(10-09-2017 12:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-09-2017 12:11 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-09-2017 11:44 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-09-2017 11:14 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-09-2017 09:38 AM)bullet Wrote:  Its ultimately about when an unborn child becomes "human" and thus has a "right to life." So it is a spiritual question.

I don't know. For those who place their faith in science, this is one question that is definitely settled: human DNA.

We've exposed Ernst Haeckel's intentional lie. The human embryo doesn't go through various animal stages of development. It's never a fish or a pig or a chicken. It's always human.

DNA proves that.

We can debate when that human life becomes value in the eyes of God, but there is no debate, scientific or religious, as to when the life becomes human.


Oh, and as for the debate about when God deems a human life as valuable...

Jeremiah 1:5 (NKJV)
5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;

And you reveal the main problem with most Christians when using this verse. God was talking directly to Jeremiah here, not every fetus ever conceived.

And you left of this important part from Jeremiah, further revealing he's talking only to Jeremiah here:

"Before you were born I sanctified you;
I ordained you a prophet to the nations."

Actually, that bolsters the argument. Thanks.

Do you think God knows every person? Did He only know Jeremiah prior to forming him in the womb? Was it only Jeremiah He formed in the womb?



Do you agree with the settled science that based on DNA the embryo is human and that it is living and growing?

The point is that in that scripture God is only talking to and about Jeremiah, explaining that he pre-ordained his birth as a prophet to the nations. Applying that to every person ever born is not an accurate description or interpretation of that verse.

And of course the fetus is living and growing, but it's only doing so due to the mother. It's my opinion that it should not have constitutional rights until it can either live on its own outside the womb or with reasonable assistance from modern medicine.

You're not doing this biology-science thing very well.

The baby (fetus is you prefer) is living and growing due to both the mother AND the father.

Does a newborn have constitutional rights given that it can't live on its own outside the womb?

(10-09-2017 01:59 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-09-2017 12:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-09-2017 12:11 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-09-2017 11:44 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-09-2017 11:14 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  I don't know. For those who place their faith in science, this is one question that is definitely settled: human DNA.

We've exposed Ernst Haeckel's intentional lie. The human embryo doesn't go through various animal stages of development. It's never a fish or a pig or a chicken. It's always human.

DNA proves that.

We can debate when that human life becomes value in the eyes of God, but there is no debate, scientific or religious, as to when the life becomes human.


Oh, and as for the debate about when God deems a human life as valuable...

Jeremiah 1:5 (NKJV)
5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;

And you reveal the main problem with most Christians when using this verse. God was talking directly to Jeremiah here, not every fetus ever conceived.

And you left of this important part from Jeremiah, further revealing he's talking only to Jeremiah here:

"Before you were born I sanctified you;
I ordained you a prophet to the nations."

Actually, that bolsters the argument. Thanks.

Do you think God knows every person? Did He only know Jeremiah prior to forming him in the womb? Was it only Jeremiah He formed in the womb?



Do you agree with the settled science that based on DNA the embryo is human and that it is living and growing?

The point is that in that scripture God is only talking to and about Jeremiah, explaining that he pre-ordained his birth as a prophet to the nations. Applying that to every person ever born is not an accurate description or interpretation of that verse.

And of course the fetus is living and growing, but it's only doing so due to the mother. It's my opinion that it should not have constitutional rights until it can either live on its own outside the womb or with reasonable assistance from modern medicine.

You're not doing this biology-science thing very well.

The baby (fetus is you prefer) is living and growing due to both the mother AND the father.

Does a newborn have constitutional rights given that it can't live on its own outside the womb?

Dude, just stop. You know what I meant. I'm not going to sit here and type out every conceivable situation.

And I clearly said live on its own...which means it can breath on its own. And I even added the situation where it might need a machine to help it breath after it's born...you know...reasonable assistance.

(10-09-2017 01:29 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  Tom showing us who he really is.

Sorry to disappoint you HR, but it's not my fault that you can't separate your faith from creating government policy that applies to people who aren't Christians or have no faith, when I can.

(10-09-2017 02:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-09-2017 01:59 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-09-2017 12:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-09-2017 12:11 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-09-2017 11:44 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And you reveal the main problem with most Christians when using this verse. God was talking directly to Jeremiah here, not every fetus ever conceived.

And you left of this important part from Jeremiah, further revealing he's talking only to Jeremiah here:

"Before you were born I sanctified you;
I ordained you a prophet to the nations."

Actually, that bolsters the argument. Thanks.

Do you think God knows every person? Did He only know Jeremiah prior to forming him in the womb? Was it only Jeremiah He formed in the womb?



Do you agree with the settled science that based on DNA the embryo is human and that it is living and growing?

The point is that in that scripture God is only talking to and about Jeremiah, explaining that he pre-ordained his birth as a prophet to the nations. Applying that to every person ever born is not an accurate description or interpretation of that verse.

And of course the fetus is living and growing, but it's only doing so due to the mother. It's my opinion that it should not have constitutional rights until it can either live on its own outside the womb or with reasonable assistance from modern medicine.

You're not doing this biology-science thing very well.

The baby (fetus is you prefer) is living and growing due to both the mother AND the father.

Does a newborn have constitutional rights given that it can't live on its own outside the womb?

Dude, just stop. You know what I meant. I'm not going to sit here and type out every conceivable situation.

And I clearly said live on its own...which means it can breath on its own. And I even added the situation where it might need a machine to help it breath after it's born...you know...reasonable assistance.

Would providing the baby food and water be considered reasonable assistance? I'm sure you're aware that without food and water humans dies. And I'm sure you're aware that newborns and infants are incapable of procuring food and water on their own. They have to have help.


And, yeah, I know what you mean. But I wonder if you meant what you said.

(10-09-2017 02:24 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-09-2017 02:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-09-2017 01:59 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-09-2017 12:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-09-2017 12:11 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  Actually, that bolsters the argument. Thanks.

Do you think God knows every person? Did He only know Jeremiah prior to forming him in the womb? Was it only Jeremiah He formed in the womb?



Do you agree with the settled science that based on DNA the embryo is human and that it is living and growing?

The point is that in that scripture God is only talking to and about Jeremiah, explaining that he pre-ordained his birth as a prophet to the nations. Applying that to every person ever born is not an accurate description or interpretation of that verse.

And of course the fetus is living and growing, but it's only doing so due to the mother. It's my opinion that it should not have constitutional rights until it can either live on its own outside the womb or with reasonable assistance from modern medicine.

You're not doing this biology-science thing very well.

The baby (fetus is you prefer) is living and growing due to both the mother AND the father.

Does a newborn have constitutional rights given that it can't live on its own outside the womb?

Dude, just stop. You know what I meant. I'm not going to sit here and type out every conceivable situation.

And I clearly said live on its own...which means it can breath on its own. And I even added the situation where it might need a machine to help it breath after it's born...you know...reasonable assistance.

Would providing the baby food and water be considered reasonable assistance? I'm sure you're aware that without food and water humans dies. And I'm sure you're aware that newborns and infants are incapable of procuring food and water on their own. They have to have help.


And, yeah, I know what you mean. But I wonder if you meant what you said.

OFFS.

(10-09-2017 02:21 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-09-2017 01:29 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  Tom showing us who he really is.

Sorry to disappoint you HR, but it's not my fault that you can't separate your faith from creating government policy that applies to people who aren't Christians or have no faith, when I can.

I can't separate my faith from gov't policy when it involves destroying an innocent.

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.



What makes you think you know more than a family? Who or what gave you the authority to judge others actions?

(10-09-2017 05:39 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.



What makes you think you know more than a family? Who or what gave you the authority to judge others actions?

So murder and robbery should be ok since we shouldn't judge?

It’s sanctimonious to call it murder. This is a decision between a family and their Dr and their God. Not the govt.

At the base of it it’s a Hippa statute. You have no business being involved in it.

It is murder. Save your sanctimonious bs.

Motherfuckers aren't consulting God on this so don't bs there either.

(10-09-2017 09:02 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  It’s sanctimonious to call it murder. This is a decision between a family and their Dr and their God. Not the govt.

LOL... seriously?

Initiating an event that kills an human being shouldn't be called murder?

Just curious... if the government says a certain action is OK and legal, does that really mean that it's OK and should be legal?

(10-09-2017 02:56 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-09-2017 02:24 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-09-2017 02:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-09-2017 01:59 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(10-09-2017 12:44 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  The point is that in that scripture God is only talking to and about Jeremiah, explaining that he pre-ordained his birth as a prophet to the nations. Applying that to every person ever born is not an accurate description or interpretation of that verse.

And of course the fetus is living and growing, but it's only doing so due to the mother. It's my opinion that it should not have constitutional rights until it can either live on its own outside the womb or with reasonable assistance from modern medicine.

You're not doing this biology-science thing very well.

The baby (fetus is you prefer) is living and growing due to both the mother AND the father.

Does a newborn have constitutional rights given that it can't live on its own outside the womb?

Dude, just stop. You know what I meant. I'm not going to sit here and type out every conceivable situation.

And I clearly said live on its own...which means it can breath on its own. And I even added the situation where it might need a machine to help it breath after it's born...you know...reasonable assistance.

Would providing the baby food and water be considered reasonable assistance? I'm sure you're aware that without food and water humans dies. And I'm sure you're aware that newborns and infants are incapable of procuring food and water on their own. They have to have help.


And, yeah, I know what you mean. But I wonder if you meant what you said.

OFFS.

Don't hurt yourself.

(10-09-2017 09:08 PM)Paul M Wrote:  It is murder. Save your sanctimonious bs.

Motherfuckers aren't consulting God on this so don't bs there either.

Not according to SCOTUS, and therefore, the Constitution. Sorry.

We are a land of laws. Not sanctimonious know it alls. People who think they KNOW better than the family actually having the child. These people want to tell others how to live their lives. It's the ULTIMATE NANNY STATE! You guys are a collection of conflicting ideologies.

Denying life is a l i t t l e bit more sanctimonious. And selfish. And evil. Etc....

****** up world were people think murdering children is no big deal.

(10-10-2017 08:08 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  We are a land of laws. Not sanctimonious know it alls. People who think they KNOW better than the family actually having the child. These people want to tell others how to live their lives. It's the ULTIMATE NANNY STATE! You guys are a collection of conflicting ideologies.

You're exactly right. We are a land of laws.

And as you're aware, laws change. The reasons for this are varied. For example, racial discrimination was legal at one point and then it was illegal.

At one point alcohol was legal, then it was illegal, and then it was legal again.


At one point it was illegal to kill unborn children. Then it became legal -- in certain cases. Then in all cases. Now some methods are illegal while others are legal. Also now it's illegal to kill unborn children if their death was not due to abortion but to some other act (drunk driving, homicide, etc).

Do you have an issue with continued scientific and legal scrutiny over the act of abortion?

Or do you not want to review the facts because you're afraid it will override your dogmatic beliefs?

(10-10-2017 08:47 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Denying life is a l i t t l e bit more sanctimonious. And selfish. And evil. Etc....

****** up world were people think murdering children is no big deal.

Murdering children is OF COURSE a big deal. But the majority of our society as well as the SCOTUS doesn't see it your way that these are "children". Nor do they see it as murder, legally or otherwise.

And neither I nor anyone I know wants to see any abortions take place. But that's just not the reality of the situation. We can only control what we do personally.

(10-10-2017 12:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 08:47 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Denying life is a l i t t l e bit more sanctimonious. And selfish. And evil. Etc....

****** up world were people think murdering children is no big deal.

Murdering children is OF COURSE a big deal. But the majority of our society as well as the SCOTUS doesn't see it your way that these are "children". Nor do they see it as murder, legally or otherwise.

And neither I nor anyone I know wants to see any abortions take place. But that's just not the reality of the situation. We can only control what we do personally.

You're wrong. SCOTUS has said that you can restrict how and when abortions are done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Carhart

(10-10-2017 12:17 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 12:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-10-2017 08:47 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Denying life is a l i t t l e bit more sanctimonious. And selfish. And evil. Etc....

****** up world were people think murdering children is no big deal.

Murdering children is OF COURSE a big deal. But the majority of our society as well as the SCOTUS doesn't see it your way that these are "children". Nor do they see it as murder, legally or otherwise.

And neither I nor anyone I know wants to see any abortions take place. But that's just not the reality of the situation. We can only control what we do personally.

You're wrong. SCOTUS has said that you can restrict how and when abortions are done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Carhart

Not sure what I'm wrong about, I never claimed there aren't restrictions and such. I'm only saying that legal abortion is in fact legal, and not murder.