To demand abortion as a right

[PotimusWillie]

is simply telling God He is a liar. There is no escape clause in the Bible that permits it. Nothing, nada, zero.

We have placed our perceived “rights” ahead of God, telling him we are more important than Him. We were created in His image to worship Him.

That is the Christian perspective. You can disagree on the basis that there is no God to justify the Holy value of human life. But if you believe in God. If you believe in Jesus Christ, what He is, who He was, and what He did, and why He did it, abortion is not even a conceivable thought.

To say one is a Christian and believes that abortion is valid, makes no sense at all. Sin is sin and we can’t dictate to God what He means.

So my point is to go this direction. To openly riot and threaten life on behalf of the pro abortion movement is about as demonic and vulgar as I could even imagine. It is an act of flipping God off.

Today, we honor the Hallmark corporation by celebrating Mothers Day. All kidding aside, I believe those women who have given of their lives to birth us, raise us and love us unconditionally should be praised. The sacrifice of motherhood is incredible. It isn’t an interchangeable part, it is a holy bond. It is a beautiful expression of God’s incredible creation.

Thoughts please if you don’t agree. The degree of relativism in our society and world often discourages truth. Opinion becomes truth. It’s not, but is what we are sold.

We have become so self important, that we do not believe we are capable of holding anyone accountable for anything they do.

But God has always been clear in His Word. Self importance in regards to sin has consequence.

God Bless our moms. And may their lives and sacrifice move us to protect the very process in which brought us here to be loved and to honor our creator.

If you disagree, we will just have to disagree and move on. That is how this free will thing works.

I just wanted, in something more than a thought, to honor my Mom today. She was a fine woman who deserved far more than I ever gave her. She honored God in what he demanded from her, and did it selflessly.

Thanks for allowing me the soapbox. May God bless us all.

 

[kdsdawg]

Spot on brother. Spot on. I know "Christians" that vote democrat and when pressed on abortion the mental gymnastics they go through to justify it is quite impressive.

 

[MRDAWG]

is simply telling God He is a liar. There is no escape clause in the Bible that permits it. Nothing, nada, zero.

We have placed our perceived “rights” ahead of God, telling him we are more important than Him. We were created in His image to worship Him.

That is the Christian perspective. You can disagree on the basis that there is no God to justify the Holy value of human life. But if you believe in God. If you believe in Jesus Christ, what He is, who He was, and what He did, and why He did it, abortion is not even a conceivable thought.

To say one is a Christian and believes that abortion is valid, makes no sense at all. Sin is sin and we can’t dictate to God what He means.

So my point is to go this direction. To openly riot and threaten life on behalf of the pro abortion movement is about as demonic and vulgar as I could even imagine. It is an act of flipping God off.

Today, we honor the Hallmark corporation by celebrating Mothers Day. All kidding aside, I believe those women who have given of their lives to birth us, raise us and love us unconditionally should be praised. The sacrifice of motherhood is incredible. It isn’t an interchangeable part, it is a holy bond. It is a beautiful expression of God’s incredible creation.

Thoughts please if you don’t agree. The degree of relativism in our society and world often discourages truth. Opinion becomes truth. It’s not, but is what we are sold.

We have become so self important, that we do not believe we are capable of holding anyone accountable for anything they do.

But God has always been clear in His Word. Self importance in regards to sin has consequence.

God Bless our moms. And may their lives and sacrifice move us to protect the very process in which brought us here to be loved and to honor our creator.

If you disagree, we will just have to disagree and move on. That is how this free will thing works.

I just wanted, in something more than a thought, to honor my Mom today. She was a fine woman who deserved far more than I ever gave her. She honored God in what he demanded from her, and did it selflessly.

Thanks for allowing me the soapbox. May God bless us all.

Abortion is a sin. Extramarital sex is a sin. Some Jewish sects don't think abortion is a sin. I don't think the government needs to regulate sins.

 

[JackRussellDawg]

Abortion is a sin. Extramarital sex is a sin. Some Jewish sects don't think abortion is a sin. I don't think the government needs to regulate sins.

Do you think the government should regulate the sins of murder and theft?

And what does any Jewish sect have anything to with this? Almost all religions have their liberal wings. I once went to lunch with an older Jewish client, and we began discussing the differences among the three distinct synagogues in town. He said, “I just call them Hazy, Crazy, and Lazy.”

 

[MRDAWG]

Do you think the government should regulate the sins of murder and theft?

And what does any Jewish sect have anything to with this? Almost all religions have their liberal wings. I once went to lunch with an older Jewish client, and we began discussing the differences among the three distinct synagogues in town. He said, “I just call them Hazy, Crazy, and Lazy.”

Killing a breathing person and theft of goods should be regulated.

 

[JackRussellDawg]

Killing a breathing person and theft of goods should be regulated.

Abortion murders a living human being and steals their life from them, so there you go.

 

[PotimusWillie]

Abortion is a sin. Extramarital sex is a sin. Some Jewish sects don't think abortion is a sin. I don't think the government needs to regulate sins.

MR, you provided a great example of relativism in our society. I spoke of abortion only in terms of a Christian perspective, but I am somehow unable to declare truth as I see it in regards to my faith because extramarital sex is a sin and “some Jewish sect” thinks abortion is OK?

Respond to me based on a Christian perspective. I need help from you on this because I am confused. You state abortion is a sin. Is that your belief from a Christian perspective? If so, we are in agreement. So is extra sex, along with lying, stealing and cussing out your mother.

So if abortion is a sin, should I repent from it or promote to legalize it in the eyes of man? If extramarital sex is a sin, should I repent from it or promote to legalize it in the eyes of man? If stealing is a sin, should I repent from it or promote to legalize it in the eyes of man?

Two out of those three sins is legal in the eyes of our government. Government doesn’t regulate them.

If sin shouldn’t be regulated by gov, Why should gov regulate theft?

 

[PotimusWillie]

Killing a breathing person and theft of goods should be regulated.

If a pregnant mother is shot. The mother lives, but the baby dies…

1) is that a sin?
2) is that murder?
3) should the gov regulate it?

Bonus round

1) if she has no other children, is she considered a “mother” at the time she was shot?
2) if so, is she considered a “mother” after the baby dies?

Double Secret Probation Bonus Round

1) if the baby is not considered to be a “breathing person”, how can the gov regulate legalities in the death of something that isn’t recognized as human and not definitively alive and viable?
2) should an insurance company compensate for the loss of a non viable cell mass that is not needed in any way whatsoever by the host insured?

Just trying to follow the non gov regulated theory application.

 

[JackRussellDawg]

I got a house on a hundred acres of land in the middle of nowhere. It’s my house. I don’t owe anything on it and don’t even have any insurance on it.

I throw a wild party and everyone shows up, including MRDAWG with a six pack of Zimas. He’s talking his liberal BS to everyone and getting on everyone’s nerves, and after one Zima he passes out in my guest room.

The party’s over, but MRDAWG stays in my guest room, days after day, watching CNN and drinking them Zimas. This is messing up my life y’all. I got big plans, other parties to go to and throw, and MRDAWG is a growing pain in the ass.

So I decide to get rid of MRDAWG by burning down my guest room with him in it. My house my choice, right? I mean, he’s the one messing up my life. I got a fire extinguisher and garden hose ready to minimize the damage to the rest of the house. I mean, it’s not a sin or against the law if it makes sense to me. If I don’t do it now, I’m gonna have to keep getting him some Zimas. Goodbye, MRDAWG. You weren’t real anyways.

 

[PotimusWillie]

I got a house on a hundred acres of land in the middle of nowhere. It’s my house. I don’t owe anything on it and don’t even have any insurance on it.

I throw a wild party and everyone shows up, including MRDAWG with a six pack of Zimas. He’s talking his liberal BS to everyone and getting on everyone’s nerves, and after one Zima he passes out in my guest room.

The party’s over, but MRDAWG stays in my guest room, days after day, watching CNN and drinking them Zimas. This is messing up my life y’all. I got big plans, other parties to go to and throw, and MRDAWG is a growing pain in the ass.

So I decide to get rid of MRDAWG by burning down my guest room with him in it. My house my choice, right? I mean, he’s the one messing up my life. I got a fire extinguisher and garden hose ready to minimize the damage to the rest of the house. I mean, it’s not a sin or against the law if it makes sense to me. If I don’t do it now, I’m gonna have to keep getting him some Zimas. Goodbye, MRDAWG. You weren’t real anyways.

The analogy is awesome. At least in this case, you could warn him. That is better than a human baby gets.

Zima’s huh? Hahahahahahahahahahaha. Bartles and James would probably upset the stomach.

I am still trying to wrap my head around the liberal logic of abortion. If healthcare is to provide the best medical alternative, why is abortion even considered an option. It’s like giving someone morphine for a headache.

The problem is that it is spiritual, so to value human life will not make much sense to many. Zima’s or not.

 

[Boost Assendahm]

Spot on brother. Spot on. I know "Christians" that vote democrat and when pressed on abortion the mental gymnastics they go through to justify it is quite impressive.

Bottom line is convenience & minimal, personal accountability. That’s our wrong headed societal take on “unwanted” childbirth.

However, In cases of rape, incest or physical or mental incapacity, the doctor & the closest uninvolved relative should decide, and notify appropriate, local government officials of the circumstances. Those due punishment should be dealt with harshly, but willing & capable family members should help the community provide instruction & care to eliminate such avoidable tragedy repeating itself.

 

[ugaboz]

bump all day

 

[Whosyodawgy]

Abortion is a sin. Extramarital sex is a sin. Some Jewish sects don't think abortion is a sin. I don't think the government needs to regulate sins.

The obvious comeback to your comment is, "extramarital sex does not kill a developing human being" or "stealing is a sin. Should government not regulate that".

The Constitution, which is the basis for ALL our laws, clearly explains the solution to this:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So, if people in California want it, they can have it. If people in Nevada don't, they can ban it.
Pretty dang smart for a buncha old white guys.

 

[Mike_the_Dawg]

If a pregnant mother is shot. The mother lives, but the baby dies…

1) is that a sin?
2) is that murder?
3) should the gov regulate it?

Bonus round

1) if she has no other children, is she considered a “mother” at the time she was shot?
2) if so, is she considered a “mother” after the baby dies?

Double Secret Probation Bonus Round

1) if the baby is not considered to be a “breathing person”, how can the gov regulate legalities in the death of something that isn’t recognized as human and not definitively alive and viable?
2) should an insurance company compensate for the loss of a non viable cell mass that is not needed in any way whatsoever by the host insured?

Just trying to follow the non gov regulated theory application.

Patiently waiting for a response to these questions..

 

[PotimusWillie]

Patiently waiting for a response to these questions..

Yep

 

[PotimusWillie]

The obvious comeback to your comment is, "extramarital sex does not kill a developing human being" or "stealing is a sin. Should government not regulate that".

The Constitution, which is the basis for ALL our laws, clearly explains the solution to this:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So, if people in California want it, they can have it. If people in Nevada don't, they can ban it.
Pretty dang smart for a buncha old white guys.

Yep

 

[shonuff253]

Yep

I'm actually out doing errands after work but will attempt to answer your questions when I get home. I do have one question for clarification purposes:

1) Are you suggesting states should now regulate abortion?

2) Is the power to regulate abortion derived from the passage of a "Personhood Bill"?

Like I said totally down to debate and answer your questions as long as we can keep this civil and no name-calling. If the dove tails in to me being a "baby killer" and "murder" no use in me responding. Cool.

 

[Whosyodawgy]

I'm actually out doing errands after work but will attempt to answer your questions when I get home. I do have one question for clarification purposes:

1) Are you suggesting states should now regulate abortion?

2) Is the power to regulate abortion derived from the passage of a "Personhood Bill"?

Like I said totally down to debate and answer your questions as long as we can keep this civil and no name-calling. If the dove tails in to me being a "baby killer" and "murder" no use in me responding. Cool.

I am not in the crowd which wishes to legislate morality. I am a Constitutionalist.
So to answer your question #1:
The Constitution could not be more clear.
1) Abortion is not a right under the Constitution.
2) Abortion is not prohibited under the Constitution. That means
3) It is the right of the individual states to legalize, ban, or regulate abortion.
a. by laws or regulations passed by the state legislature
b. by putting a proposal concerning abortion on a statewide ballot and allowing the people to vote on it

question #2:
The "power to regulate abortion" is "derived" from the same source every other law in this country is, the Constitution. There is no fountainhead above it save amendment by the people.
Since the question of legality, illegality or regulation is, according to the Constitution a decision for the individual states; it will be entirely up to the various states how they go about it. We already know some states (38 I believe) already have personhood laws. How or whether those laws are changed and/or integrated into state abortion laws will obviously not always be the same.

Now I will await your response with curiosity ... since you asked me questions you, at least should, already know the answer to.

 

[shonuff253]

I am not in the crowd which wishes to legislate morality. I am a Constitutionalist.
So to answer your question #1:
The Constitution could not be more clear.
1) Abortion is not a right under the Constitution.
2) Abortion is not prohibited under the Constitution. That means
3) It is the right of the individual states to legalize, ban, or regulate abortion.
a. by laws or regulations passed by the state legislature
b. by putting a proposal concerning abortion on a statewide ballot and allowing the people to vote on it

question #2:
The "power to regulate abortion" is "derived" from the same source every other law in this country is, the Constitution. There is no fountainhead above it save amendment by the people.
Since the question of legality, illegality or regulation is, according to the Constitution a decision for the individual states; it will be entirely up to the various states how they go about it. We already know some states (38 I believe) already have personhood laws. How or whether those laws are changed and/or integrated into state abortion laws will obviously not always be the same.

Now I will await your response with curiosity ... since you asked me questions you, at least should, already know the answer to.

Ummmmm no offense but I was seeking clarification from @PotimusWillie since he asked the question and not you.

 

[PotimusWillie]

I'm actually out doing errands after work but will attempt to answer your questions when I get home. I do have one question for clarification purposes:

1) Are you suggesting states should now regulate abortion?

2) Is the power to regulate abortion derived from the passage of a "Personhood Bill"?

Like I said totally down to debate and answer your questions as long as we can keep this civil and no name-calling. If the dove tails in to me being a "baby killer" and "murder" no use in me responding. Cool.

I do not call people down I don’t agree with, so let’s set that up first. It is also a two way street. I am a very sensitive man, so don’t hurt my feelings…….

If my answering your two questions will clarify my position to allow you discuss and respond to my questions, that is fair.

Our foundation of government is set squarely on the rights of sovereign states to enact individual laws on issues that are not specifically specified in the constitution. The constitution was enacted to set a standard of power of the people over the central government and not controlled by the central government. It gave representation of the citizen to the elected officials of each state.

The only way to follow the letter of the constitution is to allow states, directly representing their constituents, to determine the legality of abortion. This is where the Supreme Court is going. They are not saying it is right or wrong. They are going to say the Fed does not have the authority to legalize it. And that is a correct decision.

Saying that, I believe it is murder of a human being, so for a state citizenry to create a killing field is like a 1960’s B rated science fiction movie. The medical advances since 1973 are clear in the development of the human child.

But each state, if there is any question it is human life, must be given the right to enact the laws it’s citizenry chooses. So sad.

Personhood Bill? Nope. The personhood bill is based on scientific technology advancement that only backs my belief that the soul of a child conceived is ordained by God. He clearly states he knows us before we were conceived and knows every hair on our heads in the womb. As a Christian, nothing in God’s Word allows for us to murder a conceived human being, no matter what any lying liberal preacher will say to get elected to office.

Politicians can work their voter base and call it womens healthcare. If you want to promote womens health teach and promote contraception. It is much healthier for the woman, cheaper on the taxpayer, and does not restrict a woman from any form of sexual relations. It doesn’t infringe on a woman’s right to be sexually active.

Abortion is a spiritual plague and separating us from relationship with our creator.

Contraception= healthy woman physically, mentally and emotionally and no more human life being sucked brutally
out of her body and discarded like day old bread.

Abortion= health risk for woman as conception starts preparing her body hormonally and physically. Stop start, start stop. Health risk as surgery is performed to go inside her uterus to remove the baby in a violent manner. So the physical trauma is real, the emotional trauma is real and the mental trauma is real.

Interesting how sitting next to someone in a maga shirt causes trauma, but having a baby sucked out of your body is women’s healthcare.

That’s my spill. Abortion is one of the most vulgar acts I can imagine. Murdering the innocent is an abomination.

That’s my point. Your turn. We will keep the banter civil.

 

[ZosoDawg]

If a pregnant mother is shot. The mother lives, but the baby dies…

1) is that a sin?
2) is that murder?
3) should the gov regulate it?

Bonus round

1) if she has no other children, is she considered a “mother” at the time she was shot?
2) if so, is she considered a “mother” after the baby dies?

Double Secret Probation Bonus Round

1) if the baby is not considered to be a “breathing person”, how can the gov regulate legalities in the death of something that isn’t recognized as human and not definitively alive and viable?
2) should an insurance company compensate for the loss of a non viable cell mass that is not needed in any way whatsoever by the host insured?

Just trying to follow the non gov regulated theory application.

kinda been my argument and shows how some laws are enforced on a case by case basis. If a mother carrying an unborn child is shot and murdered along with the unborn child, the perp gets hit with 2 counts of homicide. 2 humans, 2 counts. However, if the same mother aborts the child, it’s no longer a human being, just an inconvenience that needs to go away. Would like a rationale reason as to why this is.

 

[PotimusWillie]

kinda been my argument and shows how some laws are enforced on a case by case basis. If a mother carrying an unborn child is shot and murdered along with the unborn child, the perp gets hit with 2 counts of homicide. 2 humans, 2 counts. However, if the same mother aborts the child, it’s no longer a human being, just an inconvenience that needs to go away. Would like a rationale reason as to why this is.

Both decisions buys a voter base.

 

[ZosoDawg]

Both decisions buys a voter base.

Truth

 

[nclawdawg]

I respect your religious beliefs and values. I too am a Christian but my views may be somewhat different. I am not sure. I have run a weekly breakfast for the homeless for 16 years. My thoughts follow.

First, the Founders expressly intended a secular government and the separation of church and state.

Second, notwithstanding point one, there is no doubt that our religious beliefs about sin, good and evil, right and wrong, impact our laws and our policies regardless of our secular form of government, Many of us vote our beliefs. That is appropriate in my view.

Acknowledging the awkwardness of the intersection of the points above, I struggle with the selective implementation of Christian values in government. Many of those that oppose abortion, including those who oppose abortion in the face of rape or threats to the life of the mother, are the same people who fail to pursue laws to ensure the accountability of men for the children they create, who fail to support aid to unwed mothers, who fail to support pre-natal care and children's healthcare. If short they have no plan to provide an opportunity for the success of the child they care so much about before it is born.

Our national budget (any budget really) is a moral document. It tells us all where our priorities really lie.

I guess my point is that we do a pretty bad job as a nation of living our the teachings of Christ regarding the poor, the hungry, the oppressed, the imprisoned, etc. When you make abortion illegal, many of the resulting children will be born into these circumstances. I'd feel a lot better as a Christian if the opposition to abortion were coupled with an equally active fight to aid the poor, hungry, oppressed, imprisoned, and to provide an opportunity for the success of children born into these circumstances.

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

I respect your religious beliefs and values. I too am a Christian but my views may be somewhat different. I am not sure. I have run a weekly breakfast for the homeless for 16 years. My thoughts follow.

First, the Founders expressly intended a secular government and the separation of church and state.

Second, notwithstanding point one, there is no doubt that our religious beliefs about sin, good and evil, right and wrong, impact our laws and our policies regardless of our secular form of government, Many of us vote our beliefs. That is appropriate in my view.

Acknowledging the awkwardness of the intersection of the points above, I struggle with the selective implementation of Christian values in government. Many of those that oppose abortion, including those who oppose abortion in the face of rape or threats to the life of the mother, are the same people who fail to pursue laws to ensure the accountability of men for the children they create, who fail to support aid to unwed mothers, who fail to support pre-natal care and children's healthcare. If short they have no plan to provide an opportunity for the success of the child they care so much about before it is born.

Our national budget (any budget really) is a moral document. It tells us all where our priorities really lie.

I guess my point is that we do a pretty bad job as a nation of living our the teachings of Christ regarding the poor, the hungry, the oppressed, the imprisoned, etc. When you make abortion illegal, many of the resulting children will be born into these circumstances. I'd feel a lot better as a Christian if the opposition to abortion were coupled with an equally active fight to aid the poor, hungry, oppressed, imprisoned, and to provide an opportunity for the success of children born into these circumstances.

How much more "Great Society" do you need the taxpayers to fund (I think we're around 15 trillon now) before you understand being part of the poor, hungry and oppressed is not a matter of financial support. I think the argument that subsidizing antisocial behavior begets antisocial behavior carries more weight than an argument for upping subsidies.

Imo, there will never be a true political consensus on when life begins because there are hardened positions on both sides of the at conception and at birth debate. However, I do think there is a scientific solution that would address your secular government concerns of when a fetus can survive without being attached to the host. In Europe, I believe abortion is regulated heavily after 12 to 15 weeks.

Religious beliefs aside, I think where we are now under RvW is absurdly barbaric in a civilized society. The idea that we are allowing healthy human life that could survive outside of the host to be destroyed with no further justification than somebody wants it killed and someone else is willing to kill it for money is an abomination on a scale of the Tuskegee experiments.

 

[shonuff253]

How much more "Great Society" do you need the taxpayers to fund (I think we're around 15 trillon now) before you understand being part of the poor, hungry and oppressed is not a matter of financial support. I think the argument that subsidizing antisocial behavior begets antisocial behavior carries more weight than an argument for upping subsidies.

Imo, there will never be a true political consensus on when life begins because there are hardened positions on both sides of the at conception and at birth debate. However, I do think there is a scientific solution that would address your secular government concerns of when a fetus can survive without being attached to the host. In Europe, I believe abortion is regulated heavily after 12 to 15 weeks.

Religious beliefs aside, I think where we are now under RvW is absurdly barbaric in a civilized society. The idea that we are allowing healthy human life that could survive outside of the host to be destroyed with no further justification than somebody wants it killed and someone else is willing to kill it for money is an abomination on a scale of the Tuskegee experiments.

In England most abortions happen before the 24 week mark. They can be carried out after 24 weeks in very limited circumstances and it's heavily regulated. I also think there is a misconception on when abortions are taking place. This is from the CDC, yes they have an abortion surveillance system;

"Similar to previous years, in 2019, women in their twenties accounted for the majority of abortions (56.9%). The majority of abortions in 2019 took place early in gestation: 92.7% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation."

CDCs Abortion Surveillance System FAQs | CDC

CDCs Abortion Surveillance System Frequently Asked Questions

www.cdc.gov

So 92.7% of abortions happen less than 13 weeks of gestation but if you hear some you'd think most abortions are happening at 32 weeks. That said as one of the Chats libs I have no problem limiting abortions 20 week and above to life of the mother.

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

In England most abortions happen before the 24 week mark. They can be carried out after 24 weeks in very limited circumstances and it's heavily regulated. I also think there is a misconception on when abortions are taking place. This is from the CDC, yes they have an abortion surveillance system;

"Similar to previous years, in 2019, women in their twenties accounted for the majority of abortions (56.9%). The majority of abortions in 2019 took place early in gestation: 92.7% of abortions were performed at ≤13 weeks’ gestation; a smaller number of abortions (6.2%) were performed at 14–20 weeks’ gestation, and even fewer (<1.0%) were performed at ≥21 weeks’ gestation."

CDCs Abortion Surveillance System FAQs | CDC

CDCs Abortion Surveillance System Frequently Asked Questions

www.cdc.gov

So 92.7% of abortions happen less than 13 weeks of gestation but if you hear some you'd think most abortions are happening at 32 weeks. That said as one of the Chats libs I have no problem limiting abortions 20 week and above to life of the mother.

What you cite is also what I believe to mostly be the case but as of today, the extreme left position is the law. My feeling is we could take a lot of the vitriol out of the debate if we moved to a European model as well as encouraged more responsible sexual behavior. In today's America, unwanted pregnancies could be drastically reduced without infringing on a woman's right to sleep with whomever they wish.

 

[shonuff253]

What you cite is also what I believe to mostly be the case but as of today, the extreme left position is the law. My feeling is we could take a lot of the vitriol out of the debate if we moved to a European model as well as encouraged more responsible sexual behavior. In today's America, unwanted pregnancies could be drastically reduced without infringing on a woman's right to sleep with whomever they wish.

Well you can't put it all on the left because there are way more conservatives that want the government to make all abortions illegal regardless of mothers life, rape or incest. You'll find way more libs to support this common ground abortion regulation than conservatives.

 

[cherrydawg]

Well you can't put it all on the left because there are way more conservatives that want the government to make all abortions illegal regardless of mothers life, rape or incest. You'll find way more libs to support this common ground abortion regulation than conservatives.

Why is this so hard? Unless you are an atheist, and don't believe in the creation by God, this is easy.

If God created us and set up our form of procreation, which He did, then life per God begins and conception. It is His plan and His will. No argument by man can set this aside. Your argument is with God.

 

[shonuff253]

Why is this so hard? Unless you are an atheist, and don't believe in the creation by God, this is easy.

If God created us and set up our form of procreation, which He did, then life per God begins and conception. It is His plan and His will. No argument by man can set this aside. Your argument is with God.

So your answer is God. Ok

 

[Dawgs2001GATA]

I'm actually out doing errands after work but will attempt to answer your questions when I get home. I do have one question for clarification purposes:

1) Are you suggesting states should now regulate abortion?

2) Is the power to regulate abortion derived from the passage of a "Personhood Bill"?

Like I said totally down to debate and answer your questions as long as we can keep this civil and no name-calling. If the dove tails in to me being a "baby killer" and "murder" no use in me responding. Cool.

I think there are instances where abortion should be acceptable. Rape, incest are two off the top of my head. I do not think it should be free range to just be another option fkr birth control.

And……….I don’t want to pay for it.

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

Well you can't put it all on the left because there are way more conservatives that want the government to make all abortions illegal regardless of mothers life, rape or incest. You'll find way more libs to support this common ground abortion regulation than conservatives.

I'm not going to get into a debate about numbers on either side but it seems to me the leadership of the Dem side has planted on their flag on RvW with no restrictions. Even RBG recognized RvW was a judicial overreach and the issue should have been decided thru the political process. I think that is where we are headed and it's going to force pols on both sides to stop hiding behind a judicial decision.

 

[nclawdawg]

How much more "Great Society" do you need the taxpayers to fund (I think we're around 15 trillon now) before you understand being part of the poor, hungry and oppressed is not a matter of financial support. I think the argument that subsidizing antisocial behavior begets antisocial behavior carries more weight than an argument for upping subsidies.

I am just offering food for thought for those who press religion as a basis to legislatively regulate abortion. For those people, it is fair to ask -- if we are going to legislatively require the child's birth - what would Jesus do to care for unwanted children of unwed mothers? If we care about the yet to be born why do we care so little for the children when they are born? Why do we care so little for their mothers? Why are we so bad at placing shared responsibility on fathers?

Easy with the Great Society comments. As I said before, I think a budget is a moral document. It reflects our priorities. Frequently, when people complaint about the costs of a social safety net, they have little understanding bout how little is actually spent to help the poor. Means tested entitlements are the pimple on the ass of the budget elephant. You can't throw Social Security, Medicare and Obamacare in the mix -- because everyone including the uber rich get those benefits. If you exclude SS, Medicare and Obamacare, entitlement benefits in our country are a drop in the bucket of our budget. Food food stamp benefits have experienced significant reductions in the past 6 years even as inflation has climbed. As a country we spend many times more subsidizing the uber-rich like Elon Musk and big business than we do caring for the poor. We could provide significantly more support to the poor, slash the deficit and still buy all the aircraft carriers you want --- simply by: (1) applying means testing to SS, Medicare, and Obamacare; and (2) ending tax subsidies for the uber rich and corporations. But guess what, those aren't our priorities as a society so it's not going to happen. By the way, charity and private generosity is not the answer. If you exclude federal food support --- churches and private food banks taken together supply far less than 10% of the needs of the poor and the homeless.

 

[cherrydawg]

I am just offering food for thought for those who press religion as a basis to legislatively regulate abortion. For those people, it is fair to ask -- if we are going to legislatively require the child's birth - what would Jesus do to care for unwanted children of unwed mothers? If we care about the yet to be born why do we care so little for the children when they are born? Why do we care so little for their mothers? Why are we so bad at placing shared responsibility on fathers?

Easy with the Great Society comments. As I said before, I think a budget is a moral document. It reflects our priorities. Frequently, when people complaint about the costs of a social safety net, they have little understanding bout how little is actually spent to help the poor. Means tested entitlements are the pimple on the ass of the budget elephant. You can't throw Social Security, Medicare and Obamacare in the mix -- because everyone including the uber rich get those benefits. If you exclude SS, Medicare and Obamacare, entitlement benefits in our country are a drop in the bucket of our budget. Food food stamp benefits have experienced significant reductions in the past 6 years even as inflation has climbed. As a country we spend many times more subsidizing the uber-rich like Elon Musk and big business than we do caring for the poor. We could provide significantly more support to the poor, slash the deficit and still buy all the aircraft carriers you want --- simply by: (1) applying means testing to SS, Medicare, and Obamacare; and (2) ending tax subsidies for the uber rich and corporations. But guess what, those aren't our priorities as a society so it's not going to happen. By the way, charity and private generosity is not the answer. If you exclude federal food support --- churches and private food banks taken together supply far less than 10% of the needs of the poor and the homeless.

Ok, so if its about saving money, why don't we just kill all humans that are a drain on society and don't contribute in any way? Why is it the most innocent are the ones dims want to murder? Is it because they have no voice? Is it because killing someone you don't see unless you are the vacuum operator is easier? Since it seems to be a money issue with you, are you willing to pay extra for baby murder so that those of us that fear God and respect his creation and the sanctity of life are not forced to fund the extra cost of health insurance to cover them, any gov.. subsidy to planned abortionhood, etc.

I notice you highlighted the fact that the rich get some benefits... did they are did they not pay their money into those programs? Are you for wealth redistribution? Who taught you that the govt does a good job of anything? Why do dims oppose workfare? Do you know that the Bible says if a man won't work he shouldn't eat? Do you know that the Bible unlike govt teaches personal responsibility? Are you aware that govt programs are extremely wasteful with your tax dollars? Why do dims need the govt to take care of all these issues? Are dims not willing to work to make these things better? Is all dims want is to take money from everyone and let them do the "social work"? Are you saying you ain't gonna help in any other way than giving the govt money?

Why not end wasteful govt spending? How many green projects have been given billions by the govt but gone bankrupt? How many jobs would be available for taxpayers to work if it were not for the evil corporations? Do you have even a basic understanding how jobs are created, who creates them, who takes the risk to start companies, and that a SUPER large percentage of the people in this country and other places benefit from businesses that prosper? Are you old enough to have a job? 401k? Do you own stocks in evil corporations? Do you own a mutual fund? Most Americans have investment in some form or another and depend on the dividends and growth of the evil corporations to help supplement the small percentage the gov gives them on what they pay in. (ss)?

Are you offended and outraged that the govt is giving benefits to folks (illegals) that have never PAID a dime into the system? Do you agree closing the border and having orderly immigration would save tax dollars that could be applied to some of the social issues facing AMERICANS today?

I wont go on now, but I am aghast that your post seems to indicate that you agree with murdering babies because there are money savings to be found in doing so.

 

[nclawdawg]

Wow. Lots of effort to avoid answering a simple questions. If you care for the unborn child why not the child after it is born? What do you think Jesus would say about how we treat unwed mothers and children in poverty?

Your angry rant — empty of any empathy for anyone — just proved my point on the hypocrisy of many wish to selectively inject religion into some issues and then are all about the money on others.

You cite a number of references to the Okd Testament. More than a few of the gospel stories are repudiations of the Old Testament (e.g., he who is without sin cast the first stone). So yes, I am aware of what is said in the Bible.

 

[cherrydawg]

Wow. Lots of effort to avoid answering a simple questions. If you care for the unborn child why not the child after it is born? What do you think Jesus would say about how we treat unwed mothers and children in poverty?

Your angry rant — empty of any empathy for anyone — just proved my point on the hypocrisy of many wish to selectively inject religion into some issues and then are all about the money on others.

You cite a number of references to the Okd Testament. More than a few of the gospel stories are repudiations of the Old Testament (e.g., he who is without sin cast the first stone). So yes, I am aware of what is said in the Bible.

LOL,,, this was not an angry rant, these were questions for you, thats all,, Seems to me you are the only one that attacked someone here. You didn't answer but 1 question I asked and you answered it incorrectly. I made no reference to the old testament. LOL you need to spruce up a little on your Bible sir. I'm not going to tell you where its at cause you obviously need to look a little more at yours. Its interesting that that me asking about govt waste gets your dander up to the point that you throw some stones at my sin. LOL... It is worrisome and amazing that you would infer that because there is a problem with some social programs,,, ran by the govt you love.... that we just need to murder more babies... I'm sure you can provide me with your Bible reference that makes it really cool to kill the unborn.

I did not avoid your questions. My questions about gov waste and ways to save money would lead to more money for social programs.


If you actually take a look and can't find the Bible reference I made I will tell you. I just think someone so sure of themself in bashing someone else, needs to be humble enough to take a look for themselves. Some other time we can discuss your misconception about the old and new laws. Christ said he came not to "destroy the law, but to fulfill it". The repudiation in the NT was against those that wanted to retain the old law, things like circumcision, feasts, etc. instead of understanding that all those things had been made of no use with the death and resurrection of Christ bringing us under the new law of liberty. However, many parts of the OT are still valid. Some of the ten commandments are talked about in the NT as being important. One of them being, "thou shalt not kill".

You abortionist all know you are killing a life. You just dispute what that life is. Don't argue with me sir. Your issue is with the Creator of that life.

PS I think it is very unwise of dims trying to use Christ and his example and twist it to say baby murder is acceptable. I think folks that do that are in grave danger come judgement day.

and I assure you that "man won't work shouldn't eat" is in the NT.

 

[Whosyodawgy]

I respect your religious beliefs and values. I too am a Christian but my views may be somewhat different. I am not sure. I have run a weekly breakfast for the homeless for 16 years. My thoughts follow.

First, the Founders expressly intended a secular government and the separation of church and state.

Second, notwithstanding point one, there is no doubt that our religious beliefs about sin, good and evil, right and wrong, impact our laws and our policies regardless of our secular form of government, Many of us vote our beliefs. That is appropriate in my view.

Acknowledging the awkwardness of the intersection of the points above, I struggle with the selective implementation of Christian values in government. Many of those that oppose abortion, including those who oppose abortion in the face of rape or threats to the life of the mother, are the same people who fail to pursue laws to ensure the accountability of men for the children they create, who fail to support aid to unwed mothers, who fail to support pre-natal care and children's healthcare. If short they have no plan to provide an opportunity for the success of the child they care so much about before it is born.

Our national budget (any budget really) is a moral document. It tells us all where our priorities really lie.

I guess my point is that we do a pretty bad job as a nation of living our the teachings of Christ regarding the poor, the hungry, the oppressed, the imprisoned, etc. When you make abortion illegal, many of the resulting children will be born into these circumstances. I'd feel a lot better as a Christian if the opposition to abortion were coupled with an equally active fight to aid the poor, hungry, oppressed, imprisoned, and to provide an opportunity for the success of children born into these circumstances.

... Many of those that oppose abortion, including those who oppose abortion in the face of rape or threats to the life of the mother, are the same people who fail to pursue laws to ensure the accountability of men for the children they create, who fail to support aid to unwed mothers, who fail to support pre-natal care and children's healthcare. If short they have no plan to provide an opportunity for the success of the child they care so much about before it is born. ...

I am not a hard anti-abortion advocate because rape and other ghastly circumstances leave me to conclude that exceptions could exist.

However, you seem to be stuffing 10lbs of crap into a 5lb bag.
Without saying it, you are insinuating
1) these issues are FEDERAL.
2) conservatives are the people who, "fail to pursue laws to ensure the accountability of men for the children they create."
Ridding the ignorant of the misconception of #1 cannot come too soon.
Both are bogus claims but frankly, #2 is a lie and an underhanded swipe.

After RvW is gutted, the various states are free to decide exactly how they wish to deal with each of the issues you mentioned. If a state's legislature decides that because a woman displays the poor judgement to get pregnant out of wedlock (which is almost always the case, NOT rape or incest etc), that somehow entitles her to aid, free natal care and free healthcare for the child; and also that such child should be earmarked for special opportunity, then so be it.
But, since it is ridiculous, I would not hold my breath.
Nobody had a plan for me to provide for and protect my 4 kids. Somehow, everyone thought it was up to me. Personal responsibility!!! What a concept.

I do support taxpayer investment in vocational training for underprivileged; training so they can support themselves and their families. I consider it a sound fiscal investment for society and think some of them can be salvaged. I also support mandatory 2 years of military or other form of public service for all, both boys and girls at high school graduation or 18 if not in school. The military demands discipline. Kids need discipline. Without it, life is stacked against them. The Mormons have proved beyond question that kids do far better in college after their mission.

Jesus said that we will always have the poor. That's the gospel.
Thinking taxpayers are supposed to take carry them cradle to grave is absurd.

 

[jbpayne32]

What you cite is also what I believe to mostly be the case but as of today, the extreme left position is the law. My feeling is we could take a lot of the vitriol out of the debate if we moved to a European model as well as encouraged more responsible sexual behavior. In today's America, unwanted pregnancies could be drastically reduced without infringing on a woman's right to sleep with whomever they wish.

The most liberal state in the country, California, basically bans abortions after the point of viability, which is 24-26 weeks. We already have the same laws as Europe.

 

[nclawdawg]

@cherrydawg you are making incorrect assumptions about my beliefs. I actually support restrictions on abortion subject to protecting the life of the mother and allowing a prompt choice after a rape. I am just weary of arguments made by those who only selectively inject their religious views into politics. Both of your messages righteously support the unborn but show no empathy for the living.

I am not singling you out. Our politics are replete with that approach. Millions support your view. I don't and I may be in the minority.

Steven Colbert observed: "If this is going to be a Christian nation that does not help the poor either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition and then admit we don't want to do it."

I know you will bash me because Colbert is a liberal late night comedian. That is fine. But his quote encapsulates my thinking well. If you disagree -- we just see our faith differently.

 

[cherrydawg]

The most liberal state in the country, California, basically bans abortions after the point of viability, which is 24-26 weeks. We already have the same laws as Europe.

That makes murdering the baby ok with you abortionist.

The viability argument is just a flimsy excuse for folks that want to kill babies. Let me ask you this. If the baby goes full term and is born healthy, goes home from the hospital, the mother never feeds the baby and it dies, is that murder? Was that babies life viable without help from the mother or anyone else?

Your excuses and reasons may make you feel better about baby murder but murder is murder, inside or outside the womb. Even your example liberal state will charge someone with murder if they cause the baby harm and kill it in the womb before 24 weeks. Even you will have to admit its just about the choice. IF the mother wants to kill it ok murder good. If an outside person does the killing its murder.

Those that use that argument are two faced hypocrites.