Abortions and the bible.

#676
#676
mrmax86 said:
This is the dangerous part of what you said...this is the slippery slope down which so many people fall. It's used to justify all sorts of horrible things. For many of us, we think the government sided with allowing murder, by allowing abortion. So the government has now allowed murder of pre-born people, but outlawed it post-birth. No matter what, in half of citizens' minds, the government is "involved in it" no matter which way the law is written.
Click to expand...

Reversing Roe vs. Wade would kick the decision back down to the states.

T-TownVol said:
If they try to pass it as law.
Click to expand...

It just might happen soon enough. Muahahahahaha

superdave1984 said:
This will happen within 20 years I predict. Along with knocking off the elderly and special needs kids. Probably those who generationally live off the government teat too. Healthcare is already moving in that direction. Costs are or will be higher for anyone who does not meet their arbitrary standard of weight to height ratio or is a smoker or whatever. I am not sure we will have a "Logan's Run" society, but it won't be far away from it.
Click to expand...

I think you figured out why I was actually arguing for Eugenics. This is a borderline guarantee for a Medicare for All type programs.
 
#681
#681
Abortions and the bible.

Republican Vermont Gov. Phil Scott intends to allow a comprehensive abortion rights bill to become law, as other states led by Republican governors across the nation work to restrict the procedure.
Bill H.57, which passed both thestate House and Senate earlier this year, would "recognize as a fundamental right the freedom of reproductive choice" and "prohibit public entities from interfering with or restricting the right of an individual to terminate the individual's pregnancy." The measure would also protect "rights to choose or refuse contraception or sterilization or to choose to carry a pregnancy to term, to give birth to a child, or to obtain an abortion." Vermont -- where both state house chambers are controlled by Democrats -- currently does not restrict abortion.
 
#683
#683
luthervol said:
Abortions and the bible.

Republican Vermont Gov. Phil Scott intends to allow a comprehensive abortion rights bill to become law, as other states led by Republican governors across the nation work to restrict the procedure.
Bill H.57, which passed both thestate House and Senate earlier this year, would "recognize as a fundamental right the freedom of reproductive choice" and "prohibit public entities from interfering with or restricting the right of an individual to terminate the individual's pregnancy." The measure would also protect "rights to choose or refuse contraception or sterilization or to choose to carry a pregnancy to term, to give birth to a child, or to obtain an abortion." Vermont -- where both state house chambers are controlled by Democrats -- currently does not restrict abortion.
Click to expand...
Lol "freedom of reproductive choice".

A.K.A. "Freedom to murder your offspring"
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#684
#684
luthervol said:
Abortions and the bible.

Republican Vermont Gov. Phil Scott intends to allow a comprehensive abortion rights bill to become law, as other states led by Republican governors across the nation work to restrict the procedure.
Bill H.57, which passed both thestate House and Senate earlier this year, would "recognize as a fundamental right the freedom of reproductive choice" and "prohibit public entities from interfering with or restricting the right of an individual to terminate the individual's pregnancy." The measure would also protect "rights to choose or refuse contraception or sterilization or to choose to carry a pregnancy to term, to give birth to a child, or to obtain an abortion." Vermont -- where both state house chambers are controlled by Democrats -- currently does not restrict abortion.
Click to expand...

How else does an R stay governor of a D state?
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#687
#687
Roustabout said:
There is no biological demarcation to designate a human a “person.” None.
Click to expand...

Because it isn't a biological question. To some it is conception, to some it is birth, to some it is a heartbeat. Personally, brain activity and synapses firing probably would be where I stand. I'm only certain it isn't at conception and it absolutely is at nine months.

Biology can explain and provide milestones to the biological lifecycle from conception to birth. No disagreement there.

Roustabout said:
I really can’t give any credence to your analogy. The prenatal period is inseparable to ANY human being. You cannot draw a line and arbitrarily define a person. A person cannot be a person without their prenatal period. Again, inseparable.
Click to expand...

Who said it was arbitrary? I've defined very clearly what I consider the difference between a person and a fertilized egg is.

Roustabout said:
Again, any death of a person takes their potential. Period, end of story. I wonder how you would view an expectant mother who smokes and drinks.
Click to expand...

I have said nothing that disagrees with this. I've only added that death is taking a life as well. You stated the only thing being taken is potential:

Roustabout said:
When any born person dies, the ONLY thing that is taken is their potential.
Pregnancy is much more than a “chance.” LOL
Click to expand...

I read this as a person is only what there potential is? I can't express how much I disagree with this statement. The bottom line is a person is being taken too. It isn't ONLY potential.
 
#688
#688
Burger said:
Reversing Roe vs. Wade would kick the decision back down to the states.

It just might happen soon enough. Muahahahahaha
Click to expand...

Be careful what you ask for. Might possibly be the greatest thing that could happen to the DNC. Most Americans don't value federalism.
 
#692
#692
VolStrom said:
So why would anyone be be afraid? You act like people from all over the country believe just like you do?
Click to expand...

Be afraid of what? I don't think people believe what I believe. I value federalism, I don't think Americans in general do. Many pay it lip service, but when push comes to shove, they want things done at the federal level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#693
#693
rjd970 said:
Because it isn't a biological question. To some it is conception, to some it is birth, to some it is a heartbeat. Personally, brain activity and synapses firing probably would be where I stand. I'm only certain it isn't at conception and it absolutely is at nine months.

Biology can explain and provide milestones to the biological lifecycle from conception to birth. No disagreement there.
Click to expand...
Our brain activity changes when we sleep. I don’t think you are less human when you are sleeping.
If you had a heart attack are you saying we shouldn’t attempt to revive you? It’s not hard to poke holes in this, although I do appreciate you sharing your ideas.


Who said it was arbitrary? I've defined very clearly what I consider the difference between a person and a fertilized egg is.
Click to expand...
I don’t think it’s clear at all. It’s just your opinion. Agian, there is no essence called personhood.


I have said nothing that disagrees with this. I've only added that death is taking a life as well. You stated the only thing being taken is potential:
Click to expand...
No, I said when anyone dies (born or otherwise) the ONLY thing being taken is potential. The future reality.

I read this as a person is only what there potential is? I can't express how much I disagree with this statement. The bottom line is a person is being taken too. It isn't ONLY potential.
Click to expand...
That is why my argument sticks to facts and not opinion. There is no objective criteria by which you can define personhood. I don’t argue for personhood at all. I don’t believe humans have inherent rights either. I believe humans have value and we establish rights based on that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
#694
#694
volfanjustin said:
Somber Tweet of Deceased Fetus Ignites Abortionists to Respond With Vile, Hateful Comments
Click to expand...

9 weeks. 9....weeks. for the liberals too lazy to click the link. Not even though the 1st trimester. Clump of cells??? Thats a little human. I have had 2. My mom had 37 foster babies. I know a baby when i see one.

Thats a baby. 9 weeks. "Clump of cells"

Denial aint just a river in Egypt. Baby killers. Period. God doesnt think thats a clump of cells, His word proves it. All will stand before Him and give an account. Myself included. I have never harmed or killed any women or children though, thankfully.

"Her body, her decision."

Does this look like HER BODY to you??? Thats 9 freakin weeks people. Yall some sick bastages to play stupid and go along with the massmurder of 60 million undoubtedly innocent babies.

Dont force your lies on me.

"He who has eyes? Let him see."


Screenshot_20190522-200143_Chrome.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrmax86, Matt2496, Roustabout and 1 other person
#695
#695
9 weeks. Look at that picture. I cried. Thats about how old the baby was, Hope, my daughter, when she was rupturing my wifes fallopian tube . We lost the baby. I lost my daughter...my 2nd daughter. I had never seen a picture, color photo, of a baby that age. I immediately thought of Hope. How anyone can call that just a clump if cells, i have no idea. I believe that recorded history will not be kind to those who murder the unborn, any more than they are to any other genocide against those lucky enough to be born
 
#696
#696
Burger said:
Yep. Reversing Roe vs. Wade does not make abortion illegal. It will turn it back into a State's Rights issue which is should be.
Click to expand...
Roe v Wade would not grant the unborn child fourteenth amendment protections as a human being. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 explicitly grants the unborn child human status and thus fourteenth amendment protections at conception.

The federal government can’t keep their own arguments straight and should be quiet on the whole matter and kick it back to the states.

But... roe is the incumbent. It’s going to be interesting to watch unfold.
 
#697
#697
The minute conception occurs its a life....If it's not alive, then why do you have to kill it? Abortion is murder. Left alone the baby will grow and thrive in utero eventually to be born.
Some have lost the value of presciousness of life. I still value it.
JMO...
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, 82_VOL_83 and mrmax86
#698
#698
I've experienced miscarriages from most every perspective a man can. In every instance it was not viewed as the death of a child but as a lost pregnancy. (None were past the 4 month mark)
 
#699
#699
Here's my question, if it's considered illegal to kill certain animals, why is it not illegal to kill a developing baby? Is human life not more valuable than a freaking animal?
 
#700
#700
Septic said:
Maybe you're right, perhaps the second DNA profile should be set free immediately. Or maybe we could mind our own business.
Click to expand...

If the woman was killing herself, id mind my own business. Killing unborn babies shouldnt be a choice. And the whole "its her body" argument is stupid. Its not just her body, take a look at abortion pics where the babys torn apart legs,arms,torso lay arranged on a table and tell me whose body is being affected.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top