Zone1 Abortion and Transgender is Demonic

[Monk-Eye]

" Providing Required Definitions "

* Nomian Versus Antinomian Genetic Religions *

Many false gods exist or existed in thoughts only( probably satan posing as those gods to get worship)--YHVH(Jehovah) is the true living God.

Are those conjectures consistent with an antinomian ethos ?

An antinomian ethos relates that by no name will a law be made ; an antinomian ethos includes paradox and consequently includes contradictions .

* Chosing Nomian Deontology Goads *

Zone1 Thread 'Eponymous Nomian Patriarch Genetic Religions Of Torahnism And Qurayshism : Isaac Versus Ishmael Sacrifice Circumcision Option'

Jan 13, 2023

" Eponymous Patriarch Nomian Genetic Religions Of Torahnism And Qurayshism : Isaac Or Ishmael Sacrifice And Circumcision "

* Opening Post Perspective Proposition For Contention *

There is contention between the nomian sects of qurayshism and torahnism as to whether abraham was directed by gawd to kill either ishmael or isaac .

The conjecture by torahnism is that abraham was directed by gawd to kill isaac but optioned the ritual of circumcision as atonement .

The conjecture by qurayshism is that abraham was directed by gawd to kill ishmael but optioned the ritual of circumcision...

• Monk-Eye
• Replies: 47
• Forum: Religion and Ethics

Thread 'End of Debate Over Whether To Reconcile'

Aug 20, 2019

" End Of Debate Over Whether To Reconcile "

* Immigration Versus Emigration *

Torahnism is a genetic religion for preservation of the patriarchal lineage of eponymous isaac , where the tenets , cultural traditions and city state laws ( 613 mitzvot ) , as proposed in the torah , would only apply within israel .

Qurayshism is a genetic religion for preservation of the patriarchal lineage of eponymous ishmael, where the tenets , cultural traditions and city state laws ( sharia ) , as proposed in the qurayn , would only apply within hejaz .

Any pretense that qurayshism applies...

• Monk-Eye
• Replies: 0
• Forum: Israel and Palestine

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Carnal Dirty Hue Mammon Apes Proclaiming Exceptions Only For Themselves "

* High Horse Grinding Dynamo On A Universal Scale Of Exploitation *

Abortion is neither moral, nor right.
Keep religion out of it, and emotions, too, for that matter.
It's a simple decision: Is ending life right or wrong? Don't bring religion into it. Don't bring emotion into it. Don't bring "ifs" into it. Don't bring any person into it. Is ending life right or wrong?

The terms right and left are antonyms , whereas the term right is not an antonym for yes , or correct , or true , which are slang .

The terms correct and incorrect or valid antonyms , as are ethical versus unethical .

Go kill an animal with indifference to screams of reality for yearn goad , as do the rest of us gluttonous canine wielding omnivores .

 

[kjw47]

" Providing Required Definitions "

* Nomian Versus Antinomian Genetic Religions *

Are those conjectures consistent with an antinomian ethos ?

An antinomian ethos relates that by no name will a law be made ; an antinomian ethos includes paradox and consequently includes contradictions .

* Chosing Nomian Deontology Goads *

Zone1 Thread 'Eponymous Nomian Patriarch Genetic Religions Of Torahnism And Qurayshism : Isaac Versus Ishmael Sacrifice Circumcision Option'

Jan 13, 2023

" Eponymous Patriarch Nomian Genetic Religions Of Torahnism And Qurayshism : Isaac Or Ishmael Sacrifice And Circumcision "

* Opening Post Perspective Proposition For Contention *

There is contention between the nomian sects of qurayshism and torahnism as to whether abraham was directed by gawd to kill either ishmael or isaac .

The conjecture by torahnism is that abraham was directed by gawd to kill isaac but optioned the ritual of circumcision as atonement .

The conjecture by qurayshism is that abraham was directed by gawd to kill ishmael but optioned the ritual of circumcision...

• Monk-Eye
• Replies: 47
• Forum: Religion and Ethics

Thread 'End of Debate Over Whether To Reconcile'

Aug 20, 2019

" End Of Debate Over Whether To Reconcile "

* Immigration Versus Emigration *

Torahnism is a genetic religion for preservation of the patriarchal lineage of eponymous isaac , where the tenets , cultural traditions and city state laws ( 613 mitzvot ) , as proposed in the torah , would only apply within israel .

Qurayshism is a genetic religion for preservation of the patriarchal lineage of eponymous ishmael, where the tenets , cultural traditions and city state laws ( sharia ) , as proposed in the qurayn , would only apply within hejaz .

Any pretense that qurayshism applies...

• Monk-Eye
• Replies: 0
• Forum: Israel and Palestine

Mumbo jumbo

 

[Meriweather]

"Ending life" is not wrong. I eat meat. I wash my hands. I have been on chemo. Cows, bacteria and cancer cells are all alive.

Try again, staying on the topic, which is human life. (Unless you have a clinic where bovine abortions are being performed?)

Each of us are endowed with free will, that is each individual can decide which decision is prime. Those who are anti-abortion see life as our greatest gift. This life begins at conception.

Those who are pro-abortion argue that an untimely pregnancy is not in the best interest of the parents, specifically the mother, but also the father when child-support is in play. Should a new life be sacrificed to make life easier for those of child-bearing age, especially when adoption is a viable alternative?

No matter which side a person takes, our minds seem designed to assure us we made the finest choice. Slavery is a good example of societal minds believing they were making the finest choice when it came to enslaving others, taking away an otherwise free life. Now society (as a whole) condemns slavery.

 

[Meriweather]

Go blubber to the pervasive sickness of yearn society , for callous indifference to suffering of others , as you pretend to actually care about the suffering of others .

Welcoming and supporting new life is callous indifference? Three things here: First, two of my dearest friends had abortions. Both continued to grieve on the anniversaries of these abortions. They spent the day with me, because I neither condemned nor supported their decision. Both said that meant everything to them. No, I am not arguing all women go through this intense grief, but some do.

Second, it has been shown that women who view the early ultrasound are more likely to change their decision about having an abortion.

Third, I'm from a large family where babies were always arriving at inconvenient times. Look at your own family. Which of your siblings would you wish dead?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

500 86 aatid …~… Anti-choice Catholics impose their religion on every American when they vote for Republican politicians at any level.

Meriweather aatid00569 …~… ding 's proposal of a Class C Misdemeanor is a quiet statement by society whispering, Ending a human life is not right. …~… Post Apr 10, 2025

whut I say aatid00586 …~… I am male so I will not ever have to contend whether I should intentionally end a human life that is inside my body. You being a Catholic woman surely have a right to consider ending a human life that is inside your body to be wrong. However, where do you get the horrifying idea that you have any interest leading you to require the government to force all other woman that it is wrong to end a life that is inside her body and she shall not do it in certain Christianity represented states.

dlxxxv

 

[Trickster]

Try again, staying on the topic, which is human life. (Unless you have a clinic where bovine abortions are being performed?)

I am on topic. Read it again. Maybe you'll get it eventually.

Each of us are endowed with free will, that is each individual can decide which decision is prime. Those who are anti-abortion see life as our greatest gift. This life begins at conception.

Hold it. You are not getting away with mixing the truth with the whims of your faith. It is true that human beings are individuals and possess volitional consciousness and free will. This is the premise from which the right to life is derived.

Now, a zygote is not an individual. It is not even yet a human being and it does not have volitional consciousness. It is not a life in the humam sense of the word and suggesting life begins at conception is both stupid and wrong.

Those who are pro-abortion argue that an untimely pregnancy is not in the best interest of the parents, specifically the mother, but also the father when child-support is in play. Should a new life be sacrificed to make life easier for those of child-bearing age, especially when adoption is a viable alternative?

First and foremost, you are misusing concepts for emotional manipulation again; there is no child involved in an abortion and a childless woman is not a mother.

There can be many reasons for a woman to have an abortion, but, yes, ultimately it boils down to what is in her interest because it is her friggen life. It is you who demand she sacrifices her life for a lifeform more primitive than a frog.

Adoption? She does not owe anyone a child since she is not breeding stock, she is a human being. Pregnancy is dangerous and takes lots of energy and time. 9 months of her life with the literal risk of death for what?

This is why it is a sham to call anti-abortionists "pro life". You are clearly anti-life.

No matter which side a person takes, our minds seem designed to assure us we made the finest choice. Slavery is a good example of societal minds believing they were making the finest choice when it came to enslaving others, taking away an otherwise free life. Now society (as a whole) condemns slavery.

Yes, slavery is indeed a great example because that is what y'all want to reduce a woman too, a slave to nature with no right to control her own body and her own fate.

 

[Trickster]

I am disgusted by opposition to abortion because it tells me how the person views life, rights and morality. It is a strictly immoral position to hold as it is anti-life and anti-rights.

Often the position comes from faith too, with the intention to push religion into legislation and shove the Bible down everyone's throat. Religious people can never stfu a d just keep their beliefs private.

Anti-abortionists are demonic.

 

[Meriweather]

whut I say aatid00586 …~… I am male so I will not ever have to contend whether I should intentionally end a human life that is inside my body. You being a Catholic woman surely have a right to consider ending a human life that is inside your body to be wrong. However, where do you get the horrifying idea that you have any interest leading you to require the government to force all other woman that it is wrong to end a life that is inside her body and she shall not do it in certain Christianity represented states.

Is it better for a government position be in support/defense of innocent life, or for a government to support the ending of a defenseless life? For example, how much life did the Chinese government end through the policy of limiting the number of children in families? For thirty-five years, that number was one. Then it was changed to two. Recently, three have been allowed.

 

[Meriweather]

I am on topic

Notice the number of times the response went into flailing personal attack mode against me because of the stance that life is our greatest gift, and as such, should be protected and cherished. The better argument on any topic has no room for personal attacks.

I come from the perspective of faith, a belief in God who takes personal interest in each individual, and everlasting life. Some believe that life is random, and if we happen to be born, this life is all that will ever be. Where do you stand?

 

[Trickster]

Notice the number of times the response went into flailing personal attack mode against me because of the stance that life is our greatest gift, and as such, should be protected and cherished. The better argument on any topic has no room for personal attacks.

I come from the perspective of faith, a belief in God who takes personal interest in each individual, and everlasting life. Some believe that life is random, and if we happen to be born, this life is all that will ever be. Where do you stand?

Look at you playing the victim. Save your tears for another day and instead look at the thread you are in and the language anti-abortionists constantly use. To me, anti-abortion is a deplorable positoon that should be shamed as much as possible.

Life begins at birth. It is a very clear cut issue. To the unwillingly pregmant it is not a gift. But, rather a punishnent. Forcing women into motherhood makes no sense if you truly view life as a gift.

 

[Meriweather]

Look at you

Ah, starting with another attack. It's kind of funny watching the flailing at a shadow.

 

[Trickster]

Welcoming and supporting new life is callous indifference?

it is certainly stupid.

Three things here: First, two of my dearest friends had abortions. Both continued to grieve on the anniversaries of these abortions.

That's a sad story, but not an argument. Let me guess, these friends wanted children. Rihbt? Also, why are you friends with people you say are murderers?

They spent the day with me, because I neither condemned nor supported their decision. Both said that meant everything to them. No, I am not arguing all women go through this intense grief, but some do.

You say it is murder yet don't condemn it?

Second, it has been shown that women who view the early ultrasound are more likely to change their decision about having an abortion.

Emotional mamipulation, the anti-abortionist's favorite tool.

Third, I'm from a large family where babies were always arriving at inconvenient times. Look at your own family. Which of your siblings would you wish dead?

Why would you wish your siblings dead?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

500 94 aatidxyz …~… Saint Ding wants the government to arrest and shame women who choose not to give birth to a unique new human being after they did not intend to become pregnant. Saint Ding is not ok.

ding rvwgo11497 …~… If we start from the position that ending a human life is wrong then there must be a punishment. I think it should be a misdemeanor. With increasing penalties for each additional one. That and they have to acknowledge that they are ending a human life; one that has never existed before and will never exist again. And that of their own accord they are freely choosing to end that life.

That way it is recognized as being wrong, but mercy is granted to the woman because of this unique situation. But she has to admit she is doing wrong. This will satisfy society and the woman without promoting abortion.

Where's the problem with this? …~… Post Oct 16, 2023


Meriweather aatidxyz000590 …~… Notice the number of times the response went into flailing personal attack mode against me because of the stance that life is our greatest gift, and as such, should be protected and cherished …~… Post Apr 11, 2025


whut I say aatidxyz00594 to 590 …~… You are not being attacked because of a stance that life is our greatest gift and as such, should be protected and cherished. I hold the exact same “stance”.

Our difference is in regards to the normally nine months of gestation that fertile women are tasked to endure. You take the position that the sanctity of life begins at conception based on one specific revealed world religion brought to your mind in your formative years by a system of religion known as Popery or Catholicism. My position is that the sanctity of life begins at the realistic capability to survive live birth.

My mind adopts the Constitutional live birth belief based on the same “ Jeffersonian rational theism” that was the driving experimental influence during the American Revolution and the founding of America.

Popery had no positive influence on the founding generation’s collective decision to overthrow the English Protestant version of Spanish and French Popery. Historians and sociologist have agreed however that Popery was viewed so negatively it inspired the concept of separation of church and state that was enshrined in the Constitution.

My rational theism has not transcended into religious fanaticism over the gestational human rights dilemma and it never will. The position that the sanctity of life begins at birth demands no coercion by the government to force Catholics or evangelicals to terminate their pregnancies ever.

You on the other hand are part of the Republican political religious fanaticism that wants to use the government to coerce all women out of making a personal and private decision that affects their life.. A decision the government has no business being involved with.

Do you believe you are being attacked in this post by me? It’s not your position on the sanctity of life at conception., it’s your participation in the overall abortion coalition of religious fanaticism that enlists the government to force your revealed religion views on people who do not agree with you.

Xiii,dxciv

 

[Meriweather]

it is certainly stupid.


That's a sad story, but not an argument. Let me guess, these friends wanted children. Rihbt? Also, why are you friends with people you say are murderers?


You say it is murder yet don't condemn it?

Emotional mamipulation, the anti-abortionist's favorite tool.

Why would you wish your siblings dead?

"Murderer" is your word; it has never been mine. Both wanted children very much.

As can be seen from only two examples, that's the problem with attacking the poster, instead of making a case for one's own position. Attacking the poster only results in clueless flailing.

 

[Meriweather]

My position is that the sanctity of life begins at the realistic capability to survive live birth.

One nation's position was a baby's ability to survive until its first birthday. What cannot be changed is when life begins. It begins at conception. Life can end at any point after conception. Whether that life is yet "human" seems a matter of opinion.

 

[Meriweather]

Do you believe you are being attacked in this post by me?

How many times was the word "you" used? The best rebuttals stand on their own without having to attack or denigrate other debaters.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

500 96 aatidxyz …~… legal abortion causes no harm to the public welfare in any way.

Meriweather aatidxyz00589 …~… Is it better for a government position be in support/defense of innocent life, or for a government to support the ending of a defenseless life? . …~… Post Apr 11, 2025

Whut I say aatidxyz00596 …~… Could we get your question asked in a more relevant to reality way so you may be able to receive my honest answer?

it should be asked as follows.:


Do you agree? (1) that our government is constitutionally bound to be respectful of the inalienable individual human rights of consenting lawful adult citizens who have sufficient knowledge to give their consent to be governed under our laws and system of justice; and (2) it is true that our government shall not for any purpose restrict the life, liberty or pursuit of happiness of any lawful individual who has become a part of our civil society at the moment they are born or are being carried in the womb of an expectant mother looking forward to that moment when a new human being is born.


Do you agree with the above yes or no. My answer is yes to both.

dxcvi

 

[Trickster]

"Murderer" is your word; it has never been mine. Both wanted children very much.

No, murder is your word by implication. if your premise is thatca ZEF is a human life and thus has rights, terminating its life is murder. Or else you are being inconsistent or do not actually hold your own premises as true.

Exactly, they wanted children. It is the woman's will that is the standard of value.

As can be seen from only two examples, that's the problem with attacking the poster, instead of making a case for one's own position. Attacking the poster only results in clueless flailing.

I have and am making my case.

 

[Meriweather]

your

your

you

your

Why not write the posts, pretending it is me, and have a good argument with yourself.