individual human being, a person. Words have meanings.

 

Sure there is. You're not going to stop women this time.

 

You won't find a single case that supports even the idea of a right to abortion.

And careful with that "you're" word there. I support RvW. So your "you're" doesn't apply to me.

 

The issue is not about sympathy, it's about how should we, as a civilized society, be?

So, if a 15 year old child, who is a child, kills herself because she was afraid to tell her parents and couldn't confront the reality of her situation, thought she could terminate it, did so and died, you'd find that acceptable 'because she chose to do it?

I know what those on the right will say, I've heard it thousands of times, a narrative which goes something like ' the right thing to do is educate them so that they don't do it' etc.

That will help, but they will still do it. So, I'm all for education, but that doensn't change the fact that women, poor ones especially, that demographic will incur more injury and deaths if R v W is repealed.

I'm just referring to the statistical fact, sympathy has nothing to do with it.

So, as a civilized society, who do we decide we want to be?

Do we want to be a society who says it's okay if a woman or a female child kills herself, or are we a society who says that shouldn't be, and we should have a policy that will reduce such outcomes, and while we are at it, we also give that person more bodily autonomy and right to privacy, consistent with the Constitution?

This is what separates neoliberals/libertarian/conservatives, from liberals.

It is also why the vast majority of people support a woman's right to abortion.

Let's get something clear, here. I find abortion just a repugnant as any conservative, but the choice to terminate a pregnancy, within the parameters of Roe v Wade, should ultimately be her choice (not the gov's), one that should be made by her with the consultation of her doctors and family members.

I support legalization of all drugs. Addicts should be treated, voluntarily. I believe drugs should be made and distributed by the goverment, under doctor supervision. Addicts who pose a threat to the health of others, shall be, depending on severity, dealt with via well considered and structured policies ( which I don't have the inclination to dive deeply into here).

Of course the subject of mandates are going to be injected here: so, on that score....

I'm against making it illegal to refuse a vaccination. America has not gone that far.

But the virus poses a existential threat, and by that measure, mandates, as long as they give a choice, such as do or get tested, are acceptable, given the threat.

 

Two-thirds of Americans support Roe v. Wade.

 

Then you can't support what Abbott did in Texas.

 

RodB, when I'm responding to someone who is a republican, I respond to the generic republican, who do, indeed, believe that human life begins at conception. Not all republicans accept the convention among republicans, but those who don't, should tell us on the other side. Now, if that isn't you, fine, you told me and now I know. I take it, then, you support Roe v Wade?

But, on prohibition, that was precisely my point, and I brought that up precisely because of the fact that prohibition didn't stop liquor from being consumed, and that repealing R v W, similarly, won't stop abortion, it will just drive it underground.

 

Pro-lifers passed legislation declaring it murder because it wasn't considered murder before.

Try something else.

 

The Bible is not my authority, I can say anything about it I wish, as I am not bound by it.

 

You don't address the vast nuance of philosophy and it's inherit complexities by referring to a dictionary definition.

I repeat, a fetus is a biological life form, but the question of when it becomes a person, that is a philosophical one.

Your dictionary entry doesn't settle that point, nor will it ever.

.

 

It's pretty straight forward, it's a human life at conception, a human individual, a person. Yes a human at the fetus stage of life is a human biological life form just as you in your present stage of life are a human biological life form.

 

Then why were you quoting it to me?

 

Who said I do?

 

The issue came back around when Democrats realized that they were losing their grip on the Black vote and decided that they had to abort Black babies after a live birth. Northam articulated the Democrat position ,,, he wanted to have a "conversation" about the life of a clearly viable member of "mankind" who survived an attempted Margaret Sanger ritual murder.

It's fair to balance the rights of two beings, each with its own DNA, and consider whether one is totally dependent on the other for its existence. Once Democrats showed their hands, that is wasn't about the mother's rights, they opened the door to looking into the meaning of viability in 2021.

I would like to extend the conversation of viability to Democrats living on welfare. Are they viable members of mankind and , if so, why can't they live without infringing on the rights of taxpayers?

 

Agreed. Reincarnation and the soul are both religious concepts and have no place in a country that believes in the separation of Church and State. Move to Iran if you really want to be against abortion.

We don't allow murder because I don't want someone to murder ME. It's been almost a century since I was in a womb though so it's all good to me.

 

If its OK to kill a baby because its just going to be reincarnated, how is that different from killing anyone? I support abortion being totally legal btw, so thats not the problem I have with your argument. Rather, it seems to have the giant whole in it that it justifies all murder...

 

Well, in the USA a woman having a spontaneous abortion (AKA a a miscarriage) can be charged with manslaughter so what some TWONK of a judge decides has nothing really to do with reality

 

I go along with the concept behind Roe v. Wade, but do not support the supreme court's decision and ruling, not because of the opinion of when an abortion ought to be legal but because it was none of their damn business and they had no justification for such a ruling. It bothers me no end that some people think that just because they wear a black robe they can impose their ideas on people without recourse.

 

And vice versa?

Back to my point about women being charged for manslaughter when they have spontaneous abortions - is that fair or right?

 

Please, provide the Federal Legislation statute number to back this claim.

 

You were the one that brought up the Bible by falsely claiming that Jesus backed your belief in reincarnation. You are also the one that presented pervasive translations of verses from the Bible. Now, you want to deflect the issue by claiming it is not you authority? If it is not, then why did you bring it up?