roeVwade:Same-sex couples updating legal status after Supreme Court’s decision on abortion (Jay Reeves) [+CNN clip]

[XDel]

Out of the two of us, I hardly believe I'm the one being dishonest with myself. Although I understand the concept of religion and have made my peace with God, I don't need the morals of a time long dead to influence the person I am today. I have no one to answer to but myself, and you would not believe how liberating it is to have that. Hopefully you find yours one day.

You don't strike me as someone who has found peace. Quite the opposite in fact.

 

[TraderPatTX]

You don't strike me as someone who has found peace. Quite the opposite in fact.

I haven't seen Democrats this mad since their slaves were taken away from them.

 

[SyphenFreht]

You don't strike me as someone who has found peace. Quite the opposite in fact.

You come to the same platform I do and argue just as much. Are you peaceful?

I haven't seen Democrats this mad since their slaves were taken away from them.

Well now they're Republicans, so maybe do a better job of learning history and looking in the mirror?

 

[XDel]

You come to the same platform I do and argue just as much. Are you peaceful?

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. - Matthew 10:34-38

 

[SyphenFreht]

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. - Matthew 10:34-38

So you're a sword from God, sent to teach us heathens of our wicked ways? You must a prophet.

"...he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me"

Huh. So it seems to be that from now on, whenever a woman has an abortion, she should just declare that she's aborting it because she loves god more than her child. I appreciate you setting that precedent. At least now we know your virtues were earned at the hand of man, not by the word of god.

 

[TraderPatTX]

You come to the same platform I do and argue just as much. Are you peaceful?



Well now they're Republicans, so maybe do a better job of learning history and looking in the mirror?

George Wallace was a Democrat. His last term as governor was 1983-87. He was a segregationist until the day he died in 1998. Democrats controlled the South up until the 1990's. Learn history before spouting corporate media nonsense about a fairytale party switch that never happened.

 

[XDel]

So you're a sword from God, sent to teach us heathens of our wicked ways? You must a prophet.

"...he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me"

Huh. So it seems to be that from now on, whenever a woman has an abortion, she should just declare that she's aborting it because she loves god more than her child. I appreciate you setting that precedent. At least now we know your virtues were earned at the hand of man, not by the word of god.

You sure got a silly logic brother! No, the above quote was not me speaking obviously, as I was never a character in the Bible. Those are the words of Jesus. I thought you knew your Bible? Hmmm.

And obviously, if a woman loves God, she is not going to kill her baby, but rather take care of it as a child of God.

 

[SyphenFreht]

George Wallace was a Democrat. His last term as governor was 1983-87. He was a segregationist until the day he died in 1998. Democrats controlled the South up until the 1990's. Learn history before spouting corporate media nonsense about a fairytale party switch that never happened.

Great history lesson, doesn't add anything to the point you're trying to establish aside from the fact that you clearly have an issue with history.

https://www.livescience.com/34241-d...8QFnoECAgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3KxJQ-6es2P3adUHpRI6eP

https://history.house.gov/Exhibitio...eeping-the-Faith/Party-Realignment--New-Deal/

Here's a couple links you'll ignore because they blatantly disprove your attempt at propaganda and disinformation. If you want to continue this conversation about this topic any further, I implore you to start a new thread and tag me in it.

You uh, you do know how to do that, right?

 

[SyphenFreht]

You sure got a silly logic brother! No, the above quote was not me speaking obviously, as I was never a character in the Bible. Those are the words of Jesus. I thought you knew your Bible? Hmmm.

And obviously, if a woman loves God, she is not going to kill her baby, but rather take care of it as a child of God.

Do you know what the term facetious means?

Imagine blindly following a god to the point that you're willing to give up your or someone else's life to appease a man made God. If all life is precious in the eyes of god, then why does a woman's life weigh less than that of something that has yet to be a person? And if the potential of life is your answer, well...

"8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.”

9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother’s wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother.

10 And what he did was wicked in the sight of the LORD, and he put him to death also"

 

[TraderPatTX]

Great history lesson, doesn't add anything to the point you're trying to establish aside from the fact that you clearly have an issue with history.

https://www.livescience.com/34241-d...8QFnoECAgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3KxJQ-6es2P3adUHpRI6eP

https://history.house.gov/Exhibitio...eeping-the-Faith/Party-Realignment--New-Deal/

Here's a couple links you'll ignore because they blatantly disprove your attempt at propaganda and disinformation. If you want to continue this conversation about this topic any further, I implore you to start a new thread and tag me in it.

You uh, you do know how to do that, right?

You sent me a dead link and a link to a government website. You just proved my point above that you only believe the government and their corporate media lapdogs. I always enjoy it when the people I'm debating end up proving my points. Thanks, champ.

 

[XDel]

Do you know what the term facetious means?

Imagine blindly following a god to the point that you're willing to give up your or someone else's life to appease a man made God. If all life is precious in the eyes of god, then why does a woman's life weigh less than that of something that has yet to be a person? And if the potential of life is your answer, well...

"8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.”

9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother’s wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother.

10 And what he did was wicked in the sight of the LORD, and he put him to death also"

Onan put his will before God's will and was punished for it. That's the breaks. Cause and effect.

As for having a notion of God, I can't say that I read the Bible then formed my conceptions around that, but the other way around. I had my notions, experiences, and observations, then was introduced to the Bible. As I try to understand it more clearly and more than that, attempt to follow it, I have discovered that the path that it has laid out seems to only bring reward to my life, and when ever I find that I am not following it, I suffer because of it. And so, because of this and various other reasons, I have chosen to stick with it. After all, who am I and what do I know? I could avoid the Bible and bumble through by trial and error, knowing no thing for certain, not even why I hold the values I hold. That is the life of a lab rat and brings more trouble than it is worth. Besides, plenty of athiests and materialists have came before me and demonstrated that path and none of them ever moved me much or gave me something I could stand firmly on.

You know, the Chinese Communist Party prohibits any sort of religion among its members, because to have religion is to assume a personal notion of God, and to have a notion of God is to have a hierarchy of values, and if that hierarchy of values is not created, maintained, and monitored by the party, then they could become a threat to the party, therefore individualism is a big no no with the C.C.P. and on that note, I think they would have you on board.

 

[duelistjp]

as far as if interracial marriage is in the crosshairs with this, the answer is very possibly. although i doubt any state would ban them even if constitutional protections were removed. the original decision that said there was a constitutional right to such marriages based their decisions on the idea of substantive due process. the same principle that was used to decide gay marriage and roe v wade. the court decided in this decision that substantive due process has no place in judicial decisions which is why they talked about revisiting other cases that relied on it. if they do it would not surprise me to at least see a challenge to it heard if only to provide a different legal reasoning.

 

[SyphenFreht]

You sent me a dead link and a link to a government website. You just proved my point above that you only believe the government and their corporate media lapdogs. I always enjoy it when the people I'm debating end up proving my points. Thanks, champ.

I'm sorry, try this:

https://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html

So, you're using the fact that I used a government website to show you a history of said government? Even though you provided one link that was defunct and biased through Republican perspective to prove a Republican agenda that has never had any root in fact, and provided a bit about George Wallace that still has no link attached to it?

Did you want something more peer reviewed? Or better yet, let's look at Republican websites to find an accurate history, because even though you think I feel pedophilia is party alignment and that's silly, you apparently think only Republicans tell the truth and that's not hypocritical. Or naive.

"Corporate media lapdogs". As if Trump wasn't defrauding and bankrupting corporations himself before he became your God -president.

Good try tho. Wanna do better next time, champ?

Onan put his will before God's will and was punished for it. That's the breaks. Cause and effect.

Seems more like a issue with heirs than that, which also seems to be the only reason why god supposedly is against abortions, considering he views them more as property, at least during the first two trimesters. You know, before the breath of life and all.

As for having a notion of God, I can't say that I read the Bible then formed my conceptions around that, but the other way around. I had my notions, experiences, and observations, then was introduced to the Bible. As I try to understand it more clearly and more than that, attempt to follow it, I have discovered that the path that it has laid out seems to only bring reward to my life, and when ever I find that I am not following it, I suffer because of it. And so, because of this and various other reasons, I have chosen to stick with it. After all, who am I and what do I know? I could avoid the Bible and bumble through by trial and error, knowing no thing for certain, not even why I hold the values I hold. That is the life of a lab rat and brings more trouble than it is worth. Besides, plenty of athiests and materialists have came before me and demonstrated that path and none of them ever moved me much or gave me something I could stand firmly on.

You know Satan often hides in the guise of good intentions, right? Of course, you could argue the same to me, however I'm not about dehumanizing people in order to prove my god is better than you.

You know, the Chinese Communist Party prohibits any sort of religion among its members, because to have religion is to assume a personal notion of God, and to have a notion of God is to have a hierarchy of values, and if that hierarchy of values is not created, maintained, and monitored by the party, then they could become a threat to the party, therefore individualism is a big no no with the C.C.P. and on that note, I think they would have you on board.

Ah communism. The basis of Christianity and especially the Garden of Eden, where everyone is equal and subservient to the Lord himself.

You really don't know the Bible that well besides misinterpretation, do you?

 

[XDel]

I'm sorry, try this:

https://www.livescience.com/34241-democratic-republican-parties-switch-platforms.html

So, you're using the fact that I used a government website to show you a history of said government? Even though you provided one link that was defunct and biased through Republican perspective to prove a Republican agenda that has never had any root in fact, and provided a bit about George Wallace that still has no link attached to it?

Did you want something more peer reviewed? Or better yet, let's look at Republican websites to find an accurate history, because even though you think I feel pedophilia is party alignment and that's silly, you apparently think only Republicans tell the truth and that's not hypocritical. Or naive.

"Corporate media lapdogs". As if Trump wasn't defrauding and bankrupting corporations himself before he became your God -president.

Good try tho. Wanna do better next time, champ?



Seems more like a issue with heirs than that, which also seems to be the only reason why god supposedly is against abortions, considering he views them more as property, at least during the first two trimesters. You know, before the breath of life and all.



You know Satan often hides in the guise of good intentions, right? Of course, you could argue the same to me, however I'm not about dehumanizing people in order to prove my god is better than you.



Ah communism. The basis of Christianity and especially the Garden of Eden, where everyone is equal and subservient to the Lord himself.

You really don't know the Bible that well besides misinterpretation, do you?

1. The Trimester concept was created by the abortionists to defend their position and try to make some life seem less life like so as to dehumanize and make the baby into a "thing" that can be tossed away the same as any other "thing". The Bible never at any points talks about trimesters, nor does it refer to baby's as property, but as life. Hence the reason why the punishment for killing a pregnant woman's baby was a life for a life and not a monetary fine of some sort. You know this. Also I am sure that you are aware that the egg and sperm also require oxygen in order to survive, and again need I remind you that when I pulled out the John the Baptist quote, where in he receives the Holy Ghost aka Spirit in his mother's womb, that it is not referring to his spirit. The Holy Spirit is something else all together. Besides all babies receive their breath in the womb initially. BAD ARGUMENT!

2. But you are clearly dehumanizing babies and more than that, calling for their execution. I'd rather bruise someone's ego over killing a baby any day; besides everyone needs humbled a bit ever now and again else we never know the wrongs of our ways and thinking; we never learn, and never grow.

3. Their was a central Government in the garden of Eden which denounced God, controlled the distribution of goods, labor, and so forth?! Amazing! Can you please point me to the passages in Genesis that describe this?

 

[SyphenFreht]

1. The Trimester concept was created by the abortionists to defend their position and try to make some life seem less life like so as to dehumanize and make the baby into a "thing" that can be tossed away the same as any other "thing". The Bible never at any points talks about trimesters, nor does it refer to baby's as property, but as life. Hence the reason why the punishment for killing a pregnant woman's baby was a life for a life and not a monetary fine of some sort. You know this. Also I am sure that you are aware that the egg and sperm also require oxygen in order to survive, and again need I remind you that when I pulled out the John the Baptist quote, where in he receives the Holy Ghost aka Spirit in his mother's womb, that it is not referring to his spirit. The Holy Spirit is something else all together. Besides all babies receive their breath in the womb initially. BAD ARGUMENT!

Um, your point about trimesters is completely made up and false. But so is religion, so...

You're still inferring based upon loosely translated text to cherry pick points to align with. Even if I were to submit to the argument that the baby is not property, you're still implying that the life of the baby is worth more than that of the mother. That happens to be the only mention of pregnancy termination in the Bible, and still places the life of the mother as no less than equally important to that of the baby in question.

2. But you are clearly dehumanizing babies and more than that, calling for their execution. I'd rather bruise someone's ego over killing a baby any day; besides everyone needs humbled a bit ever now and again else we never know the wrongs of our ways and thinking; we never learn, and never grow.

At what point does a baby become human? When it's still a clump of cells? When it develops brain activity? When it can breathe on it's own? You want to equate conception with fully formed human life, which is disingenuous at best, as you're implying that it takes two things that are not life to create life. If your stance is that life begins at conception, then you're implying that every mother is God because they take things that aren't alive and breathing life into them. So which is it?

3. Their was a central Government in the garden of Eden which denounced God, controlled the distribution of good, labor, and so forth?! Amazing! Can you please point me to the passages in Genesis that describe this?

Do you know what the basic idea of communism is, or can you only describe it in terms of politics?

Yes, yes, class war and equitable rights over property and such, but the mentality behind it is that all people are equal in the eyes of the greater society, which is the basic mentality behind Christianity and the Garden of Eden, in which all people have to be on equitable footing in order to coexist in peace. There can be no hierarchy in the Garden, as only God can exist at the highest level. Strip both concepts of any political affiliation, and you have the same mentality.

 

[XDel]

Um, your point about trimesters is completely made up and false. But so is religion, so...

You're still inferring based upon loosely translated text to cherry pick points to align with. Even if I were to submit to the argument that the baby is not property, you're still implying that the life of the baby is worth more than that of the mother. That happens to be the only mention of pregnancy termination in the Bible, and still places the life of the mother as no less than equally important to that of the baby in question.



At what point does a baby become human? When it's still a clump of cells? When it develops brain activity? When it can breathe on it's own? You want to equate conception with fully formed human life, which is disingenuous at best, as you're implying that it takes two things that are not life to create life. If your stance is that life begins at conception, then you're implying that every mother is God because they take things that aren't alive and breathing life into them. So which is it?



Do you know what the basic idea of communism is, or can you only describe it in terms of politics?

Yes, yes, class war and equitable rights over property and such, but the mentality behind it is that all people are equal in the eyes of the greater society, which is the basic mentality behind Christianity and the Garden of Eden, in which all people have to be on equitable footing in order to coexist in peace. There can be no hierarchy in the Garden, as only God can exist at the highest level. Strip both concepts of any political affiliation, and you have the same mentality.

At this point I can't read any of your responses without thinking of Wimp Lo from the movie Kung Pow. So from now on, I dub thee Wimp Lo.

 

[Esjay131]

1. The Trimester concept was created by the abortionists to defend their position and try to make some life seem less life like so as to dehumanize and make the baby into a "thing" that can be tossed away the same as any other "thing". The Bible never at any points talks about trimesters, nor does it refer to baby's as property, but as life. Hence the reason why the punishment for killing a pregnant woman's baby was a life for a life and not a monetary fine of some sort. You know this. Also I am sure that you are aware that the egg and sperm also require oxygen in order to survive, and again need I remind you that when I pulled out the John the Baptist quote, where in he receives the Holy Ghost aka Spirit in his mother's womb, that it is not referring to his spirit. The Holy Spirit is something else all together. Besides all babies receive their breath in the womb initially. BAD ARGUMENT!

2. But you are clearly dehumanizing babies and more than that, calling for their execution. I'd rather bruise someone's ego over killing a baby any day; besides everyone needs humbled a bit ever now and again else we never know the wrongs of our ways and thinking; we never learn, and never grow.

3. Their was a central Government in the garden of Eden which denounced God, controlled the distribution of goods, labor, and so forth?! Amazing! Can you please point me to the passages in Genesis that describe this?

Trimesters are because OBs have categorized fetal development. Fetuses aren't babies. The bible is a work of fiction written by man.

 

[XDel]

Trimesters are because OBs have categorized fetal development. Fetuses aren't babies. The bible is a work of fiction written by man.

OK, in response to Wimp Lo Jr.
For what purpose were the stages of development divided into three trimesters may I ask? What is the origin story behind that?

And if trimesters are categories of fetal development, then what are they developing into? It doesn't just magically transform from a non-baby into a baby because someone came along and assigned a theoretical classification in a desperate attempt to keep their conscious clear. For instance, if I were to kill a pregnant woman, no matter what "trimester" she was in, I would be charged with double homicide. So why could I not just tell the judge that he has no place judging anyone because the Bible says so (allegedly) first and foremost, and further more why should I be charged with double homicide let alone a single homicide when clearly the mother and her baby are both just clumps of cells. In fact we are all clumps of cells.


All books, records, etc. have been written by humanity, so by your logic I must presume that they are all wrong?

Note in how this medical video they continue to refer to the baby as a baby.

 

[TraderPatTX]

Trimesters are because OBs have categorized fetal development. Fetuses aren't babies. The bible is a work of fiction written by man.

Fetuses are babies in a particular location. There's no magic portal where a bundle of cells transforms into a fully formed infant during birth. For being the "Party of Science", you people really hate science.

 

[Iamapirate]

Tell me you're twelve without telling me you're twelve. Abortions are necessary even in several situations where the fetus is already dead (miscarriages).

You respond to fact with insults and name calling. Prove it wrong. Prove that most abortions *aren't* convenient abortions of a viable fetus.