Is abortion ok

[Rthur]

I'm not reaching and you didn't mention slavery.

I thought you were paying attention to the other posts so apologies for the slavery joke whizzing by.

The question was genuine in case you have something more than hyperbole to back it up. Unless you're telling me your claim about unwed parental rights of unborn children was meant to be a strawman.

I *think* it's the 14th amendment that protects parental rights but I believe unborn children are specifically excluded from those protections.

I would genuinely like to know where the rights of an unwed sperm donor over an unborn child are spelled out and if they extend to in vitro fertilizations.

You would fancy yourself an intellectual.
You would think after many mentions in my previous posts you'd see I'm not referencing the less than adequate equality enjoyed on fathering an unborn delivered by the law.
If you'd get your, possibly sheep skin hanging, head out of your ass you'd realize where most of the ideals in the constitution/bill of rights
originated from.
Your vagina must still be sore when I previously taunted you.
Run along and try to troll another.

R

 

[Skeptic1]

He is absolutely GUILTY and if not for the blood of Jesus I would certainly burn for it.
Hardest thing I've ever done was learn to accept his forgiveness and then to forgive myself.

 

[AmmoFort]

I never at all said abortion is fine.

I've stated very plainly multiple times I would counsel family members against abortion.

If I haven't said it in this thread or recently I'll say again I don't believe a zygote, embryo or fetus to a certain point is a "person" and termination of a pregnancy at any of these stages should not constitute murder.

I have at least implied, if not stated clearly, anyone who says they believe a zygote is a person and all abortions are murders but doesn't push for legislation to investigate absolutely every miscarriage as a potential murder is a hypocrite.

Abortions are big business. Miscarriages are not. There is a follow the money angle and a Eugenics/satanic deal as well.

Baby, Zygote, Embryo, Fetus. Only one of these are an actual thing. The rest are made up to confuse people. If you want to say it is a certain stage of development, go right ahead. But the entire process is the development of a human baby. It doesn't magically become a baby at some time period. It already was one.

Your attitude and how you think about this topic is perfectly acceptable to the death cult. Think about it.

 

[quietmike]

I never at all said abortion is fine.

If I haven't said it in this thread or recently I'll say again I don't believe a zygote, embryo or fetus to a certain point is a "person" and termination of a pregnancy at any of these stages should not constitute murder.

You don't see the duplicity in making these two statements in the same post.
One of us understands the difference in malum prohibitum and malum in se.

 

[doubloon]

You would fancy yourself an intellectual.
....

R

Not at all, just a seeker.

If your ideas can't hold up to scrutiny I understand. A lot of people have no idea why they believe what they believe. They just believe what other people tell them to believe.

 

[quietmike]

I either missed it or don't understand the reference similar to "the slaves are not people so it's OK for the democrats to kill them" clause so help me out.

Once more you feign ignorance in understanding that before every genocide the targeted group is legally dehumanized.

Specifically which part of the constitution or bill of rights or amendments thereof spell out these rights?

The constitution doesn't grant rights it only recognizes them. The fact that the 9th exists should dispell your disillusions.

 

[doubloon]

Baby, Zygote, Embryo, Fetus. Only one of these are an actual thing. The rest are made up to confuse people

Yeah, science can do that to people.

 

[quietmike]

Yeah, science can do that to people.

Science says since a unique DNA strand has been created that produces cells that can split and replicate, a new and distinct life has been created. Since a fetus has different DNA and blood type with mom, and during pregnancy a mom's decidua produces special cytokines that biochemically hides the fetus from mom's immune system, lest it be attacked and killed as as invader should tell you everything you should know.

 

[doubloon]

You don't see the duplicity in making these two statements in the same post.
One of us understands the difference in malum prohibitum and malum in se.

None at all. What laws are passed to govern man and how I live my life are two separate things. It's not my job nor is it even possible for me to save other people.

 

[doubloon]

Science says since a unique DNA

I never said anything about DNA or DNA not being unique. I said not a person.

 

[quietmike]

None at all. What laws are passed to govern man and how I live my life are two separate things. It's not my job nor is it even possible for me to save other people.

Then Jesus asked them, “Would anyone light a lamp and then put it under a basket or under a bed? Of course not! A lamp is placed on a stand, where its light will shine. Mark 4:21

 

[quietmike]

I never said anything about DNA or DNA not being unique. I said not a person.

This is where you declare you're stupidity. Unique DNA nessisarily means a different person.

 

[doubloon]

Once more you feign ignorance in understanding that before every genocide the targeted group is legally dehumanized.

The constitution doesn't grant rights it only recognizes them. The fact that the 9th exists should dispell your disillusions.

The words "ok to kill slaves" doesn't appear anywhere. You're just hijacking tax legislation to bolster some oblique argument.

Surprise! The government wrote the 9th. You have absolutely no rights not granted by or protected by the government except those you take and keep by force. Without government framework and protection you have all the same rights as a gazelle on the African plains.

 

[quietmike]

The words "ok to kill slaves" doesn't appear anywhere. You're just hijacking tax legislation to bolster some oblique argument.

Surprise! The government wrote the 9th. You have absolutely no rights not granted by or protected by the government except those you take and keep by force. Without government framework and protection you have all the same rights as a gazelle on the African plains.

You stupid ignorant fool. The constitution doesn't grant rights it only recoginzes rights that are inherent. You should go to Lowes or Hope Depot and buy an axe handle and use it to beat your mom until she she shits down both legs for raising you so poorly. I'd tell you to do the same to your dad, but the stats say you have no clue who he is.

 

[doubloon]

This is where you declare you're stupidity. Unique DNA nessisarily means a different person.

It means potentially a different person where fertilized eggs are concerned. It is a developing person until it can function on its own. A fertilized chicken egg is not a chicken ... yet.

A single person can have multiple DNA, does that "nessisarily means a different person" and they are two people? I don't think so.

Conjoined twins have identical DNA, does that "nessisarily means NOT a different person"? I don't think so.

Your brilliance is shining so bright I can hardly focus on my keyboard.

 

[doubloon]

The constitution doesn't grant rights it only recoginzes rights that are inherent.

Bwahahahahahah ... go exercise those rights in N. Korea and let me know how it goes.

 

[quietmike]

It means potentially a different person where fertilized eggs are concerned. It is a developing person until it can function on its own. A fertilized chicken egg is not a chicken ... yet.

If i destroy a bald or golden eagle zygote, I'll end up in a federal court facing decades of prison. Tell me how a bird egg is elevated over a human.

 

[quietmike]

Bwahahahahahah ... go exercise those rights in N. Korea and let me know how it goes.

We're not in North Korea you blithering idoit.

 

[quietmike]

It is a developing person until it can function on its own.

Tell me why 66% of the federal budget goes to entitlement spending, programs which fund people who are ostensibly adults who supposedly can't survive w/o feeding off of others.
The taxpayers have been required to use their bodies to support others for decades.

 

[doubloon]

You stupid ignorant fool. The constitution doesn't grant rights it only recoginzes rights that are inherent. ...

We're not in North Korea you blithering idoit.

Exactly, thank you for illustrating and supporting my point. Your "inherent rights" don't exist without government blessing and protection, or "recognition" as you say, except for those you can take and keep by force.

Tell me why 66% of the federal budget goes to entitlement spending, programs which fund people who are ostensibly adults who supposedly can't survive w/o feeding off of others.
The taxpayers have been required to use their bodies to support others for decades.

Because people voted for the legislation and budget to support those programs ... duh. Here again is an example where you don't have the right to not support things you don't believe in or not support people who don't deserve it. You don't have the right not to help them. The Amish have that right.

But you should be happy about this one right? Because isn't helping the poor the morally superior position? It's the morally right thing to do and that's a good thing right?

If i destroy a bald or golden eagle zygote, I'll end up in a federal court facing decades of prison. Tell me how a bird egg is elevated over a human.

Laws is how, legislation and regulation.

I'll take your word for the eagle egg but I don't know why it would be just the eagle egg. Without researching it, I assume the migratory bird act protects the eggs of hundreds of species. And, for the most part, you can't even take wild game to feed your family without paying tax and getting a permit to hunt or fish on the king's land.

And don't be fooled, all the land is the king's land. Even where and how you piss and shit in a national forest is regulated. Try not paying taxes (rent) on property you think you "own" and find out how long the government allows you to keep it.

Thanks for yet another illustration of how you have all the freedoms the government allows you to keep.

We are a nation of laws not morals not emo rhetoric and not sound bites. Although some laws do get passed which seem to be rooted in emo rhetoric and sound bites and some laws parallel certain moralities .... legality and morality are not the same thing.

You tend to conflate a bunch of things together that don't support each other as if it's proof of something without ever making an actual point. I still have no idea what you were trying to prove with the "Legally Blonde" quotes.

Returning to the original topic.

Abortion is not "fine". Terminating a pregnancy up to a certain point of development is not murder.

 

[quietmike]

But you should be happy about this one right? Because isn't helping the poor the morally superior position? It's the morally right thing to do and that's a good thing right?

Helping is laughable. Ask any attorney or judge what percentage of sentencing reports they have read where the defendant comes from a stable two parent home.
Once more one of us understands the difference in helping and enabling.

You tend to conflate a bunch of things together that don't support each other as if it's proof of something without ever making an actual point. I still have no idea what you were trying to prove with the "Legally Blonde" quotes.

I'll be generous and assume you're just playing dumb here. If you're too stupid to not actually understand legal dehumanization precedes every genocide and truly believe this group is functionally different than the next, you're beyond hope.

 

[doubloon]

Helping is laughable. Ask any attorney or judge what percentage of sentencing reports they have read where the defendant comes from a stable two parent home.
Once more one of us understands the difference in helping and enabling.

I'll be generous and assume you're just playing dumb here. If you're too stupid to not actually understand legal dehumanization precedes every genocide and truly believe this group is functionally different than the next, you're beyond hope.

Your head is so far up your own ass it's tickling your tonsils.

You think you're "enlightened" because you "think" you're the only one who sees the "big picture" behind the "conspiracy".

Forest <> trees <> bushes <> leaves on the bushes <> window screen <> dirt on the window screen <> you, thinking you see something nobody else sees

You're a one trick pony. The only thing you talk about in any thread is "welfare" and "anarchy" and "slaves" and "OH THE HUMANITY " ... but never with any real content, just tropes and sound bites.

Well, that and just throwing random insults at people and calling them names.

Let me know when you think you might be able to actually stay on topic for at least one, maybe two posts.

 

[quietmike]

Your head is so far up your own ass it's tickling your tonsils.

You think you're "enlightened" because you "think" you're the only one who sees the "big picture" behind the "conspiracy".

Forest <> trees <> bushes <> leaves on the bushes <> window screen <> dirt on the window screen <> you, thinking you see something nobody else sees

Let me know when you think you might be able to actually stay on topic for at least one, maybe two posts.

So you can claim you don't understand, yet again?

 

[doubloon]

So you can claim you don't understand, yet again?

 

[Haney]

This is where you declare you're stupidity. Unique DNA nessisarily means a different person.

Spelling matters if you are declaring someone stupid .

 

[Haney]

 

[quietmike]

View attachment 8311711

When past democrats were told it was wrong to horse whip a lazy slave or hang a rebellious one, they were almost universally told that by people who didn't even have a slave.

 

[quietmike]

https://images.uncyclomedia.co/uncyclopedia/en/8/85/Microcephaly.gif

 

[mkollman74]

Exodus gave clear instructions on the protocol for buying and releasing slaves but whatev.

I gave legality (codified law) as the only earthly standard that matters when it comes to men judging and punishing other men(women, children,whatev).

Its a long read, but you seem like a guy who will dig in... https://bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/slavery-in-the-bible-25/

 

[quietmike]

Its a long read, but you seem like a guy who will dig in... https://bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/slavery-in-the-bible-25/

He's too dumb to understand the correlation of slaves having no rights and the unborn having no rights.

 

[doubloon]

Its a long read, but you seem like a guy who will dig in... https://bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/slavery-in-the-bible-25/

I'll take a look. Some of those articles make leaps in logic by presuming some unsubstantiated references to be fact.

 

[doubloon]

He's too dumb to understand the correlation of slaves having no rights and the unborn having no rights.

 

[quietmike]

Now you're getting repetitive.

https://images.uncyclomedia.co/uncyclopedia/en/8/85/Microcephaly.gif

 

[doubloon]

Now you're getting repetitive.

https://images.uncyclomedia.co/uncyclopedia/en/8/85/Microcephaly.gif

 

[quietmike]

Did you go to Lowes or Home Depot to buy that axe handle?

 

[doubloon]

Its a long read, but you seem like a guy who will dig in... https://bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/slavery-in-the-bible-25/

OK so you asked "when slavery was legal it was OK?" to which I answered "according to the bible 100%" where you replied "fallacy" and I said "Exodus gave clear instructions ...".

Then you provided this link that attempts to explain the legality and procedures of buying/acquiring and keeping slaves as documented in the bible, specifically Exodus which I mentioned previously.

He even explicitly says "slaves were viewed as the property of heads of households".

Is your fallacy claim on the "100%"? You think it should be more like 90% or 80%?

 

[mkollman74]

OK so you asked "when slavery was legal it was OK?" to which I answered "according to the bible 100%" where you replied "fallacy" and I said "Exodus gave clear instructions ...".

Then you provided this link that attempts to explain the legality and procedures of buying/acquiring and keeping slaves as documented in the bible, specifically Exodus which I mentioned previously.

He even explicitly says "slaves were viewed as the property of heads of households".

Is your fallacy claim on the "100%"? You think it should be more like 90% or 80%?

I guess the point is that the servitude described in the Bible is not directly equivalent to the chattel slavery of the African slave trade that I assume you were referencing. You must look at the subject in its cultural context. From a more theological perspective, I tend to think that the purpose of the law was not to prescribe an archetype for purely moral behavior, but a set of pragmatic regulations designed to protect Israel (God's chosen people), and show them how hopeless it was to try and please God through works. God's efforts are not political nor legal in nature. He is not a social reformer. His efforts as described holistically in the Biblical text are an effort to change men's hearts.

 

[doubloon]

I guess the point is that the servitude described in the Bible is not directly equivalent to the chattel slavery

I know that and I was not comparing the two, only pointing out that slavery was OK within the defined laws (when legal) of the bible.

Sure, a lot of time can be pointlessly wasted by arguing, as the author does, the slavery laws of the bible were more "humane" but even then it would not currently be acceptable in the united states. Better slavery is still slavery and still wrong but it's still very legal in a number of countries.

You must look at the subject in its cultural context.

Which is very much a way of saying morality is subjective and fluid.

People will go to great lengths to justify or rationalize away unacceptable or deplorable behavior/standards/punishments in the bible saying things like "well god only had good intentions and we don't do that anymore so it's OK". Then they will turn around and permanently clench their panties over what the united states did as a nation to the indians and the japanese when it was trying to protect its "chosen people".

It's hypocritical.

the purpose of the law was not to prescribe an archetype for purely moral behavior, but a set of pragmatic regulations designed to protect Israel (God's chosen people), and show them how hopeless it was to try and please God through works. God's efforts are not political nor legal in nature.

I'm trying to parse this sentence. You talk about law and regulations with a purpose to protect Israel and I assume you believe the laws and regulations were all of divine origin/inspiration. But then go on to say god's efforts are not political or legal in nature when the very definition of political is the government and public affairs of a country ... in this case Israel.

 

[quietmike]

People will go to great lengths to justify or rationalize away unacceptable or deplorable behavior

Like killing a baby to avoid the consequences of being a filthy road whore?

 

[mkollman74]

I know that and I was not comparing the two, only pointing out that slavery was OK within the defined laws (when legal) of the bible.

Sure, a lot of time can be pointlessly wasted by arguing, as the author does, the slavery laws of the bible were more "humane" but even then it would not currently be acceptable in the united states. Better slavery is still slavery and still wrong but it's still very legal in a number of countries.



Which is very much a way of saying morality is subjective and fluid.

People will go to great lengths to justify or rationalize away unacceptable or deplorable behavior/standards/punishments in the bible saying things like "well god only had good intentions and we don't do that anymore so it's OK". Then they will turn around and permanently clench their panties over what the united states did as a nation to the indians and the japanese when it was trying to protect its "chosen people".

It's hypocritical.



I'm trying to parse this sentence. You talk about law and regulations with a purpose to protect Israel and I assume you believe the laws and regulations were all of divine origin/inspiration. But then go on to say god's efforts are not political or legal in nature when the very definition of political is the government and public affairs of a country ... in this case Israel.

Good point... To be a bit more precise, I don't believe God's primary focus is promoting change through political means. He's not really trying to
"make the world a better place", in the way a modern SJW might understand it (not calling you a SJW, BTW). His efforts are directed at changing people's hearts and pointing them towards a relationship with Him. As I read the texts, He is primarily interested in the spiritual/eternal. He is not looking primarily to improve societal norms, but to transcend them.

You either believe in God, or you don't. The whole "the Bible condones slavery" argument is a moral objection to God, not an argument that He doesn't exist. If you do believe He does exist, then you must look at the message of the Bible in its entirety - a message I see as one of love and compassion.

The Bible's overarching themes of equality, love, and compassion challenge any interpretation of scripture that supports the dehumanizing practice of slavery. Understanding the historical and cultural context, as well as considering the entirety of Biblical teaching provides a more accurate view on the issue IMO.

 

[doubloon]

Like killing a baby to avoid the consequences of being a filthy road whore?

 

[doubloon]

You either believe in God, or you don't

That's one crux.

The other is you either believe the bible is the word of god or it's the word of man posing as god. There exists the possibility of believing without, or in spite of, the bible.

The bible has some good lessons but not all of it is practical or acceptable in present day America or many modern countries for that matter.

Honest question, do you not think the classification of groups of people as sinners and unbelievers is not dehumanization? Considering the punishment for these offenses is being brutally stoned to death?

 

[quietmike]

https://images.uncyclomedia.co/uncyclopedia/en/8/85/Microcephaly.gif

 

[doubloon]

https://images.uncyclomedia.co/uncyclopedia/en/8/85/Microcephaly.gif

 

[quietmike]

Thanks for living up to the gif.

 

[doubloon]

Thanks for living up to the gif.

 

[quietmike]

No diffent than any of your previous posts. You add nothing to the discussion.

 

[doubloon]

No diffent than any of your previous posts. You add nothing to the discussion.

 

[quietmike]

You seem to need to have the last say as a balm for your poor self esteem. Even if it's making identical posts four times.
So do it once more and you can claim your victory.

 

[mkollman74]

That's one crux.

The other is you either believe the bible is the word of god or it's the word of man posing as god. There exists the possibility of believing without, or in spite of, the bible.

The bible has some good lessons but not all of it is practical or acceptable in present day America or many modern countries for that matter.

Honest question, do you not think the classification of groups of people as sinners and unbelievers is not dehumanization? Considering the punishment for these offenses is being brutally stoned to death?

I'll concede your point about belief in God vs belief the Bible is the Word of God as well. Its certainly possible to believe in a creator God, even the Christian God, but not believe the Bible, as we know it, is His complete and inerrant Word.

As to whether I believe the "classification of groups of people as sinner and unbelievers..." is dehumanizing - my answer is not really. Let me try to explain. First I believe that Christianity teaches that being a sinner IS the human condition. There is only one category and it includes everyone. Labeling humans as sinners isn't, therefore, dehumanizing, its descriptive. As for the label of "unbeliever", I don't find that dehumanizing either. Humans have free will. Exercising that free will is quintessentially human. The choice to believe or not believe does not make the individual more or less human then, in this regard.