Abortion thread (Page 12/43)
theBDub APR 04, 11:24 PM

quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:

IMHO, randye responds to inane Liberal posts, but doesn't start the fight.

Inane Liberal policies are hastening the downfall of the free world and should be challenged at every turn.

Your opinion may be different.



You can challenge ideas without attacking the person behind them. You just did it. Most people on the forum can do it, and often do. Randy doesn’t.
WonderBoy APR 05, 12:02 AM


quote
Originally posted by Patrick:

And now there's some boy droning on about a "sick cult". It gets weirder here all the time!



ray b has a problem with a large number of people who worship a form of deity. They're cults to ?it?. rinselberg "wishes for ray b", and when ?it? does, ?it? shows up. Like a genie out of a bottle, ?it? rubs that lamp. ?They? are a minority that worships a sick twisted form of government.

Try to keep up.

The fact that most uses of abortion is an excuse for someones stupidity/accident/not-following-science/poor-judgement, when there are SO MANY METHODS that can be used to prevent that final vile act shows how much the psyche of MAN (human race) has sunk to that of wild ANIMALS. Lack of self control when 'booty-sweat' reaches the nostrils.
Are you a human or an animal? Works for BOTH (there are only 2 <two/dos/zwei/deux/dvah> ) sexes.
Think about it. Wild animals can't.
Patrick APR 05, 12:47 AM

quote
Originally posted by WonderBoy:

rinselberg "wishes for ray b", and when ?it? does, ?it? shows up. Like a genie out of a bottle, ?it? rubs that lamp. ?They? are a minority that worships a sick twisted form of government.

Try to keep up.



Try to make sense, Boy.
WonderBoy APR 05, 01:28 AM

quote
Originally posted by Patrick:

Try to make sense, Boy.


You can thank radical progressive liberals (like your Trudeau) for me not knowing how to properly address/identify ?them?.

Anywho, I find that remark RACIST! Since today I *feel* like I have a very dark skin tone, which I don't. This is the system you're creating. Don't you enjoy it? There is no sense in looney liberal world!

Liberal systems=CHAOS!
(As proven here)
rinselberg APR 05, 03:42 AM

quote
Originally posted by WonderBoy:
rinselberg "wishes for ray b", and when ?it? does, ?it? shows up. Like a genie out of a bottle, ?it? rubs that lamp. ?They? are a minority that worships a sick twisted form of government.


WonderBoy is making a mountain out of a molehill about this. I said that I had my fingers crossed that ray b would show up in that thread. That's really about all I said in that way. I guess I found the thread kind of boring, up to that point, and hoped for someone like ray b to come in and "make some waves."

I don't even remember which of the current or recently active threads that was in.

I do not recall seeing any instance in which ray b has singled out other forum members directly by their names or screen names, or by directly addressing them as "LIARS" or "SILLY-ASSED" or any of a whole slew of other derogatory terms that are a particular other forum member's long established specialty or brand. So putting all other considerations aside, as best I can, I perceive ray b as considerably more civil n his commentaries than the other particular forum member that I have in mind, in terms of this comparison.

I said I do not recall.... I'm not saying that it hasn't ever happened—just that I don't remember such an instance from ray b from my years on this forum.

I didn't intend my "fingers crossed" remark to be taken all that seriously. I am not here to team up with ray b in any scripted or premeditated or "behind the scenes" kind of way. I don't see any obvious reason that the text string "ray b" will be recreated by me, again, in the immediately foreseeable future.

I like to see almost any forum member who's been a presence before, and then gone dormant or mostly dormant, come back to life again (so to speak.)

I wish there were more voices on this forum, as there used to be quite some years ago. More voices in Totally O/T and in this new Politics & Religion section. "The more the merrier."

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-05-2022).]

2.5 APR 05, 03:27 PM
Anyway back on topic;
I'm still with my earlier stated view.


quote
Originally posted by 2.5:

I think this is a stretch far beyond the reach of the applicable argument and reprocussions. Stick to reproducing humans. If one sees a human as of no value, worth and having no dignity there isnt much I can talk to them about regarding this topic. Its too late.

I disagree, it is murder. Same as murdering a 1 month old who can't survive by themself. A 6 month old, or a 1 year old, etc.

"The conflict to me is using what I consider irrelevant excuses to override one's own concerns,.
There was no horrible accident and the baby can survive. On top of that [you] created the baby. It wasnt some strange unfortunate circumstance.
The wrongness of killing a child, on either side of the mother to be's belly, doesn't change "
82-T/A [At Work] APR 06, 09:11 AM

quote
Originally posted by theBDub:

I am clearly responding to Randy, who continues to try to pretend that laws are the same as morality, and the only defense he needs to ban abortion is in the law. Even though, as you point out, it doesn’t actually make any sense.




To be clear... the laws in the United States are very much based on morality. That is the Christian morality. Take the first few lines of the Declaration of Independence:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."


They mention God twice here.

And lest you say that the 1st Amendment "protects us against religion" ... I quote you the exact text from the First Amendment and establishment clause...


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

We know that when this was written, they were referring to the denomination of religion... e.g. Protestant, Catholic, etc. But in the true words and intent of the constitutional amendment, it was to ensure the right of the people to practice ANY religion.


This was further codified when Thomas Jefferson penned a letter to the Danberry Baptist Association in 1802... further qualifying what he meant... he said:


"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."


It is well understood that our Constitution and the founding of our country was religiously based in Judeo-Christian morals... e.g., the "Golden Rule." As stated above, the "wall" refers to not establishing a foundational religion by which the Government is run. The intent there was to ensure that we didn't exist in a society where the Catholic Church ruled alongside the monarchy such that the Pope had direct influence on the King.

But to suggest that our laws are not somehow based in morality is wrong. Everything is based in morality... it just depends WHO'S morality you're talking about.


And that said... the use of "of" rather than "from" is an important distinction here.

[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 04-06-2022).]

theBDub APR 06, 09:18 AM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
To be clear... the laws in the United States are very much based on morality. That is the Christian morality. Take the first few lines of the Declaration of Independence:

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."


They mention God twice here.

And lest you say that the 1st Amendment "protects us against religion" ... I quote you the exact text from the First Amendment and establishment clause...


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

We know that when this was written, they were referring to the denomination of religion... e.g. Protestant, Catholic, etc. But in the true words and intent of the constitutional amendment, it was to ensure the right of the people to practice ANY religion.


This was further codified when Thomas Jefferson penned a letter to the Danberry Baptist Association in 1802... further qualifying what he meant... he said:


"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."


It is well understood that our Constitution and the founding of our country was religiously based in Judeo-Christian morals... e.g., the "Golden Rule." As stated above, the "wall" refers to not establishing a foundational religion by which the Government is run. The intent there was to ensure that we didn't exist in a society where the Catholic Church ruled alongside the monarchy such that the Pope had direct influence on the King.

But to suggest that our laws are not somehow based in morality is wrong. Everything is based in morality... it just depends WHO'S morality you're talking about.


And that said... the use of "of" rather than "from" is an important distinction here.




I never said they weren't based on morality. I said they weren't the same. You can't use a law in and of itself to prove something is wrong or not wrong. Laws are laws, morality is morality, and though they often intertwine, they aren't the same thing.

My point is simply that telling me I'm wrong about a moralistic belief because it goes against a law is not a good argument. If that were the case, interracial marriage was morally wrong at some point, slavery was not, and it was morally acceptable to treat women as less than men.
ray b APR 06, 11:23 AM
the people who arrested ann frank were following the law

the people who hid ann frank were breaking the law

meditate on that

the law here in the land of the free
said a man in a free state could be dragged back in to slavery
and the law demand that act to follow the law
ray b APR 06, 11:28 AM
on religion

my religion is SEX and DRUGS and ROCK&ROLL
MANY OF MY BELIEFS AND THE SACRAMENTS OF MY RELIGION IS AGAINST YOUR LAWS
WHERE IS MY FREEDOM TO PRACTICE MY RELIGION ?

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?