Christians Move To EXECUTE Women For Abortions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-02-2017, 12:40 AM
RE: Christians Move To EXECUTE Women For Abortions
aaannnddd... they are incapable of seeing that this is authoritarian Fascism...HOW?! Exactly?
aaannnddd... they are incapable of seeing that this is the exact opposite of the freedom and liberty they keep preaching about....HOW?! Exactly?


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Shadow Fox's post
16-02-2017, 12:51 AM
RE: Christians Move To EXECUTE Women For Abortions
(16-02-2017 12:40 AM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  aaannnddd... they are incapable of seeing that this is authoritarian Fascism...HOW?! Exactly?
aaannnddd... they are incapable of seeing that this is the exact opposite of the freedom and liberty they keep preaching about....HOW?! Exactly?

Stupidity is a powerful force.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2017, 01:37 AM
RE: Christians Move To EXECUTE Women For Abortions
RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:We always understood that the people who call themselves "Pro-Life" think that the fetus is a full human being

Hi RS76, how are you?
I have never heard them saying this.

RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:and thus deserving of the rights we afford to other human beings, including the right to not be killed.
I have never heard them saying this. I have heard that it is life with human DNA, future woman or man. They believe it is barbarian and evil to destroy it.

RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:even if we were talking about me (with all the rights I unquestionably possess), I would still not have the right to continue living if my life was being supported by being connected to and medically endangering the life of another person. That other person would always have the right to sever me from their body. I do not have the right to live at the expense of another, whether I am fully-grown me or a fetus.
Do most women do abortion because their life is in danger?
RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:It bothers us so much because whenever we hear someone talking about the supposed (superior) rights of the fetus over the mother,
It bothers me too. I believe that mother's life more important if fetus is danger for her life.
It bothers me that if a woman is raped and got pregnant she shouldn't do abortion.

I can understand your side totally. I am pro-life for myself. I am pro-choice for other women.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2017, 01:44 AM (This post was last modified: 16-02-2017 01:49 AM by Szuchow.)
RE: Christians Move To EXECUTE Women For Abortions
@Alla

As it happens childbirth is more dangerous for women than abortion. One can't be really pro-life if one is against abortion; being anti-choice means shitting on safety of women.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Szuchow's post
16-02-2017, 02:29 AM
RE: Christians Move To EXECUTE Women For Abortions
(16-02-2017 01:37 AM)Alla Wrote:  
RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:We always understood that the people who call themselves "Pro-Life" think that the fetus is a full human being

Hi RS76, how are you?
I have never heard them saying this.

What?! You say it yourself, in the very next line, though you equivocate about it by saying "future" woman or man. Most simply think, "It is human, therefore it is 'barbarian and evil to destroy it'."

(Oh, and hi... I'm fine!) Smile


(16-02-2017 01:37 AM)Alla Wrote:  
RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:and thus deserving of the rights we afford to other human beings, including the right to not be killed.
I have never heard them saying this. I have heard that it is life with human DNA, future woman or man. They believe it is barbarian and evil to destroy it.

The "right to Life" is considered one of our civil rights, and is one of the three civil tort claims upon which standing may be granted to bring a case before a federal court under our civil rights code, 42 U.S.C.A. ยง 1983, even if that person is stripped of almost every other right, as with prisoners. They assert that fetuses possess this right just as inherently as any other human being, which is why you see the anti-abortion laws that various state (and sometimes) federal Congresspersons bring before those bodies. That is why they use the specific term, "the right to Life", and chose "Pro-Life" as their moniker.

(16-02-2017 01:37 AM)Alla Wrote:  
RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:even if we were talking about me (with all the rights I unquestionably possess), I would still not have the right to continue living if my life was being supported by being connected to and medically endangering the life of another person. That other person would always have the right to sever me from their body. I do not have the right to live at the expense of another, whether I am fully-grown me or a fetus.
Do most women do abortion because their life is in danger?

Their reasons for doing so are irrelevant to the point.

I was speaking of the legal right every citizen possesses, the right to their own bodily integrity, which may not be violated by the government without Due Process (and under limited, carefully-spelled-out circumstances, such as in criminal law's Death Penalty).

The government may not compel one person to endanger themselves on behalf of another person. They may compel us to endanger ourselves on behalf of the government itself (as in the Draft) during wartime, under the premise that the nation was wholly endangered by threat of invasion, but even that government power has become something of a relic of the past because it was abused during Vietnam. That's why we've had no draft for the War on Terror.

The woman's right to bodily integrity means she decides, for whatever reason, whether I will remain attached to her body for my own life support, as in my hospital example. Legally speaking, the fetus does not change that equation, even if one hypothetically grants that "future woman or man" the full rights that I possess.

(16-02-2017 01:37 AM)Alla Wrote:  
RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:It bothers us so much because whenever we hear someone talking about the supposed (superior) rights of the fetus over the mother,
It bothers me too. I believe that mother's life more important if fetus is danger for her life.
It bothers me that if a woman is raped and got pregnant she shouldn't do abortion.

You are completely entitled to these opinions. (I happen to agree with you, and even more broadly, of course.)

But again, they're irrelevant to the legal question, which is really the only one that matters when we're talking about government legislation and restrictions on abortion. As a staunch Libertarian, I'd think you would find the idea of government intervention in private persons' bodies, and in their private medical decisions, to be abhorrent.

(16-02-2017 01:37 AM)Alla Wrote:  I can understand your side totally. I am pro-life for myself. I am pro-choice for other women.

This I wholeheartedly respect. Heart

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2017, 08:07 AM (This post was last modified: 16-02-2017 08:20 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Christians Move To EXECUTE Women For Abortions
(15-02-2017 08:00 PM)Alla Wrote:  I think it is NOT about not wanting anything, it is more about not being too attached to things, not being addicted to things, not turning things to a master.
Be free, don't be slave of things.

That's what not wanting anything means.


(15-02-2017 08:00 PM)Alla Wrote:  If it was about not wanting anything Jesus wouldn't promise make us rich in heaven. He wouldn't promise treasures.

If you are alluding to "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal. But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." then I think you are misinterpreting it. The "treasures" being promised here are intangible. They lack substance. They are not "things". They are a result of having no desires. Jesus and Gautyama were saying the same thing. Heaven is not a place, it is a state of raw unadulterated desire-free being.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-02-2017, 08:22 AM
RE: Christians Move To EXECUTE Women For Abortions
(16-02-2017 08:07 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  If you are alluding to "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal. But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." then I think you are misinterpreting it. The "treasures" being promised here are intangible. They lack substance. They are not "things". They are a result of having no desires. Heaven is not a place, it is a state of being.
Well it is interpreted both ways by various sects. It DOES say "layup for yourselves treasures in heaven, and those who believe in a literal heaven are going to tend to take that literally as a pie-in-the-sky-by-and-by, "it will be worth it one day when we see Jesus" kind of way. Some will take it as you suggest, some will take it in both senses without breaking a sweat. My tribe was among the latter, we often taught that there are both literal and "figurative" (symbolic) meanings to many scriptures. We even taught that there were literal / figurative and partial and ultimate fulfillments for many prophecies. This relieved quite a bit of pressure from passages that either weren't clearly one or the other, or which outright conflicted with other scripture or with known facts. Gave us lots of wiggle room.

In the case of this scripture we had it both ways: we could build up both "spiritual riches" in this life and benefits / status in the afterlife. Both were supposed to compensate for lack and want in the physical realm, although I noticed they did a pretty crappy job of that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like mordant's post
17-02-2017, 01:21 AM
RE: Christians Move To EXECUTE Women For Abortions
(16-02-2017 08:07 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(15-02-2017 08:00 PM)Alla Wrote:  I think it is NOT about not wanting anything, it is more about not being too attached to things, not being addicted to things, not turning things to a master.
Be free, don't be slave of things.

That's what not wanting anything means.


(15-02-2017 08:00 PM)Alla Wrote:  If it was about not wanting anything Jesus wouldn't promise make us rich in heaven. He wouldn't promise treasures.

If you are alluding to "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal. But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." then I think you are misinterpreting it. The "treasures" being promised here are intangible. They lack substance. They are not "things". They are a result of having no desires. Jesus and Gautyama were saying the same thing. Heaven is not a place, it is a state of raw unadulterated desire-free being.
1)They are things. God owns things. It is OK to like things, to desire things, to own things (beautiful things, useful things).
But if we don't have them or if we loose them we shouldn't loose our peace and happiness without them.
2)you can use word "heaven" when you talk about physical place. Place where Gods live. You can use word "heaven" when you talk about state of raw .....

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-02-2017, 01:30 AM
RE: Christians Move To EXECUTE Women For Abortions



I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2017, 06:40 PM
RE: Christians Move To EXECUTE Women For Abortions
So, for lack of anywhere better to put this, in the news today, Norma McCorvey, also known as "Jane Roe" in the court documents, has died of heart failure at the age of 69. Initially a staunch proponent in favor of abortion, she later became a pro life activist. The greatest irony though, has to be that she did end up giving birth to a child in the case that bears her pseudonym, because the case took longer than the 9 months of gestation.

Need to think of a witty signature.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: