Conservatives Imposing Religious Views Without That Right!

[Cecilie1200]

Anyone notices that Zoom-boing poster, and apparently also saveliberty poster, are making no references to the federal statutes when asserting that "Abortion is murder of the innocent."

Anyone notices that federal statutes are not "Slogan Points," but that "Abortion is murder of the innocent" is clearly a slogan point.

Anyone notice that you're making your objection based solely on parsing the word "murder", but you're not actually making any sort of argument against their posts? You're just saying, "No federal statutes" as though that discredits everything they've said and proves you right, and then move on to your pre-prepared speech.

Let's see how you can do when your red herring is removed. The vast majority of abortion in America is the immoral killing of an innocent child. Please respond.

Zoom-boing poster seems to know something of the medical practice of Nazi Dr. Mengele. Zoom-boing poster would have to explain those procedures in the manner that mascale would explain them. Clearly, civilization world-wide condemns the procedures of Nazi Dr. Mengele. That is the same civilization worldwide that regulates the medical practice of abortions.

Zoom-boing poster is better said in the same minority position as Mengele is said and is regarded. Zoom-boing poster is apparently opposed to federal funding of regulated, medical abortions.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Ignorance of the law has never been said an excuse, after all!)

Duh, Mensa Boy. And what kind of 'tard runs around referring to himself in third person? Are you autistic, or what?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Only in some perverse belief system is some unwanted guest, like a bum, sponging off a host, in this case the mother: Considered some nature of innocent human life.

Actually, people often call the police when that happens.

The critter at issue draws from the host and grows. No one can ascribe it guilt or innocence, except in perversity. No one suggests that a tiny, premature birth, prior to the appointed time of conception is somehow guilty of not going to the term. Only someone perverse can so-state. No one suggests that a tiny, premature birth, prior to the appointed time of conception is innocent in the matter of not going to the term. Only someone perverse can so-state.

For one or another reasons, in the case of an abortion, the symbiotic relationship gets ended, and at the direction of the host or others attending the host.

The creature itself has done nothing right, and nothing wrong. It is not involved in the decision. It has no say in the decision. The concept of the host-guest simbiosis itself is special, and civilizations take care and regulate the termination, and the birth itself.

Noted even in this thread, some theology regards everything before, during, and after the pregnancy: To be original sin, and not to be tolerated.

There are pervese beliefs that ascribe guilt or innocence: To the unborn. The U. S. federal statutes are separate from those kinds of clearly perverse beliefs.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Great Entrepreneurial Spirit, of Reagan Trajectory: Itself is based upon twenty thirst-crazed, jackass mules, pulling laundry salt across the desert!)

Unwanted guest? Bum? Sponge? An unborn baby?! You are invited, with all the cordiality you are entitled to, to get the HELL off my screen and take a nice, long nap in the middle of an Interstate, you revolting, diseased sack of rotting pus.

FLUSH!

 

[Emma]

The sad part is, none of us know if we are ON topic or OFF.

I also can at least tell the cat is pissed.

Well, wouldn't you be?

 

[saveliberty]

The sad part is, none of us know if we are ON topic or OFF.

I also can at least tell the cat is pissed.

Well, wouldn't you be?

Yep, say your tree lights might not be UL approved.

 

[Emma]

The sad part is, none of us know if we are ON topic or OFF.

I also can at least tell the cat is pissed.

Well, wouldn't you be?

Yep, say your tree lights might not be UL approved.

Seriously????

I'm shocked!

 

[mascale]

So, back to basics: The second paragraph of the opening post opens with "Everyone knows that the imposing of moral scruples. . . ."

Even as war comes up again as an issue in America(?), Selective Conscientious Objection to War is not legal, and even selective conscientious objection to reading comprehension, shown often in this thread, is generally not even an excuse in the workplace. The federal funding of health care is about national access to all kinds of medical procedures, and somehow abortion is singled out for exclusion.

Posters do acknowledge that moral scruples, and of Christians, are involved.

The basis-free concepts of innocent versus guilty life were raised by some posters. An allusion to the Jesus Standard, "Go and Sin No More," was even raised. That standard is the one that follows, "Let Him Who is Without Sin: Cast the first stone."

Jesus had some clear understanding of both the law of ancient Israel, which was religion-based, and the audience he was working with. In recognition of the various audiences throughout time, many religion practices included the admitting to lack of innocence, often on a daily or hourly basis.

Neither Ancient Israel, nor modern Confessionals, are federal courtrooms.

So the matter of funding for abortion would be said to be inclusive, and the weight of the law would be said to be in favor of the federal funding of abortions.

"Crow, James Crow, Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(And as for Honest Abe, there is also the concept, "Old Clueless!")

 

[Oscar Wao]

Without much commenting on the Holy Father's own Christian Hitler Youth--Old Joe Kennedy had to change his opinion of the Nazi's, himself--Still(?) the question of abortion funding arises, for some reason: Even in the Health Care Debate.

Everyone knows that the imposing of moral scruples even has China to be scorned in debt and business dealings, (American-Style), worldwide!

In KJV, Luke 20, there is the following weird, funny story about Women, childlessness, probably abortion, (7 husbands, no offspring?), and the angelic world:

"27 Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him,
28 Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
29 There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children.
30 And the second took her to wife, and he died childless.
31 And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died.
32 Last of all the woman died also.
33 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife.
34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:
35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:
36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection."

Possibly Jewish Jesus could understand the basis problem, and even counter the intellectuals with the status, even of the still-born--another possiblity--and of the barren and sterile--another possibility. They would easily be said "equal unto the angels. . . .," and even under stare decisis kinds of concepts.

So there would even be legal precedent(?), of legality, about it!

One thing is clear. This woman had made it around the block a few times. Still in all, even the still-born, aborted, and flushed down the. . . .the civilized seed have some place in original theology. Theology, it is known in the United States, is not of legal standing: Excepting that the varietals(?) of it are allowed, and for everyone.

So if Jesus can be patient, and apparently this woman, or the guys, can be patient(s): Then how is it that a religious viewpoint without apparent basis can be holding semi-official sway in two federal legislatures?

Even the Reagan Trajectory can approve of an abortion, probably speaking for the Irish(?)--just somehow! "Speaking for the Kenyans," easily no one will say about Ron!

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!"
(Great Entrepreneurial Spirit: Not a coat-hanger, back-alley, kind of. . . .Vision! Luckily(?), my own Indian Name is "Crawling Drunk," not "Coat-hanger Abortion," or some similar name!)

Que?! Yo no speak English?!

 

[amrchaos]

See Atheists

You do not need to prove there is no god.

All you have to do is show that the person purposing such a god is absurd. Thus no need to debate!!

 

[nodoginnafight]

BTW - I am a Christian but I'm not convinced God has position on the abortion issue. And I'm pretty sure that he doesn't care whether or not HIS laws are written into MAN'S laws. I think he just wants HIS laws written into the hearts of those who accept them.

I'm anti-abortion from purely a legal perspective. I believe a fetus is a human being who has a right to protection under our legal system.

 

[mascale]

Generally, however, citizenship and the rights of citizenship extend to born persons. There are, for example, lots of different names for the unborn, developing, living thing that generally ascribe it less, and far less, than born human status. Then to the matter of idiosyncracy, citizenship at birth, as a concept, is centuries old. Other concepts are not in place, even now.

"Crow, James Crow: Shaken, Not Stirred!'
(What does in fact, anyone call: Wandering Moslem shepherds, basically armed with poppies?)