A great first step to ending Abortion!

LV426 said:
USFREEDOM911

Yeah, that doesn't scream "I'm a foreigner posing as an American."
Click to expand...

Look, I'm sorry you were raped and that your religious family refused to allow you to get an abortion; but is it really fair for you to now despise all children, just because the child you carried lived??

:facepalm:
 
Wolverine said:
There is a human being present at conception, oh and as USUAL your interpretation of the Bible is skewed.

https://abort73.com/abortion/does_the_bible_prescribe_abortion/
The first problem with this assumption is the same one that plagues those trying to make similar use of Exodus 21:22-25. Namely, the normal word for miscarriage is not used. The reason some translators have tied this strange turn of phrase to pregnancy is because of the declaration in verse 28. If the woman is innocent, the text states, she will be free of all guilt and able to have children. Clearly, one of the curses being prescribed to the adulterous woman is barrenness. Whether or not that includes the miscarriage of a child conceived through adultery is less certain.

What we can be sure of is that this passage in no way justifies abortion. If a miscarriage has taken place, it is because God decreed and executed it, not because the priest gave the adulterous woman an abortifacient. Dirty water does not end a pregnancy. The curse was not in the water itself, but in the judgment of God. If God determines that the penalty for adultery is the the loss of the resulting child, that is his prerogative and well within his authority. He did as much in claiming the life of David and Bathsheba’s first child. As it says in Revelation 1:18, God holds the keys of Death and Hades. We do not share that same authority—even when the circumstances of conception are suspect. The lineage of Christ was marred by nothing less than fornicators, adulterers, prostitutes, and rapists.3 While that doesn’t make such behavior any less wicked, it certainly indicates that children conceived out of sexual immorality are no less valuable. God is at work in every conception—even those that begin as a result of rape or adultery.
Click to expand...
The usual flimflam that we see when the Bible says something that the 'faithful' don't want to believe.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
gfm7175 said:
SCOTUS does not have legislative powers; Congress does. See Articles 1 and 3...

Congress doesn't have power to legislate on abortion. See Article 1 Section 8...

The States created the Federal Government, not the other way around... The States hold all power that the Federal Government does not hold (or wasn't delegated to them) [including abortion legislation]. See Amendment 10...
Click to expand...

SCOTUS did not legislate. They simply set up constitutional boundaries that the states and legislatures are bound by.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
gfm7175 said:
It is telling states that they cannot ban abortion (that there must be legal access to it). Neither SCOTUS nor Congress has the power to decide such a matter like that, per Articles 1 and 3... It is yet another usurping of power from the states...
Click to expand...

SCOTUS is the sole interpreter of the Constitution. The states are just as limited by the Constitution as the federal government is.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
gfm7175 said:
No, I don't. I just want you to stop murdering unborn children and/or allowing the murdering of unborn children.
Click to expand...
You clearly have your own definition of "murder", independent of law and even the Bible.


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
gfm7175 said:
No one, but you're still missing the point... I am being forced to accept that murdering unborn children is perfectly fine. My choice to live in a state which bans it has been taken away by roe v wade...

That's the problem with legislating morality on a national level (unconstitutionally, I might add) rather than on a state level.
Click to expand...

There was no legislating. What there was was constitutional interpretation. You clearly don't understand, and don't want to understand, how things work.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
LV426 said:
Gun control
Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with "the sanctity of life". Gun control is about denying the law-abiding the best means of defending life because of acute paranoia about an Inanimate object.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
gfm7175 said:
#1 - First off, they are not free. Somebody pays for them and puts the time into making them. Nothing in this life is "free"... Secondly, if one can't afford to FEED their kid, let alone anything else for their kid, then they probably shouldn't have a kid. With that said, I'm fine with this sort of thing being supported through charity, rather than compulsion.

#2 - I'm fine with the idea itself, but not with the federal government's involvement with it. I would also rather it be more of a charitable thing, rather than through compulsion.

#3 - I'm fine with the idea itself, but not on a federal level. I would even likely oppose it on a state level, as I would instead support this sort of thing being implemented through charity rather than compulsion.

#4 - This violates the 2nd Amendment, so I do not support it. It also violates my inherent right to self-defense. People take lives from other people, not guns, not knives, not any object...

#5 - I only support the death penalty in quite extreme cases, where there is no chance of remorse from the person for whatever reason. I want the life to be saved, and I want the conscience of that person to be "fixed", but if that person is deemed a major threat to other people's lives beyond the point of repair, then it is better for that threat to be alleviated.
Click to expand...
If you only support such things through charity, then you really don't support them at all. That seems to be the norm for pro-lifers, care about the life until birth, but after that, it's on its own, somebody else's problem.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
LV426 said:
Learn karate.




You don't want to protect children from guns.

So enough with this "sanctity of life" bullshit.
Click to expand...

It's your lot, with stupid measures like gun free school zones, that doesn't want to protect children. All you care about is your paranoia about guns. Children were a lot safer back when every child was raised in a gun culture and was taught about guns from an early age.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
LV426 said:
Children gunned down in schools aren't innocent?

You would go so far as to control women to protect fetuses, but you won't control guns to protect actual children.
Click to expand...
Guns don't cause children to be gunned down in schools. Your stupid gun control laws have only made that worse. We need to research what motivates these killers. But you gun paranoid control freaks oppose worthwhile research because it doesn't put the blame on guns.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
LV426 said:
Right...guns aren't the problem, people are.

So why do you want to give the problem guns?
Click to expand...
Because people with guns also prevent crime and protect lives. Your delusional laws just make them into easier victims, while not affecting the criminals and killers at all.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
LV426 said:
No, that is called conjecture.

No one would be able to stab 56 people and wound almost a thousand with a knife.
Click to expand...
No, but they could do, and have done, even more damage with bombs or even just a can of gasoline.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top