Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[Robert W]

When did Biden go against his church?

When did Elvis go against his church since you don't want to stay on topic.

 

[San Souci]

Hey genius. Abortion will not be banned, just a matter for states, but left wing liars will act like its the end of the world.

True. The Party of Ghouls ,Fags ,and illegals will have a mass cry.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Now explain why it’s ok to snuff-out such life.

Personally as a spiritual human being level I accept the Jewish explanation that God breathes spirituality into our physical bodies as we all emerge into the atmosphere from our mother and we take our first breath.

Be that sufficient as an answer to your request Saint Backagain, I also agree with a prominent right wing Evangelical Christian theologian Norman Geisler who said:

“The embryo is not fully human — it is an undeveloped person.”​

CHURCH AND STATE. Opinion | ‘Why Christians — and Republicans — Should Reconsider the Premise that ‘Life Begins at Conception’. - It’s not settled Christian theology, and it’s outliving its political utility

The famed evangelical theologian Norman Geisler put it in the clearest terms in the 1971 and 1975 versions of his work Christian Ethics: “The embryo is not fully human — it is an undeveloped person.”

Abortion, the Bible, and Us: The Evangelical About-Face on Abortion

A 1986 anti-abortion protest in the Bay Area (Photo by Nancy Wong, CC by SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons) To recap what I’ve covered in this series so far: Abortions were conducted throughout the ancient…

www.blindscholar.com

In the era before Roe v. Wade, many evangelical leaders argued that abortion was permissible in many circumstances. For example, the influential evangelical theologian and apologist Norman Geisler, in the 1971 and 1975 editions of his Christian Ethics, wrote the following, which I will quote at length:

The one clear thing which the Scriptures indicate about abortion is that it is not the same as murder. … Murder is a man-initiated activity of taking an actual human life. Artificial abortion is a humanly initiated process which results in the taking of a potential human life. Such abortion is not murder, because the embryo is not fully human — it is an undeveloped person.
When it is a clear-cut case of either taking the life of the unborn baby or letting the mother die, then abortion is called for. An actual life (the mother) is of more intrinsic value than a potential life (the unborn). The mother is a fully developed human; the baby is an undeveloped human. And an actually developed human is better than one which has the potential for full humanity but has not yet developed. Being fully human is a higher value than the mere possibility of becoming fully human. For what is has more value than what may be. …
Birth is not morally necessitated without consent. No woman should be forced to carry a child if she did not consent to intercourse. A violent intrusion into a woman’s womb does not bring with it a moral birthright for the embryo. The mother has a right to refuse that her body be used as an object of sexual intrusion. The violation of her honor and personhood was enough evil without compounding her plight by forcing an unwanted child on her besides. … the right of the potential life (the embryo) is overshadowed by the right of the actual life of the mother. The rights to life, health, and self-determination —
i.e., the rights to personhood — of the fully human mother take precedence over that of the potentially human embryo.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Personally as a spiritual human being level I accept the Jewish explanation that God breathes spirituality into our physical bodies as we all emerge into the atmosphere from our mother and we take our first breath.

Be that sufficient as an answer to your request Saint Backagain, I also agree with a prominent right wing Evangelical Christian theologian Norman Geisler who said:

“The embryo is not fully human — it is an undeveloped person.”​

CHURCH AND STATE. Opinion | ‘Why Christians — and Republicans — Should Reconsider the Premise that ‘Life Begins at Conception’. - It’s not settled Christian theology, and it’s outliving its political utility

The famed evangelical theologian Norman Geisler put it in the clearest terms in the 1971 and 1975 versions of his work Christian Ethics: “The embryo is not fully human — it is an undeveloped person.”

Abortion, the Bible, and Us: The Evangelical About-Face on Abortion

A 1986 anti-abortion protest in the Bay Area (Photo by Nancy Wong, CC by SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons) To recap what I’ve covered in this series so far: Abortions were conducted throughout the ancient…

www.blindscholar.com

In the era before Roe v. Wade, many evangelical leaders argued that abortion was permissible in many circumstances. For example, the influential evangelical theologian and apologist Norman Geisler, in the 1971 and 1975 editions of his Christian Ethics, wrote the following, which I will quote at length:

lol...after 612 posts over two years even you must admit this entire thread encapsulates your existence perfectly...not including all the ones that abandoned your position how many minds would you say you have changed?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

My case is simple.

Roe v. Wade getting overturned!! 240515 {post•12207}. Robert_W May’24 Srvwgo: “Kids that are hers come as both born and still in her.” rbrtw 240515 Srvwgo12207

Roe v. Wade getting overturned!! 240517 {post•12225}

When the kid is inside her it is a private matter. When the kid is outside; her he or she is a public matter, Simply put. Civil protective status is acquired by meeting the live birth individual personhood requirement called for in the US Constitution. nfbw 249517 Vrvwgo12225

 

[NotfooledbyW]

how many minds would you say you have changed?

A woman in an unwanted pregnancy is not morally necessitated to give birth in order to maintain civil order.

I’m looking for an intelligent argument that forcing full term gestation on all pregnant women is necessary to maintain civil order.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

A woman in an unwanted pregnancy is not morally necessitated to give birth in order to maintain civil order.

I’m looking for an intelligent argument that forcing full term gestation on all pregnant women is necessary to maintain civil order.

yes, the same exact tired old reworded argument that has not moved the needle in favor of "pro choice" roe v wade since you started crying about it...just take a look at this thread, who have you convinced you are right.

your stated position is the perfect example of why the matter was originally better left up to a sympathetic court than the voters, but even that didn't stand the test of time.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

NotfooledbyW

who have you convinced you are right.

Everyone including you who cannot make this argument.

NotfooledbyW said: I’m looking for an intelligent argument that forcing full term gestation on all pregnant women is necessary to maintain civil order.

 

[BackAgain]

Personally as a spiritual human being level I accept the Jewish explanation that God breathes spirituality into our physical bodies as we all emerge into the atmosphere from our mother and we take our first breath.

Be that sufficient as an answer to your request Saint Backagain, I also agree with a prominent right wing Evangelical Christian theologian Norman Geisler who said:

“The embryo is not fully human — it is an undeveloped person.”​

CHURCH AND STATE. Opinion | ‘Why Christians — and Republicans — Should Reconsider the Premise that ‘Life Begins at Conception’. - It’s not settled Christian theology, and it’s outliving its political utility

The famed evangelical theologian Norman Geisler put it in the clearest terms in the 1971 and 1975 versions of his work Christian Ethics: “The embryo is not fully human — it is an undeveloped person.”

Abortion, the Bible, and Us: The Evangelical About-Face on Abortion

A 1986 anti-abortion protest in the Bay Area (Photo by Nancy Wong, CC by SA 4.0, Wikimedia Commons) To recap what I’ve covered in this series so far: Abortions were conducted throughout the ancient…

www.blindscholar.com

In the era before Roe v. Wade, many evangelical leaders argued that abortion was permissible in many circumstances. For example, the influential evangelical theologian and apologist Norman Geisler, in the 1971 and 1975 editions of his Christian Ethics, wrote the following, which I will quote at length:

All your gasbag pontificating still boils down to one thing. You are ok with snuffing out human life.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Everyone including you who cannot make this argument.

so you believe you have changed "everyone's" mind...

NotfooledbyW said: I’m looking for an intelligent argument

when instead you should be trying to make one

that forcing full term gestation on all pregnant women is necessary to maintain civil order.

here is part of the problem for you, nobody is buying ^this/that^. over 2 years and over 12,000 posts and you have only lost ground

 

[eagle1462010]

NotfooledbyW

Everyone including you who cannot make this argument.

NotfooledbyW said: I’m looking for an intelligent argument that forcing full term gestation on all pregnant women is necessary to maintain civil order.

Good Luck. It is about When Life Begins. Nice try to SPIN.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

so you believe you have changed "everyone's" mind...

Absolutely not. I have no doubt that Republicans cannot quit the saving baby fetus cult even when they cannot put together a serious paragraph explaining why they want the government to force full term gestation on all pregnant women in order to maintain civil order.

NotfooledbyW said: I’m looking for an intelligent argument that forcing full term gestation on all pregnant women is necessary to maintain civil order.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

. It is about When Life Begins.

I’m sure you agree with me that life begins at conception. So why do you want the government to force full term gestation on all pregnant women in order to maintain civil order in a secular society where no religious world view is supposed to dominate the entire culture?

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Absolutely not.
I have no doubt that Republicans cannot quit the saving baby fetus cult even when they cannot put together a serious paragraph explaining why they want the government to force full term gestation on all pregnant women in order to maintain civil order.

Which means the only minds you could have possibly changed are those that agree(d) with you.

NotfooledbyW said: I’m looking for an intelligent argument that forcing full term gestation on all pregnant women is necessary to maintain civil order.

You remind me of Don Quixote and his battling of windmills, with the part of Sancho Panza as a compilation of everyone else who ultimately abandoned your quest leaving Quixote/you to battle himself and his delusions while your Dulcinea is off at the clinic with the dude who is responsible for her predicament.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

You remind me of Don Quixote

If you cannot put together a serious paragraph explaining why Republicans think using the government to force full term gestation on all pregnant
women is necessary to maintain civil order, why are you posting on this thread?

 

[Frankeneinstein]

If you cannot put together a serious paragraph explaining why Republicans think using the government to force full term gestation on all pregnant
women is necessary to maintain civil order,

It's like someone took their parrot to a new level by teaching it how to type.

why are you posting on this thread?

Well, I took a year and a half off from it and am now looking for something less strenuous than a vacation, so I decided to pick up right where I left off with you.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Well, I took a year and a half off from it and am now looking for something less strenuous than a vacation, so I decided to pick up right where I left off with you.

You left off with nothing substantive to contribute to providing an answer to this question;

I’m looking for an intelligent argument from you that forcing full term gestation on all pregnant women is necessary to maintain civil order but you do not have one so you must agree that when a woman who terminates her pregnancy in a safe and legal medical facility in private there us no detrimental effect on civil order.

It’s duly noted.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

You left off with nothing substantive to contribute to providing an answer to this question;

I’m looking for an intelligent argument from you that forcing full term gestation on all pregnant women is necessary to maintain civil order but you do not have one so you must agree that when a woman who terminates her pregnancy in a safe and legal medical facility in private there us no detrimental effect on civil order.

It’s duly noted.

How can you not see the similarities to Don Quixote? You believe you are fighting the good fight, right? treating the Inns/clinics like they were castles in need of defending? all for the woman/women who do not even know or care little that you exist? while Sancho [everyone else] has abandon your cause you soldier on!...
... and like Quixote who suffered bouts of insanity you suffer a delusional thought that you are sure will win the day as you embark on the third year of your quest.

 

[eagle1462010]

I’m sure you agree with me that life begins at conception. So why do you want the government to force full term gestation on all pregnant women in order to maintain civil order in a secular society where no religious world view is supposed to dominate the entire culture?

Who forced her to spread legs no protection

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Who forced her to spread legs no protection

How does it impact civil order if she has an abortion which is also none of your business?