Roe v. Wade getting overturned!!

[dblack]

I’m hearing, I’m listening, but the words you are saying are incoherent noise.

Because you're preoccupied with telling others how to live. Very "libertarian" of you.

Keep your nose out of other people's crotches.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

Because you're preoccupied with telling others how to live.

Again... if you consider it some kind of unconscionable encroachment for government to tell you not to kill other human beings, if you feel like that is telling you how to live, then you are the sort of scumbag that governments need to exist to stop.

Violent douchebags like you are why we have to have police and soldiers and courts and taxes.

A libertarian wants these things kept to a minimum; you just want to be able to do whatever you want to whomever you want whenever you want.

 

[beagle9]

Because you're preoccupied with telling others how to live. Very "libertarian" of you.

Keep your nose out of other people's crotches.

Depends on what they are doing with their crotches right ?? The crotch can be a deadly weapon.. .. Might be one of the deadliest of them all...Might be why crotches have to be regulated (open prostitution being illegal). ROTFLMBO .

Hey and that's just on crotches alone, but then when a baby begins to form due to the use of a crotch whether wrongfully used or rightfully used by a female, (and next the baby is allowed to begin development in the womb), well ok that womb should become a safe haven for that baby until it is birthed by the woman who was tasked with the overseeing of the safety for that tiny developing human being for hopefully 9 healthy months right ??

Like I said before, a woman should have to qualify her reasoning for not wanting to carry her pregnancy out before a medical board, and then the lead medical doctor on the board should either accept or deny the reasoning strictly along medical emergency lines before giving her a green light. The medical field doesn't need to be used as hit men or women that will destroy a pregnancy on a whim just because a mother to be gets cold feet for a second or two.

 

[beagle9]

Again... if you consider it some kind of unconscionable encroachment for government to tell you not to kill other human beings, if you feel like that is telling you how to live, then you are the sort of scumbag that governments need to exist to stop.

Violent douchebags like you are why we have to have police and soldiers and courts and taxes.

A libertarian wants these things kept to a minimum; you just want to be able to do whatever you want to whomever you want whenever you want.

Good debate going.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

beagle9221215-#6,419 Well without government being run by the RIGHT PEOPLE.

NFBW: You are not “right people” in America. You don’t get to decide you have a monopoly on rightness. You accept as a matter of your religion that all mankind are born into original sin but you are the right kind of sinner because you are saved, right?

You believe JESUS died on the cross to save you. America is not a Christian nation and it never was. Five of our six first presidents did not believe in original sin and they did not believe Jesus was crucified on the cross to save them from burning in hell. They were not saved in the way that you are beagle9 , so I must conclude that in your mind America’s first generation of presidents were wrong people in charge of government.

They did not include the unborn in the Constitution from the very start. Were they wrong people to you.

END2212152138

 

[beagle9]

beagle9221215-#6,419 Well without government being run by the RIGHT PEOPLE.

NFBW: You are not “right people” in America. You don’t get to decide you have a monopoly on rightness. You accept as a matter of your religion that all mankind are born into original sin but you are the right kind of sinner because you are saved, right?

You believe JESUS died on the cross to save you. America is not a Christian nation and it never was. Five of our six first presidents did not believe in original sin and they did not believe Jesus was crucified on the cross to save them from burning in hell. They were not saved in the way that you are beagle9 , so I must conclude that in your mind America’s first generation of presidents were wrong people in charge of government.

They did not include the unborn in the Constitution from the very start. Were they wrong people to you.

END2212152138

Look, you might think to yourself that Christian's aren't the right people to run or help to run something, but it should always be put to the vote, and if the Christian wins the vote, then all I can say is judge that person on their merit's and then think to yourself (how when something makes perfect rational sense, and it works), then WOW how wrong you were saying that a Christian has no place in government. Sure would be better than the irrational left occupying our government, especially with it's complete idiocy on display everytime it opens it's idiotic mouth.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Cplus6221215-#6,422 CarsomyrPlusSix Again... if you consider it some kind of unconscionable encroachment for government to tell you not to kill other human beings,

If the government tells a pregnant woman she cannot prevent the human being that is using her body to live and has never experienced life as a viable government protected human being then yes that is encroaching on the woman’s liberty and autonomy over her own body.

END2212152153

 

[NotfooledbyW]

WOW how wrong you were saying that a Christian has no place in government.

I never said Christians have no place in government. I have voted for Christian presidents my entire life starting with McGovern, then Carter, Mondale, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Clinton Biden All of them Christians who belong in government.

Why do you always make shit up about me?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Cplus6221215-#6,422 A libertarian wants these things kept to a minimum; you just want to be able to do whatever you want to whomever you want whenever you want.

NFBW: We are discussing a pregnant woman terminating her pregnancy at about an average of 15 weeks when nobody else outside who she tells knows she is pregnant.

How is anybody doing whatever they want to whomever they want whenever they want regarding the private matter of a woman being pregnant that none of us knows and is not involved in any way.?????. You are so confused CarsomyrPlusSix . You need to snap out of it.

END2212152243

 

[NotfooledbyW]

beagle9221215-#6,419 Well without government being run by the RIGHT PEOPLE

NFBW: When a majority of law abiding right red state people ask and force other law abiding right red state people to take a de facto religious test when selecting medical professionals to perform an abortion the pregnant woman seeking an abortion may travel to a blue state to get an abortion and then return to her red state and remain a law abiding right person the rest of her law abiding red state life.

The religious test in red states that have it, must be unconstitutional and that must be why Alito wrote the following after Dobbs v Jackson was decided against law abiding pregnant tight people who live in extremist Christian run red states.

Alito is a highly educated Catholic on the Supreme Court. Alito said: “For our part, we do not question the motives of either those who have supported and those who have opposed laws restricting abortion,” because he must know it is not Constitutional to impose a religious test on law abiding right people just because they end up pregnant when living in a Red State.

END2212160822

 

[NotfooledbyW]

and if the Christian wins the vote,

NFBW: I love having Christians everywhere involved in running and defending our nation and our liberties. Black, Asian and Hispanic Christian are among the finest and best when serving our country.

It’s just that Christians involved in good governance must resist imposing their personal religious beliefs on people who do not share a personal belief such as ding who is thankfully not in government, has been doing for at least five Catholic propagandizing years.

ding170413-#265 “Human life begins at conception.

NFBW: What #ding says is actually true, however, it is not interpreted in the same way between the Catholic Church and her believers versus secular scientists who are constitutionally enabled to guide our governments when passing laws that a secular religious neutral population must obey.

There is a scientific biological distinction of viability versus unviability that must be considered when passing laws that involve when human beings gain access to the legal protection of right to life equal to the protections granted to the mother.

#ding has long been rationalizing that viability is irrelevant and has no bearing on a fertilized egg instantly gaining a right to life at the exact moment conception occurs.

That is Catholic doctrine not scientific proven reality and has no place being imposed on the free people of all religious and not religious people who grant consent to be governed while being left alone to follow the dictates of their conscience as long as no actions are involved that will do harm to others.

END2212161001

 

[beagle9]

Cplus6221215-#6,422 CarsomyrPlusSix Again... if you consider it some kind of unconscionable encroachment for government to tell you not to kill other human beings,

If the government tells a pregnant woman she cannot prevent the human being that is using her body to live and has never experienced life as a viable government protected human being then yes that is encroaching on the woman’s liberty and autonomy over her own body.

END2212152153

So it's encroachment, but so is every other law and order directive that's put out when the people begin to experience very bad things in regards to other people's activities in life. In the case of a women ignoring the ways in which not to get pregnant, and then she gets pregnant therefore allowing the pregnancy to reach a stage where there's no turning back, then it involves her killing the tiny little developing human being within her. Then we then find out that there are doctor's or medical official's that are doing monsterous procedure's in order to remove the baby at various stages.

Something has to change, because it has become a highly uncivilized thing, and worse than that it is sinful.

 

[beagle9]

Cplus6221215-#6,422 A libertarian wants these things kept to a minimum; you just want to be able to do whatever you want to whomever you want whenever you want.

NFBW: We are discussing a pregnant woman terminating her pregnancy at about an average of 15 weeks when nobody else outside who she tells knows she is pregnant.

How is anybody doing whatever they want to whomever they want whenever they want regarding the private matter of a woman being pregnant that none of us knows and is not involved in any way.?????. You are so confused CarsomyrPlusSix . You need to snap out of it.

END2212152243

So basically what you're saying is that if sin is done out of site regardless of the effects on the mental stability of the person or person's sinning, and the effects on the health of the person(s) afterwards, then everyone is to just ignore that sin even when it sometimes encroaches outwardly whether it be in trend, unknowingly, and sneakily, to cause harm to other's when they least expect it ? Sin doesn't have to be a direct contact thing in order to affect the psyche of other's, and the nation's mental health is at stake when it does trend outwardly.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Cplus6221215-#6,422 A libertarian wants these things kept to a minimum; you just want to be able to do whatever you want to whomever you want whenever you want.

NFBW221215-#6,429 We are discussing a pregnant woman terminating her pregnancy at about an average of 15 weeks when nobody else outside who she tells knows she is pregnant. . . . . . How is anybody doing whatever they want to whomever they want whenever they want regarding the private matter of a woman being pregnant that none of us knows and is not involved in any way.?????.

beagle9221216-#6,433 So basically what you're saying is that if sin is done out of site. . . .

NFBW: There is no sin involved for me because I am not a Catholic or of any other religion that subscribes to the faith belief that a whole human being is created at conception. Therefore I cannot answer your question as asked beagle9 . However I support your effort to contain the “sin” that goes against your religion. So let’s say you can put the abortion industry out of business by convincing every menstruating female in the country to give every fetus a chance if they end up getting pregnant, and by getting the men like Herschel Walker to not have careless sex by knocking women up left and right with no intent of raising the kid like a good father should. If you do that I will applaud you, but don’t use government coercion to obtain your religious goals. That smacks of theocracy.

END2212161352

 

[NotfooledbyW]

beagle9221216- #6,433 So basically what you're saying is that if sin is done out of site regardless of the effects on the mental stability of the person or person's sinning, and the effects on the health of the person(s) afterwards, then everyone is to just ignore that sin . . . . .

NFBW: When a religious person commits a sin against his or her religion that does no harm to anybody but themselves in the eyes of their chosen religious affiliations it is absolutely of no concern to me. I am more concerned about the mental health of way too many Americans who still support a racist, fascist ex-president who incited an attack on the sacred ground of democratic self-government in a violent and unconstitutional mob-rule attempt to stay in power after losing an election by a landslide.

END2212171039

 

[NotfooledbyW]

ding221216-#360 ding God’s attributes can be discovered by studying his creation. It’s not like we have no data to analyze. “

NFBW: In my study of the creation of the reproductive process of the human mammal it’s hard to fathom what the hell is going on between the God of the Scripture with the natural miscarriage death of an immaterial body while inside the viable body of a woman who does not practice the age old religion of the holy Catholic Church which I understand is an updated version of the ancient and still viable Jewish religion.

Why do Catholics believe the soul and body are created at conception when the god of the scriptures is the same god of the Jewish people who the latter have been led to believe that the soul joins the body at first breath?

The human person is body and soul (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 362; Gen. 2:7). At death the body and soul are separated. This separation results in death to the body. Unlike the body, which can die and decay, the immaterial aspect of the human person lives on. After death, the person is in a temporary disembodied state awaiting the resurrection at the end of time. In this resurrection, even the body will ultimately be glorified and joined to the soul in a new way (Catechism, no. 366)
Catholic Scriptural Teaching on Death

” First, if a person dies in friendship with God, he goes to share in the “communion of life and love with the Trinity, with the Virgin Mary, the angels and all the blessed” in heaven (cf. Catechism, no. 1023-29). Secondly, if a person dies in God’s friendship, but still “imperfectly purified,” he undergoes purification in purgatory before entering heaven (cf. Catechism, no. 1030-32). Lastly, if a person dies in a state of mortal sin, having willfully rejected God, that soul descends into hell to suffer eternal punishment (cf. Catechism, no. 1033-37).

If ding cannot clarify what’s going on here I would hope the nice Catholic Meriweather will help me understand what God is doing with sins of a human being who dies during miscarriage.

As a rational theist like Jefferson I lean toward the Jewish ‘first breath’ concept as most rational to anyone studying God’s creation.


END2212171136

 

[Meriweather]

I would hope the nice Catholic @Meriweather will help me understand what God is doing with sins of a human being who dies during miscarriage.

As a rational theist like Jefferson I lean toward the Jewish ‘first breath’ concept as most rational to anyone studying God’s creation.

Catholics site these two Biblical verses which support life begins at conception.

• “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I set you apart and appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” (Jeremiah 1:5)
• For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. (Psalm 139:13)

The basic teaching on Original Sin is that humans are born with the propensity to sin. With two late-term miscarriages/deaths in my family, the two babies may have been born with the usual human propensity, but they returned to God before any sin could be committed.

The Bible--nor Apostolic Tradition says one word about what happens then. The Church said it was in limbo, (etymology meaning of being on a line with no way of figuring what happens next). Kind of funny, that over time, "Limbo" became known as a place for babies, and the correction to the original meaning didn't take place until the 1950s or 60s.

Therefore, the closest Catholic teaching comes is that the body of the miscarried infant returns to the earth, while his/her soul returns to God.

My understanding of the first breath customary in Jewish teaching is that after forming Adam from the Earth, God breathed life into him. Taking a first breath of air after birth is not the same as life being breathed into the baby.

Arguing over what happens when may be thought provoking, but ultimately fruitless. Catholic teaching is that life is God's greatest gift to us, and that life begins at conception. Since life is believed to be our greatest gift, treating it as anything other than a treasure is unthinkable to those who believe both that life is the greatest gift and that it begins at conception (based on the verses in Psalms and Jeremiah).

Hope this helps with understanding Catholic thought/beliefs.

 

[beagle9]

beagle9221216- #6,433 So basically what you're saying is that if sin is done out of site regardless of the effects on the mental stability of the person or person's sinning, and the effects on the health of the person(s) afterwards, then everyone is to just ignore that sin . . . . .

NFBW: When a religious person commits a sin against his or her religion that does no harm to anybody but themselves in the eyes of their chosen religious affiliations it is absolutely of no concern to me. I am more concerned about the mental health of way too many Americans who still support a racist, fascist ex-president who incited an attack on the sacred ground of democratic self-government in a violent and unconstitutional mob-rule attempt to stay in power after losing an election by a landslide.

END2212171039

So you think sin affects only the person involved in sin ?

Leave Trump out of this you deflecting knucklehead.

Now you know that's a bold faced lie, but that's how you are, a bold face liar. Yep if you can sit there and come up with a stupid lie in which suggest that sin affects only the person sinning, then yep you are a LIAR. You got the devil scratching his head now, because his main thing is hoping sin has a net gain of two for one always.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

beagle9221217-#6,438 So you think sin affects only the person involved in sin ?

NFBW: No. I know that a woman who is not Catholic or your brand of Christianity is not committing a sin when she decides to terminate the not viable human being that is using her body temporally to become a viable human being. So if she is Catholic or believes as Catholics do, that God creates the exact equivalent of a fully developed human being at conception then I expect it affects her and all the people involved in her life, but alas, thanks to separation of church and state it is of absolutely no concern to rational theists such as I am. There is no Satan in rational theism as well.

END2212172227

 

[beagle9]

beagle9221217-#6,438 So you think sin affects only the person involved in sin ?

NFBW: No. I know that a woman who is not Catholic or your brand of Christianity is not committing a sin when she decides to terminate the not viable human being that is using her body temporally to become a viable human being. So if she is Catholic or believes as Catholics do, that God creates the exact equivalent of a fully developed human being at conception then I expect it affects her and all the people involved in her life, but alas, thanks to separation of church and state it is of absolutely no concern to rational theists such as I am. There is no Satan in rational theism as well.

END2212172227

Yeah well you are a minority in your views just so you know, and no amount of MSNBC, CNN, NPR, FACEBOOK, TWITTER, or any other alledged liberal leftist enclave (prior or current) is going to swell your numbers up in real time anymore (busted). People have had it with the leftist bull crap, and that includes using abortion for birth control after the fact. That's a sick thing, but maybe not to you eh ????