Hillary, Democrats and their hatred of Catholics

[emilynghiem]

Bull

You have people out there like Dr. Gosnell running around. In the 1970's he was investigated and shown to have violated many health regulations. But instead of doing anything about it, they simply chose not to investigate him anymore because abortion is such a hot political football that any restrictions on it will be faced with fierce opposition. He then continued to abuse both women and fully term infants and killing many along the way before being brought to justice some 30 to 40 years later.

Dear Votto So quit the division. When we agree to help each other, these abuses will get caught faster.

What do you think of this proposal:
Since banning abortion at the point after pregnancy targets the women more than the men,
what about banning sex that leads to unwanted pregnancy or unwanted children or abortion?

What if statutory rape were expanded to include complaints of relationship abuse and fraud.
So if a complaint is reported of relationship abuse or conflict over a pregnancy that isn't wanted,
both the men and women are subject to counseling to address and resolve that complaint.
And if it is found that one person coerced the other fraudulently, then that is addressed
as a violation of "health and safety codes" because such abuse is harmful to mental and emotional
health by causing distress to both people in the relationship. So both partners would
be required to get relationship counseling until the issue is resolved as reported by a professional counselor
they both agree on.

Since this is personal, it is the choice of the community to write up their own policy,
as how some universities have consent forms required before students engage in sexual relations.

Why can't communities agree on policies on abuse, and work on prevention and see if that reduces
the rates of incest rape sexual abuse relationship abuse unwanted pregnancies teen pregnancies and abortion?

Or we could just start the discussion with human life does begin at conception and that it is wrong to end a human life and see where that leads us, right?

Hey I'm pro life and pro choice, called the private part of me verses the public part, because I do realize freedom is a good thing, you seem the type that would like to dictate your views upon others.

Dear Penelope and ding
And what do you call it when Democrats push right to health care mandates on people
who believe in free market choices.

If prochoice refuse regulations on the right to choose abortion
why can't free market believers refuse regulations on the right to choose how to pay and provide for health care.

Is the harm or fear of having free choice to pay for insurance or health care other ways
SO BAD
that is deserves a penalty more than the harm or fear of giving people free choice of abortion?

Is that even fair?

Do you get the point, that prochoice advocates have forced people to pay for insurance or register for federal programs who don't believe in that.

Where's the free choice there? why is that so harmful it has to be regulated and forced
but not the choice of abortion that has to remain up to the individual and not penalized by govt
as not buying insurance is?

I am pro the ACA, because it costs us more when people are uninsured, this way everyone pays something and with the increase of Independent Contractors , work at home, etc, and more and more jobs hiring part time employers which then they are disqualified for employer shared HI, the more we need the ACA, and also for preexisting conditions. Its not perfect but to just drop it like Trump suggests would be a disaster. If insurance companies don't like it too bad, they are the gatekeepers and paper pushers is all. Middle men make the money and we do not need insurance companies.

Some religions do not believe in blood transfusions, should we not cover them. I do not think abortions should be covered except for medical reasons (the mothers life) and its not covered is it?

The big think is birth control coverage, and well I think it needs to be covered, but even more, I would suggest they also use a condom. Abstaining is recommended but that is not going to happen. With so many VD's , HIV and cervical CA, the pill is just not enough anymore, anyone sexually active should be able to get cheap well made condoms.

Dear Penelope
1. If you don't want to pay the costs of free market choices, let the other people who do pay for that.
Just set up ACA for people to pay who AGREE to those terms.

Prolife people don't want to pay for abortions and all the complications.
So let them pay for the alternatives.

If you don't want to pay the costs, why dictate how those costs are changed?
Why not refuse and let others pay with charity who agree they'd rather have that than mandates.

Let the free market believers get tax breaks for building charity hospitals
so everyone can afford help.

2. If you don't want the costs, what about the costs of prisons?
When people commit crimes it costs 50K in Texas to incarcerate each person for 1 year.
Are you going after that money? So the people actually racking up costs to taxpayers
pay it back and use that money for health care?

Why go after law abiding working taxpayers and take their freedom away,
take their income from their labor when they committed no crime.

But when it comes to people committing crimes and costing money to taxpayers,
you don't go after them and make them pay
Is that fair?

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Votto So quit the division. When we agree to help each other, these abuses will get caught faster.

What do you think of this proposal:
Since banning abortion at the point after pregnancy targets the women more than the men,
what about banning sex that leads to unwanted pregnancy or unwanted children or abortion?

What if statutory rape were expanded to include complaints of relationship abuse and fraud.
So if a complaint is reported of relationship abuse or conflict over a pregnancy that isn't wanted,
both the men and women are subject to counseling to address and resolve that complaint.
And if it is found that one person coerced the other fraudulently, then that is addressed
as a violation of "health and safety codes" because such abuse is harmful to mental and emotional
health by causing distress to both people in the relationship. So both partners would
be required to get relationship counseling until the issue is resolved as reported by a professional counselor
they both agree on.

Since this is personal, it is the choice of the community to write up their own policy,
as how some universities have consent forms required before students engage in sexual relations.

Why can't communities agree on policies on abuse, and work on prevention and see if that reduces
the rates of incest rape sexual abuse relationship abuse unwanted pregnancies teen pregnancies and abortion?

Or we could just start the discussion with human life does begin at conception and that it is wrong to end a human life and see where that leads us, right? It seems to me that those are two things that should be self evident.

Dear ding it's still faith based even if we agree.
We're still asking the question when does the soul or human identity of a person
enter into the body. We don't get to see the part in the process when that actually happens.
It's on a spiritual level. So it's faith based.

What we can do is either AGREE on it, and then AGREE to pass laws respecting this by consensus.
Or I think it's easier to AGREE to respect both the prolife and prochoice beliefs equally
and make sure laws don't violate one or the other.

We can also agree to separate the funding and policies until we can wipe out abortion
by prevention.

Whatever we do, we need to agree or it's not fair to both sets of beliefs.
So by that alone, that should be enough to protect both prolife beliefs equally as prochoice.

No. It is not faith based. It is based on science. It is not a matter of opinion or taste. It is a clearly established scientific fact that at conception the genetic coding to guide the rest of their lives is established. Not only are they a new human being, they are a distinctly new human being that has never existed before and will never exist again. Furthermore, at every step of the way they are fully human and have the appropriate characteristics of a human being that they are supposed to have at that stage of human development. This is through from conception to death.

Dear ding That still does not explain when the human soul enters the body.
You are still talking about the body and yes that part is science.

But issues of the spirit of human identity and will, that goes far beyond the genes.

One person said they settled this matter of what makes a human being,
as "someone who is loved." So if you love the person then yes, that is a human being.
And that's how they defined it.

So everyone has the spiritual freedom to define it for themselves.
What the govt can legislate is where we AGREE to make it law.

So sure, if everyone can agree that since life begins genetically at conception
then THAT is the "legal starting point" sure, we can have a consensus.

But I think you'd get a consensus faster by saying
* if you want right to health care, you have to respect right to life
* then separate the funding and let both fund their own
* and when all the funding goes toward the right to life and spiritual healing side,
then that's where the policies and research are going to get done to teach everyone

So by free choice, more people will CHOOSE to respect prolife and beginning at conception

ding the only difference between what we are both saying:
* you are choosing to learn and understand this WITHOUT govt making it illegal
you have free choice and THAT'S ENOUGH to learn and decide to respect life before birth
I find that is SUPERIOR
I would rather people be like you and CHOOSE because they understand and decide it makes sense

Like CHOOSING to understand why Christianity is helping and CHOOSING to respect or follow or adopt it
that's better than forcing people to practice Christianity by govt mandate
(note: spiritual healing can be proven by science to heal disease and addiction,
but still, it must be freely chosen and cannot be forced by law or it doesn't work)

* if you want to pass a law recognizing this WITHOUT consent of others affected who don't share those beliefs, that isn't fair to people
who aren't given the free choice as you and I were allowed to
so the only difference is getting people"s understanding and consent FIRST
AND NOT PASSING THE LAW UNLESS THEY AGREE

Again this is why I find we'd be better off separating the funding
This still acknowledges that your belief has validity and you have the right to fund it

But it gives people a choice, just like with Christianity,
so they don't reject that choice just because govt is being abused to force it on them

That creates a second battle that distracts from the core issue.
So I do not recommend violating the beliefs of other people
to push your own beliefs, or it discredits the motivations and distracts from the goals.

When human life begins is not a religious discussion. The beginning of human life is a scientific discussion. When do you think science tells us when a human life begins?

Human life is spiritual. Spiritually I believe it begins before birth. That all life is connected.

And nobody should violate anyone's consent because that's violating
free will or free exercise of religion. And if we want govt to respect
free exercise free will or free choice, all people as the authority behind govt
must equally respect free will and free choice of others.

As a natural law and Golden rule, we shall do unto others as we ask others to us.
So if we want our consent respected, we respect the consent of others.
I believe in the power of loving including and forgiving one another,
as we make corrections, so that we arrive at decisions together;
and this involves no coercion but free choice through understanding
by sharing freely until all conflicts are resolved.

So I say it's bigger than science and is constant. At all times,
we should seek to reconcile to have agreement and consensus
on unifying truth, and not impose on or coerce others.

That's what I believe and it require more faith than just science.

 

[Votto]

Or we could just start the discussion with human life does begin at conception and that it is wrong to end a human life and see where that leads us, right? It seems to me that those are two things that should be self evident.

Dear ding it's still faith based even if we agree.
We're still asking the question when does the soul or human identity of a person
enter into the body. We don't get to see the part in the process when that actually happens.
It's on a spiritual level. So it's faith based.

What we can do is either AGREE on it, and then AGREE to pass laws respecting this by consensus.
Or I think it's easier to AGREE to respect both the prolife and prochoice beliefs equally
and make sure laws don't violate one or the other.

We can also agree to separate the funding and policies until we can wipe out abortion
by prevention.

Whatever we do, we need to agree or it's not fair to both sets of beliefs.
So by that alone, that should be enough to protect both prolife beliefs equally as prochoice.

No. It is not faith based. It is based on science. It is not a matter of opinion or taste. It is a clearly established scientific fact that at conception the genetic coding to guide the rest of their lives is established. Not only are they a new human being, they are a distinctly new human being that has never existed before and will never exist again. Furthermore, at every step of the way they are fully human and have the appropriate characteristics of a human being that they are supposed to have at that stage of human development. This is through from conception to death.

Dear ding That still does not explain when the human soul enters the body.
You are still talking about the body and yes that part is science.

But issues of the spirit of human identity and will, that goes far beyond the genes.

One person said they settled this matter of what makes a human being,
as "someone who is loved." So if you love the person then yes, that is a human being.
And that's how they defined it.

So everyone has the spiritual freedom to define it for themselves.
What the govt can legislate is where we AGREE to make it law.

So sure, if everyone can agree that since life begins genetically at conception
then THAT is the "legal starting point" sure, we can have a consensus.

But I think you'd get a consensus faster by saying
* if you want right to health care, you have to respect right to life
* then separate the funding and let both fund their own
* and when all the funding goes toward the right to life and spiritual healing side,
then that's where the policies and research are going to get done to teach everyone

So by free choice, more people will CHOOSE to respect prolife and beginning at conception

ding the only difference between what we are both saying:
* you are choosing to learn and understand this WITHOUT govt making it illegal
you have free choice and THAT'S ENOUGH to learn and decide to respect life before birth
I find that is SUPERIOR
I would rather people be like you and CHOOSE because they understand and decide it makes sense

Like CHOOSING to understand why Christianity is helping and CHOOSING to respect or follow or adopt it
that's better than forcing people to practice Christianity by govt mandate
(note: spiritual healing can be proven by science to heal disease and addiction,
but still, it must be freely chosen and cannot be forced by law or it doesn't work)

* if you want to pass a law recognizing this WITHOUT consent of others affected who don't share those beliefs, that isn't fair to people
who aren't given the free choice as you and I were allowed to
so the only difference is getting people"s understanding and consent FIRST
AND NOT PASSING THE LAW UNLESS THEY AGREE

Again this is why I find we'd be better off separating the funding
This still acknowledges that your belief has validity and you have the right to fund it

But it gives people a choice, just like with Christianity,
so they don't reject that choice just because govt is being abused to force it on them

That creates a second battle that distracts from the core issue.
So I do not recommend violating the beliefs of other people
to push your own beliefs, or it discredits the motivations and distracts from the goals.

When human life begins is not a religious discussion. The beginning of human life is a scientific discussion. When do you think science tells us when a human life begins?

Human life is spiritual. Spiritually I believe it begins before birth. That all life is connected.

And nobody should violate anyone's consent because that's violating
free will or free exercise of religion. And if we want govt to respect
free exercise free will or free choice, all people as the authority behind govt
must equally respect free will and free choice of others.

So I say it's bigger than science and is constant. At all times,
we should seek to reconcile to have agreement and consensus
on unifying truth, and not impose on or coerce others.

That's what I believe and it require more faith than just science.

"Human life is spiritual. Spiritually I believe it begins before birth. That all life is connected."

Soooo, it's OK to murder with abortion?

 

[ding]

Or we could just start the discussion with human life does begin at conception and that it is wrong to end a human life and see where that leads us, right? It seems to me that those are two things that should be self evident.

Dear ding it's still faith based even if we agree.
We're still asking the question when does the soul or human identity of a person
enter into the body. We don't get to see the part in the process when that actually happens.
It's on a spiritual level. So it's faith based.

What we can do is either AGREE on it, and then AGREE to pass laws respecting this by consensus.
Or I think it's easier to AGREE to respect both the prolife and prochoice beliefs equally
and make sure laws don't violate one or the other.

We can also agree to separate the funding and policies until we can wipe out abortion
by prevention.

Whatever we do, we need to agree or it's not fair to both sets of beliefs.
So by that alone, that should be enough to protect both prolife beliefs equally as prochoice.

No. It is not faith based. It is based on science. It is not a matter of opinion or taste. It is a clearly established scientific fact that at conception the genetic coding to guide the rest of their lives is established. Not only are they a new human being, they are a distinctly new human being that has never existed before and will never exist again. Furthermore, at every step of the way they are fully human and have the appropriate characteristics of a human being that they are supposed to have at that stage of human development. This is through from conception to death.

Dear ding That still does not explain when the human soul enters the body.
You are still talking about the body and yes that part is science.

But issues of the spirit of human identity and will, that goes far beyond the genes.

One person said they settled this matter of what makes a human being,
as "someone who is loved." So if you love the person then yes, that is a human being.
And that's how they defined it.

So everyone has the spiritual freedom to define it for themselves.
What the govt can legislate is where we AGREE to make it law.

So sure, if everyone can agree that since life begins genetically at conception
then THAT is the "legal starting point" sure, we can have a consensus.

But I think you'd get a consensus faster by saying
* if you want right to health care, you have to respect right to life
* then separate the funding and let both fund their own
* and when all the funding goes toward the right to life and spiritual healing side,
then that's where the policies and research are going to get done to teach everyone

So by free choice, more people will CHOOSE to respect prolife and beginning at conception

ding the only difference between what we are both saying:
* you are choosing to learn and understand this WITHOUT govt making it illegal
you have free choice and THAT'S ENOUGH to learn and decide to respect life before birth
I find that is SUPERIOR
I would rather people be like you and CHOOSE because they understand and decide it makes sense

Like CHOOSING to understand why Christianity is helping and CHOOSING to respect or follow or adopt it
that's better than forcing people to practice Christianity by govt mandate
(note: spiritual healing can be proven by science to heal disease and addiction,
but still, it must be freely chosen and cannot be forced by law or it doesn't work)

* if you want to pass a law recognizing this WITHOUT consent of others affected who don't share those beliefs, that isn't fair to people
who aren't given the free choice as you and I were allowed to
so the only difference is getting people"s understanding and consent FIRST
AND NOT PASSING THE LAW UNLESS THEY AGREE

Again this is why I find we'd be better off separating the funding
This still acknowledges that your belief has validity and you have the right to fund it

But it gives people a choice, just like with Christianity,
so they don't reject that choice just because govt is being abused to force it on them

That creates a second battle that distracts from the core issue.
So I do not recommend violating the beliefs of other people
to push your own beliefs, or it discredits the motivations and distracts from the goals.

When human life begins is not a religious discussion. The beginning of human life is a scientific discussion. When do you think science tells us when a human life begins?

Human life is spiritual. Spiritually I believe it begins before birth. That all life is connected.

And nobody should violate anyone's consent because that's violating
free will or free exercise of religion. And if we want govt to respect
free exercise free will or free choice, all people as the authority behind govt
must equally respect free will and free choice of others.

As a natural law and Golden rule, we shall do unto others as we ask others to us.
So if we want our consent respected, we respect the consent of others.
I believe in the power of loving including and forgiving one another,
as we make corrections, so that we arrive at decisions together;
and this involves no coercion but free choice through understanding
by sharing freely until all conflicts are resolved.

So I say it's bigger than science and is constant. At all times,
we should seek to reconcile to have agreement and consensus
on unifying truth, and not impose on or coerce others.

That's what I believe and it require more faith than just science.

No. Human life is biology. You have heard of DNA, right? Are you familiar with how science differentiates living organism from non-living matter?

 

[ding]

Dear ding it's still faith based even if we agree.
We're still asking the question when does the soul or human identity of a person
enter into the body. We don't get to see the part in the process when that actually happens.
It's on a spiritual level. So it's faith based.

What we can do is either AGREE on it, and then AGREE to pass laws respecting this by consensus.
Or I think it's easier to AGREE to respect both the prolife and prochoice beliefs equally
and make sure laws don't violate one or the other.

We can also agree to separate the funding and policies until we can wipe out abortion
by prevention.

Whatever we do, we need to agree or it's not fair to both sets of beliefs.
So by that alone, that should be enough to protect both prolife beliefs equally as prochoice.

No. It is not faith based. It is based on science. It is not a matter of opinion or taste. It is a clearly established scientific fact that at conception the genetic coding to guide the rest of their lives is established. Not only are they a new human being, they are a distinctly new human being that has never existed before and will never exist again. Furthermore, at every step of the way they are fully human and have the appropriate characteristics of a human being that they are supposed to have at that stage of human development. This is through from conception to death.

Dear ding That still does not explain when the human soul enters the body.
You are still talking about the body and yes that part is science.

But issues of the spirit of human identity and will, that goes far beyond the genes.

One person said they settled this matter of what makes a human being,
as "someone who is loved." So if you love the person then yes, that is a human being.
And that's how they defined it.

So everyone has the spiritual freedom to define it for themselves.
What the govt can legislate is where we AGREE to make it law.

So sure, if everyone can agree that since life begins genetically at conception
then THAT is the "legal starting point" sure, we can have a consensus.

But I think you'd get a consensus faster by saying
* if you want right to health care, you have to respect right to life
* then separate the funding and let both fund their own
* and when all the funding goes toward the right to life and spiritual healing side,
then that's where the policies and research are going to get done to teach everyone

So by free choice, more people will CHOOSE to respect prolife and beginning at conception

ding the only difference between what we are both saying:
* you are choosing to learn and understand this WITHOUT govt making it illegal
you have free choice and THAT'S ENOUGH to learn and decide to respect life before birth
I find that is SUPERIOR
I would rather people be like you and CHOOSE because they understand and decide it makes sense

Like CHOOSING to understand why Christianity is helping and CHOOSING to respect or follow or adopt it
that's better than forcing people to practice Christianity by govt mandate
(note: spiritual healing can be proven by science to heal disease and addiction,
but still, it must be freely chosen and cannot be forced by law or it doesn't work)

* if you want to pass a law recognizing this WITHOUT consent of others affected who don't share those beliefs, that isn't fair to people
who aren't given the free choice as you and I were allowed to
so the only difference is getting people"s understanding and consent FIRST
AND NOT PASSING THE LAW UNLESS THEY AGREE

Again this is why I find we'd be better off separating the funding
This still acknowledges that your belief has validity and you have the right to fund it

But it gives people a choice, just like with Christianity,
so they don't reject that choice just because govt is being abused to force it on them

That creates a second battle that distracts from the core issue.
So I do not recommend violating the beliefs of other people
to push your own beliefs, or it discredits the motivations and distracts from the goals.

When human life begins is not a religious discussion. The beginning of human life is a scientific discussion. When do you think science tells us when a human life begins?

Human life is spiritual. Spiritually I believe it begins before birth. That all life is connected.

And nobody should violate anyone's consent because that's violating
free will or free exercise of religion. And if we want govt to respect
free exercise free will or free choice, all people as the authority behind govt
must equally respect free will and free choice of others.

So I say it's bigger than science and is constant. At all times,
we should seek to reconcile to have agreement and consensus
on unifying truth, and not impose on or coerce others.

That's what I believe and it require more faith than just science.

"Human life is spiritual. Spiritually I believe it begins before birth. That all life is connected."

Soooo, it's OK to murder with abortion?

That seems to be what she is saying.

 

[Votto]

Dear ding it's still faith based even if we agree.
We're still asking the question when does the soul or human identity of a person
enter into the body. We don't get to see the part in the process when that actually happens.
It's on a spiritual level. So it's faith based.

What we can do is either AGREE on it, and then AGREE to pass laws respecting this by consensus.
Or I think it's easier to AGREE to respect both the prolife and prochoice beliefs equally
and make sure laws don't violate one or the other.

We can also agree to separate the funding and policies until we can wipe out abortion
by prevention.

Whatever we do, we need to agree or it's not fair to both sets of beliefs.
So by that alone, that should be enough to protect both prolife beliefs equally as prochoice.

No. It is not faith based. It is based on science. It is not a matter of opinion or taste. It is a clearly established scientific fact that at conception the genetic coding to guide the rest of their lives is established. Not only are they a new human being, they are a distinctly new human being that has never existed before and will never exist again. Furthermore, at every step of the way they are fully human and have the appropriate characteristics of a human being that they are supposed to have at that stage of human development. This is through from conception to death.

Dear ding That still does not explain when the human soul enters the body.
You are still talking about the body and yes that part is science.

But issues of the spirit of human identity and will, that goes far beyond the genes.

One person said they settled this matter of what makes a human being,
as "someone who is loved." So if you love the person then yes, that is a human being.
And that's how they defined it.

So everyone has the spiritual freedom to define it for themselves.
What the govt can legislate is where we AGREE to make it law.

So sure, if everyone can agree that since life begins genetically at conception
then THAT is the "legal starting point" sure, we can have a consensus.

But I think you'd get a consensus faster by saying
* if you want right to health care, you have to respect right to life
* then separate the funding and let both fund their own
* and when all the funding goes toward the right to life and spiritual healing side,
then that's where the policies and research are going to get done to teach everyone

So by free choice, more people will CHOOSE to respect prolife and beginning at conception

ding the only difference between what we are both saying:
* you are choosing to learn and understand this WITHOUT govt making it illegal
you have free choice and THAT'S ENOUGH to learn and decide to respect life before birth
I find that is SUPERIOR
I would rather people be like you and CHOOSE because they understand and decide it makes sense

Like CHOOSING to understand why Christianity is helping and CHOOSING to respect or follow or adopt it
that's better than forcing people to practice Christianity by govt mandate
(note: spiritual healing can be proven by science to heal disease and addiction,
but still, it must be freely chosen and cannot be forced by law or it doesn't work)

* if you want to pass a law recognizing this WITHOUT consent of others affected who don't share those beliefs, that isn't fair to people
who aren't given the free choice as you and I were allowed to
so the only difference is getting people"s understanding and consent FIRST
AND NOT PASSING THE LAW UNLESS THEY AGREE

Again this is why I find we'd be better off separating the funding
This still acknowledges that your belief has validity and you have the right to fund it

But it gives people a choice, just like with Christianity,
so they don't reject that choice just because govt is being abused to force it on them

That creates a second battle that distracts from the core issue.
So I do not recommend violating the beliefs of other people
to push your own beliefs, or it discredits the motivations and distracts from the goals.

When human life begins is not a religious discussion. The beginning of human life is a scientific discussion. When do you think science tells us when a human life begins?

Human life is spiritual. Spiritually I believe it begins before birth. That all life is connected.

And nobody should violate anyone's consent because that's violating
free will or free exercise of religion. And if we want govt to respect
free exercise free will or free choice, all people as the authority behind govt
must equally respect free will and free choice of others.

As a natural law and Golden rule, we shall do unto others as we ask others to us.
So if we want our consent respected, we respect the consent of others.
I believe in the power of loving including and forgiving one another,
as we make corrections, so that we arrive at decisions together;
and this involves no coercion but free choice through understanding
by sharing freely until all conflicts are resolved.

So I say it's bigger than science and is constant. At all times,
we should seek to reconcile to have agreement and consensus
on unifying truth, and not impose on or coerce others.

That's what I believe and it require more faith than just science.

No. Human life is biology. You have heard of DNA, right? Are you familiar with how science differentiates living organism from non-living matter?

So human life is only biology? So we are no different than animals?

 

[Votto]

No. It is not faith based. It is based on science. It is not a matter of opinion or taste. It is a clearly established scientific fact that at conception the genetic coding to guide the rest of their lives is established. Not only are they a new human being, they are a distinctly new human being that has never existed before and will never exist again. Furthermore, at every step of the way they are fully human and have the appropriate characteristics of a human being that they are supposed to have at that stage of human development. This is through from conception to death.

Dear ding That still does not explain when the human soul enters the body.
You are still talking about the body and yes that part is science.

But issues of the spirit of human identity and will, that goes far beyond the genes.

One person said they settled this matter of what makes a human being,
as "someone who is loved." So if you love the person then yes, that is a human being.
And that's how they defined it.

So everyone has the spiritual freedom to define it for themselves.
What the govt can legislate is where we AGREE to make it law.

So sure, if everyone can agree that since life begins genetically at conception
then THAT is the "legal starting point" sure, we can have a consensus.

But I think you'd get a consensus faster by saying
* if you want right to health care, you have to respect right to life
* then separate the funding and let both fund their own
* and when all the funding goes toward the right to life and spiritual healing side,
then that's where the policies and research are going to get done to teach everyone

So by free choice, more people will CHOOSE to respect prolife and beginning at conception

ding the only difference between what we are both saying:
* you are choosing to learn and understand this WITHOUT govt making it illegal
you have free choice and THAT'S ENOUGH to learn and decide to respect life before birth
I find that is SUPERIOR
I would rather people be like you and CHOOSE because they understand and decide it makes sense

Like CHOOSING to understand why Christianity is helping and CHOOSING to respect or follow or adopt it
that's better than forcing people to practice Christianity by govt mandate
(note: spiritual healing can be proven by science to heal disease and addiction,
but still, it must be freely chosen and cannot be forced by law or it doesn't work)

* if you want to pass a law recognizing this WITHOUT consent of others affected who don't share those beliefs, that isn't fair to people
who aren't given the free choice as you and I were allowed to
so the only difference is getting people"s understanding and consent FIRST
AND NOT PASSING THE LAW UNLESS THEY AGREE

Again this is why I find we'd be better off separating the funding
This still acknowledges that your belief has validity and you have the right to fund it

But it gives people a choice, just like with Christianity,
so they don't reject that choice just because govt is being abused to force it on them

That creates a second battle that distracts from the core issue.
So I do not recommend violating the beliefs of other people
to push your own beliefs, or it discredits the motivations and distracts from the goals.

When human life begins is not a religious discussion. The beginning of human life is a scientific discussion. When do you think science tells us when a human life begins?

Human life is spiritual. Spiritually I believe it begins before birth. That all life is connected.

And nobody should violate anyone's consent because that's violating
free will or free exercise of religion. And if we want govt to respect
free exercise free will or free choice, all people as the authority behind govt
must equally respect free will and free choice of others.

So I say it's bigger than science and is constant. At all times,
we should seek to reconcile to have agreement and consensus
on unifying truth, and not impose on or coerce others.

That's what I believe and it require more faith than just science.

"Human life is spiritual. Spiritually I believe it begins before birth. That all life is connected."

Soooo, it's OK to murder with abortion?

That seems to be what she is saying.

Well then, no wonder she votes for people who commit genocide

 

[ding]

No. It is not faith based. It is based on science. It is not a matter of opinion or taste. It is a clearly established scientific fact that at conception the genetic coding to guide the rest of their lives is established. Not only are they a new human being, they are a distinctly new human being that has never existed before and will never exist again. Furthermore, at every step of the way they are fully human and have the appropriate characteristics of a human being that they are supposed to have at that stage of human development. This is through from conception to death.

Dear ding That still does not explain when the human soul enters the body.
You are still talking about the body and yes that part is science.

But issues of the spirit of human identity and will, that goes far beyond the genes.

One person said they settled this matter of what makes a human being,
as "someone who is loved." So if you love the person then yes, that is a human being.
And that's how they defined it.

So everyone has the spiritual freedom to define it for themselves.
What the govt can legislate is where we AGREE to make it law.

So sure, if everyone can agree that since life begins genetically at conception
then THAT is the "legal starting point" sure, we can have a consensus.

But I think you'd get a consensus faster by saying
* if you want right to health care, you have to respect right to life
* then separate the funding and let both fund their own
* and when all the funding goes toward the right to life and spiritual healing side,
then that's where the policies and research are going to get done to teach everyone

So by free choice, more people will CHOOSE to respect prolife and beginning at conception

ding the only difference between what we are both saying:
* you are choosing to learn and understand this WITHOUT govt making it illegal
you have free choice and THAT'S ENOUGH to learn and decide to respect life before birth
I find that is SUPERIOR
I would rather people be like you and CHOOSE because they understand and decide it makes sense

Like CHOOSING to understand why Christianity is helping and CHOOSING to respect or follow or adopt it
that's better than forcing people to practice Christianity by govt mandate
(note: spiritual healing can be proven by science to heal disease and addiction,
but still, it must be freely chosen and cannot be forced by law or it doesn't work)

* if you want to pass a law recognizing this WITHOUT consent of others affected who don't share those beliefs, that isn't fair to people
who aren't given the free choice as you and I were allowed to
so the only difference is getting people"s understanding and consent FIRST
AND NOT PASSING THE LAW UNLESS THEY AGREE

Again this is why I find we'd be better off separating the funding
This still acknowledges that your belief has validity and you have the right to fund it

But it gives people a choice, just like with Christianity,
so they don't reject that choice just because govt is being abused to force it on them

That creates a second battle that distracts from the core issue.
So I do not recommend violating the beliefs of other people
to push your own beliefs, or it discredits the motivations and distracts from the goals.

When human life begins is not a religious discussion. The beginning of human life is a scientific discussion. When do you think science tells us when a human life begins?

Human life is spiritual. Spiritually I believe it begins before birth. That all life is connected.

And nobody should violate anyone's consent because that's violating
free will or free exercise of religion. And if we want govt to respect
free exercise free will or free choice, all people as the authority behind govt
must equally respect free will and free choice of others.

As a natural law and Golden rule, we shall do unto others as we ask others to us.
So if we want our consent respected, we respect the consent of others.
I believe in the power of loving including and forgiving one another,
as we make corrections, so that we arrive at decisions together;
and this involves no coercion but free choice through understanding
by sharing freely until all conflicts are resolved.

So I say it's bigger than science and is constant. At all times,
we should seek to reconcile to have agreement and consensus
on unifying truth, and not impose on or coerce others.

That's what I believe and it require more faith than just science.

No. Human life is biology. You have heard of DNA, right? Are you familiar with how science differentiates living organism from non-living matter?

So human life is only biology? So we are no different than animals?

Not when it comes to the definition of a living organism we aren't.

 

[Votto]

Dear ding That still does not explain when the human soul enters the body.
You are still talking about the body and yes that part is science.

But issues of the spirit of human identity and will, that goes far beyond the genes.

One person said they settled this matter of what makes a human being,
as "someone who is loved." So if you love the person then yes, that is a human being.
And that's how they defined it.

So everyone has the spiritual freedom to define it for themselves.
What the govt can legislate is where we AGREE to make it law.

So sure, if everyone can agree that since life begins genetically at conception
then THAT is the "legal starting point" sure, we can have a consensus.

But I think you'd get a consensus faster by saying
* if you want right to health care, you have to respect right to life
* then separate the funding and let both fund their own
* and when all the funding goes toward the right to life and spiritual healing side,
then that's where the policies and research are going to get done to teach everyone

So by free choice, more people will CHOOSE to respect prolife and beginning at conception

ding the only difference between what we are both saying:
* you are choosing to learn and understand this WITHOUT govt making it illegal
you have free choice and THAT'S ENOUGH to learn and decide to respect life before birth
I find that is SUPERIOR
I would rather people be like you and CHOOSE because they understand and decide it makes sense

Like CHOOSING to understand why Christianity is helping and CHOOSING to respect or follow or adopt it
that's better than forcing people to practice Christianity by govt mandate
(note: spiritual healing can be proven by science to heal disease and addiction,
but still, it must be freely chosen and cannot be forced by law or it doesn't work)

* if you want to pass a law recognizing this WITHOUT consent of others affected who don't share those beliefs, that isn't fair to people
who aren't given the free choice as you and I were allowed to
so the only difference is getting people"s understanding and consent FIRST
AND NOT PASSING THE LAW UNLESS THEY AGREE

Again this is why I find we'd be better off separating the funding
This still acknowledges that your belief has validity and you have the right to fund it

But it gives people a choice, just like with Christianity,
so they don't reject that choice just because govt is being abused to force it on them

That creates a second battle that distracts from the core issue.
So I do not recommend violating the beliefs of other people
to push your own beliefs, or it discredits the motivations and distracts from the goals.

When human life begins is not a religious discussion. The beginning of human life is a scientific discussion. When do you think science tells us when a human life begins?

Human life is spiritual. Spiritually I believe it begins before birth. That all life is connected.

And nobody should violate anyone's consent because that's violating
free will or free exercise of religion. And if we want govt to respect
free exercise free will or free choice, all people as the authority behind govt
must equally respect free will and free choice of others.

As a natural law and Golden rule, we shall do unto others as we ask others to us.
So if we want our consent respected, we respect the consent of others.
I believe in the power of loving including and forgiving one another,
as we make corrections, so that we arrive at decisions together;
and this involves no coercion but free choice through understanding
by sharing freely until all conflicts are resolved.

So I say it's bigger than science and is constant. At all times,
we should seek to reconcile to have agreement and consensus
on unifying truth, and not impose on or coerce others.

That's what I believe and it require more faith than just science.

No. Human life is biology. You have heard of DNA, right? Are you familiar with how science differentiates living organism from non-living matter?

So human life is only biology? So we are no different than animals?

Not when it comes to the definition of a living organism we aren't.

Then you splain it to me. What makes humans that much different from the average mammal?

 

[ding]

When human life begins is not a religious discussion. The beginning of human life is a scientific discussion. When do you think science tells us when a human life begins?

Human life is spiritual. Spiritually I believe it begins before birth. That all life is connected.

And nobody should violate anyone's consent because that's violating
free will or free exercise of religion. And if we want govt to respect
free exercise free will or free choice, all people as the authority behind govt
must equally respect free will and free choice of others.

As a natural law and Golden rule, we shall do unto others as we ask others to us.
So if we want our consent respected, we respect the consent of others.
I believe in the power of loving including and forgiving one another,
as we make corrections, so that we arrive at decisions together;
and this involves no coercion but free choice through understanding
by sharing freely until all conflicts are resolved.

So I say it's bigger than science and is constant. At all times,
we should seek to reconcile to have agreement and consensus
on unifying truth, and not impose on or coerce others.

That's what I believe and it require more faith than just science.

No. Human life is biology. You have heard of DNA, right? Are you familiar with how science differentiates living organism from non-living matter?

So human life is only biology? So we are no different than animals?

Not when it comes to the definition of a living organism we aren't.

Then you splain it to me. What makes humans that much different from the average mammal?

That's easy. We are beings that know and create. In a nutshell... consciousness.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear ding it's still faith based even if we agree.
We're still asking the question when does the soul or human identity of a person
enter into the body. We don't get to see the part in the process when that actually happens.
It's on a spiritual level. So it's faith based.

What we can do is either AGREE on it, and then AGREE to pass laws respecting this by consensus.
Or I think it's easier to AGREE to respect both the prolife and prochoice beliefs equally
and make sure laws don't violate one or the other.

We can also agree to separate the funding and policies until we can wipe out abortion
by prevention.

Whatever we do, we need to agree or it's not fair to both sets of beliefs.
So by that alone, that should be enough to protect both prolife beliefs equally as prochoice.

No. It is not faith based. It is based on science. It is not a matter of opinion or taste. It is a clearly established scientific fact that at conception the genetic coding to guide the rest of their lives is established. Not only are they a new human being, they are a distinctly new human being that has never existed before and will never exist again. Furthermore, at every step of the way they are fully human and have the appropriate characteristics of a human being that they are supposed to have at that stage of human development. This is through from conception to death.

Dear ding That still does not explain when the human soul enters the body.
You are still talking about the body and yes that part is science.

But issues of the spirit of human identity and will, that goes far beyond the genes.

One person said they settled this matter of what makes a human being,
as "someone who is loved." So if you love the person then yes, that is a human being.
And that's how they defined it.

So everyone has the spiritual freedom to define it for themselves.
What the govt can legislate is where we AGREE to make it law.

So sure, if everyone can agree that since life begins genetically at conception
then THAT is the "legal starting point" sure, we can have a consensus.

But I think you'd get a consensus faster by saying
* if you want right to health care, you have to respect right to life
* then separate the funding and let both fund their own
* and when all the funding goes toward the right to life and spiritual healing side,
then that's where the policies and research are going to get done to teach everyone

So by free choice, more people will CHOOSE to respect prolife and beginning at conception

ding the only difference between what we are both saying:
* you are choosing to learn and understand this WITHOUT govt making it illegal
you have free choice and THAT'S ENOUGH to learn and decide to respect life before birth
I find that is SUPERIOR
I would rather people be like you and CHOOSE because they understand and decide it makes sense

Like CHOOSING to understand why Christianity is helping and CHOOSING to respect or follow or adopt it
that's better than forcing people to practice Christianity by govt mandate
(note: spiritual healing can be proven by science to heal disease and addiction,
but still, it must be freely chosen and cannot be forced by law or it doesn't work)

* if you want to pass a law recognizing this WITHOUT consent of others affected who don't share those beliefs, that isn't fair to people
who aren't given the free choice as you and I were allowed to
so the only difference is getting people"s understanding and consent FIRST
AND NOT PASSING THE LAW UNLESS THEY AGREE

Again this is why I find we'd be better off separating the funding
This still acknowledges that your belief has validity and you have the right to fund it

But it gives people a choice, just like with Christianity,
so they don't reject that choice just because govt is being abused to force it on them

That creates a second battle that distracts from the core issue.
So I do not recommend violating the beliefs of other people
to push your own beliefs, or it discredits the motivations and distracts from the goals.

When human life begins is not a religious discussion. The beginning of human life is a scientific discussion. When do you think science tells us when a human life begins?

Human life is spiritual. Spiritually I believe it begins before birth. That all life is connected.

And nobody should violate anyone's consent because that's violating
free will or free exercise of religion. And if we want govt to respect
free exercise free will or free choice, all people as the authority behind govt
must equally respect free will and free choice of others.

So I say it's bigger than science and is constant. At all times,
we should seek to reconcile to have agreement and consensus
on unifying truth, and not impose on or coerce others.

That's what I believe and it require more faith than just science.

"Human life is spiritual. Spiritually I believe it begins before birth. That all life is connected."

Soooo, it's OK to murder with abortion?

Hi Votto
1. No it's not okay
2. But the best way to prevent it is by free choice not by force of law unless people consent to that law
3. I have no problem with people passing a law banning abortion if all people under that law agree to it
4. I'm saying the same way you and me and ding and I see Penelope also believe in prolife
and against abortion all people deserve equal free choice to decide that as we did
on our own without govt making it illegal and forcing that argument on any of us.

Does that make sense?

Like with Christianity or spiritual healing.

No, I don't think it's okay for people to reject spiritual healing when it can cure their loved ones of demons.

But this cannot be forced on them by law.
The best way or only way it works is by freely choosing to go through spiritual healing
and then it works. But it has to be by free choice.

I find prolife arguments work better when the person has free choice
and it doesn't work when it is forced by govt against their will.

There is nothing wrong with people all choosing to change to prolife and then
agreeing to pass a law by consensus.

Some people may argue that is still faith based,
but as long as all the people agree to pass the law
it's not taking anyone's free choice to get to that point of agreeing.

 

[ding]

No. It is not faith based. It is based on science. It is not a matter of opinion or taste. It is a clearly established scientific fact that at conception the genetic coding to guide the rest of their lives is established. Not only are they a new human being, they are a distinctly new human being that has never existed before and will never exist again. Furthermore, at every step of the way they are fully human and have the appropriate characteristics of a human being that they are supposed to have at that stage of human development. This is through from conception to death.

Dear ding That still does not explain when the human soul enters the body.
You are still talking about the body and yes that part is science.

But issues of the spirit of human identity and will, that goes far beyond the genes.

One person said they settled this matter of what makes a human being,
as "someone who is loved." So if you love the person then yes, that is a human being.
And that's how they defined it.

So everyone has the spiritual freedom to define it for themselves.
What the govt can legislate is where we AGREE to make it law.

So sure, if everyone can agree that since life begins genetically at conception
then THAT is the "legal starting point" sure, we can have a consensus.

But I think you'd get a consensus faster by saying
* if you want right to health care, you have to respect right to life
* then separate the funding and let both fund their own
* and when all the funding goes toward the right to life and spiritual healing side,
then that's where the policies and research are going to get done to teach everyone

So by free choice, more people will CHOOSE to respect prolife and beginning at conception

ding the only difference between what we are both saying:
* you are choosing to learn and understand this WITHOUT govt making it illegal
you have free choice and THAT'S ENOUGH to learn and decide to respect life before birth
I find that is SUPERIOR
I would rather people be like you and CHOOSE because they understand and decide it makes sense

Like CHOOSING to understand why Christianity is helping and CHOOSING to respect or follow or adopt it
that's better than forcing people to practice Christianity by govt mandate
(note: spiritual healing can be proven by science to heal disease and addiction,
but still, it must be freely chosen and cannot be forced by law or it doesn't work)

* if you want to pass a law recognizing this WITHOUT consent of others affected who don't share those beliefs, that isn't fair to people
who aren't given the free choice as you and I were allowed to
so the only difference is getting people"s understanding and consent FIRST
AND NOT PASSING THE LAW UNLESS THEY AGREE

Again this is why I find we'd be better off separating the funding
This still acknowledges that your belief has validity and you have the right to fund it

But it gives people a choice, just like with Christianity,
so they don't reject that choice just because govt is being abused to force it on them

That creates a second battle that distracts from the core issue.
So I do not recommend violating the beliefs of other people
to push your own beliefs, or it discredits the motivations and distracts from the goals.

When human life begins is not a religious discussion. The beginning of human life is a scientific discussion. When do you think science tells us when a human life begins?

Human life is spiritual. Spiritually I believe it begins before birth. That all life is connected.

And nobody should violate anyone's consent because that's violating
free will or free exercise of religion. And if we want govt to respect
free exercise free will or free choice, all people as the authority behind govt
must equally respect free will and free choice of others.

So I say it's bigger than science and is constant. At all times,
we should seek to reconcile to have agreement and consensus
on unifying truth, and not impose on or coerce others.

That's what I believe and it require more faith than just science.

"Human life is spiritual. Spiritually I believe it begins before birth. That all life is connected."

Soooo, it's OK to murder with abortion?

Hi Votto
1. No it's not okay
2. But the best way to prevent it is by free choice not by force of law unless people consent to that law
3. I have no problem with people passing a law banning abortion if all people under that law agree to it
4. I'm saying the same way you and me and ding and I see Penelope also believe in prolife
and against abortion all people deserve equal free choice to decide that as we did
on our own without govt making it illegal and forcing that argument on any of us.

Does that make sense?

Like with Christianity or spiritual healing.

No, I don't think it's okay for people to reject spiritual healing when it can cure their loved ones of demons.

But this cannot be forced on them by law.
The best way or only way it works is by freely choosing to go through spiritual healing
and then it works. But it has to be by free choice.

I find prolife arguments work better when the person has free choice
and it doesn't work when it is forced by govt against their will.

There is nothing wrong with people all choosing to change to prolife and then
agreeing to pass a law by consensus.

Some people may argue that is still faith based,
but as long as all the people agree to pass the law
it's not taking anyone's free choice to get to that point of agreeing.

Why isn't it OK?

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear ding That still does not explain when the human soul enters the body.
You are still talking about the body and yes that part is science.

But issues of the spirit of human identity and will, that goes far beyond the genes.

One person said they settled this matter of what makes a human being,
as "someone who is loved." So if you love the person then yes, that is a human being.
And that's how they defined it.

So everyone has the spiritual freedom to define it for themselves.
What the govt can legislate is where we AGREE to make it law.

So sure, if everyone can agree that since life begins genetically at conception
then THAT is the "legal starting point" sure, we can have a consensus.

But I think you'd get a consensus faster by saying
* if you want right to health care, you have to respect right to life
* then separate the funding and let both fund their own
* and when all the funding goes toward the right to life and spiritual healing side,
then that's where the policies and research are going to get done to teach everyone

So by free choice, more people will CHOOSE to respect prolife and beginning at conception

ding the only difference between what we are both saying:
* you are choosing to learn and understand this WITHOUT govt making it illegal
you have free choice and THAT'S ENOUGH to learn and decide to respect life before birth
I find that is SUPERIOR
I would rather people be like you and CHOOSE because they understand and decide it makes sense

Like CHOOSING to understand why Christianity is helping and CHOOSING to respect or follow or adopt it
that's better than forcing people to practice Christianity by govt mandate
(note: spiritual healing can be proven by science to heal disease and addiction,
but still, it must be freely chosen and cannot be forced by law or it doesn't work)

* if you want to pass a law recognizing this WITHOUT consent of others affected who don't share those beliefs, that isn't fair to people
who aren't given the free choice as you and I were allowed to
so the only difference is getting people"s understanding and consent FIRST
AND NOT PASSING THE LAW UNLESS THEY AGREE

Again this is why I find we'd be better off separating the funding
This still acknowledges that your belief has validity and you have the right to fund it

But it gives people a choice, just like with Christianity,
so they don't reject that choice just because govt is being abused to force it on them

That creates a second battle that distracts from the core issue.
So I do not recommend violating the beliefs of other people
to push your own beliefs, or it discredits the motivations and distracts from the goals.

When human life begins is not a religious discussion. The beginning of human life is a scientific discussion. When do you think science tells us when a human life begins?

Human life is spiritual. Spiritually I believe it begins before birth. That all life is connected.

And nobody should violate anyone's consent because that's violating
free will or free exercise of religion. And if we want govt to respect
free exercise free will or free choice, all people as the authority behind govt
must equally respect free will and free choice of others.

So I say it's bigger than science and is constant. At all times,
we should seek to reconcile to have agreement and consensus
on unifying truth, and not impose on or coerce others.

That's what I believe and it require more faith than just science.

"Human life is spiritual. Spiritually I believe it begins before birth. That all life is connected."

Soooo, it's OK to murder with abortion?

That seems to be what she is saying.

Well then, no wonder she votes for people who commit genocide

Dear Votto the reason I am called to work with the Democrats
is 1. they won't clean up their own messes unless they are led from within
they only listen to fellow Democrats and won't listen to outside critics
2. The need for Constitutional education is missing, so the best
way to change that is to work within the party membership

It's like how Jesus came not for the well but for the sick.
You go where the demand is the greatest.

3. See also www.freedmenstown.com
I've been called to help volunteers and nonprofits
trying to save a national landmark including
historic black churches from getting wiped off the map.
The unity needed to bring people and resources together
won't happen in an environment where people are too busy
dividing and attacking by party, and wasting resources
campaigning for and against politicians while our national
treasures are being destroyed for lack of funding and support.

So the same things that will stop the destruction of
Freedmen's Town history and end the political division,
are the same things that will reunite and rebuild America.

Forgiveness and correction, not judgment and punishment.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear ding That still does not explain when the human soul enters the body.
You are still talking about the body and yes that part is science.

But issues of the spirit of human identity and will, that goes far beyond the genes.

One person said they settled this matter of what makes a human being,
as "someone who is loved." So if you love the person then yes, that is a human being.
And that's how they defined it.

So everyone has the spiritual freedom to define it for themselves.
What the govt can legislate is where we AGREE to make it law.

So sure, if everyone can agree that since life begins genetically at conception
then THAT is the "legal starting point" sure, we can have a consensus.

But I think you'd get a consensus faster by saying
* if you want right to health care, you have to respect right to life
* then separate the funding and let both fund their own
* and when all the funding goes toward the right to life and spiritual healing side,
then that's where the policies and research are going to get done to teach everyone

So by free choice, more people will CHOOSE to respect prolife and beginning at conception

ding the only difference between what we are both saying:
* you are choosing to learn and understand this WITHOUT govt making it illegal
you have free choice and THAT'S ENOUGH to learn and decide to respect life before birth
I find that is SUPERIOR
I would rather people be like you and CHOOSE because they understand and decide it makes sense

Like CHOOSING to understand why Christianity is helping and CHOOSING to respect or follow or adopt it
that's better than forcing people to practice Christianity by govt mandate
(note: spiritual healing can be proven by science to heal disease and addiction,
but still, it must be freely chosen and cannot be forced by law or it doesn't work)

* if you want to pass a law recognizing this WITHOUT consent of others affected who don't share those beliefs, that isn't fair to people
who aren't given the free choice as you and I were allowed to
so the only difference is getting people"s understanding and consent FIRST
AND NOT PASSING THE LAW UNLESS THEY AGREE

Again this is why I find we'd be better off separating the funding
This still acknowledges that your belief has validity and you have the right to fund it

But it gives people a choice, just like with Christianity,
so they don't reject that choice just because govt is being abused to force it on them

That creates a second battle that distracts from the core issue.
So I do not recommend violating the beliefs of other people
to push your own beliefs, or it discredits the motivations and distracts from the goals.

When human life begins is not a religious discussion. The beginning of human life is a scientific discussion. When do you think science tells us when a human life begins?

Human life is spiritual. Spiritually I believe it begins before birth. That all life is connected.

And nobody should violate anyone's consent because that's violating
free will or free exercise of religion. And if we want govt to respect
free exercise free will or free choice, all people as the authority behind govt
must equally respect free will and free choice of others.

So I say it's bigger than science and is constant. At all times,
we should seek to reconcile to have agreement and consensus
on unifying truth, and not impose on or coerce others.

That's what I believe and it require more faith than just science.

"Human life is spiritual. Spiritually I believe it begins before birth. That all life is connected."

Soooo, it's OK to murder with abortion?

Hi Votto
1. No it's not okay
2. But the best way to prevent it is by free choice not by force of law unless people consent to that law
3. I have no problem with people passing a law banning abortion if all people under that law agree to it
4. I'm saying the same way you and me and ding and I see Penelope also believe in prolife
and against abortion all people deserve equal free choice to decide that as we did
on our own without govt making it illegal and forcing that argument on any of us.

Does that make sense?

Like with Christianity or spiritual healing.

No, I don't think it's okay for people to reject spiritual healing when it can cure their loved ones of demons.

But this cannot be forced on them by law.
The best way or only way it works is by freely choosing to go through spiritual healing
and then it works. But it has to be by free choice.

I find prolife arguments work better when the person has free choice
and it doesn't work when it is forced by govt against their will.

There is nothing wrong with people all choosing to change to prolife and then
agreeing to pass a law by consensus.

Some people may argue that is still faith based,
but as long as all the people agree to pass the law
it's not taking anyone's free choice to get to that point of agreeing.

Why isn't it OK?

Neither the abortion, the abuse that caused that situation, or the act of both
groups pressuring each other to impose their viewpoint is natural or sustainable
but all of these involve abuse, suffering and disharmony.

They all go against equal truth peace and justice for all.

The solution to all three is to resolve the conflicts by free choice,
reach a consensus and act in harmony in all relations without abuse or coercion.

So the same things that will stop and prevent abortion
also stop the conflict over abortion policy:
respect for consent of others and then this cycle of abuse will end.

Abortion is only one sign of abuse, but all of it is abusive.
The coercion, the sex when pregnancy was not desired,
all of it is involves abuse that has to be addressed as well to solve the problems.

 

[ding]

When human life begins is not a religious discussion. The beginning of human life is a scientific discussion. When do you think science tells us when a human life begins?

Human life is spiritual. Spiritually I believe it begins before birth. That all life is connected.

And nobody should violate anyone's consent because that's violating
free will or free exercise of religion. And if we want govt to respect
free exercise free will or free choice, all people as the authority behind govt
must equally respect free will and free choice of others.

So I say it's bigger than science and is constant. At all times,
we should seek to reconcile to have agreement and consensus
on unifying truth, and not impose on or coerce others.

That's what I believe and it require more faith than just science.

"Human life is spiritual. Spiritually I believe it begins before birth. That all life is connected."

Soooo, it's OK to murder with abortion?

Hi Votto
1. No it's not okay
2. But the best way to prevent it is by free choice not by force of law unless people consent to that law
3. I have no problem with people passing a law banning abortion if all people under that law agree to it
4. I'm saying the same way you and me and ding and I see Penelope also believe in prolife
and against abortion all people deserve equal free choice to decide that as we did
on our own without govt making it illegal and forcing that argument on any of us.

Does that make sense?

Like with Christianity or spiritual healing.

No, I don't think it's okay for people to reject spiritual healing when it can cure their loved ones of demons.

But this cannot be forced on them by law.
The best way or only way it works is by freely choosing to go through spiritual healing
and then it works. But it has to be by free choice.

I find prolife arguments work better when the person has free choice
and it doesn't work when it is forced by govt against their will.

There is nothing wrong with people all choosing to change to prolife and then
agreeing to pass a law by consensus.

Some people may argue that is still faith based,
but as long as all the people agree to pass the law
it's not taking anyone's free choice to get to that point of agreeing.

Why isn't it OK?

Neither the abortion, the abuse that caused that situation, or the act of both
groups pressuring each other to impose their viewpoint is natural or sustainable
but all of these involve abuse, suffering and disharmony.

The solution to all three is to resolve the conflicts by free choice,
reach a consensus and act in harmony in all relations without abuse or coercion.

So the same things that will stop and prevent abortion
also stop the conflict over abortion policy:
respect for consent of others and then this cycle of abuse will end.

Abortion is only one sign of abuse, but all of it is abusive.
The coercion, the sex when pregnancy was not desired,
all of it is involves abuse that has to be addressed as well to solve the problems.

I'm sorry but you didn't answer the question. So let me ask it a different way? Yes or no, is it right to end a human life?

 

[Camp]

Why would someone who hates Catholic's name one to be a VP running mate?

 

[ding]

Why would someone who hates Catholic's name one to be a VP running mate?

Kennedy named Johnson as his VP running mate, right? And they sure did hate each other. FDR named Truman his VP running mate. Same thing.

 

[emilynghiem]

Human life is spiritual. Spiritually I believe it begins before birth. That all life is connected.

And nobody should violate anyone's consent because that's violating
free will or free exercise of religion. And if we want govt to respect
free exercise free will or free choice, all people as the authority behind govt
must equally respect free will and free choice of others.

So I say it's bigger than science and is constant. At all times,
we should seek to reconcile to have agreement and consensus
on unifying truth, and not impose on or coerce others.

That's what I believe and it require more faith than just science.

"Human life is spiritual. Spiritually I believe it begins before birth. That all life is connected."

Soooo, it's OK to murder with abortion?

Hi Votto
1. No it's not okay
2. But the best way to prevent it is by free choice not by force of law unless people consent to that law
3. I have no problem with people passing a law banning abortion if all people under that law agree to it
4. I'm saying the same way you and me and ding and I see Penelope also believe in prolife
and against abortion all people deserve equal free choice to decide that as we did
on our own without govt making it illegal and forcing that argument on any of us.

Does that make sense?

Like with Christianity or spiritual healing.

No, I don't think it's okay for people to reject spiritual healing when it can cure their loved ones of demons.

But this cannot be forced on them by law.
The best way or only way it works is by freely choosing to go through spiritual healing
and then it works. But it has to be by free choice.

I find prolife arguments work better when the person has free choice
and it doesn't work when it is forced by govt against their will.

There is nothing wrong with people all choosing to change to prolife and then
agreeing to pass a law by consensus.

Some people may argue that is still faith based,
but as long as all the people agree to pass the law
it's not taking anyone's free choice to get to that point of agreeing.

Why isn't it OK?

Neither the abortion, the abuse that caused that situation, or the act of both
groups pressuring each other to impose their viewpoint is natural or sustainable
but all of these involve abuse, suffering and disharmony.

The solution to all three is to resolve the conflicts by free choice,
reach a consensus and act in harmony in all relations without abuse or coercion.

So the same things that will stop and prevent abortion
also stop the conflict over abortion policy:
respect for consent of others and then this cycle of abuse will end.

Abortion is only one sign of abuse, but all of it is abusive.
The coercion, the sex when pregnancy was not desired,
all of it is involves abuse that has to be addressed as well to solve the problems.

I'm sorry but you didn't answer the question. So let me ask it a different way? Yes or no, is it right to end a human life?

No, it is not natural and causes suffering to do so.
It is more natural to either let the baby miscarry naturally
or better not to have sex if pregnancy is not desired or supported.

You can call it "right to end a human life" but
I think that is too limiting. It is also harmful spiritually
on more levels than just the way you frame it.

Votto called it genocide, and it is broader more like that.
It is more than just the one life, but the suffering is
on a collective spiritual scale because everything is connected.

As in Islam, the killing of one life is like killing all humanity.
It's like that, but the mother's spirit is being killed also,
It's more than just genetic life which is almost an insult
to limit it to that when the dynamics going on,
the karma as in Buddhism, are far greater in impact.

ding I am not going to say it the same as you do.
I can say it my way and you will have to intepret
or translate from there. Votto called it genocide
and that's another way to say it.

We all agree abortion should be prevented 100%
So if we agree on that language that's enough for me.
If you see it your way, that's why I'm saying by
free exercise of religion, your way of believing and
seeing it should be protected by law.
So people like you are why I'm saying we need
to wipe out and prevent abortion 100%
so your beliefs are not violated.

It's almost better I don't share your beliefs 100%
because that shows that as a Constitutionalist
even if I disagree with you, I STILL Defend your belief
the same as mine, and don't believe in any laws
violating your beliefs. i don't have to agree with your beliefs
in order to argue they should be Constitutionally included and protected.
I believe that is superior and enforces a higher standard of law
than only defending beliefs you agree with.

I am willing to defend solutions that prevent
abortion 100% so this never happens under the law.
We do need to strive for that, I agree that is the goal.

 

[Votto]

No. It is not faith based. It is based on science. It is not a matter of opinion or taste. It is a clearly established scientific fact that at conception the genetic coding to guide the rest of their lives is established. Not only are they a new human being, they are a distinctly new human being that has never existed before and will never exist again. Furthermore, at every step of the way they are fully human and have the appropriate characteristics of a human being that they are supposed to have at that stage of human development. This is through from conception to death.

Dear ding That still does not explain when the human soul enters the body.
You are still talking about the body and yes that part is science.

But issues of the spirit of human identity and will, that goes far beyond the genes.

One person said they settled this matter of what makes a human being,
as "someone who is loved." So if you love the person then yes, that is a human being.
And that's how they defined it.

So everyone has the spiritual freedom to define it for themselves.
What the govt can legislate is where we AGREE to make it law.

So sure, if everyone can agree that since life begins genetically at conception
then THAT is the "legal starting point" sure, we can have a consensus.

But I think you'd get a consensus faster by saying
* if you want right to health care, you have to respect right to life
* then separate the funding and let both fund their own
* and when all the funding goes toward the right to life and spiritual healing side,
then that's where the policies and research are going to get done to teach everyone

So by free choice, more people will CHOOSE to respect prolife and beginning at conception

ding the only difference between what we are both saying:
* you are choosing to learn and understand this WITHOUT govt making it illegal
you have free choice and THAT'S ENOUGH to learn and decide to respect life before birth
I find that is SUPERIOR
I would rather people be like you and CHOOSE because they understand and decide it makes sense

Like CHOOSING to understand why Christianity is helping and CHOOSING to respect or follow or adopt it
that's better than forcing people to practice Christianity by govt mandate
(note: spiritual healing can be proven by science to heal disease and addiction,
but still, it must be freely chosen and cannot be forced by law or it doesn't work)

* if you want to pass a law recognizing this WITHOUT consent of others affected who don't share those beliefs, that isn't fair to people
who aren't given the free choice as you and I were allowed to
so the only difference is getting people"s understanding and consent FIRST
AND NOT PASSING THE LAW UNLESS THEY AGREE

Again this is why I find we'd be better off separating the funding
This still acknowledges that your belief has validity and you have the right to fund it

But it gives people a choice, just like with Christianity,
so they don't reject that choice just because govt is being abused to force it on them

That creates a second battle that distracts from the core issue.
So I do not recommend violating the beliefs of other people
to push your own beliefs, or it discredits the motivations and distracts from the goals.

When human life begins is not a religious discussion. The beginning of human life is a scientific discussion. When do you think science tells us when a human life begins?

Human life is spiritual. Spiritually I believe it begins before birth. That all life is connected.

And nobody should violate anyone's consent because that's violating
free will or free exercise of religion. And if we want govt to respect
free exercise free will or free choice, all people as the authority behind govt
must equally respect free will and free choice of others.

So I say it's bigger than science and is constant. At all times,
we should seek to reconcile to have agreement and consensus
on unifying truth, and not impose on or coerce others.

That's what I believe and it require more faith than just science.

"Human life is spiritual. Spiritually I believe it begins before birth. That all life is connected."

Soooo, it's OK to murder with abortion?

Hi Votto
1. No it's not okay
2. But the best way to prevent it is by free choice not by force of law unless people consent to that law
3. I have no problem with people passing a law banning abortion if all people under that law agree to it
4. I'm saying the same way you and me and ding and I see Penelope also believe in prolife
and against abortion all people deserve equal free choice to decide that as we did
on our own without govt making it illegal and forcing that argument on any of us.

Does that make sense?

Like with Christianity or spiritual healing.

No, I don't think it's okay for people to reject spiritual healing when it can cure their loved ones of demons.

But this cannot be forced on them by law.
The best way or only way it works is by freely choosing to go through spiritual healing
and then it works. But it has to be by free choice.

I find prolife arguments work better when the person has free choice
and it doesn't work when it is forced by govt against their will.

There is nothing wrong with people all choosing to change to prolife and then
agreeing to pass a law by consensus.

Some people may argue that is still faith based,
but as long as all the people agree to pass the law
it's not taking anyone's free choice to get to that point of agreeing.

Does it make any sense? Sure. So you are saying that so long as the consent of the people favors genocide you are OK with it.

 

[Votto]

Dear ding That still does not explain when the human soul enters the body.
You are still talking about the body and yes that part is science.

But issues of the spirit of human identity and will, that goes far beyond the genes.

One person said they settled this matter of what makes a human being,
as "someone who is loved." So if you love the person then yes, that is a human being.
And that's how they defined it.

So everyone has the spiritual freedom to define it for themselves.
What the govt can legislate is where we AGREE to make it law.

So sure, if everyone can agree that since life begins genetically at conception
then THAT is the "legal starting point" sure, we can have a consensus.

But I think you'd get a consensus faster by saying
* if you want right to health care, you have to respect right to life
* then separate the funding and let both fund their own
* and when all the funding goes toward the right to life and spiritual healing side,
then that's where the policies and research are going to get done to teach everyone

So by free choice, more people will CHOOSE to respect prolife and beginning at conception

ding the only difference between what we are both saying:
* you are choosing to learn and understand this WITHOUT govt making it illegal
you have free choice and THAT'S ENOUGH to learn and decide to respect life before birth
I find that is SUPERIOR
I would rather people be like you and CHOOSE because they understand and decide it makes sense

Like CHOOSING to understand why Christianity is helping and CHOOSING to respect or follow or adopt it
that's better than forcing people to practice Christianity by govt mandate
(note: spiritual healing can be proven by science to heal disease and addiction,
but still, it must be freely chosen and cannot be forced by law or it doesn't work)

* if you want to pass a law recognizing this WITHOUT consent of others affected who don't share those beliefs, that isn't fair to people
who aren't given the free choice as you and I were allowed to
so the only difference is getting people"s understanding and consent FIRST
AND NOT PASSING THE LAW UNLESS THEY AGREE

Again this is why I find we'd be better off separating the funding
This still acknowledges that your belief has validity and you have the right to fund it

But it gives people a choice, just like with Christianity,
so they don't reject that choice just because govt is being abused to force it on them

That creates a second battle that distracts from the core issue.
So I do not recommend violating the beliefs of other people
to push your own beliefs, or it discredits the motivations and distracts from the goals.

When human life begins is not a religious discussion. The beginning of human life is a scientific discussion. When do you think science tells us when a human life begins?

Human life is spiritual. Spiritually I believe it begins before birth. That all life is connected.

And nobody should violate anyone's consent because that's violating
free will or free exercise of religion. And if we want govt to respect
free exercise free will or free choice, all people as the authority behind govt
must equally respect free will and free choice of others.

As a natural law and Golden rule, we shall do unto others as we ask others to us.
So if we want our consent respected, we respect the consent of others.
I believe in the power of loving including and forgiving one another,
as we make corrections, so that we arrive at decisions together;
and this involves no coercion but free choice through understanding
by sharing freely until all conflicts are resolved.

So I say it's bigger than science and is constant. At all times,
we should seek to reconcile to have agreement and consensus
on unifying truth, and not impose on or coerce others.

That's what I believe and it require more faith than just science.

No. Human life is biology. You have heard of DNA, right? Are you familiar with how science differentiates living organism from non-living matter?

So human life is only biology? So we are no different than animals?

Not when it comes to the definition of a living organism we aren't.

So work with me here. So if human life is just biology, then humans are merely glorified animals, right?

So what do we do with animals? We enslave them as beasts of burden. We lock them up in zoos for our entertainment, and we kill and eat them.

So if human life is equivalent to the animal kingdom, why can't we do the same to people?

I think this is why secular humanists are democrats for the most part. They don't believe we have natural rights, or God given rights. Instead, they treat us like cattle and herd us around. They may try to treat us in a humane manner, but that is all we can ever hope for. By in large we are just a commodity that can be "put down" at any moment for any reason.