(07-07-2022 06:54 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 02:39 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 11:10 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  If you had bothered to read even half the thread you would have seen where I supported such possible exceptions in over a dozen different posts. Never in my life have I suggested 10 year old rape victim should be forced to carry to term.

I realize in your fantasy world you create for yourself I have, but back here in the real world the complete opposite is true and always has been.

(07-05-2022 11:23 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  This is the same genius who keeps posting half the country are terrorists then brags how he doesn't attack others for their views and lives his life by the "golden rule".

So you deflect again by saying I should have already known you support exceptions? I wanted you to address the moral dilemma. That is what matters. How is it the innocent "baby" fault who their parents are? Why should it be punished? It's okay to murder babys when their parents did something wrong? How do you think you'll be judged on your day of reckoning for that? If you think you'd be given a "pass" for murder in this case, why not in the typical case of abortion where the mother is just as emotionally effected by pregnancy (if not more so in some cases) as that of the one who was raped? Is it morally right for us to be the judge of when "murder" is okay in these instances, rather than the woman herself who is the one actually emotionally effected?!

I mean there are many tentacles to this moral monkey.. not just the one I mentioned above. Have you considered the very realistic and likely scenario where the 10-year-old child is against abortion and actually wants the child, yet because you allow exceptions, you are allowing her parents to force her against her will to murder the "baby"? How do you think your maker is going to judge you on your day of reckoning for that?

Again, don't deflect, just address the moral monkey.

(07-06-2022 10:52 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  Acting like it's not is to ignore the facts.

Less than 3% (and I would argue much less than 3%) of all abortions in the US are for rape, incest & health/life of mother.

More than 97% are elective. Whatever reason you give, financially unable to provide, not emotionally ready, ANY reason... by definition the woman is controlling whether or not give birth.

If you want statistics, why not address all the relevant statistics when it comes to aborted embryos?

It is estimated approximately half of all fertilized embryos are aborted spontaneously without the woman even knowing she is pregnant. If a fertilized egg is so special enough to be called a "baby", isn't that an ungodly high number of "babies" God is murdering?

It is also estimated, among those who know they are pregnant, that 10-25% of these embryos/fetuses also end in a nature miscarriage. Again, isn't that an ungodly high number of "babies" God is "murdering" for something that is supposedly a "baby"?

Now among valid birth control methods taken before pregnancy, a significant number of them (especially the popular IUDs) induce spontaneous miscarriages in the same process that "God" induces them naturally. How is this any less "evil" than what "God" does? And if it's not, then how is a pill taken after pregnancy any less "evil"? I mean if God truly wanted to "save" the "baby", wouldn't he just nullify the effect of the contraception method or abortion pill, which is what happens in some cases anyway? "God" is obviously already involved in the decision making process anyway when he chooses to abort the half of fertilized eggs/embryos naturally.

Your comparison, like most of your posts, is just ridiculous. It doesn't deserve to be justified with a rebuttal.

Not if you're part of the crowd claiming "life" begins when the sperm hits the egg.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/15444...42208.html

Interesting look at the story from OH. No one has been able to confirm it

(07-07-2022 07:05 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 06:54 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 02:39 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 11:10 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  If you had bothered to read even half the thread you would have seen where I supported such possible exceptions in over a dozen different posts. Never in my life have I suggested 10 year old rape victim should be forced to carry to term.

I realize in your fantasy world you create for yourself I have, but back here in the real world the complete opposite is true and always has been.

(07-05-2022 11:23 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  This is the same genius who keeps posting half the country are terrorists then brags how he doesn't attack others for their views and lives his life by the "golden rule".

So you deflect again by saying I should have already known you support exceptions? I wanted you to address the moral dilemma. That is what matters. How is it the innocent "baby" fault who their parents are? Why should it be punished? It's okay to murder babys when their parents did something wrong? How do you think you'll be judged on your day of reckoning for that? If you think you'd be given a "pass" for murder in this case, why not in the typical case of abortion where the mother is just as emotionally effected by pregnancy (if not more so in some cases) as that of the one who was raped? Is it morally right for us to be the judge of when "murder" is okay in these instances, rather than the woman herself who is the one actually emotionally effected?!

I mean there are many tentacles to this moral monkey.. not just the one I mentioned above. Have you considered the very realistic and likely scenario where the 10-year-old child is against abortion and actually wants the child, yet because you allow exceptions, you are allowing her parents to force her against her will to murder the "baby"? How do you think your maker is going to judge you on your day of reckoning for that?

Again, don't deflect, just address the moral monkey.

(07-06-2022 10:52 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  Acting like it's not is to ignore the facts.

Less than 3% (and I would argue much less than 3%) of all abortions in the US are for rape, incest & health/life of mother.

More than 97% are elective. Whatever reason you give, financially unable to provide, not emotionally ready, ANY reason... by definition the woman is controlling whether or not give birth.

If you want statistics, why not address all the relevant statistics when it comes to aborted embryos?

It is estimated approximately half of all fertilized embryos are aborted spontaneously without the woman even knowing she is pregnant. If a fertilized egg is so special enough to be called a "baby", isn't that an ungodly high number of "babies" God is murdering?

It is also estimated, among those who know they are pregnant, that 10-25% of these embryos/fetuses also end in a nature miscarriage. Again, isn't that an ungodly high number of "babies" God is "murdering" for something that is supposedly a "baby"?

Now among valid birth control methods taken before pregnancy, a significant number of them (especially the popular IUDs) induce spontaneous miscarriages in the same process that "God" induces them naturally. How is this any less "evil" than what "God" does? And if it's not, then how is a pill taken after pregnancy any less "evil"? I mean if God truly wanted to "save" the "baby", wouldn't he just nullify the effect of the contraception method or abortion pill, which is what happens in some cases anyway? "God" is obviously already involved in the decision making process anyway when he chooses to abort the half of fertilized eggs/embryos naturally.

Your comparison, like most of your posts, is just ridiculous. It doesn't deserve to be justified with a rebuttal.

Not if you're part of the crowd claiming "life" begins when the sperm hits the egg.

Both science and religion say that is life.

(07-07-2022 07:24 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 07:05 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 06:54 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 02:39 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(07-05-2022 11:10 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  If you had bothered to read even half the thread you would have seen where I supported such possible exceptions in over a dozen different posts. Never in my life have I suggested 10 year old rape victim should be forced to carry to term.

I realize in your fantasy world you create for yourself I have, but back here in the real world the complete opposite is true and always has been.

(07-05-2022 11:23 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  This is the same genius who keeps posting half the country are terrorists then brags how he doesn't attack others for their views and lives his life by the "golden rule".

So you deflect again by saying I should have already known you support exceptions? I wanted you to address the moral dilemma. That is what matters. How is it the innocent "baby" fault who their parents are? Why should it be punished? It's okay to murder babys when their parents did something wrong? How do you think you'll be judged on your day of reckoning for that? If you think you'd be given a "pass" for murder in this case, why not in the typical case of abortion where the mother is just as emotionally effected by pregnancy (if not more so in some cases) as that of the one who was raped? Is it morally right for us to be the judge of when "murder" is okay in these instances, rather than the woman herself who is the one actually emotionally effected?!

I mean there are many tentacles to this moral monkey.. not just the one I mentioned above. Have you considered the very realistic and likely scenario where the 10-year-old child is against abortion and actually wants the child, yet because you allow exceptions, you are allowing her parents to force her against her will to murder the "baby"? How do you think your maker is going to judge you on your day of reckoning for that?

Again, don't deflect, just address the moral monkey.

(07-06-2022 10:52 AM)umbluegray Wrote:  Acting like it's not is to ignore the facts.

Less than 3% (and I would argue much less than 3%) of all abortions in the US are for rape, incest & health/life of mother.

More than 97% are elective. Whatever reason you give, financially unable to provide, not emotionally ready, ANY reason... by definition the woman is controlling whether or not give birth.

If you want statistics, why not address all the relevant statistics when it comes to aborted embryos?

It is estimated approximately half of all fertilized embryos are aborted spontaneously without the woman even knowing she is pregnant. If a fertilized egg is so special enough to be called a "baby", isn't that an ungodly high number of "babies" God is murdering?

It is also estimated, among those who know they are pregnant, that 10-25% of these embryos/fetuses also end in a nature miscarriage. Again, isn't that an ungodly high number of "babies" God is "murdering" for something that is supposedly a "baby"?

Now among valid birth control methods taken before pregnancy, a significant number of them (especially the popular IUDs) induce spontaneous miscarriages in the same process that "God" induces them naturally. How is this any less "evil" than what "God" does? And if it's not, then how is a pill taken after pregnancy any less "evil"? I mean if God truly wanted to "save" the "baby", wouldn't he just nullify the effect of the contraception method or abortion pill, which is what happens in some cases anyway? "God" is obviously already involved in the decision making process anyway when he chooses to abort the half of fertilized eggs/embryos naturally.

Your comparison, like most of your posts, is just ridiculous. It doesn't deserve to be justified with a rebuttal.

Not if you're part of the crowd claiming "life" begins when the sperm hits the egg.

Both science and religion say that is life.

So then you believe that God allows this "life" to begin but then kills it, by the thousands? And your interpretation of what religion says isn't the same as what others interpret. Jews certainly don't say this is when life begins. And many interpret the Bible as saying life begins with breath.

If it has human DNA, it is human. Pretty simple. Everything else is noise.

(07-07-2022 07:36 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  If it has human DNA, it is human. Pretty simple. Everything else is noise.

Well, yeah...it's clearly not canine.

But sperm has DNA, that's of course human, but it's not a life.

(07-07-2022 07:42 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 07:36 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  If it has human DNA, it is human. Pretty simple. Everything else is noise.

Well, yeah...it's clearly not canine.

But sperm has DNA, that's of course human, but it's not a life.

im sure yours arent

(07-07-2022 07:35 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 07:24 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 07:05 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 06:54 AM)appst89 Wrote:  Your comparison, like most of your posts, is just ridiculous. It doesn't deserve to be justified with a rebuttal.

Not if you're part of the crowd claiming "life" begins when the sperm hits the egg.

Both science and religion say that is life.

So then you believe that God allows this "life" to begin but then kills it, by the thousands? And your interpretation of what religion says isn't the same as what others interpret. Jews certainly don't say this is when life begins. And many interpret the Bible as saying life begins with breath.

Make up your mind what your arguments are Tom.

BOTH science and Christian views are that this is life.

Do you agree with both the science and Christian view that a fertilized egg is life? Or are you in the crowd that now denies BOTH the science and Christian view?

(07-07-2022 07:35 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  So then you believe that God allows this "life" to begin but then kills it, by the thousands?

Billions actually.

God decreed in Genesis all people ever born will die once.

But to equate natural miscarriage with God murdering a baby is as pathetic as it gets on this.

(07-07-2022 07:42 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 07:36 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  If it has human DNA, it is human. Pretty simple. Everything else is noise.

Well, yeah...it's clearly not canine.

But sperm has DNA, that's of course human, but it's not a life.

Tom now rejecting basic science as well.

(07-07-2022 07:20 AM)solohawks Wrote:  https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/15444...42208.html

Interesting look at the story from OH. No one has been able to confirm it

The story stunk from the beginning. It still stinks. It's more likely than not a fabrication.

(07-07-2022 07:35 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 07:24 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 07:05 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 06:54 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 02:39 PM)scorpius Wrote:  So you deflect again by saying I should have already known you support exceptions? I wanted you to address the moral dilemma. That is what matters. How is it the innocent "baby" fault who their parents are? Why should it be punished? It's okay to murder babys when their parents did something wrong? How do you think you'll be judged on your day of reckoning for that? If you think you'd be given a "pass" for murder in this case, why not in the typical case of abortion where the mother is just as emotionally effected by pregnancy (if not more so in some cases) as that of the one who was raped? Is it morally right for us to be the judge of when "murder" is okay in these instances, rather than the woman herself who is the one actually emotionally effected?!

I mean there are many tentacles to this moral monkey.. not just the one I mentioned above. Have you considered the very realistic and likely scenario where the 10-year-old child is against abortion and actually wants the child, yet because you allow exceptions, you are allowing her parents to force her against her will to murder the "baby"? How do you think your maker is going to judge you on your day of reckoning for that?

Again, don't deflect, just address the moral monkey.


If you want statistics, why not address all the relevant statistics when it comes to aborted embryos?

It is estimated approximately half of all fertilized embryos are aborted spontaneously without the woman even knowing she is pregnant. If a fertilized egg is so special enough to be called a "baby", isn't that an ungodly high number of "babies" God is murdering?

It is also estimated, among those who know they are pregnant, that 10-25% of these embryos/fetuses also end in a nature miscarriage. Again, isn't that an ungodly high number of "babies" God is "murdering" for something that is supposedly a "baby"?

Now among valid birth control methods taken before pregnancy, a significant number of them (especially the popular IUDs) induce spontaneous miscarriages in the same process that "God" induces them naturally. How is this any less "evil" than what "God" does? And if it's not, then how is a pill taken after pregnancy any less "evil"? I mean if God truly wanted to "save" the "baby", wouldn't he just nullify the effect of the contraception method or abortion pill, which is what happens in some cases anyway? "God" is obviously already involved in the decision making process anyway when he chooses to abort the half of fertilized eggs/embryos naturally.

Your comparison, like most of your posts, is just ridiculous. It doesn't deserve to be justified with a rebuttal.

Not if you're part of the crowd claiming "life" begins when the sperm hits the egg.

Both science and religion say that is life.

So then you believe that God allows this "life" to begin but then kills it, by the thousands? And your interpretation of what religion says isn't the same as what others interpret. Jews certainly don't say this is when life begins. And many interpret the Bible as saying life begins with breath.

They interpret falsely. God knew us before we ever even came into being. So, he knew before the womb during the womb and after the womb. Just stop with the willful ignorance.

(07-07-2022 07:35 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 07:24 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 07:05 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 06:54 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(07-06-2022 02:39 PM)scorpius Wrote:  So you deflect again by saying I should have already known you support exceptions? I wanted you to address the moral dilemma. That is what matters. How is it the innocent "baby" fault who their parents are? Why should it be punished? It's okay to murder babys when their parents did something wrong? How do you think you'll be judged on your day of reckoning for that? If you think you'd be given a "pass" for murder in this case, why not in the typical case of abortion where the mother is just as emotionally effected by pregnancy (if not more so in some cases) as that of the one who was raped? Is it morally right for us to be the judge of when "murder" is okay in these instances, rather than the woman herself who is the one actually emotionally effected?!

I mean there are many tentacles to this moral monkey.. not just the one I mentioned above. Have you considered the very realistic and likely scenario where the 10-year-old child is against abortion and actually wants the child, yet because you allow exceptions, you are allowing her parents to force her against her will to murder the "baby"? How do you think your maker is going to judge you on your day of reckoning for that?

Again, don't deflect, just address the moral monkey.


If you want statistics, why not address all the relevant statistics when it comes to aborted embryos?

It is estimated approximately half of all fertilized embryos are aborted spontaneously without the woman even knowing she is pregnant. If a fertilized egg is so special enough to be called a "baby", isn't that an ungodly high number of "babies" God is murdering?

It is also estimated, among those who know they are pregnant, that 10-25% of these embryos/fetuses also end in a nature miscarriage. Again, isn't that an ungodly high number of "babies" God is "murdering" for something that is supposedly a "baby"?

Now among valid birth control methods taken before pregnancy, a significant number of them (especially the popular IUDs) induce spontaneous miscarriages in the same process that "God" induces them naturally. How is this any less "evil" than what "God" does? And if it's not, then how is a pill taken after pregnancy any less "evil"? I mean if God truly wanted to "save" the "baby", wouldn't he just nullify the effect of the contraception method or abortion pill, which is what happens in some cases anyway? "God" is obviously already involved in the decision making process anyway when he chooses to abort the half of fertilized eggs/embryos naturally.

Your comparison, like most of your posts, is just ridiculous. It doesn't deserve to be justified with a rebuttal.

Not if you're part of the crowd claiming "life" begins when the sperm hits the egg.

Both science and religion say that is life.

So then you believe that God allows this "life" to begin but then kills it, by the thousands? And your interpretation of what religion says isn't the same as what others interpret. Jews certainly don't say this is when life begins. And many interpret the Bible as saying life begins with breath.

Are you talking about the very ones who reject Christ as well? That is a source I definitely want to ascribe to.

(07-07-2022 08:26 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 07:35 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 07:24 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 07:05 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 06:54 AM)appst89 Wrote:  Your comparison, like most of your posts, is just ridiculous. It doesn't deserve to be justified with a rebuttal.

Not if you're part of the crowd claiming "life" begins when the sperm hits the egg.

Both science and religion say that is life.

So then you believe that God allows this "life" to begin but then kills it, by the thousands? And your interpretation of what religion says isn't the same as what others interpret. Jews certainly don't say this is when life begins. And many interpret the Bible as saying life begins with breath.

Are you talking about the very ones who reject Christ as well? That is a source I definitely want to ascribe to.

Last I checked they were Americans, dillweed. You know, the country where we used to be free to worship as we please.

(07-07-2022 08:31 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 08:26 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 07:35 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 07:24 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 07:05 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Not if you're part of the crowd claiming "life" begins when the sperm hits the egg.

Both science and religion say that is life.

So then you believe that God allows this "life" to begin but then kills it, by the thousands? And your interpretation of what religion says isn't the same as what others interpret. Jews certainly don't say this is when life begins. And many interpret the Bible as saying life begins with breath.

Are you talking about the very ones who reject Christ as well? That is a source I definitely want to ascribe to.

Last I checked they were Americans, dillweed. You know, the country where we used to be free to worship as we please.

Once again since you seem a little slow this morning. Are you talking about the very ones who reject Christ as well?

(07-07-2022 08:24 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 07:35 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 07:24 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 07:05 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 06:54 AM)appst89 Wrote:  Your comparison, like most of your posts, is just ridiculous. It doesn't deserve to be justified with a rebuttal.

Not if you're part of the crowd claiming "life" begins when the sperm hits the egg.

Both science and religion say that is life.

So then you believe that God allows this "life" to begin but then kills it, by the thousands? And your interpretation of what religion says isn't the same as what others interpret. Jews certainly don't say this is when life begins. And many interpret the Bible as saying life begins with breath.

They interpret falsely. God knew us before we ever even came into being. So, he knew before the womb during the womb and after the womb. Just stop with the willful ignorance.

Oh...you mean the scripture where God is referring directly to Jeremiah and no one else?

And what about Job?

Quote:The Spirit of God has made me; the breath of the Almighty gives me life.

And Ezekiel?

Quote:Thus says the Lord God to these bones: “Surely I will cause breath to enter into you, and you shall live. I will put sinews on you and bring flesh upon you, cover you with skin and put breath in you; and you shall live. Then you shall know that I am the Lord.”

And it really doesn't matter if you think they interpret it falsely. They are free to interpret it how they want.

I hope you can admit that trying to run our country on one person's interpretation of their religious scripture is a tad problematic.

(07-07-2022 08:34 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 08:31 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 08:26 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 07:35 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 07:24 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  Both science and religion say that is life.

So then you believe that God allows this "life" to begin but then kills it, by the thousands? And your interpretation of what religion says isn't the same as what others interpret. Jews certainly don't say this is when life begins. And many interpret the Bible as saying life begins with breath.

Are you talking about the very ones who reject Christ as well? That is a source I definitely want to ascribe to.

Last I checked they were Americans, dillweed. You know, the country where we used to be free to worship as we please.

Once again since you seem a little slow this morning. Are you talking about the very ones who reject Christ as well?

It doesn't matter. Our laws need to apply to everyone. If not, this experiment is OVER!

(07-07-2022 08:39 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I hope you can admit that trying to run our country on one person's interpretation of their religious scripture is a tad problematic.

BOTH science and Christian views are that this is life.

Do you agree with both the science and Christian view that a fertilized egg is life? Or are you in the crowd that now denies BOTH the science and Christian view?

(07-07-2022 08:39 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 08:24 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 07:35 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 07:24 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 07:05 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Not if you're part of the crowd claiming "life" begins when the sperm hits the egg.

Both science and religion say that is life.

So then you believe that God allows this "life" to begin but then kills it, by the thousands? And your interpretation of what religion says isn't the same as what others interpret. Jews certainly don't say this is when life begins. And many interpret the Bible as saying life begins with breath.

They interpret falsely. God knew us before we ever even came into being. So, he knew before the womb during the womb and after the womb. Just stop with the willful ignorance.

Oh...you mean the scripture where God is referring directly to Jeremiah and no one else?

And what about Job?

Quote:The Spirit of God has made me; the breath of the Almighty gives me life.

And Ezekiel?

Quote:Thus says the Lord God to these bones: “Surely I will cause breath to enter into you, and you shall live. I will put sinews on you and bring flesh upon you, cover you with skin and put breath in you; and you shall live. Then you shall know that I am the Lord.”

And it really doesn't matter if you think they interpret it falsely. They are free to interpret it how they want.

I hope you can admit that trying to run our country on one person's interpretation of their religious scripture is a tad problematic.

I'm positive that is exactly what you and your leftists have been trying to do since Dementia man was installed in office. Glad you finally came out and admitted it.

And, I am also free to reject the lunacy of their interpretation. Seems like they have a track record of poor interpretation of how things are.

(07-07-2022 08:39 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Oh...you mean the scripture where God is referring directly to Jeremiah and no one else?

And what about Job?

Quote:The Spirit of God has made me; the breath of the Almighty gives me life.

And Ezekiel?

Quote:Thus says the Lord God to these bones: “Surely I will cause breath to enter into you, and you shall live. I will put sinews on you and bring flesh upon you, cover you with skin and put breath in you; and you shall live. Then you shall know that I am the Lord.”

And it really doesn't matter if you think they interpret it falsely. They are free to interpret it how they want.

I hope you can admit that trying to run our country on one person's interpretation of their religious scripture is a tad problematic.

You should have read that Ezekiel passage before doing that blind copy paste job Tom, its not about a baby but God resurrection Israel from the dry bones following his judgement against them.

The Bible has a lot more examples than just Jeremiah being alive before He was born.

Luke 1:39-44 (This is after the angel Gabriel came to Mary to tell her she would be the mother of the messiah.) “Now Mary rose in those days and went into the hill country with haste, to a city of Judah, and entered the house of Zacharias and greeted Elizabeth. And it happened, that when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. Then she spoke with a loud voice and said ‘Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! But why is it granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For indeed, as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.'”

John the Baptist had never taken a single breath of air through his nostril, yet he was alive and aware in his mothers womb that Jesus too was alive and standing next to him in His mothers womb.


I would suggest you leave the Bible quoting to us who actually, you know.....READ the Bible.

(07-07-2022 08:41 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(07-07-2022 08:39 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I hope you can admit that trying to run our country on one person's interpretation of their religious scripture is a tad problematic.

BOTH science and Christian views are that this is life.

Do you agree with both the science and Christian view that a fertilized egg is life? Or are you in the crowd that now denies BOTH the science and Christian view?

Just because it's "life" doesn't mean it's a "baby" or that it's "murder" if it's terminated. The very fact that over half the population does not believe it's "murder" in the first few months of pregnancy indicates well beyond a reasonable doubt that this is a matter of faith, and thus under the principles in which this country was founded, should be left out of government reach. This is something that should only be regulated by religion, not governments. Those who want to allow government to take away our choice in this faith are effectively slapping the founders in the face by spitting on the whole concept of the separation of church and state.