Colorado Lawmaker to Planned Parenthood: ‘Stop the Violence Inside Your Walls’

Windholz-compressedDENVER, Co. — A Republican lawmaker in Colorado pointed to Planned Parenthood’s violence against the unborn in a comment on social media this week, stating that the nation must “start pointing out who is the real culprit.”

Rep. JoAnn Windholz of Denver made the comments on Monday on Facebook.

“The freedoms we enjoy in the United States include those that were made up to fit the audience and unsubstantiated numerical support, specifically the right to an abortion,” she wrote. “When a violent act happens at a Planned Parenthood facility (most recent in Colorado Springs) the left goes on ‘auto-pilot’ blaming everyone in sight when they should be looking in a mirror.”

Windholz said that it was Planned Parenthood who initiated the “war on women.”

‘The ‘war on women’ is what Planned Parenthood began with Margaret Sanger and it has turned into a war on the family, especially children,” she stated. “It has changed children from a blessing to a commodity making it very hard to consider ourselves to be a civilized respectful rational society.”

The lawmaker said that violence is never justified—not only in Friday’s shooting, but in the murder of the unborn.

‘Violence is never the answer but we must start pointing out who is the real culprit,” Windholz wrote. “The true instigator of this violence and all violence at any Planned Parenthood facility, is Planned Parenthood themselves. Violence begets violence.”

  • Connect with Christian News

“So Planned Parenthood, you stop the violence inside your walls,” she continued. “My question is, if abortions were free at Planned Parenthood, how long would they stay in business? Pro-Life organizations offer their caring services saving women and children for free every day and they clean up the mess that Planned Parenthood has left behind.”

Windholz declined to give further comment to the media.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Rebecca

    The little “healthcare” that is done in PP’s is just a cover for the main thing, convincing naive women that “it” is not a baby and killing those babies for profit and selling some of the body parts. PP is an evil organization.

    • OldGP

      Asking a 100 dollars for tissue is not even recovering the costs, therefore in no way a commercial sale, let alone something done for profit. Just look up what the prices are if you buy a piece of cadaver tissue from a bona-fide non-profit tissue bank. The opponents of PP seem so blinded by irrational hate that they are incapable of normal reasoning and analysis.

      • Rebecca

        You are wrong and a fool. You are the blinded one, baby killer supporter. You are incapable of normal reasoning and analysis as to what is really going on in PP. Go watch an abortion sweetie, then get back to me.

        • feloneouscat

          You are a silly little girl who is incapable of forming an argument. You want to tell other people what to do, but hate it when others tell you what to do.

          You have serious issues.

          • Rebecca

            No felon, wrong is wrong. You didn’t learn that, so of course you’re going to reply this way. I owe you no “argument”.

          • OldGP

            Rebecca, they are right. You have not presented a single argument yet and continuously repeat yourself saying that we are wrong and you are right. It does suggest a low level of education and heavy indoctrination from one of the 750+ different creeds of ‘true’ christians. Shame you never learned to think for yourself.

          • Rebecca

            Says the sheeple. PP is evil and you supporting it shows you’re evil too. Get a heart.

          • OldGP

            Get an education, see a psychiatrist and start living a life.

          • Rebecca

            I am living life. Too bad you don’t support the unborn’s right to the same. SMH

          • OldGP

            With the population growth on this planet, from 1 billion in 1800, 1.5 billion in 1900, 6 billion in 2000 to 7.2 billion today I will not miss an embryo or two, not after nature/God (choose which one you like) already discarded millions and still allows this obscene growth.

        • John N

          Just like OldGP said, around 50% of all human embryos are aborted spontaneously – without anybody intervening. That’s a medical fact.

          Since you deny evolutionary science and seem to belief the Christian God created us, that must mean he is responsible for such a crude selection mechanism. So this year alone, your god has aborted almost four million embryos in the US alone. That makes him by far the largest abortionist in the world.

          And you actually worship such a god? What makes that of you?

          Now do you still belief abortion is equal to murder?

          • Pererin

            The difference is that we are not God. We do not have the right to make such a decision.

            But you don’t seem to believe is God anyway so this is a moot point. In a humanistic world how do you justify abortion? An embryo is a developing baby, at the very least from implantation. An embryo or foetus doesn’t magically earn personhood once it passes certain stages of development, this is awful reasoning and holds no grounding. What is you excuse for believing it?

          • John N

            Pererin, so you admit Christians love and worship a god which, in their belief, is responsible for abortioning half of all embryos. Something yourself call a murder.

            So what does that make you? Can you answer that? Do you dare answer that?

          • Rebecca

            Miscarriages are different than abortions fool.

          • John N

            Thanks for the compliment. Why is that?

          • Pererin

            Of course I can answer that. In the bible please read, Romans 9v21, it says ‘does the potter not have power over the clay. God, the potter, has power over the clay, who is us. Please read the full chapter though. Also please take a look at the book of Job, chapters 38 – 41. In fact, the whole book of Job is a great read to learn about this very subject.

            You see, God has the authority over ALL the things that He does, over ALL of His creation. We are not on par with him, we are below Him, we are Him lowly creations. So we don’t have the same authority to make such decisions. He knows all things and is ALL powerful. He made us ALL, therefore He knows what is best and I trust His judgement, His authority and His providence with all of my heart. Does that make Him a murderer? Of course not. He is God. To suggest this is ignorance and only highlights your contempt for God and the worship and adoration of yourself which is of course idolatry. God has the authority to decide on the lives of not only children in the womb, but ALL of humanity, ALL animals, ALL plant-life, ALL CREATION! He is ALL powerful, there is none greater.

            We on the other hand, have no authority over anything in this world. We are his created subjects. We have no right to decide on whether a baby dies or not. Therefore, for us, killing a child in the womb is murder. You are judging God on good and evil, when you, as, can I say Atheist? You don’t even believe in good and evil. In atheism, humanism, naturalism, what is good in one man’s eyes is evil to another and vice-versa. You have rejected the authority and goodness of God so you have no right to say that God is not good. Good doesn’t exist in atheism where absolutes do not exist. I could even ask you, according to your world view, why shouldn’t Hitler kill millions of Jews? He thought it good, why is your standard of good any higher than his?
            Do you see? God decides what is good, God is the very description of good, He invented good. So for you to suggest that God isn’t good is like telling Barak Obama “hey Obama, be more Obama, why aren’t you more Obama? What you did just know, it wasn’t Obama enough”. He and everyone else would look at you the same way Christians look at you when you and people like Richard Dawkins suggest that God is, in anyway evil.

            Sorry for the length, but does that answer your question?

          • John N

            My question was not what your god can or can’t do (I indeed do not believe any gods exist), it was how you can actually love and worship such a god, while believing that he is responsible for killing half of all embryos. And meanwhile judging women who see abortion as an ultimate chance of ending an unwanted pregnancy and denying them their legal rights.

            But I see you just move around the question – in fact you don’t even see it as a problem, do you? But then, you also believe he once rightfully killed all of mankind because a reason, so what could I expect.

            >’God has the authority to decide on the lives of not only children in the womb, but ALL of humanity, ALL animals, ALL plant-life, ALL CREATION! He is ALL powerful, there is none greater.’

            Well, I guess that is pretty big. So, where is he?

            >’Good doesn’t exist in atheism where absolutes do not exist.’
            So good does not exist outside of Christiannity? You really have some strange ideas about the world. Do you ever get out of your church?
            Do you realize that the large majority of mankind does not believe in your god? So you claim they do not know what good means? Do you ever hear of people in secular countries walk around heavily armed killing each other for any reason?

            >’I could even ask you, according to your world view, why shouldn’t Hitler kill millions of Jews? He thought it good, why is your standard of good any higher than his?

            Well, according to your world view, killing millions of people is good if your god does it, if your god asks you to do it, or even if you claim your god asks you to do it. Talking about standards of morality.

            ‘… when you and people like Richard Dawkins who suggest that God is, in anyway evil.’
            Well, Dawkins (and most atheists) actually read your bible. Did you?

          • Pererin

            I answered your question, I love God because as I explained, I don’t believe that He kills babies in the womb as you are explaining it. You have created a straw man argument. You ask why has God done something that He hasn’t really done at all. I explained that we do not have the same authority that God has, so you cannot judge God as we judge each other. In fact we have no right to judge God at all. As I explained using passages from Romans and Job.

            You raise yourself above God or at least on equal standing with Him and this is not correct, it is unreasonable and is why your judgments upon Him are so obsurd. The problem is that we are not talking about the same God. You are talking about an inferior God, I am speaking of a superior God and you cannot judge a superior God.

            I see God in all of His creation, indeed His creation declares His handiwork. I have also seen Him in my own life through my experiences, though this is no proof to you.

            You disagree that good and evil does not exist in atheism? Please explain.
            God gives us good. Where we turn from Him, this is evil. Please explain to me what you think good and evil is? If God does not exist, what authority are you using? Do you suppose collective agreement amongst people is good enough? What if another people decide differently as in Nazi Germany. You couldn’t answer my question on this earlier so I ask it again, why was Hitler wrong to kill millions of Jews. God said, thou shalt not kill. We do not have the authority to kill. So I have my reason. I’m still waiting for yours.

            You do not understand. God is good, he is the personification of good. So if we turn away from God, that is an act of evil, going against God. Evil doesn’t not exist in the same way good exists. Similarly, as heat exists as an energy force, the absence of heat energy leads to what we call cold, though cold doesn’t exist as a force or energy, it is simply the lack of heat energy. So you see God didn’t create evil as you misleadingly suggest.

            The problem with atheists such as yourself and Dawkins is that you love yourselves so much you hate God and His authority. So, foolishly, you invent an inferior God to destroy. You read the Bible with hate and with this imposter of an inferior God. This is madness because of course you cannot destroy God, the real superior God. This is why we are different we have different Gods, you seek to destroy your invented inferior God, I seek to follow the real superior God. So, I’ve read the Bible but not in a hate filled way as maybe you have.

            My only advice is to drop the inferior God you have invented and love the superior God who is real and believe it or not, He loves you, all of us in fact. Even though you reject Him, He made a way back for you. He gave us His only Son, Jesus Christ as a sacrifice to pay for all our evil. He is our only hope for salvation and He is there for you too.

          • OldGP

            Why and how would I hate something that does not exist except in the fertile imagination of an unhealthy number of individuals? Individuals who leave themselves open to manipulation by those who claim that they know the true words and intentions of this non-existing ‘entity’. Joel Onstein, Jimmy Swaggart, Jimmy Bakker, Billy Graham, Bin Laden, and many many others. The mistaken belief that only they are right and everyone else is wrong has led to too many wars and killings. It would be nice if mankind developed a little more intelligence and critical skills, but I don’t hold high hopes.

          • Pererin

            Great, so your reply is basically, that we’re all a load of over-imaginative unhealthy, idiots because we believe inGod. All 2.2 billion of us mind, and that’s just the Christians! Only 13% of the world’s population are atheist. Hmm, doesn’t look good for you does it? So 87% of the world’s population are nuts according to you because they believe in a God. As for your list of religious nuts, maybe add, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot who used used their atheistic beliefs to justify their actions. Ever consider that maybe, just maybe it is you with the problem, not us?

          • Claire Michael

            I don’t know about your numbers but either way I say this. Do you realize that having a majority belief doesn’t make something right or true … You do understand that right.

          • Pererin

            My figures were from Wikipedia which are from a Pew report. Of course I realise that majority isn’t king. I was simply pointing out how silly his remarks were. According to him 87% of the people on the planet are mad idiots. That is all.

          • Claire Michael

            But why are they silly? Your answer was because your the majority. So now I’ll go with …. Being the majority doesn’t mean they aren’t mad idiots

          • Pererin

            You’re wrong, but you can go with whatever you like. I made the statement so I know what I meant, but you go ahead in ignorance, it’s no skin off my nose. My answer described the thought that 87% of the world’s population is mad and are idiots, is silly. Do you think this is possible? That 87% of the people of the world are mad idiots? Seriously?

          • Claire Michael

            Your answer didn’t describe anything really except the fact that 87% of people couldn’t possibly be mad idiots but I’m saying why not? The fact that there’s 87% of them doesn’t mean jack sh*t
            Personally I wouldn’t use the language mad idiots but there we have it

          • Pererin

            Well there we are then, you know best. What a world we live in where 13% of the population are all fine, normal individuals, who are supporting the 87% who are mad idiots. Where you do lot come from?!
            Your language needs curbing too I see, you couldn’t make it up 🙂

          • Claire Michael

            I really haven’t claimed anything … I’ve been waiting for an explanation except you seem to be just repeating yourself ‘we can’t be mad idiots because there’s sooo many of us’

            Not to mention that if your numbers are encompassing the globe that’s a whole bunch of different religions … Not just yours …. Hmm whose religion is the right one? The one with the biggest numbers? Haha.

            So it seems like the explanation lies somewhere in a human need to gain explanations and comfort about things that are or have so far been unexplainable.

            Religion is on a decline anyways, oh well

          • Pererin

            In the discussion, he said any one who believed in God, not the Christian God, so please go read up. It’s the theists vs atheist discussed so I don’t see why you have a problem understanding.
            Be honest now, when you look around, are 8-9 out of 10 of people mad idiots? Do you now see the silliness of his statement? The stats are just a little support to highlight the reality. Do you understand?

          • Claire Michael

            Haha but your rebuttal to his claim was ‘well there’s so many of us’ which I do find quite silly

          • Pererin

            Am I a God believing Theist am I not. I was challenging his statement about people who believe in God, just including Christians would be pointless and inaccurate. He listed some people he regarded Christian and then threw in Bin Laden, so he was the one who turned the discussion to theists in general.

          • feloneouscat

            Great, so your reply is basically, that we’re all a load of over-imaginative unhealthy, idiots because we believe inGod. All 2.2 billion of us mind, and that’s just the Christians!

            No. Not all Christians believe as you do.

            Dad is an Episcopal priest and believes in a woman’s right to choose. As does my mother, sisters and brothers.

            So, please, do not lump all Christians in the same pot. They don’t all believe as you do. The vast majority of people who have abortions in this country are, surprise, Christian.

            And I, for one, am NOT an atheist.

          • Pererin

            I very sorry to here this. How did you and your family come to this decision? Why is choice important than life?

          • feloneouscat

            Why are you sorry? Even the Catholic Church is arguing, in court, that a fetus is not a person.

            That is the reality that you refuse to accept.

            This is not something new. Abortion is very, very old. It wasn’t until the early 19th century that laws started being made in the US.

            It wasn’t until 1970 that Pope Paul II came close, but didn’t say, that life begins at conception (he couldn’t say it because there is nothing Biblically to back it up).

            It wasn’t until the 80’s that people started making the first silly noises about “beginning at conception”. Another decade after that for it to take hold with the wacko loony group.

            The problem is, there is nothing, as in ZERO, that supports this view.

            Even contraceptives that are not abortifacients are talked as if they are (see Hobby Lobby decision) despite OB/GYN’s pointing out that they are not.

            Choice is important to the life that has been born, the pregnant woman. Ignoring her, you are doing a disservice. You treat her as if she is merely a vessel.

          • Pererin

            There we are then, ignore the biblical evidence all you like. I will not.

            The woman is more than a vessel, of course. Do not make the implication that I do not.

            I’m not Catholic so what the Pope does or doesn’t do makes no difference to me. What God says in the Bible, that is what matters.

          • feloneouscat

            There we are then, ignore the biblical evidence all you like. I will not.

            There is no Biblical evidence. There are passage the RTL want to BELIEVE are evidence, but then I know of UFO people who believe the Bible also talks about UFO’s.

            The woman is more than a vessel, of course. Do not make the implication that I do not.

            When did you ever mention the woman in this? Not once that I can tell.

            What God says in the Bible, that is what matters.

            So you believe that Judas hung himself AND also fell down in a field and spilled his guts? Two different descriptions of death, yet last I checked he only died once. Apparently the Bible a) wasn’t proofread or b) is fallible.

          • Pererin

            All twisting of scripture by yourself or anyone else doesn’t negate it’s truth. Please find a good website that addresses apparent Bible contradictions and all will be revealed. 40 years and you haven’t done this? Or you just don’t want to? You just reject God. Plain and simple.

          • feloneouscat

            This is the problem. I have access to someone who is ACTUALLY a theologian. He actually went to seminary and actually has a degree. He also has a masters in history and reads history for fun. He is now 80 years old and knows this stuff better than you do.

            I totally accept my God. However, you seem to reject the scripture wanting to change it to reflect what is in your heart rather than accepting what it says.

            You appear to want to TRANSLATE God’s word to reflect your views. You appear to want to use God as a weapon against others.

            This is, in my view, a violent rejection of God on YOUR part.

            Please do not disparage me for your inability to read English passages correctly. The fault here is in you and your inability to accept that you are flawed.

          • Pererin

            While I respect how highly you regard your pocket theologian. I’m sorry to inform you he is wrong. I my self have a Masters in Science and mill be the first to say that is in no way makes me an authority in science in any form. My knowledge, even in my speciality is full of holes and I’ve been wrong many times.
            He probably does know a whole lot more than I do. But I cannot accept his views on the inerrancy of the Bible and I’m not the only one either. So you see, the my Dad is better than your Dad approach doesn’t work.

            I read the Bible as it was meant to be read, in faith. The Bible is Inspired by God, if you believe that the Bible goes against its own words then you are obviously not reading the Bible the way you should. Therefore it is you who is reading the Bible from an point of view alien to the Bible. So it is you who is inputting your anti-God beliefs into the Bible which is why your interpretations are so wide of the mark.

          • feloneouscat

            I’m sorry to inform you he is wrong. I my self have a Masters in Science…

            Wait. Wait. He’s a theologian and you have a degree in science?!?! He has 60 years in the field and you have what? 10? 20? In YOUR field?

            So you see, the my Dad is better than your Dad approach doesn’t work.

            That was not my argument at all (talk about twisting words). It was having access to someone who has 60 years of knowledge vs your 10-20.

            So it is you who is inputting your anti-God beliefs into the Bible which is why your interpretations are so wide of the mark.

            Because as a woman I believe myself to be every bit as good as yourself, I must either be anti-god. I’m not. I’m against your twisting of the Bible and using God as a club against others.

            I’m against you using the Word to beat others to submit to being second-class citizens.

            I’m against you making text up that doesn’t exist in the Bible to suit your own agenda.

            I don’t interpret the Bible, I read it and accept the words.

            You’re gang seems to want to make things up out of whole cloth.

            I read the Bible as it was meant to be read, in faith.

            No, you read the Bible based on your own skewed viewpoint. When the words don’t mean what you think they do, it upsets you and you start inserting words into the text.

            Nothing I have posted violate anything that is said in the Bible. Not one word.

          • Pererin

            I wasn’t comparing my qualification to you fathers, I was simply using it to show how it is meaningless, which is why I used the my dad is better than your dad analogy. Please read my response again.

            I too know that women are equal to men. I have never said otherwise.
            I understand that the secular world tells you the lie that to be a woman today, you must fight man! You must fight the God of the Bible that has been created by man. Please see these lies for yourself. The Bible is the unchanging truth and you once again use it to fabricate a misinformed version of God in your own image. This is not the God of the Bible.
            All you are giving me is the usual lies and twisted misinformation that the secular world has spread in order to dirty the word of God. Do not believe it. I have read the Bible and it is nothing like the Bible you read. You have been indoctrinated, you have been taken in by the world. The world wants to do whatever it wants, it does not want a God, an authority. So what do they do? Spread lies about the authority, change the authority to want it is not. For some this works. Not for the people who see this folly.

          • feloneouscat

            I wasn’t comparing my qualification to you fathers, I was simply using it to show how it is meaningless, which is why I used the my dad is better than your dad analogy.

            Let me simplify since apparently you don’t grasp the whole concept of learning:

            This man’s (whether or not he is my father is irrelevant) 60 years of knowledge beats your 10-20 years.

            I too know that women are equal to men. I have never said otherwise.

            You’ve said it over and over that you do NOT believe women are equal to men. In the same way you do not believe other religions are equal to Christianity. You do not believe that women should be allowed to make a choice. That does not show equality.

            I understand that the secular world tells you the lie that to be a woman today, you must fight man!

            And I keep telling you, though you are apparently too dimwitted to comprehend, that I am Buddhist. And what the heck does “must fight man” mean? If we are equals, then your belief is no better, stronger or better than mine.

            I am free to agree or disagree.

            You must fight the God of the Bible that has been created by man. Please see these lies for yourself.

            The Bible was created by men.

            You have been indoctrinated, you have been taken in by the world.

            No, sweetie, it is you who has been indoctrinated.

            I make my own decisions.

            The world wants to do whatever it wants, it does not want a God, an authority.

            Sorry, I have a God. She’s not as unpleasant to women as yours.

            Spread lies about the authority, change the authority to want it is not.

            Geez, this reads like some bad X-Files script. You should change your name to Fox Mulder. It would be more than appropriate.

            As for who has misinformation, I’d say you don’t have much information to go on at all. You go by your “Bible” which you claim is factual (the sun stayed in the sky for three days? Seriously? Ever heard of a thing we call physics? Why is there no documentation in China about the sun not moving for three days?).

            Not for the people who see this folly.

            Oh, I see, so only you have the “truth”.

            I figured that would be coming sooner or later.

          • Pererin

            Again, I’ve already disproved your knowledge in a previous post. Wisdom and knowledge are completely different. World view heavily impacts knowledge. If your world view is false the. Your information is misinformation and definitely is not wisdom. You can go 100 years acquiring information inpreting it according to a false world view and still have absolutely no wisdom whatsoever. It is unfortunate but true.

            Again, lies. Nowhere have I said that women are unequal to men. This is your own hateful invention. You may be Buddist, but you have bought into the secular view of feminism. Through your words, of that I have no doubt.
            Put it this way. Men and woman, equally are to follow the words of God. In God’s eyes, men and women are equal. It is more complex than that, but ultimately, according to the Bible that statement is true.
            Any invented God usually spread by the likes of Richard Dawkins is simply a straw man device used to confuse or discredit God of the Bible.

            Yes the Bible was inspired by God, not created by men. His truth is shown through His word. It is not my interpretation, there are millions who hold it. But numbers do not matter. In the end we will be the few.

            Seriously, the Sun stayed in the sky for three days. Can’t your God perform such miracles?
            God of the Bible is all powerful and His will be done, not mine, not yours. But most importantly, He is a God of love. He love all women, all men, all children (in and out of the womb). All equally too. This is what the Bible teaches. Do you ever hear Richard Dawkins say that? No, it won’t sell books. God loved us ALL so much that He gave us His Son to take our sins away, to wash us clean. Nothing we can do can achieve what Jesus did. Without Jesus, we would be without hope. He did it all Himself. He didn’t need to, He had no obligation. All we did was curse Him, belittle Him, turn away from Him. We diserve nothing from God. Yet, He gave a route out. Jesus. Because He first loved us.

          • feloneouscat

            Again, I’ve already disproved your knowledge in a previous post. Wisdom and knowledge are completely different. World view heavily impacts knowledge. If your world view is false the. Your information is misinformation and definitely is not wisdom. You can go 100 years acquiring information inpreting it according to a false world view and still have absolutely no wisdom whatsoever. It is unfortunate but true.

            No, you mistake opinion for fact. You have an opinion. It is a deeply held opinion. But it is not a fact. A fact is irrefutable. The Earth revolving is a fact, for example, not an opinion.

            Yes the Bible was inspired by God, not created by men. His truth is shown through His word. It is not my interpretation, there are millions who hold it. But numbers do not matter. In the end we will be the few.

            Again, that is an opinion not a fact. As I pointed out, a fact is irrefutable. Whether one or millions hold it true, it nevertheless is not a fact. As a Buddhist I see a great writing by men, but it was in fact written by men. We know this to be true. That is a fact.

            Seriously, the Sun stayed in the sky for three days. Can’t your God perform such miracles?

            My God doesn’t violate the laws of physics.

            “If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change.” -The Dalai Lama

            God of the Bible is all powerful and His will be done, not mine, not yours.

            Well, unless of course it disagrees with your views and in that case God must agree with you.

            We diserve nothing from God. Yet, He gave a route out. Jesus.

            Who said not a single word about abortion or homosexuals. Not a single word.

          • Pererin

            My opinions come from the Bible, not the other way around.

            Is that Dalai Lama’s opinion? What of Buddha, were his words mere opinion too?
            Who exactly is your God if science is your authority? I understand that Buddha is not seen as a God, so if Buddhism doesn’t have a God, who or what is your authority? Why is the Buddhist writing you speak of ‘great’? if you have no ultimate authority and Buddhism is ever changing with science, why do you trust it?

            I thought you knew the Bible, Jesus spoke against homosexuality – Mark 7:21. Jesus didn’t directly speak on abortion. However, Jesus is God, who of course inspired the Bible.

          • feloneouscat

            My opinions come from the Bible, not the other way around.

            Actually, no. You use the Bible in the vain attempt to justify your opinions. They do not come from the Bible. Most of it, you seem to make up out of whole cloth… like the following:

            I thought you knew the Bible

            I do and he doesn’t speak about homosexuality. That is a mistranslation. Nice try, though.

          • JGC

            “Biblical evidence” is an oxymoron: scripture and evidence are two entirely different entities

          • Pererin

            Thankfully your misinformed opinion means nothing.

          • JGC

            Pererin, is it your position that the Norse Eda’s represent evidence that the god Odin exists, and that the Mahabarata and Hindu vedas represent evidence that Brahma exists? How about the Enuma Elish–evidence that the god and goddess Apsu and Tiamat exist and created the universe?

          • Pererin

            Do I really? Funny I don’t remember stating that!
            Do you enjoy spreading misinformation?

          • JGC

            “Do I really? Funny I don’t remember stating that! Do you
            enjoy spreading misinformation?”

            Please read my post again, Pererin—I haven’t STATED that this was your position but instead asked if that was your position. You indicated that my opinion is misinformed and that scripture and evidence are equivalent.

            If you truly believe this I may only presume you consider the scriptural accounts of religions other than your own as evidence attesting to the truth of those other religion’s articles of faith. After all, there’s no
            reason to presume a priori that your preferred religion’s scriptures are more likely to represent an accurate depiction of god’s existence, nature, will and relationship to man than those of any other religious tradition, living or dead, humans have embraced over the centuries.

          • feloneouscat

            You indicated that my opinion is misinformed and that scripture and evidence are equivalent.

            BRILLIANT JGC!!!

            To simplify for Pererin, JGC just pointed out that since other religions have scripture and you are equating that to evidence, then they must to be considered. If not, they you are discounting evidence.

            Brilliant! <3

          • Pererin

            Again he is misinformed regarding the Bible compared to other religious writings. Please see my reply to him. That is equally ‘Brilliant <3' too,

          • feloneouscat

            Tracing a document back through time does not determine whether or not what the document says is true.

            Your argument is that somehow the Bible is superior to any other religion. I would beg to differ.

          • Pererin

            We’ll have to agree to disagree I suppose.

          • feloneouscat

            It’s not a case of disagree or agree, it’s that you posted something that is factually wrong.

            Scripture is not evidence.

            Evidence is something that is factual. I can test blood and determine the type and DNA. That’s a fact.

            I can’t show that there were talking snakes in the Garden of Eden. I can’t even prove there was a Garden of Eden. A written document doesn’t make it exist. It is not factual proof anymore than Norse Eda.

            If you wish to believe, that is perfectly fine. Knock yourself out. But don’t attempt to argue something is evidence when it most certainly is not.

          • Pererin

            Factually wrong? To quote yourself, this is your opinion. A fact is irrefutable. This is your opinion. Had you read my post earlier, you would have seen the list of evidence backing up Biblical authority. Did you read my previous post? Probably not.

          • feloneouscat

            You really don’t understand the concept of facts or evidence. It is factually wrong because it isn’t evidence. It is a document. Whether or not people attest to it again does not make it fact. It is not evidence.

            It doesn’t matter if you have 10,000,000 people attest to it being factual, unless that can be proven, it is not a fact. It is merely a nice little story.

            Facts are indisputable. They don’t depend on ones religion. Can the Bible be traced back through many documents? Yes. But that doesn’t make it fact. I can trace fairy tales just as accurately (or inaccurately).

            The Bible is not fact.

          • Pererin

            So your question was not loaded at all?
            You may presume nothing. Just as your question was loaded, so is your presumption.
            The word of God is truth. Why do you presume that the the belief that God of the Bible is true, so the writings of other faiths cannot be false, is a valid presumption? To a humanist or atheist, the beliefs of Humanism or Atheism are fact, while Christianity is false?

          • JGC

            My question wasn’t loaded: your position, you’ll recall, was that scripture is synonymous with evidence. As there is, after all, no reason to presume a priori that the bible is more likely to represent ‘the word of god’ than any other religion’s scriptural or oral traditions, if your position is valid we may only consider the scriptural accounts of other religious traditions to represent evidence in support of their articles of faith just to the exact same extent, just as persuasive and possessed of exactly as much inherent confidence, as you consider your preferred scripture (the bible) evidence in support of your preferred religion’s articles of faith.

            So it’s not that they cannot be false, but that if your claim is valid we must accept that all scriptural or oral religious accounts are equally ‘true’.
            .

          • feloneouscat

            The woman is more than a vessel, of course. Do not make the implication that I do not.

            But she is less than human, certainly not as capable as a man. You indicated as much when you said:

            I trust my wife to make decisions just as much as any man, BUT when a life is concerned there is no choice.

            Apparently women, to you, are only human to a point. How many other “BUT”‘s are there in your view towards women?

          • Pererin

            Here you go again. This is nothing to do with man verses woman. It’s far bigger than that. Children are dying and all you can think of is your futile secular feminist war. How terrible the world has become when it is teaching women to behave like this. Raising their own selfish views above their own children. For you I must insert this disclaimer before your inevitable secular feminist: Men are also capable of selfishness, indoctrination and murder. We are all equally despicable.

          • feloneouscat

            Children are dying and all you can think of is your futile secular feminist war. How terrible the world has become when it is teaching women to behave like this.

            Yes, how terrible that we should be taught that we are equal to men. That we are taught that we have the right to have our own thoughts, opinions, and, shock, beliefs. That we don’t have to believe in your quaint religion.

            How sad that men such as yourself still believe that women are subordinate to men. That in your mind we should just shut up.

            How horrible it must be for you to see a land of uppity women…

          • Pererin

            Once again, this has nothing to do with gender. Women also share my view. What do you say to them? Are they men is disguise? Traitors maybe? My views would be the same if men were able to give birth too. Gender isn’t the issue.

            Again you use a secular feminist diversion tactic. You disregard any notion that life is being taken away, murder. You don’t dare embrace the notion. You have no reply for it other than to ignore it. Ignoring the deaths of millions.

          • feloneouscat

            Again you use a secular feminist diversion tactic. You disregard any notion that life is being taken away, murder. You don’t dare embrace the notion. You have no reply for it other than to ignore it. Ignoring the deaths of millions.

            No, gender is your issue. You have said it yourself with:

            I trust my wife to make decisions just as much as any man, but

            You do not see women as people. You do not trust them to make the decisions that are right for them.

            Despite what you say ,you will always believe that women are equal to men BUT….

            And that is your failure. You just don’t want to admit it.

            Again you use a secular feminist diversion tactic.

            I don’t know how you got it in your head that I was a secular feminist. I am a feminist, but definitely not secular.

            You disregard any notion that life is being taken away, murder.

            No, the women still exists, she just isn’t pregnant. And she just went from a 1:5500 chance of dying from pregnancy to zero.

            So, yes, it IS a gender thing.

          • Pererin

            Again, you twist my words. This is getting really tiring now. I have never said men and women are unequal. It is only you who has made direct sexist remarks against men throughout your posts and you think I have the gender problem?

            You are a secular feminist because your words mirror the words of secular feminists.
            Your views are the views prevalent in secular society today, there you are a secular feminist.

            And once again you totally ignore and fail to address the death sentence of abortion to life in the womb alongside your statistics for women. This is not a gender issue, death in the womb is the issue, the issue that you refuse to even acknowledge.

          • John N

            So I’m using a strawman argument. Ok. Let me figure out were i went wrong in presenting your view.

            . around 50% of all human embryos are aborted spontaneously – without anybody intervening. That’s a medical fact. Do you accept this?

            . you deny the scientific explanation for human evolution, but instead you persist that all ‘kinds’, including humans, are created individually by your god. For humans to be added ‘in his image’. Correct?

            . birthing is a intrinsic proces of becoming a human, so it is part of your god’s creation. Still with me?

            . that must mean the spontaneous abortion is also part of your god’s plan for humans. Now it gets a bit nasty, but is there another explanation?

            . so your god intentionally planned to abort around 50% of all embryo’s before birth.

            If you can tell me where I went wrong in this argument?

            >’You disagree that good and evil does not exist in atheism? Please explain.’

            Explain? Look around you. People do good things and people do bad things. Them being religious or not doesn’t seem to change very much in that – on the opposite. Maybe you care to explain that secular societies have lower rates of violence and teenage pregnancy than societies where many people profess belief in God?

            There is a quality in humans (as in all social animals) that is called empathy. It helps us experiencing what other humans feel and think. Empatic people try to do good to others, not to please some mytical sky daddy, but because they prefer being done good to.

          • Pererin

            So I’m using a strawman argument. Ok. Let me figure out were i went wrong in presenting your view.
            . around 50% of all human embryos are aborted spontaneously – without anybody intervening. That’s a medical fact. Do you accept this?

            > Of course, no problem.

            . you deny the scientific explanation for human evolution, but instead you persist that all ‘kinds’, including humans, are created individually by your god. For humans to be added ‘in his image’. Correct?

            > I disagree with simple molecules to man evolution. A jump from one kind to another has never been scientifically observed. It is not observed science. Natural selection has been observed in nature, changes with a kind or species. This I do not deny.

            . birthing is a intrinsic proces of becoming a human, so it is part of your god’s creation. Still with me?

            > I would say that we are human before birth, we are human in the womb. We don’t wait to be born.

            . that must mean the spontaneous abortion is also part of your god’s plan for humans. Now it gets a bit nasty, but is there another explanation?

            > I’ve explained this already, read the verses I gave you and my explaination on the authority of God. This is where you go off course and where your straw man is built.

            . so your god intentionally planned to abort around 50% of all embryo’s before birth.
            If you can tell me where I went wrong in this argument?

            > Of course He did, and it goes further than that. I’ve already explained this regarding God’s authority. Please read my previous posts.

            . ‘You disagree that good and evil does not exist in atheism? Please explain.’
            Explain? Look around you. People do good things and people do bad things. Them being religious or not doesn’t seem to change very much in that – on the opposite. Maybe you care to explain that secular societies have lower rates of violence and teenage pregnancy than societies where many people profess belief in God?There is a quality in humans (as in all social animals) that is called empathy. It helps us experiencing what other humans feel and think. Empatic people try to do good to others, not to please some mytical sky daddy, but because they prefer being done good

            > Again I have already contended this without response. Hitler and the Nazis thought it good to murder millions of Jews. Stalin murdered even more, Mao, millions killed we could go on. Where was the empathy? Your example of secular societies having lower rates of violence is a fine example of how much you misunderstand this subject.

            Let me explain. You see little violence in secular society, I on the other hand, I see the millions of brutal deaths to children in the womb in secular societies. Do you see your problem? To you abortion is good, so you try able to claim little violence in secular society. To me, abortion is evil, I see secular society as blood filled violence. I have a reason for my decision over abortion, God’s word. You on the other hand have no foundation for your decision over abortion. Under different circumstances you could swap abortion with the killing of disabled people, or even Christians. Whatever secular society decides, you accept. Empathy doesn’t come into it. Just look at Hitler, Stalin, Mao. Where was the Empathy. Where were the people standing up saying stop. Their populations took on the current thought on whatever belief and ended up causing havoc. Do you see how good and evil does not exist in the secular, atheistic world? For you, there are no absolutes, and as I have shown you, anything is possible. What a terrifying thought.

            Out of interest, to an atheist, why are lower rate of violence ‘good’ to you? I have my reason, God has instructed us to love one another. But you reject God as your foundation.
            Think about it, those Nazis who had no problem murdering Jews, ten, twenty years earlier were completely different people. If you were born 100 years ago you would be horrified by the deaths of children in the womb, abortion. Now you have been brought up under different conditions, a different authority, your authority is today’s society and the empathy you speak of, where is it? You seem not to have a problem with abortion. Do you see the evils and terrors of the secular, atheistic world view now. Literally anything goes. The horrifying possibilities are endless as we today and throughout our history.

          • John N

            >’I disagree with simple molecules to man evolution. A jump from
            one kind to another has never been scientifically observed. ‘

            Since a ‘kind’ has never been defined by creationists, you could be right or you could be wrong. So this claim is worthless.

            >’ I’ve explained this already, read the verses I gave you and my explaination on the authority of God. This is where you go off course and where your straw man is built.’

            I see. I think I’m getting the picture here. What you are saying is, your god, as our creator, is by definition ‘good’ and therefore beyond questioning. And you do accept the consequence of this kind of thinking?

            So your god kills about half of developping embryos before birth, but it is god doing it, and therefore a good thing, and you are ok with that.

            According to your bible, god drowned almost all of humanity because a he made a mistake, but it was god doing it, and therefore a good thing, and you are ok with that.

            The Israelites once supposedly killed all of the Canaanites, their wifes and children, but they claim it was god ordering them, and it is therefore a good thing, and you are ok with that.

            Hitler killed millions of jews, but he claimed he was doing god’s work, and it is therefore a good thing, and you are ok with that?

            >’Hitler and the Nazis thought it good to murder millions of Jews. Stalin murdered even more, Mao, millions killed we could go on. Where was the empathy?’

            So you claim empathy does not exist because of Hitler, Mao and Stalin?

            >’I see the millions of brutal deaths to children in the womb in secular societies. Do you see your problem?’

            Children are, by definition, born. Nobody aborts children. But I see the millions of children having been killed by or presumably on command of your god. Do you see the problem?

            >’I have a reason for my decision over abortion, God’s word.’

            You mean the same god we discussed above and who according to your book ordered the killing of millions of children? The same god that kills newborn children to punish their parents? The same god that punishes unfaithfull wifes by aborting their unborn childs? That god?

            Some moral compass you have there.

            >’ you were born 100 years ago you would be horrified by the deaths of children in the womb, abortion.’
            100 Years ago there was as much abortion as there is now. The problem was that it was performed in secret, by unqualified people, with large risks for the life of the mother. Maybe that is what you want to go back to?

            >’Do you see the evils and terrors of the secular, atheistic world view now. Literally anything goes. The horrifying possibilities are endless as we today and throughout our history.’

            No, I don’t. Maybe that is because we world we currently live in, is a better place for more people than it has been ever before. Still a lot of big problems to tackle though, like all forms of inequalty, poverty, overpopulation and climate change. And religious fundamentalism.

          • Pererin

            There is no solid definition for ‘kind’ is the same way there is no solid definition of species. We don’t claim to know everything unless we have a reason. So we will not jump or make assumptions on it. Something molecules to man evolutionists could learn from.

            Why are you ignoring God’s authority? You refuse to accept that God is different to us, higher than us, more powerful, more knowledgeable, more authoritative. You keep describing His actions as killing even though I have told you why you are wrong. You just keep ignoring my answer and re-asking the same question, why did God kill. I’ve already given you that answer and you are just ignoring it because you refuse to accept God’s authority over you.

            Also, Hitler did nothing for God, he was an atheist. Goebbels himself stated that Hitler hated Christianity, one reason being that it exalted the dignity of human life. Pretty apt for this discussion in fact. Many more people have died through the failings of atheism than the failing religion. I dread to think how many people have died through the various holocaust in the 20th Century, abortion being one of them.

            Yes abortion will still exist if it’s illegal, It is still bad though. But a lot less will die if abortion decriminalised, that is obvious.

          • John N

            There is no definition of ‘kind’ whatsoever. So that makes it a useless concept.

            The definition of ‘species’ on the other hand is good enough for use on the large majority of organisms, so good enough for science to work with.

            You claim you don’t know everything unless you have a reason? How funny. Then why do you always point to your god when scientists admit they don’t know? The beginning of the universe? God! The origin of life? God! The cause for thunder and lightning? God! (Oh – wait)

            Why I ignore God’s authority? Unless evidence of its existence, I always ignore the autority of fictional characters. The problem is with you, not with me – you accept the autority and the moral superiority of a deity that you acknowledge kills humans for whatever reason.

            Hitler was a catholic, although his religious views resembled that of protestantism. He was above all an opportunist. But he claimed: “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” So it must be ok for you.

            >’But a lot less will die if abortion decriminalised, that is obvious.’

            That’s finally something we can agree on. Abortion is not something to promote – there are far better ways of family planning. But for some woman it is the ultimate way of stopping an unwanted pregnancy and avoiding unwanted children.

          • Pererin

            I said that there is no SOLID definition for kind. The biblical kind Is thought to be either the species or genus. But we are unsure. You might be happy with the definition of species to support your faulty assumption ridden hypothesis, but for observational science it just don’t hold water.

            We do not turn to God when science has no evidence. We turn to God where God has shown us his word and we stick to it. If we don’t know, we just say we don’t know and keep on the scientific research until we know more.

            It not my problem, you asked me the question, I answered. If you can’t accept the answer, that’s you problem, especially when you can give me an answer for you belief. The best you can come up with is empathy. But history clear teaches otherwise. I have an authority, a foundation for my belief, you do not. Atheism if left alone will just float around deciding what is good and bad for itself. One year murder is bad, a hundred years later it’s good. That’s what happens when you have no basis for good and bad.

            You are correct that Hitler was an opportunist, he used Christian terminology to garner support when it suited him, but he definitely was not Christian. He may have been born Catholic but so many now-atheists were born Catholic.

            I made an error in my last state, I meant to say that if abortion was criminalised, less abortions would take place. That is obvious. Today there is a free for all. This needs to stop. Sure if abortion were made illegal, abortion would still happen is back alley operations, but they would be vastly fewer, meaning vastly fewer deaths of children. How can this be ignored. If a child is unwanted, they can be given away to families who will give them a good home. There are plenty waiting to adopt.

          • John N

            >’The biblical kind Is thought to be either the species or genus’

            The bible does not say anything about what a ‘kind’ is. So I guess you are just making this as you go, aren’t you?

            Maybe you just want to define ‘kind’ in such a way that they would all fit into a big wooden box?

            >’but for observational science it just don’t hold water.’

            Define ‘observational science’. Show me an example of it. Show me a branch of science that is not based on observation. Just go back and ask Ken Ham, he seems to be your science expert.

            >’I have an authority, a foundation for my belief, you do not.’

            In your dreams. What you have is a book written almost 2000 years ago by unknown authors, claiming it was written by a deity. You decided to adopt the moral rules from that old book (well, not all of them of course – only the ones you like) and try to apply them in our current society. And you ask everybody else to do the same. And of course, you don’t see the problem in that.

            >’Atheism if left alone will just float around deciding what is good and bad for itself. One year murder is bad, a hundred years later it’s good. That’s what happens when you have no basis for good and bad.’

            Yeah, like slavery was once good and now bad. Like woman discrimation was once good and now bad. Like genocide and infanticide was once good and now bad. That sort of relative morality, you mean?

            >’… but he definitely was not Christian.’

            The No True Scotsman-fallacy? He sounds like a Christian. De behaves like a Christian. He says he is a Christian. That would make him a Christian in all meanings.

            >’I meant to say that if abortion was criminalised, less abortions would take place …’

            I’m sorry, but you are contradicted by reality. Again.
            The only way to lower abortion rate, is giving people (and certainly young people) better sex education and access to contraceptives. But I guess you don’t like that answer, do you?

          • Pererin

            The words Latin words species and genus we actually used hundreds of years ago when translating the Bible into Latin. So it’s hardly making it up as we go as you suggest any more than current scientists do when researching the subject of classification.

            Observational science, does this really need defining? It is science we can see first hand, science we witness working in front of us. Science we can not deny or refute. All of science is polluted with aspects on non-observational science. The example, we have been discussing molecules to man evolution. A move from one type of animal to another has never been witnesses, no transitional forms either. There are plenty of animals with variations within a species but animals never jump from being a monkey like creature to human. There just isn’t any proof, no observational science. The best you can hope for is a series of quesses and assumptions to fit your Darwinian ideology. All of macro evolution is guess upon guess, assumption after assumption in the interpretation of evidence that can be interpret in a number of different ways when applied to other theories. Ken Ham may talk a lot about this subject, be he is no authority on it, it is not his studied area, he is no authority on the subject. Scientists confirm these problems in evolution, you just choose to ignore the scientists who disagree with you.

            Again you go off on a tangent of personal but false beliefs. The Bible was written by men who we know. Moses wrote Genesis for example, and was inspired by God. When you write in your own point of view thing are very different. This is your main problem. You have been saturated in the atheist point of view of God, the Bible, Christianity. You look at it with a skewed reality so you fail to process it correctly.
            In the Bible, female discrimination, infanticide, genocide and slavery were never seen as good. This is just an example of where you putting your atheistic beliefs and opinions on Christianity into the Bible. These views are totally false.

            Hitler was not a Christian, he may have started out in a Christian background but the evidence suggests he was not a Christian spiritually. The more he moved away from his Christian background, the more, evil he achieved. Where did he sound like a Christian?where did he look like a Christian? where did he say he was a Christian? All of these claims have opposite statements countering them, you cannot go with one side ignoring the other evidence just to suit your argument.

            You must be looking at a different ‘reality’. We have had different not ‘better’ sex education over the last 40 years. All that has happened is more sex, more STDs and more abortions, that doesn’t look like a ‘better’ reality to me. If we had stuck to no sex before marriage, that would be better. Less disease than today, less abuse than today, less abortions than today. Sure there will always be people who will do it, it will never totally stop, but better the few suffer the the vast number being murdered today. All your method offers is more sex, more disease, more abuse and vastly more abortion.

          • John N

            >’The words Latin words species and genus we actually used hundreds of years ago when translating the Bible into Latin’

            The latin words species and genus as used in biology were only defined in the 17th and 18th century. Since then, creationists have tried to match the biblical ‘kind’ with a biological rank. And they still fail to do so.

            So what is your definition of a ‘kind’? Is Homo sapiens (a species) a ‘kind’? Are dogs (a genus) a kind? Apes (a subfamily)? Cats (a family)? Beetles (an order)? Or even Bacteria (a domain)?

            >’Observational science, does this really need defining? It is science we can see first hand, science we witness working in front of us.’

            All science is based on observation. All science is based on first hand evidence. And, contrary to faith, all science works for us. So this definition is, like the one for a a ‘kind’, worthless. You should really stop listening to frauds like Ken Ham.

            >’A move from one type of animal to another has never been witnesses, no transitional forms either.’

            Transitional forms are abundant. In fact, all fossils are transitional, unless they were the last of there branch. Even we are transitional forms – between our parents and our children.

            A ‘move’ or a ‘jump’ from one type of an animal to another is not what we the theory of evolution predicts, and it indeed does not occur.

            >’Scientists confirm these problems in evolution, you just choose to ignore the scientists who disagree with you.’

            Please quote a reference from a peer reviewed scientific journal. I would be surpised if you can come up with something.

            >’Moses wrote Genesis for example, and was inspired by God.’

            And your evidence is? Oh, don’t tell! I know – the bible says so!

            Actually, we do not know who wrote the bible. But they certainly had an agenda.

            >’In the Bible, female discrimination, infanticide, genocide and slavery were never seen as good.’

            Are you sure? Do you want me to quote from your own bible? Or doesn’t it count if an unbeliever quotes from your holy book?

            >’Hitler was not a Christian, …’

            Hitler thought of himself as a Christian. He was doing your god’s work; “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” What more do you need? You denying it is not going to change that. You are in fine company, for sure!

            >’If we had stuck to no sex before marriage, that would be better’

            You mean there ever was a time we had no sex before marriage? You are really off this world.

            >’sure there will always be people who will do it, it will never totally stop, but better the few suffer the the vast number being murdered today. ll your method offers is more sex, more disease, more abuse and vastly more abortion.’

            Who is murdered? And why is sex before (or outside) marriage bad? Because diseases?

            I understand you prefer to keep young people ignorant about sex, because that would prevent diseases, abuse and abortions? Let’s look how that works in the US: it might come as a surprise the he most religious states have the highest rate of teen pregnancies. So there goes your theory.

            I’m afraid you religious believe is making you lose contact with reality, be if for the understandig of science, of history, or for the effects of sex education

          • Pererin

            Honestly I’m not sure which classification it would have been, but it would have been far up enough to be able to fill the ark with the parents of the different animals that have developed today. This isn’t a problem.

            Molecules to man evolution is not observable. We have never observed an hint of it happen. All we have are fossils and then assume and interpret according to world view. In the laboratory, flies stay as flies, bacteria stays bacteria, nothing changes into something else. So to suggest macro evolution is observable is incorrect. Of course transitional form exist, I’ve already said that natural selection is observed and therefore true. But a transition to something else is not observed.

            You love your Ken Ham bashing don’t you? It doesn’t get you anywhere though, proves nothing, achieves nothing. Just makes you sound childish and illinformed.

            They have known the writers of the bible for thousands of years. It’s only recently they have started to ask questions. It doesn’t surprise me at all that they would try to discredit the Bible. There is not reason to doubt what the Bible says archaeologically or historically. It every year we hear of discoveries where the Bible was right all along, such as the existence of various cities and people. All through Genesis, the details and language used suggests that it was written with an Egyptian background. A signature for Moses. Also the other books of the Bible also state Moses authorship of Genesis.

            You can quote from my Bible all you want about infanticide and female discrimination, but you do it with misunderstanding and agenda. You have a lot to learn about the Bible, you quote it out of context and happily ignore the or don’t even bother to learn about the real meaning of those passages you refer to. Do yourself a favour, whatever verses you want to quote, google the Christian response to them and relief yourself of your biased atheist chains.

            There is much more evidence about Hitlers beliefs than the quote you give. You are ignoring a mountain of other evidence, only one being the quote I gave from Goebbels. Again you choose to ignore crucial evidence to feed you faulty world view agenda.

            Why twist my words? Of course there was not a time when everyone stuck with sex only in marriage, but it was strictly encouraged and that is what I was referring to. That was obvious, but once again you choose to ignore information.

            Children are murdered, sex in marriage is stated in bible, sexual diseases have increased since the ‘sex revolution’ exploded. This is a bad thing, just in case you need it explained.
            Sex out of marriage is wrong, but if sex is happening which of course it is, in Christian families too, I would far prefer the children be born and not killed by some contraception used today. All the higher teen pregnancy rates show is that less contraception is used in those states which is probably true as Protestants and Catholics in particular don’t like to use them. It doesn’t necessarily mean that more sex is happening.

            No reality is lost with me, the world can go to the dogs, but I do my very best to protect the reality that God’s word is truth and the more you waver from it, the worse it will be.
            You can change your reality from generation to generation if you like, that’s what atheists do best, in fact an atheist has no reality. You fail once again to explain where you get the foundation for good and bad, right and wrong as an atheists. At least I know my reality. It seems you don’t even know if you have a reality.

          • JGC

            Evolution makes no statements or predictions regarding molecules becoming man– you’re conflating evolution and biogeniisis

          • Pererin

            So do you deny that secular science teaches that man evolved from basic organisms?

          • JGC

            Could you define what you mean by ‘basic organisms’, since clearly you’re retreating from your previous claim evolution states or predicts human primates evolved from molecules?

          • Pererin

            Retreating, Am I? Please show me where I am retreating?
            Basic organism, basic life, what more do you need?

          • JGC

            The retreat is from your initial position that “evolution predicts man evolved from non-living molecules” to evolution predicts that hominids evolved from populations of previously living non-hominid ancestors”: molecule and organism are not synonyms.

          • afchief

            If an unborn baby is not alive, why are its body parts of value?

          • John N

            An ‘unborn baby’? What do you mean?

            Babies are ‘born’. That is the definition of a baby.

          • afchief

            Are liberals really this dense? PP sells unborn baby parts. Again! If an unborn baby is not alive, why are its body parts of value?

          • John N

            Again, an ‘unborn baby’ is a contradiction in terms. Nobody kills babies to sell them in parts (as far as i know). What do you exactly mean?

            As for the use of embryonic tissue in medicine, check embryonic stem cell research

          • OldGP

            I just read a rambling bunch of weird notions without any foundation. Not really an answer. Sorry.

          • Pererin

            Ha, sure, there we are then. Rebuttals are not quite within your abilities?

          • feloneouscat

            The difference is that we are not God. We do not have the right to make such a decision.

            That would be your belief system.

            Mine is that I have the right over my body.

            Or are you telling me that I must believe in your religion?

          • Pererin

            No, I don’t believe you have to believe in my God, I have no say in whether or not you will one day become Christian. I stand for the children being murdered by your belief system. What about the choice of the unborn? Do they have a say in their life or death? Your belief system denies children that right. My belief system promotes the protection of the unborn to their lives. Because your belief system, millions of babies are being killed. I can’t accept that any more than I can accept Nazi Germany having no problem killing millions of Jews.

          • feloneouscat

            I can’t accept that any more than I can accept Nazi Germany having no problem killing millions of Jews.

            Okay, for some historical understanding, please note that the Jews that were murdered were born.

            No, I don’t believe you have to believe in my God, I have no say in whether or not you will one day become Christian.

            Except not all Christians believe as you do. Dad is an Episcopal priest. He is prochoice as is my mother. Do not pull the bullshit line that “all Christians are anti-abortion” because that is a lie.

            What about the choice of the unborn?

            So you believe that embryos that haven’t even formed a brain, have the ability to make choices?

            Seriously, how demented are you?

            I stand for the children being murdered by your belief system.

            “Children” doesn’t mean what you think it means. Children are those who are born.

            No, I don’t believe you have to believe in my God, I have no say in whether or not you will one day become Christian.

            Oh, you mean your god who said:

            Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. – NIV Genesis 2:7

            Key word here is “breath” – as in breathing. As in born. That’s when you become a living being.

            My belief system promotes the protection of the unborn to their lives.

            Here let me fix that sentence for you: “My believe system promotes the protection of the unborn over the life of pregnant women”

            That pretty much sums up your statements: women are nothing but breeding machines.

            Mine, on the other hand, promotes the life of the born over the unborn. Pro-choice: you can decide the fate of your body, not anyone else.

            Seems pretty damn reasonable to me.

          • Pererin

            Well reading that was a nice experience! Please remember your responsibility as a Christian to be a witness for God. The language use here isn’t the nicest is it? We are speaking together, I have not been aggressive toward you, I have questioned your beliefs as you have questioned mine. Please take a breather. This is not how Christians are meant to speak to one another. I will happily stop if I am bringing this response out of you. Peace to you. We disagree deeply on the issue discussed but most importantly you are my brother, or sister and I will not be a part of this type of conversation with you.

          • feloneouscat

            I’m a Buddhist. But if it makes you feel better, my father is an Episcopal priest.

            My apologies if you have never heard the phrase “bullshit” used as an intensifier. Dad also uses “bullshit” as an intensifier.

            I’m pretty sure your God is knowledgeable about bullshit as is mine.

            We are speaking together, I have not been aggressive toward you, I have questioned your beliefs as you have questioned mine.

            Because you make outrageous claims that do not fall within Christianity. Certainly not when I was growing up Christian.

            We disagree deeply on the issue discussed but most importantly you are my brother, or sister and I will not be a part of this type of conversation with you.

            When people break off conversations like this it is the fear that they may change their position.

            You do not like this conversation because it challenges something that is barely 30 years old – the belief that life begins at conception. You believe that the unborn have rights over the born but can not prove it either in scripture (yes, I learned how to read scripture at a very early age) and must resort to a nebulous “God’s law” without posting any such thing.

            Come the morrow I will have forgotten this conversation altogether – because you are merely one of the hundreds with misguided and confused views of what Christianity is all about.

            It is about redeeming yourself. Not redeeming others.

            Peace, good luck, and please, when you argue, do a better job.

          • Pererin

            I’m more than happy to continue make no mistake. You make excuses for you poor language the same way you handle the Bible you twist it to suit your arguement. This is not acceptable to anyone.

            You criticise me for not caring about others redemption? I’m the one pointing to Jesus who called for people to repent. Do you see against how you twist things?

          • feloneouscat

            You make excuses for you poor language the same way you handle the Bible you twist it to suit your argument.

            No, I said you were ignorant. I was just doing it in a nice way.

            Fine. I’ll bite. Tell me EXACTLY how I twisted a relatively straightforward passage?

            You criticism me for not caring about others redemption?

            No, I criticize you for arguing it is your job to redeem others. It is not. You have one person to redeem – yourself. Other’s redemption? Not your job.

          • Pererin

            Of course embryos can’t make choices, but they deserve the right to live long enough to make them. You want to deny them this. This seem very unreasonable to me. The born are only over the unborn in your belief system, a belief system that I deeply disagree with and condemn.

            Seeing as Adam did not develop in a womb, don’t you think it’s rather different? Adam was created very differently to how we were. So to imply that Adam’s situation is the same as ours is dishonest and again a twisting of God’s word.

            Of course life is more important that a person choice. To suggest otherwise is mind boggling and not in any way does it negate my opinion of women. 50% of aborted babies are women after. They are not merely vessels, baring children is a wonderful gift from God and is not a burden.

          • feloneouscat

            The born are only over the unborn in your belief system, a belief system that I deeply disagree with and condemn.

            No. It is also part of Christianity and US Law. Nowhere does the Bible ever say ONCE that a fetus has priority over the mother. Not once.

            Stop making things up. This is just ridiculous.

            Seeing as Adam did not develop in a womb, don’t you think it’s rather different?

            Yes, because it is allegory. Not reality.

            50% of aborted babies are women after.

            There is no evidence of this. Guessing isn’t a fact.

            Of course life is more important that a person choice.

            No. A woman’s choice is paramount. By arguing she shouldn’t have the right of choice you are saying she has no agency. You are arguing I have no right to make decisions because you don’t trust my decisions.

            That is the problem. Lack of trust.

          • Pererin

            But the Bible gives importance to a baby in a womb. Nowhere in the Bible does it say a woman has the choice over the life of a baby. You see, your arguments works both ways! Please show me where this is so in the Bible. Is it you that are making things up?
            Do you have any proof that Adam and Eve is an allegory? You use Adam when you think it suits you but when you see it doesn’t help you say, it’s just allegorical.
            What is your problem with 50% of children aborted being women. They are either male or female. When the females are aborted they are having their rights as females taken away.
            Trust is not an issue in abortion, life is the issue. I trust my wife to make decisions just as much as any man, but when a life is concerned there is no choice. Again life over choice, always.

          • feloneouscat

            But the Bible gives importance to a baby in a womb.

            But we don’t live in a theocracy.

            Nowhere in the Bible does it say a woman has the choice over the life of a baby.

            Again, we don’t live in a theocracy.

            Is it you that are making things up?

            No, it is pretty much you and the whole RTL movement.

            What is your problem with 50% of children aborted being women.

            Actually, no one keeps track of this. The only place I have found this rubbish is on RTL web sites. A fake statistic is still fake.

            I trust my wife to make decisions just as much as any man, but when a life is concerned there is no choice.

            Let me correct that for you: “I trust my wife to make decisions jus as much as any man, but when a life is concerned she is just too stupid and I must make the choice for her.

            And this just underlines the problem: TRUST

            Men do not trust women to make the right decision. They only trust men to make the right decision.

          • Pererin

            We don’t live in a theocracy but we live in a society that is based on Christianity. Do you believe we should get rid of all biblically based laws?

            Females, are aborted, are you willing to deny that? Just keep on ignoring evidence all you like, it’s not going to help you.

            You put more words in my mouth to twist the discussion. Women are not stupid at all. I just don’t believe they should have the choice of murder. Why is this so difficult to grasp that you need to add false twisted words to my word to suit your agenda.

          • feloneouscat

            We don’t live in a theocracy but we live in a society that is based on Christianity.

            Prove it.

            Do you believe we should get rid of all biblically based laws?

            They are not Biblically based. Learn something about law.

            You put more words in my mouth to twist the discussion.

            No, I only draw the logical conclusions from your statements that you fear to write.

            Women are not stupid at all. I just don’t believe they should have the choice of murder.

            Except it is not murder. Not by our laws nor by Biblical laws.

            I have yet to twist anything you have said. Everyone is free to read your posts in context.

            Your problem is that you do not trust women.

          • Pererin

            I have already told you how the constitution refers to Jesus as Lord. I’m not going to repeat myself, go back and find out or better yet research it for yourself. Go to sources other than sources that support your world view.

            Yes keep on saying I don’t trust women. I don’t care, your lies are your own. Forget the lives of the millions of children murdered though, they don’t count of course!

            You nothing but twist the word of God, unless the Bible directly says the very words, ‘abortion is murder’ you will not entertain it. Your secular feminist war does not allow it.

          • feloneouscat

            You nothing but twist the word of God,

            Look, I am a Buddhist. My views are not secular.

            You have said many times that you do not trust women to make decisions. All in the name of YOUR religion.

            Frankly, I don’t like your religion if I’m to be treated like a second class citizen.

          • Pererin

            Nowhere have I ever said I don’t trust women. This is a pure and hateful lie.
            Your views are secular, at least the ones covered in our discussion. Although they could be both secular and Buddist if they are the same.

            Your problem isn’t God of the Bible. Your problem is that the God of the Bible that you have been indoctrinated into from Western secular society isn’t the true God of the Bible. I do not recognised the ‘Christian’ God that you and people like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins etc teach.

          • feloneouscat

            Nowhere have I ever said I don’t trust women. This is a pure and hateful lie.

            No, you said you trust you wife, but….

            That “but” is very important. So, no, I wouldn’t point it out if you hadn’t said it.

            Your views are secular, at least the ones covered in our discussion.

            No, they just don’t meet your brand of Christianity which doesn’t apparently trust women.

            Secular doesn’t mean “that which doesn’t conform to my religion”.

            Your problem is that the God of the Bible that you have been indoctrinated into from Western secular society isn’t the true God of the Bible.

            And your problem is that you believe that you have every right to talk down to me. Not showing yourself to be an equal using patronizing language.

            I do not recognized the ‘Christian’ God that you and people like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins etc teach.

            Hitchens was an ass when he was alive and wasn’t a believer in religion (he was an antitheist).

            Dawkins is an atheist.

            As for me, I’m still Buddhist and don’t believe in a Christian God, no matter what you or anyone else says.

            Let me repeat because apparently you are confused: I am not Christian; I am a Buddhist.

            Did that clarify things a little?

          • Pererin

            Again you lie and twist my words. So what if I said ‘but’. It’s funny how you just ignore the first part of my sentence.

            I am equating you to secular society, the view spouted by them are the same are used in your posts. That is why I have come to this conclusion.

            Its laughable that you have a problem with patronising language while you lie, deliberately twist words, curse and use sexist language.

            Read my post again please. You have misunderstood it. I know that yourself, Dawkins and Hitchens are not Christian. You do not need to be Christian to invent a false Christian Version of God in order to sell books or make on comments on Christian websites.

          • JGC

            Actually, it does, in Exodus 21:22-24. the penalty for causing a woman to miscarry is the payment of a fine because it’s identified as a crime against property, unless the woman is harmed as well where it becomes a blood crime punishable by death. Clearly the authors of exodus accorded greater inherent value/gave priority to the woman carrying the fetus rather than to the fetus itself.

          • Pererin

            Actually it doesn’t.

            1. There is a Hebrew verb for miscarry or lose by abortion or be bereaved of the fruit of the womb, namely, shakal. It is used near by in Exodus 23:26, “None shall miscarry (meshakelah) or be barren in your land.” But this word is NOT used here in Exodus 21:22-25.

            2. Rather the word for birth here is “go forth” (ytsa’). “And if her children go forth . . .” This verb never refers to a miscarriage or abortion. When it refers to a birth it refers to live children “going forth” or “coming out” from the womb. For example, Genesis 25:25, “And the first came out (wyetse’) red, all of him like a hairy robe; and they called his name Esau.” (See also v. 26 and Genesis 38:28-30.)

            So the word for miscarry is not used but a word is used that elsewhere does not mean miscarry but ordinary live birth.

            3. There are words in the Old Testament that designate the embryo (golem, Psalm 139:16) or the untimely birth that dies (nephel, Job 3:16; Psalm 58:8; Isaiah 33:3). But these words are not used here.

            4. Rather an ordinary word for children is used in Exodus 21:22 (yeladeyha). It regularly refers to children who are born and never to one miscarried. “Yeled only denotes a child, as a fully developed human being, and not the fruit of the womb before it has assumed a human form” (Keil and Delitzsch, Pentateuch, vol. 2, p. 135).

            5. Verse 22 says, “[If] her children go forth and there is no injury . . .” It does not say, “[If] her children go forth and there is no further injury . . .” (NASB). The word “further” is NOT in the original text.

            The natural way to take this is to say that the child goes forth and there is no injury TO THE CHILD or to the mother. The writer could very easily have inserted the Hebrew lah to specify the woman (“If her children go forth and there is no injury to her . . .”). But it is left general. There is no reason to exclude the children.

            Likewise in verse 23 when it says, “But if there was injury . . .” it does not say “to the woman,” as though the child were not in view. Again it is general and most naturally means, “If there was injury (to the child or to the mother).”

            Many scholars have come to this same conclusion. For example, in the last century before the present debate over abortion was in sway, Kiel and Delitzsch (Pentateuch, vol. 2, pp. 134f.) say,

          • feloneouscat

            Actually, JGC is right and you are wrong.

            No religion held that life began at conception in the 60’s. Not one.

            Exodus 21:22-24 is about injury to a woman. Period.

            Likewise in verse 23 when it says, “But if there was injury . . .” it does not say “to the woman,” as though the child were not in view. Again it is general and most naturally means, “If there was injury (to the child or to the mother).”

            I really hate it when people make things up that are not in the text. The subject in this is the woman. It has been and always was the woman. It is not child and/or mother because it uses the singular “life for a life” – since one person only has one life, it was talking about the woman.

            The writer could very easily have inserted the Hebrew law to specify the woman (“If her children go forth and there is no injury to her . . .”).

            Which would have been stupid. You do not insert something when it is understood without it.

            Implied subjects are used in many languages (including English), so attempts to argue that this is both the woman and/or child is silly. It is about the woman only. She is the subject.

            But let’s look at this phrase:

            24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot

            Even Joe Israelite at the time understood that newborns had no teeth. The only way this makes any sense if we are talking about the mother. Period.

            So, please, do not add text that is not there to make your argument. Inserting text that does not exist in Canon is not an argument.

            It is making things up.

          • Pererin

            Period? Really, because you said so?
            Look I’ve given you the text, that’s all I can do. You can mistranslated to suit all you like, I will not tolerate it. The text I gave is all there for all to read. You cannot take away from God’s word to suit yr twisted word.

            If you want to be so irrelevantly pedantic – some Joe secularists don’t seem to know that sometimes newborns do have teeth, and if you want to be even more irrelevantly pedantic, all newborns are born with teeth, they just haven’t grown through the yet.

            Do you see how false your statements are? You are so desperate to crowbar anything into the text to alter the meaning in an attempt to further build up a God to be pulled down.

          • feloneouscat

            Period? Really, because you said so?

            Hey, did you not say that there was equality? So my baseless statements are just as equal to your baseless statements.

            However, mine are not baseless. Many have held that it is about the woman.

            Do you see how false your statements are?

            No, I see you grasping at straws. So much so you feel the need to insert text that is not in the original.

            I have not altered the meaning one jot, one iota – you, on the other hand, have gone so far as to alter the text to support your argument.

          • Pererin

            I’ve already covered the hypocrisy of your equality today in a previous reply.
            Please show where I have inserted text from the original.
            I gave you the original Hebrew words explaining my view. I’m not sure which English translation you used.

          • feloneouscat

            Please show where I have inserted text from the original.

            With pleasure:

            Again it is general and most naturally means, “If there was injury (to the child or to the mother).”

            As for the passage, it is talking about injury to the woman only. And, yes, a lot of Rabbinical scholars back me up on this as well:

            Solomon ben Isaac (Rashi)
            Moses Nachmanides (Ramban)
            Abraham Ibn Ezra
            Meir Leib ben Yechiel Michael (Malbim)
            Baruch Malawi Epstein (Torah Temimah)
            Samson Raphael Hirsch
            Joseph Hertz

            And they all beat your Protestant and Lutheran on commentary.

          • Pererin

            Well I pointed out how the ancient Jews, the House of Justice actually interpreted the verse. These people are from the Old Testament mentioned in Numbers 11:16-17. These people were put together by Moses himself to judge people according to the Torah at that time. So it is not a Protestant commentary, nor is it my commentary, I showed how the Jews of the time interpreted the verse. Commentaries are useless if they go against the original meaning.

          • Pererin

            No it doesn’t. The Hebrew word ‘yatsa’ used in the text is not meant for ‘miscarriage’. It’s a word for giving birth as used in (Gen 25:26, 38:28; Job 3:11, 10:18; Jer 1:5, 20:18). The more specific word for miscarriage ‘schokol’ is not used in this passage. Therefore, the text doesn’t say that the ‘harm’ refers only to harm to the woman, which is why the interpretion earlier stated is incorrect. The woman is not given priority over the foetus.

          • JGC

            Yatsa denotes ‘to come out’ or ‘to depart from’, not ‘to give birth’ although it is often used to describe a birth.

            The ‘other harm’ that may follow does refer to harm done to the woman, not to the fetus she’s carrying—see the commentaries by Rashi, Rambam, Malbim, Abraham Ibn Ezra, Maimonides and other Talmudic scholars.

            Throughout all of the Talmud the embryo is identified as part of the mother’s body rather than a person (nefesh) in and of itself, and the
            understanding that the ‘other harm’ refers to harm done to the woman is wholly in agreement with the general body of Jewish law addressing pregnancy and the status/value of a fetus before delivery (for example, one does not delay the execution of a pregnant woman unless she has already begun labor.)

          • Pererin

            Well let’s not stop at the Talmud. Let’s go back to the origin House of Justice, seventy elders inspired by God who were assembled to act as judges to interpret the Torah. (Numbers 11:16-17). Here God promised he would give these elders divine inspiration in interpreting the Law (Torah) through the Holy Spirit in the same way God gave divine inspiration to in writing the Law. The Torah became known as the written law and the decisions of the seventy elders, known as the Great Assembly, became known as the oral law which were considered inspired by God. This oral tradition continued to 200BC when they decided to put the oral tradition (Mishnah) into writing. They compiled it’s 523 chapters into 63 tractates and 6 orders.

            Two tractates deal with abortion. Sanhedrin and Oholot.
            Sanhedrin refers to a fetus as “human being within a human being” and killing a human being is considered murder, punishable by death.
            Oholot calls a fetus a child. In this tractate, a decision was made for a child to be dismembered in the case of a woman being at risk of death during labour.

            Many years later the Talmud came into being, written by Rabbi’s centuries after the House of Justice was disbanded.

            The decision of the original House of Justice concerning abortion is as follows:

            “We infer the death penalty for killing an embryo from the text, He who sheds the blood of a man within a man, he blood shall be shed [Gen. 9:6]; (Mishnah, Sanhedrin 57b)

            The only time abortion is permitted is to save the actual life of the mother. The Mishnah says:

            “If a woman was in hard travail [life-threatening labor], the child must be cut up while it is in the womb and brought out member by member, since the life of the mother has priority over the life of the child; but if the great part of it was already born, it may ot be touched, since the claim of one life cannot override the claim of another life.” (Oholoth 7:6)

            So the original, God inspired, House of Justice did not see the woman and foetus as one body but a separate ‘man within a man’. Therefore the ‘harm’ originally meant both woman and child.

          • feloneouscat

            So the original, God inspired, House of Justice did not see the woman and foetus as one body but a separate ‘man within a man’. Therefore the ‘harm’ originally meant both woman and child. Which means they were considered to be equal in importance.

            So the original man inspired writings basically back up what you believe. If I had a time machine, I’d send you back there (maybe as a woman if we are going with fantasies) and see how much fun it was. 1/40 women died due to pregnancy. Nice odds, eh?

            But they really don’t mean anything, because this country is not based on the House of Justice or any other religious rubbish.

            Pretty much end of argument.

          • Pererin

            Nope, not end of argument. I just followed up on a reply that tried to discredit life in the womb using the Talmud.

            Yet again you use the death rate of women in pregnancy without including the death of abortions, therefore skewing the discussion. I’ve never said that pregnancy was safe, I’ve acknowledged it’s dangers. You don’t make any points furthering your view here.

            Again, no, not end of argument. Hav’nt you not seen how laws change? America has recently moved from a Christian to a more humanistic point of view and the recent changes in law reflect this. But this can still change again. That is my hope.

          • feloneouscat

            Nope, not end of argument. I just followed up on a reply that tried to discredit life in the womb using the Talmud.

            No, you copy and pasted someone else’s painfully bad work. Please do not take credit for work you didn’t do.

            Yet again you use the death rate of women in pregnancy without including the death of abortions, therefore skewing the discussion.

            Women are people. Women don’t want to die. But apparently, to you, a women is less than a fetus (or equal to).

            In other words if we die, no biggie.

            I’ve never said that pregnancy was safe, I’ve acknowledged it’s dangers.

            No. You never acknowledged the dangers. Acknowledging the dangers is understanding why some women have abortions.

            No, you pretend it is risk-free and push your forced-birth agenda.

            America has recently moved from a Christian to a more humanistic point of view and the recent changes in law reflect this. But this can still change again. That is my hope.

            It wasn’t until 1856 than an anti-choicer pushed to end all abortion. It wasn’t until the 1980’s that the first rumblings of “life begins at contraception” began.

            Anti-abortion laws fly in the face of the Constitution. This has nothing to do with religion (except your particular sect).

            In the United States I am not required to live under your religion. Period. Nor do you have to live under mine. Period.

            If you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one. But you have zero right to tell others what to do.

            That’s called being a dick.

          • Pererin

            And the poor language continues! What is wrong with you?

            If something goes against your view, it’s copy and pasted port work.
            I don’t expect anything less from you.

            I say one thing, you say I said the opposite. I don’t say something, you say I said it.
            I’ve had enough. You have insulted me, lied about me, twist my words one time too many.
            You have used abusive and sexist language and I am not going to waste my time with you any more.

            I you are an example of a Buddhism, then Buddhism is definitely not the way to go.
            You really need to grow up and get some manners.

            You will not get another reply from me.

          • JGC

            A separate ‘man within a man” but also not one with rights or status equivalent to the ‘man’ it is within: both Oholot 6,7 and Snahedrin 57b are consistent with Ramban’s, etc. commentaries on the passage in Exodus.

          • feloneouscat

            Of course embryos can’t make choices

            Wait, wait… earlier you said:

            What about the choice of the unborn?

            So embryos can’t make choices but we are supposed to consider the choices of the unborn?

            This makes no sense at all!

          • Pererin

            But they are developing people that will one day be able to make a choice. Can a one day old baby make a choice? Of course not, but you would defend its choice to life.

          • feloneouscat

            But they are developing people that will one day be able to make a choice.

            Meanwhile the born mother must be denied choice?

            So embryos have higher precedence than a woman?

          • Pererin

            Of course, life has higher precedence of choice of a woman. It’s not the life of the woman for the life of the child. It’s the life of the child for the choice of the woman. I’m shocked you disagree.

          • feloneouscat

            Of course, life has higher precedence of choice of a woman. It’s not the life of the woman for the life of the child. It’s the life of the child for the choice of the woman. I’m shocked you disagree.

            Is not the pregnant woman a life? Or is she suddenly discounted?

            It appears that you are overly big on fetal rights and not so keen on the born rights.

            I’m shocked that you could discount the life of the born.

          • Pererin

            Since when was pregnancy a death sentence? Shall we outlaw pregnancy now?
            Come on, your not serious? Do you not see what you are saying?

          • Pererin

            Again you twist my words to fit your agenda, life has the right to life. The choice, the right to life.

          • feloneouscat

            Where does it say in the Bible that the unborn have any right to life?

            Again you twist my words to fit your agenda,

            No, it’s that you don’t have a coherent argument. You don’t think. You just post rubbish. When your posts conflict, it is my fault that they do.

            This is you not taking responsibility for your own statements.

          • Pererin

            So unless the bible specifically says the words, “the unborn have a right to life” you discard it. There are plenty of verses that say that the God knows the unborn, in the womb. Murder is wrong etc. Yet for you and your secular feminist agenda, these are not enough.

          • Rebecca

            Abortion=Murder

          • John N

            So your deity is a mass murderer? Is that what you ar e actually saying? And you still worship him?

          • Rebecca

            Your trolling is boring. You are childish in your reasoning. You will find everything out one day 🙂

          • John N

            So no answer, only threats and insults. Look who is acting childish here.

          • Rebecca

            I did answer you, in my own way. Move along baby killer supporter.

          • John N

            Your way; more insults. I guess this must the Christian way.

            Why did you not answer my question? Too hard?

          • gizmo23

            Have the strength of your convictions and answer the question

          • gizmo23

            So the death penalty for a women having one?

      • OldGP

        Have watched abortions, and know exactly what’s going on. It would be helpful if you directed your energy and anger towards ensuring that all unwanted children have a better chance of growing up in safety and with options for their future.

        • Rebecca

          blah, blah, blah. That’s your reply. Forget about the ones being aborted? How heartless of you. I doubt you are doing anything to help the unwanted children. Have you???

          • feloneouscat

            Did you forget about the women have the abortion? Yes, you apparently did. Have you ever talked to a woman who had one? Find out why she did? The reasons are not always simple as you would like to make it.

            Meanwhile, did you know that the adoption business (yes, it is actually a business) profits to the tune of $13 billion a year? Off of children?

          • feloneouscat

            Apparently the adoption business making money off of children doesn’t offend you as much as women seeking abortions. Which are legal.

        • OldGP

          There are no ‘ones’ being aborted, at that stage they are not babies, they are embryos. Mother nature, or in your world that shadowy figure you call God, spontaneously aborts about one third of fertilized eggs / embryos in the first trimester. So maybe you should direct your indignation in that direction. And yes, I do.

          • Rebecca

            You are totally wrong. Have a nice day baby killer supporter 🙂

          • OldGP

            I was waiting for one rational argument, and have not seen one. Instead labels are indiscriminately thrown around. Not surprised though. Have a nice day too, being that oblivious to reality should make that easy.

          • Rebecca

            Again, you are totally wrong. Have a nice day baby killer supporter 🙂

          • feloneouscat

            Honey, saying “you are totally wrong” isn’t an argument.

          • Rebecca

            I’m not trying to have an argument. Truth is truth and you and oldy gp don’t accept it.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            You are correct, Rebecca. Hell was made for baby killer supporters and their “father” who was a liar and murderer from the beginning.

          • feloneouscat

            Really? Please point to where that might be in the Bible?

            Y’all really are bad at this.

          • Bob Johnson

            A lot of people confuse Dante’s “Inferno” with the Old Testament.

          • feloneouscat

            Actually, he is right.

            When you went to High School did you sleep through sex education?

          • afchief

            Psalm 139:13-14e (NASB)

            13 For You formed my inward parts;

            You wove me in my mother’s womb.

            14 I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;

          • OldGP

            I prefer Hans Christian Andersen, better fairy tales.

          • afchief

            Then why are you here on a Christian site? You know we Christians believe life begins at conception. We believe abortion is murder. We know people like you are blinded to the truth. And we know people like you are liars!!!

            2 Corinthians 4:4 (NASB) in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

          • feloneouscat

            Actually, the belief that life begins at conception is relatively new (about 30 years old).

            Even Pope John Paul II only came CLOSE to saying it began at conception (that was in 1970). But close is not the same as saying it does.

            It would be another decade before people started muttering about it and thought loons. It wasn’t until the 1990’s people started actually arguing that life begins at conception.

            So, no, for Christians, life has always begun at birth, when “the breath of life” was instilled (as it indicates in Genesis).

          • afchief

            NOPE! That is a boldface LIE!!!! We Christians knew since the beginning of man!!!!

            Psalm 139:13-15 (NASB) For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Your works, And my soul knows it very well.

            Jeremiah 1:5 (NASB) “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
            And before you were born I consecrated you;
            I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

          • feloneouscat

            NOPE! That is a boldface LIE!!!! We Christians knew since the beginning of man!!!!

            You know, you just seem to yell “you lie” rather than present cogent argument.

            Psalm 139:13-15 does not establish that one is considered a person prior to birth. It is praising the creator, God, but nowhere is it saying that “I was a person prior to birth”. #FAIL

            I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.

            YOU ARE A PROPHET? Are you trying to argue that everyone is a prophet to the nations? LMAO This is the dumbest pick so far.

            You know, picking random passages in the Bible is no better than playing Madlibs.

          • afchief

            Sorry, we Christians have know for 6000 years that God is the author of life and that life begins in the womb.

            Yes, YOU are a liar!!!

          • feloneouscat

            Sorry, we Christians have know for 6000 years that God is the author of life and that life begins in the womb.
            Yes, YOU are a liar!!!

            I didn’t argue what you believe, I pointed out that not all Christians believe that life begins at conception and many are unaware that this is only 30 years old. Hardly 60000.

            Nor can you provide scripture to prove such.

            You calling me a liar does not make me one. I it merely means you have no argument.

          • afchief

            No Christian believes life begins at birth. That is an oxymoron. It is not possible!!! We Christians believe it begins at conception. I just gave you two scriptures that say otherwise.

            I would advise you to watch the video called “silent scream”. It shows a 5 month old baby in a mothers womb fighting for it’s life as the abortion doctor kills it.

            It will make your blood boil!!!

          • feloneouscat

            No Christian believes life begins at birth.

            Many do, despite your unhappiness about it.

            We Christians believe it begins at conception.

            No, that’s something that’s about 40 years old. Sorry, you lose.

            I just gave you two scriptures that say otherwise.

            No you did not.

            I would advise you to watch the video called “silent scream”.

            “John Hobbins of the Yale School of Medicine called the film’s use of special effects deceptive, a form of “technical flimflam.” He pointed out that the film of the ultrasound is initially run at slow speed, but that it is sped up when surgical instruments are introduced to give the impression that “the fetus is thrashing about in alarm.” Hobbins questioned the titular “scream”, noting that “the fetus spends lots of time with its mouth open”, that the “scream” may have been a yawn, and also that “mouth” identified on the blurry ultrasound in the film may in fact have been the space between the fetal chin and chest.[4] Edward Myer, chairman of pediatrics at the University of Virginia stated that, at twelve weeks, the brain is not sufficiently developed for a fetus to be able to feel pain.[8] Similarly, Hart Peterson, chairman of pediatric neurology at the New York Hospital, stated that the “notion that a 12-week-old fetus is in discomfort is erroneous.”

            Who should I believe? OB/GYN’s or some random person on the internet?

            What makes my blood boil is people who want to take away my rights!

          • afchief

            Did I not say you are a liar? You are!!!

            Like I said you CANNOT be a Christian and believe in murder. It is NOT possible!!!

            I watched the movie several times. It is TRUTH!!!! And you have proven again that you are a liar!!!

          • feloneouscat

            Did I not say you are a liar? You are!!!

            This isn’t an argument, this is merely the repetition of an unproven statement.

            Like I said you CANNOT be a Christian and believe in murder. It is NOT possible!!!

            Many Christians believe in the death penalty. Or are state killings okay and not really murder?

            I watched the movie several times.

            I felt the same way about “Jurassic Park” – felt like a real dinosaur.

          • afchief

            Yes you are a liar!!! NO Christian believes in abortion. NONE!!!

            Ahhh the liberal twist of making Capital punishment into murder. It is NOT murder and the Word of God explains it quite well!!!

            Romans 13:3-4 (NASB) For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

            Genesis 9:6 (NASB)
            “Whoever sheds man’s blood,
            By man his blood shall be shed,
            For in the image of God
            He made man.

          • feloneouscat

            Ahhh the liberal twist of making Capital punishment into murder. It is NOT murder and the Word of God explains it quite well!!!

            In the military, mutiny or sedition is a capital offense. I do not see it mentioned at all in the Bible.

            So, no, the word of God does not explain it because it is not in the Bible.

            Making things up may be fine for your conscience, but to me it just makes you out to be a liar.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            No such thing as a 5 month old baby in a mother’s womb. A 5 month old baby is a baby 5 months after it was born.

          • afchief

            You are a liar!!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            No. Do you know any woman that counts how old her child is based on the date of conception?

          • afchief

            A birth date is the date from birth. A 5 month old child inside a mother’s womb is a 5 month old child before it’s birth date.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            But then why don’t we talk about people giving birth to 9-month-old children?

          • afchief

            The bottom line is that it is a “LIFE” inside the mother!

          • feloneouscat

            The bottom line is that it is a “LIFE” inside the mother!

            I thought the bottom line was there was a woman aka a human being who is pregnant. She was a human being prior to pregnancy as she is during pregnancy.

            And she has the right to decide whether or not to give birth. Not you, not some branch of government. The decision rests in her hands.

            The problem is that men do not trust women to make decisions regarding their own bodies.

          • afchief

            Does the baby have a choice to live or die?

          • feloneouscat

            Does the baby have a choice to live or die?

            Do you believe something that has yet to form a brainstem can make decisions?

            BTW, to clarify, babies are those who are born.

            If it is unborn, it is either a zygote, embryo, or fetus.

          • afchief

            That’s right the baby does not have a choice to live. Abortion is MURDER!!!! You are a liar and serve the father of lies…..satan!

            Every abortion kills an innocent human being.

            It is false to claim that no one knows when life begins and dishonest to argue that abortion does not kill a human being.

            Every new life begins at conception. This is an irrefutable fact of biology. It is true for animals and true for humans. When considered alongside the law of biogenesis – that every species reproduces after its own kind – we can draw only one conclusion in regard to abortion. No matter what the circumstances of conception, no matter how far along in the pregnancy, abortion always ends the life of an individual human being. Every honest abortion advocate concedes this simple fact.

            Faye Wattleton, the longest reigning president of the largest abortion provider in the United States – Planned Parenthood – argued as far back as 1997 that everyone already knows that abortion kills. She proclaims the following in an interview with Ms. Magazine: [1]

            I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don’t know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus.

            On the other side of the pond, Ann Furedi, the chief executive of the largest independent abortion provider in the UK, said this in a 2008 debate: [2]

            We can accept that the embryo is a living thing in the fact that it has a beating heart, that it has its own genetic system within it. It’s clearly human in the sense that it’s not a gerbil, and we can recognize that it is human life… the point is not when does human life begin, but when does it really begin to matter?

            Naomi Wolf, a prominent feminist author and abortion supporter, makes a similar concession when she writes: [3]

            Clinging to a rhetoric about abortion in which there is no life and no death, we entangle our beliefs in a series of self-delusions, fibs and evasions. And we risk becoming precisely what our critics charge us with being: callous, selfish and casually destructive men and women who share a cheapened view of human life…we need to contextualize the fight to defend abortion rights within a moral framework that admits that the death of a fetus is a real death.

            David Boonin, in his book, A Defense of Abortion, makes this startling admission: [4]

            In the top drawer of my desk, I keep [a picture of my son]. This picture was taken on September 7, 1993, 24 weeks before he was born. The sonogram image is murky, but it reveals clear enough a small head tilted back slightly, and an arm raised up and bent, with the hand pointing back toward the face and the thumb extended out toward the mouth. There is no doubt in my mind that this picture, too, shows [my son] at a very early stage in his physical development. And there is no question that the position I defend in this book entails that it would have been morally permissible to end his life at this point.

            Peter Singer, contemporary philosopher and public abortion advocate, joins the chorus in his book, Practical Ethics. He writes: [5]

            It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.

            Bernard Nathanson co-founded one of the most influential abortion advocacy groups in the world (NARAL) and once served as medical director for the largest abortion clinic in America. In 1974, he wrote an article for the New England Journal of Medicine in which he states: [6]

            There is no longer serious doubt in my mind that human life exists within the womb from the very onset of pregnancy…

            Some years later, he would reiterate: [7]

            There is simply no doubt that even the early embryo is a human being. All its genetic coding and all its features are indisputably human. As to being, there is no doubt that it exists, is alive, is self-directed, and is not the the same being as the mother–and is therefore a unified whole.

            Don’t miss the significance of these acknowledgements. Prominent defenders of abortion rights publicly admit that abortion kills human beings. They are not saying that abortion is morally defensible because it doesn’t kill a distinct human entity. They are admitting that abortion does kill a distinct human entity, but argue it is morally defensible anyway.

            We’ll get to their arguments later, but the point here is this: There is simply no debate among honest, informed people that abortion kills distinctly human beings.

            The problem is, Roe vs. Wade, the landmark 1973 verdict which legalized abortion in the U.S. is actually built on the claim that there’s no way to say for certain whether or not abortion kills because no one can say for certain when life begins. Justice Harry Blackmun, who authored the majority opinion wrote: [8]

            The judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to… resolve the difficult question of when life begins… since those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus.

            Justice Blackmun’s assertion is a ridiculous one, at least as it applies to the field of medicine. Dr. Nathanson had this to say about the ruling: [9]

            Of course, I was pleased with Justice Harry Blackmun’s abortion decisions, which were an unbelievably sweeping triumph for our cause, far broader than our 1970 victory in New York or the advances since then. I was pleased with Blackmun’s conclusions, that is. I could not plumb the ethical or medical reasoning that had produced the conclusions. Our final victory had been propped up on a misreading of obstetrics, gynecology, and embryology, and that’s a dangerous way to win.

            Dr. Nathanson would eventually abandon his support for elective abortion and note that: [10]

            The basics [of prenatal development] were well-known to human embryology at the time the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 1973 rulings, even though the rulings made no use of them.

          • feloneouscat

            That’s right the baby does not have a choice to live. Abortion is MURDER!!!! You are a liar and serve the father of lies…..satan!

            I don’t know, you have been the one lying up to this point.

            Maybe it is you who are the liar and serve Satan!

            Oh, I’m joking, neither of us serve Satan. I’m a Buddhist and really don’t go in for that Satan rubbish.

            Every abortion kills an innocent human being.

            Too long, didn’t read that twaddle except for this part:

            The problem is, Roe vs. Wade, the landmark 1973 verdict which legalized abortion in the U.S. is actually built on the claim that there’s no way to say for certain whether or not abortion kills because no one can say for certain when life begins.

            This is true. It wasn’t until the 1980’s that some people started saying that life begins at conception. Even the Catholic Church wouldn’t say in 1973 that life began at conception. However, it is a moot question because in the United States, as most countries, one is granted personhood upon birth, not conception.

            So, what that text tries to make out as a point is really a non-point.

            Stop cut and pasting other people’s text. If you can’t argue with your own words, then admit it.

            Again, you have yet to make a point, son of Satan.

          • feloneouscat

            No Christian believes life begins at birth. That is an oxymoron. It is not possible!!! We Christians believe it begins at conception. I just gave you two scriptures that say otherwise.

            Sorry, kid, but I actually remember when the whole “life begins at conception” movement began. Randall Terry was one of the people pushing it.

            Even the Catholic Church did not accept this view until the 1980’s.

            And, no, your scripture didn’t “say otherwise” they just proved you can’t read English.

          • afchief

            More liberal lies!!!! You are a liar and serve the father of lies……..satan!

            Jeremiah 1:5 (NASB)

            5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,

          • feloneouscat

            More liberal lies!!!! You are a liar and serve the father of lies……..satan!

            No, I have just studied scripture a little longer (okay decades longer) than you have.

            Jeremiah 1:5

            5 “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
            Before you were born I sanctified you;
            I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”

            This is about Jeremiah the prophet, not about Joe Israelite. Look, just because it has womb in it doesn’t mean it is talking about birth, abortion or any of those things.

          • afchief

            Hello!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! God said He knew Jeremiah in the womb!!!! If He knew Jeremiah in the womb then it is a PERSON!!!!!

            Yes, liberalism truly is a mental disorder!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • feloneouscat

            God said He knew Jeremiah in the womb!!!! If He knew Jeremiah in the womb then it is a PERSON

            Sorry, punkin, you are misreading it. Reread it again slowly:

            Before I formed you in the womb I knew you

            In other words before he knew Jeremiah before Jeremiah was conceived. This is like the prophecies predicting the birth of Jesus long before he was conceived.

          • afchief

            ROTHFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            Yes, liberalism truly is a mental disorder!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • feloneouscat

            Which means I am correct. You do that same tell every time I’m correct.

          • feloneouscat

            Yes, liberalism truly is a mental disorder!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            I guess that means conservatism means you can’t read?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Uh, I just gotta jump in on that one…..Christians haven’t known anything for 6000 years, there’s only been such a thing as Christians for about 2000 years or so.

          • feloneouscat

            Sorry, we Christians have know for 6000 years that God is the author of life and that life begins in the womb.

            Christianity is only about 2000 years old. There were no Christians 6000 years ago.

          • afchief

            Ok, we Christians and Jews!

          • feloneouscat

            Ok, we Christians and Jews!

            So now you are arguing for Jews as well?

            You people really should stop when you’re behind.

          • feloneouscat

            Psalm 139:13-14e (NASB)

            A man giving thanks to God. It has nothing to do with abortion.

            You people see womb and you jump on it like a chicken on a june bug not bothering to read it in context.

          • afchief

            You are a liar and serve the father of lies……….satan!!!

          • feloneouscat

            You are a liar and serve the father of lies……….satan!!!

            Okay, read the entire thing:

            139

            O Lord, You have searched me and known me.
            2 You know my sitting down and my rising up;
            You understand my thought afar off.
            3 You comprehend my path and my lying down,
            And are acquainted with all my ways.
            4 For there is not a word on my tongue,
            But behold, O Lord, You know it altogether.
            5 You have hedged me behind and before,
            And laid Your hand upon me.
            6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me;
            It is high, I cannot attain it.

            7 Where can I go from Your Spirit?
            Or where can I flee from Your presence?
            8 If I ascend into heaven, You are there;
            If I make my bed in hell, behold, You are there.
            9 If I take the wings of the morning,
            And dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,
            10 Even there Your hand shall lead me,
            And Your right hand shall hold me.
            11 If I say, “Surely the darkness shall fall[a] on me,”
            Even the night shall be light about me;
            12 Indeed, the darkness shall not hide from You,
            But the night shines as the day;
            The darkness and the light are both alike to You.

            13 For You formed my inward parts;
            You covered me in my mother’s womb.
            14 I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;[b]
            Marvelous are Your works,
            And that my soul knows very well.
            15 My frame was not hidden from You,
            When I was made in secret,
            And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
            16 Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed.
            And in Your book they all were written,
            The days fashioned for me,
            When as yet there were none of them.

            17 How precious also are Your thoughts to me, O God!
            How great is the sum of them!
            18 If I should count them, they would be more in number than the sand;
            When I awake, I am still with You.

            19 Oh, that You would slay the wicked, O God!
            Depart from me, therefore, you bloodthirsty men.
            20 For they speak against You wickedly;
            Your enemies take Your name in vain.[c]
            21 Do I not hate them, O Lord, who hate You?
            And do I not loathe those who rise up against You?
            22 I hate them with perfect hatred;
            I count them my enemies.

            23 Search me, O God, and know my heart;
            Try me, and know my anxieties;
            24 And see if there is any wicked way in me,
            And lead me in the way everlasting.

            The Marvelous are Your works kind of gives it away. That’s the problem with taking things out of context – they don’t always mean what you think they mean.

            Personally, I like Psalm 138 better, but that’s a personal choice.

            Oh, and this Psalm is not about Abortion. Even if the word womb is in it.

          • afchief

            I repeat!!!! You are a liar and serve the father of lies……….satan!!!

          • feloneouscat

            I repeat!!!! You are a liar and serve the father of lies……….satan!!!

            You’re very good at repeating yourself. Not so good at making cogent arguments.

          • Pererin

            Wow, sorry I had to reply to this. How can you possible ignore the use of the womb here? So what if is about thanks giving, truth is still spoken. Your agenda is clear, you purposely ignore text to suit it. You are so clearly indoctrinated.

          • feloneouscat

            Because it has nothing to do with abortion or the unborn.

            Let me point out, because all of you are too young to understand this, that no Church on the face of the Earth argued that life began at conception in the 1960’s.

            None.

          • Pererin

            Here are you getting this misinformation? More secular sources full of lies? The church fathers spoke out against abortion. Just look it up or I can copy and paste if you like?

          • feloneouscat

            I happened to be alive during the 60’s.

            No doubt you were not.

          • Pererin

            Well obviously age doesn’t matter because you are giving false information.
            Please give me your Church father sources supporting abortion, as I said, copy and paste them, I don’t mind. I’ve given you three quotes proving abortion was seen as murder before the 1960s!

          • feloneouscat

            Well obviously age doesn’t matter because you are giving false information.

            Look, just because you can’t Google it doesn’t mean it isn’t true. The whole “life begins at conception” was an 80’s thing – like bands with horrible hairdos.

            I’ve given you three quotes proving abortion was seen as murder before the 1960s!

            Not in this country.

            In the 60’s a friend of mine’s mother had a miscarriage. They wanted it buried on consecrated ground. It went all the way up to the Pope who said that because there was no birth, there was no breath of life and therefore it had no soul.

            They ended up bribing a priest who buried it near consecrated ground.

            Yes. This is the 60’s and reality.

        • afchief

          Many people try to claim that the unborn is just a blob of tissue, nothing more than a tumor. But it is a scientific and medical fact, based on experimental evidence, that the fetus is a living, growing, thriving human being, directing his or her own development. The unborn baby is never part of the mother’s body. By the end of the second week of pregnancy, there is a distinct embryo present. The fetus has a developing brain and a rudimentary heart. By the end of the third week of pregnancy, the fetus has the beginnings of vetrebrae, developing eyes and ears, a closed circulatory system (separate from the mother’s), a working heart, the beginnings of lungs, and budding limbs. By the end of the fourth week of pregnancy, the fetus has a developing nose, and a pancreas. By the end of the fifth week of pregnancy, the fetus has the beginnings of vertebrae, a bony jaw and clavicle, developing eyes, ears, and nose, a closed circulatory system, a working heart, lungs, limbs, hands, feet, and a pancreas. By the end of the sixth week of pregnancy, the fetus has a vertebral column, a bony jaw and clavicle, a primative cranium, ribs, a developing nervous system, a closed circulatory system with a working heart, developing eyes, ears, and nose, lungs, lim bs, hands, feet, a pancreas, a bladder, kidneys, a tongue, a larynx, a thyroid body, and germs of teeth. By the end of the seventh week of pregnancy, the fetus has a vertebral column, a bony jaw and clavicle, a primitive cranium, ribs, femur, tibia, palate, upper jaw, developing nervous system, a closed circulatory system with a working heart, developing eyes,ears, and nose, lungs, arms, legs, hands, feet, a pancreas, a bladder, kidneys, a tongue, a larynx, a thyroid body, germs of teeth, and the beginnings of muscles. By the end of the second month of pregnancy, the fetus has a vertebral column, a bony jaw, clavicle, and palate, a cranium, ribcage, femur, tibia, forearms that can be distinguished from arms, and thighs that can be distinguished from legs, a developi ng nervous sytem, sympathetic nerves (meaning the fetus can feel pain), a closed circulatory system and a working heart, eyes, developing ears and nose, lungs, arms and forearms, legs and thighs, hands and feet, a pancreas, a bladder, kidneys, a tongue, a larynx, a thyroid, germs of teeth, and developing muscles. –gray’s anatomy

          after 9 weeks, unborn babies can feel pain, yet 48 per cent of all abortions are done after this point (us department of health and human services). The fetus has his/her own genetic code, blood type, sex. The fetus receives food from his/her mother, yet has a separate and distinct circulatory system. “the cell (a single-celled zygote) results from fertilization of an oocyte by a sperm and is the beginning of human life.” -the developing human: clinically oriented embryology keith l. Moore. 2nd ed., philadelphia w.B. Sanders, 1977. “each individual has a very neat beginning at conception…. [this is] not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence.” -dr. Jerome lejune, discoverer of the chromosome pattern of down’s syndrome in 1981, in a testimony to a senat e judiciary subcommittee. “by all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.” -professor hymie gordon, mayo clinic. Since abortion was leagalized in 1973, the number of reported cases of child abuse has increased by 1,497 per cent, from 167,000 in 1973 to 2.5 million in 1991 (us department of health & human services). Usc professor edward lenoski from heartbeat surveyed 674 abused children and found 91 per cent were from planned pregnancies. An average of 63 per cent of all pregnancies are wanted. “scientists have found hints of consciousness in 7-month-old fetuses and measured brain-wave patterns like those during dreaming during 8 months. They have pushed sentience back to the end of the second trimester and shown that fetuses can learn. Wit h no hype at all, the fetus can rightly be called a marvel of cognition, consciousness, and sentience.” –“do you hear what I hear?” newsweek special issue, summer 1991 “after 28 weeks in utero, the fetus can hear…. By four months in a female fetus, all 5 million ova have formed. At 4 & 1/2 months, the fetus responds to a brush on its lips by sucking. By six weeks the brain is visible and electrically active; by eight, it has convoluted folds and shape of an adult brain.” –“do you hear what I hear?” newsweek special issue, summer 1991 the following quotes are from pages 1 and 3 of the developing human: clinically orientated embryology. 5th ed. Moore and persaud. 1993. Saunders company. “human development is a continuous process that begins when an oocyte from a female is fertilized by a sperm from a male.” “although it is coustomary to divide human development into prenatal and postnatal periods, it is important to realize that birth is merely a dramatic event during development resulting in a change in environment.” “human development begins at fertilization.” “either the fetus is a person or not. Either we know what it is or we don’t. This leaves only 4 possibilities: a fetus is not a person, and we know that. This has never been any evidence to support this. A fetus is a person, and we know that.Killing an innocent person knowingly is murder. A fetus is a person, and we do not know that. Killing a person without knowing or intending to is manslaughter. It’s like shooting at a sudden movement in a bush which may be a deer or another hunter. A fetus is not a person, and we do not know that. If the hunter didn’t know for sure and shot anyway, it is criminal negligence, even if no one was killed. Abortion might be three things– murder, manslaughter, or criminal negligence– each of which is not debated but instinctively condemned. –choices, by peter kreeft source: todd primm

          • Pererin

            Excellent, thank you.

          • feloneouscat

            Peter Kreeft also said, incorrectly I might point out:

            Roe used such skepticism to justify a pro-choice position. Since we don’t know when human life begins, the argument went, we cannot impose restrictions.

            Roe isn’t based on skepticism, it is based on the Constitution.

            Kreeft creates straw men and then gleefully knocks them down. But he doesn’t create cogent arguments.

    • feloneouscat

      Rebecca, it isn’t a baby until it is born. That is the meaning of the word “baby”.

      BTW, you do realize that Planned Parenthood is a non-profit? Even if they DID make a profit, all the money would have to go back into the organization – no one could even get a raise. That’s how strict the rules are.

      So a) no profits and b) no selling of “baby parts”.

      • Rebecca

        Felon, you’re a fool and very wrong.

      • Pererin

        An embryo or a foetus are a developing baby. It doesn’t magically transform into an ‘official, human, person, baby thing’ after a certain stage of development. This is obsurd and illogical reasoning with absolutely no grounds for belief. Abortion is cold blooded murder. No question. What exactly is your excuse for denying a baby it’s life?

        • OldGP

          I’ll answer Rebecca style: you’re a fool and very wrong.

          • Kandy

            The fool says in his heart there is no God.I don’t think he is one.

          • Pererin

            So you cannot give your own answer, you have to borrow from someone else, a new low in trolldom

          • feloneouscat

            New to you: a troll is not someone with a differing opinion. That would be someone with a differing opinion.

            My pro-choice opinion is based on the fact that abortion is legal and that you don’t have to have an abortion if you don’t want one.

          • Pererin

            The holocaust was perfectly legal in Nazi Germany, it was an act of Government. Does that make it ok?
            Abortion used to be illegal, homosexuality used to be illegal, adultery used to be illegal, all are now legal. Does that mean they are OK in God’s eyes? God opinion is what matters, don’t you agree?

          • feloneouscat

            The holocaust was perfectly legal in Nazi Germany, it was an act of Government. Does that make it ok?

            Okay, let me point out because apparently you are pretty stupid. The Holocaust was a Crime Against Humanity. Crimes against humanity were established in Second Hague Convention of 1899 preamble and was expanded in the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907.

            All which were before WWII and Hitler’s rise to power.

            So, no, they pretty much were NOT legal which is why the Nuremberg Trials were able to prosecute.

            Abortion used to be illegal, homosexuality used to be illegal, adultery used to be illegal, all are now legal.

            Laws against abortion were shown to violate the Constitution.

            Laws against homosexuality were shown to violate the Constitution.

            Laws against adultery remain in 21 of the 50 states (seriously, how do you prosecute and why?) And can you not google?

            Does that mean they are OK in God’s eyes? God opinion is what matters, don’t you agree?

            Yes they are okay.

            You nor any other human has the right or authority to speak for God.

            Love is far more important than this hate you and your ilk prefer to strew. You are so concerned about condemnation that you totally forget what Jesus said: to love others as you would yourself; to love your enemies; to turn the other cheek.

            What I see is you using God and the Bible as tools. Do you think your God would be keen on you voicing His opinion?

          • Pererin

            So what, Hitler was leader, his judges make changes to law, do you think they are about The Hague convention? The fact is German’s lived under Nazi laws, no body else’s.

            I see you agree with me, laws change with men’s ever changing beliefs. Just because something is difficult to prosecute doesn’t mean they should over turn law. Where is the harm of leaving it be to set a standard?

            You speak of love then happily see children murdered in the womb. Yes it is murder. Man’s changing opinion doesn’t make a difference to God’s.

            I am lovingly trying to protect innocent children from death. You can twist and turn things all you like, you cannot deceive everyone.

            God opinion is plain, He gave us His word, He gave it as a tool, as a measuring stick, to guide us, to help us.

            We are to love, to turn the other cheek, but we must also follow the whole Bible not just cherry pick.

          • feloneouscat

            1. This isn’t Nazi Germany

            2. Hitler has long been dead

            3. German’s lived under international law and treaties as well

            Okay, let me explain some things because apparently you are terribly, terribly ignorant about the world in general. When Germany fought in WWII why was chlorine gas not used? Because of The Hague Convention governing warfare. Why did they not shoot parachuters? Again, the Hague Convention.

            Even in war, they still followed rules.

            I’m sorry that you are ignorant of history and want to make it up as it suits you.

            I am lovingly trying to protect innocent children from death.

            No, you are not. You are attempting to inflict you religious views on people who do not want to follow them.

            You can twist and turn things all you like, you cannot deceive everyone.

            I twist nothing. My understanding of the English language doesn’t imply that I’m doing anything wicked, it’s that you have a very poor understanding of it. What you call “twisting” is you not understanding what the language means.

            We are to love, to turn the other cheek, but we must also follow the whole Bible not just cherry pick.

            Really? How many animals have you sacrificed because of your sins? How many women have you helped stone?

            None? But I was sure you said you had to follow the whole Bible. If you did not sacrifice any animals, then you are cherry-picking. Or is your argument that some parts are more important than others?

          • Pererin

            Yet they broke a whole list of other actions against The Hague convention. Whether you like it or not, the Nazis chose to do what they wanted because their beliefs changed. No other reason. If Germany won the war do you really think they would have brought themselves to justice because years before they made some agreement? Of course they wouldn’t. They would have made up their own laws, further developed their own beliefs and the world would now be a much different place. In our eyes this new world would be horrible, but to theirs it would be normal, all because they move away from the authority of God’s word. We are currently moving in this direction, away from God, the West is still borrowing from the Christian principles of God’s word but one by one, bit by bit it is moving away. Every step will in 50-100 year seem trivial as the fallen future will think it all normal. What a horrible thought. Though it we turned around and moved closer to God’s word, in 50-100 years time, the current acts of abortion will be seen in a similar way we see the treatment of the Jews in the holocaust.

          • feloneouscat

            We are currently moving in this direction, away from God, the West is still borrowing from the Christian principles of God’s word but one by one, bit by bit it is moving away.

            Look, the US was not founded as a Christian nation. Nowhere in the Constitution will you find God or Christ mentioned. We are not a theocracy.

            US laws are secular.

            Though it we turned around and moved closer to God’s word, in 50-100 years time, the current acts of abortion will be seen in a similar way we see the treatment of the Jews in the holocaust.

            This is nothing but silly, emotional rhetoric. You’ve failed to argue your point with Biblical references or law so the only choice is, of course, Nazis.

            Your problem is that you do not see women as being human. We’re other. Something less. But definitely not human. We can’t be allowed to make choices because you do not trust us.

            We connive. We trick. We fool. This is how you think of women.

            True, there may be ones you trust, much like my racist grandfather who would talk about the “nigger” at work that was one of the good ones. But in the end we are no better than that and certainly not equal to a man.

            Let me tell you what every pregnant woman who doesn’t want to be pregnant wants – not to be pregnant. They don’t want an abortion, they just don’t want to be pregnant.

            Now, tell me you solution? Oh, your solution is for them to remain pregnant and give birth.

            Forced birthing.

            Except they don’t want to be pregnant or give birth. This is the part you don’t seem to get.

          • Pererin

            Of course the constitution was based on Christianity. You don’t have to be a theocracy to be founded on Christian values. Jesus is even mentioned in it, He is proclaimed as Lord too. Our modern Western Civilization is mostly based on Christian belief. We are moving away but by bit and it is falling apart.

            The part you don’t get is that we shouldn’t have the right to chose between life and death with our children. Not men, not women. No one. If a woman is pregnant, life is inside her. It’s unfortunate that she doesn’t want to have a baby but you cannot deny, ignore or kill our children.

            You say I have failed to argue through biblical or lawful reasons, I disagree, I have given plenty of examples and discussion, you haven’t been able to address them at all, you just twist the argument whenever you can’t give an answer and even resort to name calling.

          • feloneouscat

            Of course the constitution was based on Christianity.

            It was never based on Christianity. Making things up isn’t a fact. Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Thomas Cooper, Feb. 10, 1814):

            “For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.”

            TJ wasn’t a slouch when it came to history.

          • Pererin

            Let’s see what Jefferson’s beliefs were then. The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses.

            64. Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Alberty Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1904), Vol. XII, p. 315, to James Fishback, September 27, 1809.

            But let’s not stop there, George Washington, Samuel Adams, James Madison, John Witherspoon, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, John Adams, Patrick Henry, their personal correspondence, biographies, and public statements are full of quotations showing that these thinkers had political philosophies deeply influenced by Christianity.

            Let’s look at the 55 who signed the constitution.
            The denominational affiliations of these men were a matter of public record. Among the delegates were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown, and only 3 deists–Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin–this at a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith. [John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), p. 43.]

            This is a revealing tally. It shows that the members of the Constitutional Convention, the most influential group of men shaping the political foundations of our nation, were almost all Christians, 51 of 55, a full 93%. Indeed, 70% were Calvinists (the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and the Dutch Reformed), considered by some to be the most extreme and dogmatic form of Christianity.

            Do you still ignore the clear Christian foundations?

          • feloneouscat

            What difference does it make if 100% were Christian or 100% were Buddhists? We are a Republic. Which is Roman in origin.

            So, no, there are no “clear” Christian foundations.

            A tally of those who signed does not indicate a Christian foundation. Only that you can count.

          • Pererin

            Ha, yes of course it means there are clear Christian foundations. The constitution came from Christian minds with Christian backgrounds and Christian beliefs and also doesn’t contradict biblical teaching. You are clearly in denial.

          • feloneouscat

            You are clearly in denial.

            You are clearly an idiot.

            Rule in the Bible is a) Roman b) high priests or c) Kings none who were elected.

            Rule in the United States is Congressman, Senators, President all who were elected (for the most part).

            So, tell me again, how the Constitution so resembles the Bible?

          • Pererin

            It was set up by Christians. Please show me where I said the constitution appears in the Bible? Address the discussion not your fantasy. Love your attempts to bully and insult too. A wonderful example of a Buddhist you really are. Insults, cursing, lying. Has it really taken 60 plus years of your superior knowledge to get to this level of discussion?

          • feloneouscat

            So your argument is that the US Constitution could not have been created by, oh, deists? Because that is what the majority of the Founders were.

            That’s history and you are out of your league.

          • feloneouscat

            If a woman is pregnant

            It’s her call. Period.

            You don’t get to make the call. Period.

            Your problem is that you want to call the shots based on your religion for every woman. Guess what? You don’t get to.

            Live with it.

          • Pererin

            You see, you make making the exact same decision as I am. Using your world view, as I use God’s word, you deny the child life.

            Your problem is that you want to call the shots based on your world view for every child in the womb. Guess what, you don’t get to. Period! See how silly that sounds. That is how you sound.

            You refuse to see the hypocrisy in your words. You are blind to your own selfishness for convienience and choice over the lives of our children.

            Our children’s lives are not your call, they are not mine, they are God’s call.

          • feloneouscat

            You see, you make making the exact same decision as I am. Using your world view, as I use God’s word, you deny the child life.

            No. I don’t deny anyone anything. I believe that the woman has the choice whether or not to go to term.

            Your belief, which you say is from God, but you have nothing to back up that claim, is that women must be forced to give birth.

            Your problem is that you want to call the shots based on your world view for every child in the womb.

            My world view is that women are more capable of judging their situation than men are. You are evidence of that. I believe women should make the choice. You don’t think they should be allowed. We call that being treated in an unequal fashion.

            So much for your “equality”.

            You refuse to see the hypocrisy in your words. You are blind to your own selfishness for convenience and choice over the lives of our children.

            And you believe women are equal except when making decisions about their body. Until you run the risk of getting pregnant, where do you come off telling me whether or not I’m selfish?

            Tell me again what is your criteria? Because you IMAGINE what it might be like to be a woman?

            Our children’s lives are not your call, they are not mine, they are God’s call.

            My God says I have the right over my own body.

            So you lose.

          • Pererin

            I’ve given my reasons but you disregard them because they don’t suit your belief. You on the other hand have offered nothing in return to challenge my view. All your give is women have the choice over the life in their womb. Why?

            You speak as if only ‘idiot’men hold my view. The view I have is a view where both men and women should make the choice and It’s not just me who holds my view. Women also hold this view too. Have you ignored them too, just like you ignore the life in the womb to suit your arguement? Are these women, proper women, traitors to your secular feminist view?

            As I said earlier, if men were able to be pregnant I would have the same view. Gender has no impact on my view. This is not a man/woman issue. It is a life and death issue. I don’t care about the gender, it makes no difference to me. I want to stop children being killed in the womb. That is the issue here. But your secular feminist world view refuses to allow that into the discussion because you have no reason for killing life other because you’re or woman. That doesn’t matter, if men had a womb we would have the same problem.

            You see, It is still a selfish problem man or woman.

            Obviously you don’t believe in my God, you didn’t need to tell me that. But, I lose? How did you work that out? Do you think what your God says effects my view? Of course not, no more that my God effects your view.

          • feloneouscat

            I’ve given my reasons but you disregard them because they don’t suit your belief.

            Oddly, that’s exactly what you have done.

            You on the other hand have offered nothing in return to challenge my view.

            You’ve been worse. You’ve said that men and women are equal except you don’t trust women to make decisions.

            So much for equality.

            You speak as if only ‘idiot’men hold my view.

            No, there are a handful of women who believe this. But men are by far the ones doing the shooting.

            Ponder that.

            As I said earlier, if men were able to be pregnant I would have the same view.

            No you wouldn’t.

            It’s easy to say something like that when you have not possibility of ever becoming pregnant.

            Gender has no impact on my view.

            It absolutely does. You don’t see women as equals. You don’t see women as capable of making good decisions. Therefore you want to legislate what they can and can not do.

            Yeah, some equality you got there.

            I want to stop children being killed in the womb.

            Forced births is all you are asking for, right?

            And that is equality how?

            Obviously you don’t believe in my God, you didn’t need to tell me that.

            YOU don’t believe in a Christian God. The Christian God never said one word about abortion. Not once did Jesus ever mention it. He mentioned the poor, the hungry, but nothing about abortions?

            Do you seriously believe they weren’t occurring then?

            Of course not, no more that my God effects your view.

            I see you putting a LOT of words in your God’s mouth, but when I read the scripture, I see nothing about abortion.

            Don’t look, but I think you have blasphemed.

          • Pererin

            And the poor language continues! What is wrong with you?
            If something goes against your view, it’s copy and pasted port work.
            I don’t expect anything less from you.

            I say one thing, you say I said the opposite. I don’t say something, you say I said it.
            I’ve had enough. You have insulted me, lied about me, twist my words one time too many.
            You have used abusive and sexist language and I am not going to waste my time with you any more.

            I you are an example of a Buddhism, then Buddhism is definitely not the way to go.
            You really need to grow up and get some manners.

            You will not get another reply from me.

          • feloneouscat

            And the poor language continues! What is wrong with you?

            They’re called typos. Deal.

            If something goes against your view, it’s copy and pasted port work.

            Whatever that means.

            I’ve had enough. You have insulted me, lied about me, twist my words one time too many.

            Pardon me whilst I grab a tissue.

            You have used abusive and sexist language and I am not going to waste my time with you any more.

            After your sexist and abusive rants, it is a little late to start playing the victim.

            You do not like the fact that I use YOUR words against you. Perhaps, rather than saying sexist things, you might consider what you say.

            Women do not have power in the world, men do, and believe me we know that.

            I you are an example of a Buddhism, then Buddhism is definitely not the way to go.

            And if you are an example of Christianity, perhaps you need to learn more about the religion you profess to be a member?

            You really need to grow up and get some manners.

            This is the problem with arguing with men: if you take down their arguments, as I have done with you, they get upset and tell you you need to “grow up” and “get some manners” (never mind that it is “learn some manners” – you don’t “get some”).

            You will not get another reply from me.

            Considering you never had a stellar argument to begin with, this can hardly be seen as a loss.

          • Pererin

            You obviously don’t understand what Jesus did. Of course we don’t stone women or sacrifice animals, Jesus spoke against such actions. It is you who needs to read the whole Bible, sans twisting of course.

          • feloneouscat

            You obviously don’t understand what Jesus did. Of course we don’t stone women or sacrifice animals, Jesus spoke against such actions. It is you who needs to read the whole Bible, sans twisting of course.

            Wasn’t it you who said “we must also follow the whole Bible” – does that mean you don’t shave? Eat pig or shellfish? Or do you kind of skip those rules?

          • Pererin

            Again you twist my words to suit your agenda. Read the whole Bible, that’s what I said. The New Testament affects the Old. Jesus fulfilled the law. We do not need to follow the sacrificial laws anymore because of Jesus. I though you said you knew the Bible? Either you are just twisting my words for the fun of it, to suit your agenda or you just don’t know the Bible the way you think you do.

          • feloneouscat

            Your words:

            We are to love, to turn the other cheek, but we must also follow the whole Bible not just cherry pick.

            I don’t twist your words, I question them. I suggest that perhaps you cherry-pick and follow those rules that suit you.

            The New Testament affects the Old. Jesus fulfilled the law. We do not need to follow the sacrificial laws anymore because of Jesus. I though you said you knew the Bible?

            I do. However, it was you not me who said to follow the whole Bible.

            These are not twisting words, but taking your words in context and questioning if you are sure this is what you really mean. It is obvious that it is not.

            However, it is equally obvious that you cherry-pick from the Old Testament what is and is not “a sin”.

            Last I checked, the Bible does not give you that right.

          • Pererin

            You now seem to deliberately misunderstand my words. Just is case you genuinly misunderstood I will go into more detail. I said read the whole Bible. This means read the whole Old Testament, read the whole New Testament, see how Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament writings in the New Testament and what that means for the whole understanding of the Bible as a whole. Without doing this you would be merely cherry picking, which is of course wrong. Is this clearer?

          • feloneouscat

            You now seem to deliberately misunderstand my words.

            That is not what you wrote. I am not a mind reader. I posted exactly what you wrote. You had ample time to clarify if I had “twisted” the meaning. You never did.

            Without doing this you would be merely cherry picking, which is of course wrong. Is this clearer?

            Absolutely. It is now very clear that you cherry-pick.

          • Pererin

            Fine, all I needed to know.
            You say what you want irrespective of what was said. You are deliberately twisting my statements. Please stop this dishonesty. I have explained over an over my views yet you offer nothing but misinformation in return.

          • feloneouscat

            And, again, you do not deny that you cherry-pick, only that you believe I “twist your words” (even when I post them in context – I must say I am far more clever than I thought).

            How do I manage to make you say things that are so twisted?

          • Pererin

            Again you twist my words to suit your agenda. Read the whole Bible, that’s what I said. The New Testament affects the Old. Jesus fulfilled the law. We do not need to follow the sacrificial laws anymore because of Jesus. I though you said you knew the Bible? Either you are just twisting my words for the fun of it, to suit your agenda or you just don’t know the Bible the way you say you do.

        • feloneouscat

          Um, yes, the definition of baby is one that is born. That is the definition. Calling a fetus a “bun in the oven” doesn’t make it an actual bun.

          Abortion isn’t murder in the United States. One can only be murdered if one is a person. A fetus is not a person.

          Likewise if a Mexican woman comes to the US and is impregnated, then goes back to Mexico, the child is born a Mexican. If the child is born in the US, it is born an American.

          The definition, the dividing line that most countries have adopted is birth, not conception.

          Abortion is cold blooded murder. No question. What exactly is your excuse for denying a baby it’s life?

          What exactly is your excuse for not understanding the law?

          • Pererin

            I understand the law, I disagree with it. The same way I disagree with holocaust in Nazi Germany which under the law of that time was perfectly legal. I find it absolutely horrific. A foetus is a developing baby. A developing person. It’s life, you can’t deny that a foetus is a life, a human life.
            Laws change, morals change, God doesn’t. God speaks about us is the womb. There was also punishment for people who killed unborn babies in the womb in the Bible. Exodus 21:22-25.

          • feloneouscat

            I understand the law, I disagree with it.

            No, you do NOT understand the law. We had laws that said abortion was illegal. Roe v Wade said, no, those laws are unConstitutional.

            The right to abortion is derived DIRECTLY from the Constitution.

            I find it absolutely horrific.

            I find children starving to be absolutely horrific. I find someone shooting up a Planned Parenthood to be absolutely horrific. I find a lot of things horrific.

            Abortion isn’t one of them.

            If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. – Exodus 22

            Where is the part about the unborn being killed in this? Nowhere because it doesn’t exist. This is many of the craptastic Bible quote’s y’all love to toss out but apparently don’t read.

            Pay attention because here is where we dig into language: “yet no harm follows” is no harm to the woman. And “he shall be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him” – remember, if I get pregnant from a one-night stand, that doesn’t mean we are married. There is no husband. Nor does the passage say “the man who impregnated her”.

            You really suck at this.

            AND since we don’t follow Sharia, Jewish, or Christian law in this country, we follow Constitutional and case law, kinda pointless to post something that has nothing to do with abortion.

            But I’ll give you a cookie, pat on the head and a “nice try”.

          • Pererin

            As I said, laws change. But God never changes. So if the law changes saying that after the age of 70, people must be put to death, you would support it because it is lawful? I understand the law, but it is not my moral compass. Not the constitution either. God, He is my master not men’s ever changing decisions.

            You have a pretty skewed view of that passage. You conveniently missed out verses 23-25. The injury is implied for woman and baby when read fully.

          • feloneouscat

            As I said, laws change. But God never changes. So if the law changes saying that after the age of 70, people must be put to death, you would support it because it is lawful?

            No, because it violates my Constitutional rights under the 9th and 14th Amendment (at a minimum).

            I understand the law, but it is not my moral compass. Not the constitution either. God, He is my master not men’s ever changing decisions.

            Okay, so if God and the Bible are perfect, why does the Bible mention two ways that Judas died? Hanging or falling over in a field? Kind of mutually exclusive unless you do a rewrite. Ever changing is the Bible.

            You conveniently missed out verses 23-25. The injury is implied for woman and baby when read fully.

            Here is the entire passage because you obviously can not read:

            “If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

            Okay, lets parse this out: “hurt a woman with child yet no harm follows….BUT if harm follows you give a life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe”

            Okay, this passage is obviously talking about a woman and whether she is harmed or unharmed. Since there is one man (“he shall”) and there is “life for life” it means the man’s life for the woman’s life.

            The rest pretty much falls along those lines.

            It obviously means the woman and the man, as babies, even premature ones, seldom have teeth. Even 2000 years ago they pretty much knew that.

            Obviously the fetus is not a life (it has not drawn breath) nor can the man give TWO lives as he only has one (1 life for 1 life).

            You have a pretty skewed view of that passage.

            No, it’s not skewed, it’s understanding English. Remember it says: “hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely” – it says NOTHING about hurting the fetus (besides, the child is born prematurely).

            However, childbirth was (and actually still is) a dangerous thing. Premature childbirth even more so since they didn’t have they nice wonder drugs. Women died. A lot. This passage is about how IMPORTANT it was that a woman remain alive. Many cultures had taboos against killing women for this very reason.

            So, no, it isn’t skewed. You just think it says something that it doesn’t.

          • Pererin

            The constitution hasn’t always existed had it? One day it will be replaced, as I said, laws change.
            Again you twist the Bible. There are no two different versions of Judas death. There are two reports by two different people giving additional information and therefore different information, but they build one account. There are different accounts of Jesus crucifixion but they do not contradict they add information building the report.
            I suggest instead of glorying in the opinions and misinformation spread by Jesus haters, Goggle answers to Bible contradictions. There are many websites that give the other side, the informed side by people who have studied the Bible without a poisonous agenda.
            Wow, you partially base you reading on babies teeth? You really are a master twister. These verses teache that those who cause injury are responsible for their actions, even if the harm was unintentional. Therefore, this passage is the biblical model for any principled unborn victims of crime act. However, if the harm to the unborn in Exodus 21:22 spoke only of miscarriage, the teaching would then support legalized abortion by valuing the life of a fetus only with a fine, and only if the mother later died, would her death require taking the criminal’s life. But note the word used to describe the consequence of the crime described in Exodus 21:22, “If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely,” the Hebrew word for miscarriage, shaw-kole, is NOT used. If the baby came out dead, a monetary fine would indicate a less than human value for the life of the fetus. However, because Exodus 21:22 says premature birth, and not miscarriage, the passage does not support a right to kill an unborn child, as contended by many like yourself who mistranslate this text. Rather, the text values the unborn child’s life equal to that of any other person.

          • feloneouscat

            There are no two different versions of Judas death.

            There are two different versions. You just don’t know your Bible.

            There are two reports by two different people giving additional information and therefore different information, but they build one account.

            Ah, this is the part called “making things up about the Bible that aren’t in there”. This is what happens when people point out the inconsistencies – you end up “reinterpreting God’s word”.

            You are no better than a liar.

            I suggest instead of glorying in the opinions and misinformation spread by Jesus haters, Goggle answers to Bible contradictions.

            Rather than trust stupid answers from people who don’t take their medications, I go to a theologian who actually knows the Bible. He’s 80 years old and I respect him very much.

            He was the one that pointed out that there are many contradictions in the Bible. That is one of them.

            Exodus 21:22 is not talking about miscarriage, it is talking about injuring the woman. Your inability to read relatively simple English leaves a lot to be desired.

            Let me explain because you are in your insular Man-Cave where nothing but Man-Information apparently enters: pregnancy is one of the most dangerous acts a woman can commit to. Last year alone saw about 800 deaths in the US – double that of Canada.

            A woman’s chance of dying due to pregnancy is 1 in 5500.

            Women die due to pregnancy. But you see it as being easy-peasy and safe. It isn’t. It’s dangerous.

            During Biblical times, death was even more frequent. Your ignorance about pregnancy is why you fail at understanding the Bible – you base it on your belief that pregnancy is safe.

            It isn’t. Welcome to the real world.

          • Pererin

            Wow, please give me an answer? A long winded ‘I’m right and you’re wrong’ is not acceptable. Isnt that what you have been telling other posters here? We you give up on twisting you resort to, ‘no you’re wrong’! Brilliant

          • feloneouscat

            Give you an answer to what? Obvious questions? Or that “God’s unchanging law” has been reinterpreted and changing for 2000 years?

            I twist nothing, it is you who keeps making things up. Perhaps if you knew more about our physiology and why pregnancy was not a risk-free endeavor, you would understand my point of view.

          • Pererin

            All you have said here is that the interpretation of God’s word has changed? This is where you twist.

            Man’s interpretation of God’s word has changed. Of course, this happens every hour!
            God’s word though, has never and never will change.

            Perhaps you can explain to me why pregnancy should be treated as a death sentence to women when it clearly isn’t.

          • feloneouscat

            All you have said here is that the interpretation of God’s word has changed? This is where you twist.

            No. I just have lived longer than you have. In the 60’s life began at birth, not conception. Everyone held this viewpoint.

            Perhaps you can explain to me why pregnancy should be treated as a death sentence to women when it clearly isn’t.

            More women died from pregnancy than people were executed – in the last 15 years in the United States.

            A woman is 3,636 times MORE likely to die from pregnancy than from terrorists.

            A woman is more likely to die from pregnancy than die from:

            o Firearms Discharge
            o Exposure to Excessive Natural Heat
            o Cataclysmic Storm
            o Air and Space Transport Incidents
            o Exposure to Electric Current, Radiation, Temperature and Pressure
            o Contact with Sharp Objects
            o Contact with Hornets, Wasps and Bees
            o Contact with Heat and Hot Substances
            o Being Bitten or Struck by a Dog
            o Lightning Strike

            (from National Safety Council)

            Most men think pregnancy is safe. Idiots.

          • Pererin

            More feminist (men hating) twisting of information. Pregnancy is not a death sentence. Of course pregnancy is dangerous, do I need to tell you what is more dangerous? Abortion. Abortion is literally a death sentence. Secular Feminists love to ignore this fact because it gets n the way of their selfish agenda.

            The way you speak about men, doesn’t sound very positive either. I could accuse you of sexist beliefs, having an opinion that women are higher than men. By I would never sink to these secular feminist tactics that have littered your posts.

          • feloneouscat

            Feminists are not man haters.

            That’s just stupid.

            Secular Feminists love to ignore this fact because it gets n the way of their selfish agenda.

            As opposed to your selfish agenda? You can’t even get pregnant. You would never have the vague possibility of dying from pregnancy. Yet you want forced births.

            The way you speak about men, doesn’t sound very positive either.

            It’s not about men, it’s about you.

            By I would never sink to these secular feminist tactics that have littered your posts.

            I’m Buddhist, and all my posts following my religious beliefs. Sorry if my religion tops your religion in my eyes.

          • Pererin

            Well then, please explain your reasons for allowing the killing of life in the womb.
            Your opposition in this discussion have been secular feminist statements.

            Your words were aimed at men, not me.

            “Men do not trust women to make the right decision. They only trust men to make the right decision.”

            “Most men think pregnancy is safe. Idiots.”

            These are your words.

          • feloneouscat

            “Men do not trust women to make the right decision. They only trust men to make the right decision.”
            “Most men think pregnancy is safe. Idiots.”

            I should have said “Most men” in the first sentence.

            Other than that, yes, this is pretty much accurate.

            You didn’t know how dangerous it was until I told you (although you won’t admit it).

          • feloneouscat

            More feminist (men hating) twisting of information.

            Blah blah blah. You are on this “man hating” kick.

            Pregnancy is not a death sentence.

            Except when women die. Then I guess it IS a death sentence. But you don’t care about that. Forced birth for all is your motto!

            Secular Feminists love to ignore this fact because it gets n the way of their selfish agenda.

            Unlike you who can’t get pregnant pushing an agenda for forced births? Tell me again who is being selfish?

            The way you speak about men, doesn’t sound very positive either.

            I think there are a lot of very brilliant and great men. You just don’t happen to be one of them.

            I could accuse you of sexist beliefs, having an opinion that women are higher than men.

            You DO realize that you just accused me of sexist beliefs? Nor did I say anywhere that I believed women were “higher than men” (what the hell is that supposed to mean? Stoned?).

            By I would never sink to these secular feminist tactics that have littered your posts.

            So calling someone who is not a secular feminist a “secular feminist” is what? You have always treated the phrase as a pejorative.

            NOW you are attempting to argue you didn’t do any of it?

            You are seriously mental.

    • gizmo23

      So what is your solution? The Pro life movement has not moved the needle for 40 years

  • OldGP

    If this is what christianity looks like spare me.

    • Rebecca

      Care to elaborate?

    • bowie1

      Do you support the violence that occurs inside their walls with the taking of life every day?

      • OldGP

        There is no violence and no taking of life.

        • Rebecca

          You lie.

        • bowie1

          Are you saying abortion does not take place at that facility?

        • OldGP

          No, I did not say that. It is shown again here that it is impossible to have a meaningful discussion with people of limited vocabulary and understanding. Have a nice day.

          • Rebecca

            Only because you have no heart or apparently a brain.

          • OldGP

            Standard answer by people that believe in pie in the sky. Still no signs of intelligent life.

          • Rebecca

            Do you believe in evolution?

          • OldGP

            Absolutely.

          • Rebecca

            So you don’t believe what people from 2000 yrs ago say happened 2000 yrs ago, but you believe what someone from 2015 says happened 4 billion yrs ago? LOL

          • OldGP

            That’s funny. People from 2000 years ago passed on stories to their descendants for about 20 generations before 400 or so years later a few people started to write it down in a rudimentary fashion. In the next 1600 years many different versions were created heavily influenced by whatever political motivation reigned supreme at that time. If I present a set of facts to one individual and it comes back to me after it has been passed on through 5 others I already hardly recognize the facts as i presented them anymore. So no, I don’t believe these stories. Science on the other hand observes phenomena and conducts experiments to generate data that explain them. Those are facts. Science has provided explanations for many phenomena which before were thought to be actions of some supra natural being, and will continue to do so.

          • Rebecca

            LOL

          • Claire Michael

            I love how gave her this thought out response and all she has is LOL … Its probably akin to when someone says something to you and you don’t understand so you smile and nod.

          • MamaBear

            Writing with the alphabet dates back to about 3800 years ago.
            The New Testament was written 2000 years ago by people who witnessed the events. We have fragments to within a generation after the originals, quotations in other writings to within a generation, and The Codex Sinaiticus contains the whole New Testament and is over 1600 years old and it is identical to the Greek manuscripts used to make modern translations.
            We have proof ancient Israel used writing before tenth century BCE, personal letters on potsherds and bulla that sealed papyrus scrolls, portions of the Torah on metal scrolls before the Exile, and then the Dead Sea Scrolls from 200 BCE to 70 AD. These are proof that the Old Testament could have been written down well before the exile and that the Old Testament of 2000 years ago is the same as the Old Testament of today.
            All of the above is verified by legitimate archaeologists and scholars in ancient languages.
            Please do not take your history of the Bible from fiction writers like Dan Brown.

          • Claire Michael

            You know it’s based on science right…..with loads of evidence.
            It’s not hearsay. LOL.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Good work, Rebecca.

          • Kandy

            Inside your head I agree that there is no sign of indigence.

          • OldGP

            Even though you use the word wrong I completely agree, which I am sure is not what you intended. Try again.

          • Kandy

            Heartless. Unkind.Loss of Humanity. I’m not the beat at spelling so I’ll leave it at this.

          • Kandy

            I think I corrected it.

          • Claire Michael

            I see you can’t spell intelligence

            Can you at least spell ironic?

          • Kandy

            Thank you:) The best way to learn something is to be corrected by others :} Otherwise we never learn. Again thank you. Thank you for being kind to me about it:) I will correct it this time . I hope.

          • Claire Michael

            Your welcome. When your trying to insult someone’s intelligence you kind of end up looking silly if you can’t spell the word right.

          • Kandy

            I guess even Grandmas are bad. At least in your book of belittling others:)

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Kandy, you and Rebecca did a really nice job of making the pro-abort responses disappear – nice work!

            2 Corinthians 10:1-18

          • Kandy

            Thank you very much 🙂

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            I enjoyed reading through it. We are seeing that nonsense “natural death in the womb means we are justified in abortion” argument more and more. By such “logic,” crib death means we are justified in smothering infants, and cancer deaths mean we can knock off everyone in an oncology ward. 🙁

          • Kandy

            Ironic 🙂 Ironic 🙂 Ironic 🙂 Ironic 🙂 Ironic 🙂 Ironic 🙂 IRONIC 🙂

          • Claire Michael

            I see you can spell it, gold star for you. Hopefully you are able to understand the irony of what you did.

          • Kandy

            Grandmas are too dense to understand.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Rebecca, you and Kandy did a really nice job of making the pro-abort responses disappear – nice work!

            2 Corinthians 10:1-18

          • feloneouscat

            Nice work at censorship!

            The KGB would be proud!

        • Pererin

          An embryo is a developing baby. It can’t magically transform into ‘official human person baby thing’ after a certain stage of development, such obsurd and illogical reasoning with absolutely no grounds for believing. Abortion is cold blooded murder. No question.

          • feloneouscat

            Abortion is cold blooded murder. No question.

            Except if it WERE murder, do you not think that the Supreme Court would have said so? Instead, they said it was a Constitutionally protected right.

            Oh, and by the way, one can only be murdered if one is a person. A fetus is not a person according to the law. You only get rights as a person once you are born.

            But you have constantly and consistently shown ignorance about law and the definition of words. About the only thing you are good at is emotional rhetoric.

          • Pererin

            Why do you persistently appeal to the law of men? Men have performed horrific acts on one another all within the lawful limits of their times. God is my moral compass and when men change the law beyond Gods limits I stand firm within Gods limits. Do you not belief this too as a Christian?

          • feloneouscat

            Because in the United States that is the law that we go by.

            And because you have yet to point out anything in the Bible that is correct.

            I’m a Buddhist as I do not believe Jesus to be my savior. But I do believe in a god. Certainly one who is far more loving than yours.

            But I refuse to speak for her unlike you.

          • Pererin

            No we do not got by the law solely. If the law is in error we must do all we can to change it.

            Where I have given Biblical evidence you have twisted and contorted to suit your belief. You cherry pick and ignore parts that go against you view.

            Your God is another discussion altogether, all I will say is that I disagree on whose God is more loving.

          • feloneouscat

            Where I have given Biblical evidence you have twisted and contorted to suit your belief. You cherry pick and ignore parts that go against you view.

            No, your “Biblical” evidence is lame and falls apart under even slight scrutiny.

            I don’t cherry pick. I DO examine the evidence. And I have been arguing theological arguments for nigh 40 years. So it kind of helps.

            The problem with the RTL folks is that they turn to the Bible and anything that seems to indicate womb they jump on like a cat on a junebug.

          • Pererin

            Please stop making things up. What scrutiny? You only look at one side of the arguement, the side that suits you. You have offered absolutely nothing that stands up, so I don’t know what you have been doing for 40 years, certainly hasn’t helped here. All I see is indoctrination, twisting and blind faith.

          • feloneouscat

            Please stop making things up.

            Indoctrination? From who? I live in Texas, not a Blue State.

            You’re confusing thinking and understanding with indoctrination. They are not synonyms.

            Everything I have pointed out is correct because you are totally ignorant about women. You do not know how dangerous pregnancy is (1 in 5500 women die). You do not know how dangerous pregnancy was in Biblical times. Women had a 1 in 40 chance of dying. This is why there is such a strong law when injuring women.

            So, yes, I have made a very strong case based on facts.

          • Pererin

            Why should Texas make any difference? You are evidence of this. Why does female death rate matter? Any idea of the death rate of babies undergoing abortion? Much higher than 1 in 5500, much higher than 1 in 40. You refuse to care about developing babies.

          • feloneouscat

            Why does female death rate matter?

            And THIS is the problem.

            Yes, indeed, why would a woman worry about dying?

          • Pererin

            To you maybe, but again you take my words totally out of context. You attempt to take them out of context as you do the Bible to imply another meaning. I could easily say to you that you clearly don’t care about babies from your s statements in this discussion, but that is obviously untrue. I sure you do love babies, but your indoctrination into this secular world has lead you to ignoring, and condeming to death unborn babies.

            We are Discussing the situation were a massive number of babies are being murdered. Your only response seems to be that women risk dying unless we go ahead with abortion as we see it today. While this is horrible because of the continuation of the abortion holocaust, I could respond in kind saying, you hate babies, you don’t care about babies as you did to me. Do you also suggest we encourage women’s do not have children altogether because of the risk to death?

            I see right through your dishonest response and suggest you take a look at why you are responding in this fashion. Do you doubt you belief but are afraid to face it?

          • feloneouscat

            To you maybe, but again you take my words totally out of context. You attempt to take them out of context as you do the Bible to imply another meaning.

            This seems to be an accusation you CTRL-V a lot, but sans proof, is pretty weak.

            I could easily say to you that you clearly don’t care about babies from your s statements in this discussion, but that is obviously untrue. I sure you do love babies, but your indoctrination into this secular world has lead you to ignoring, and condemning to death unborn babies.

            Abortion has nothing to do with being secular or not. Plenty of good Christians have abortions (plenty of your female friends have had one, they just never told you).

            This is the problem and one that you are not willing to acknowledge: women die from pregnancy. We know that, but apparently you guys never got the memo.

            No woman should ever have to put her life at risk for a pregnancy that she doesn’t want.

            But that’s what YOU want. Forced births.

            And your whole argument rests on a belief that you think the Bible says that life begins at conception when nowhere, no verse, NOTHING says that it does. Your argument rests on a concept that is about 40 years old and is so stupid, so rife with flaws and errors, that you ignore them.

            We are Discussing the situation were a massive number of babies are being murdered.

            No babies are being murdered. Zygotes and embryos are being aborted, but since they do not have personhood, they are not murders. Nor can you give a zygote or embryo personhood because that would then set women up as murderers when they spontaneously abort (1/3 of all pregnancies are spontaneously aborted or, as you call it, miscarriage).

            I see right through your dishonest response and suggest you take a look at why you are responding in this fashion.

            Your emotional rhetoric (“slavery”, “holocaust”) does not mean I must respond in kind.

            Your only response seems to be that women risk dying unless we go ahead with abortion as we see it today.

            Yes, women die during pregnancy – and yet you still do not seem to act as if we might find the thought of death somewhat disturbing – especially if we are not ready to start a family.

            Perhaps rather than discuss your fetus fetish, you should think more about women as people.

          • Pererin

            There was no copy and paste accusation, so don’t worry about that.
            Unfortunately many/most Christians indulge in world activities. It is a real problem for us. It doesn’t mean it is approved by God any more than a Christian who says they are gay.

            Again, drop the secular man hating feminism! It is so inaccurate. Of course men realise the dangers of pregnancy. That’s not the problem here. The problem is that you choose to ignore the death sentence of abortion. Of course women die in child birth and you happily given me the numbers to back that up. Would you like to give me the number of children who have died through abortion please?

            Abortion being murder has been around for thousands of years. The church fathers taught it a little under 2000 years ago. The Jewish Sanhedrin of the Bible stated it thousands of years before that. Did your secular feminist indoctrination give you that information? Of course they didn’t.

            The information is all out there for you. You just have to look outside your secular feminist sources. I don’t have a problem with women. We are equal, I’ve stated this many times. But you choose to ignore it. You have the inequality problem, the equality of a baby in the womb. You hate it maybe as much as you seem to hate men!

          • feloneouscat

            There was no copy and paste accusation, so don’t worry about that.

            Yes it is. Go back through your posts. Your argument is that I take your words, the Bible and everything else “out of context” – yet when I point out the context you blithely ignore it because it doesn’t fit your world view.

            It doesn’t mean it is approved by God any more than a Christian who says they are gay.

            Nor is that a problem. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that homosexuality is a sin. Discouraged, yes, but not a sin. And I’m pretty sure if your God were all powerful he would be able to prevent any homosexuals.

            Again, drop the secular man hating feminism! It is so inaccurate. Of course men realize the dangers of pregnancy.

            I don’t believe I ever said I hated men, so I would ask you to not put words in my mouth. It is quite obvious that men do not know or recognize the dangers of pregnancy or they would force women to carry to term.

            You didn’t know how bad the odds were until I posted them. I’m sure you spent a lot of time validating that I spoke the truth.

            Would you like to give me the number of children who have died through abortion please?

            Zero. Because a child is one who is born.

            Abortion being murder has been around for thousands of years. The church fathers taught it a little under 2000 years ago.

            You need to do some reading. Prior to the late 19th century, abortion was legal until the fourth month (the “quickening” – which is also the term the Jews called it during Christ). So, no, the church fathers didn’t teach it.

            The Jewish Sanhedrin of the Bible stated it thousands of years before that.

            Well… technically, yes and no. The woman’s life STILL takes precedence over the life of the fetus. Did abortions occur? Of course they did. Were they wrong? No.

            The information is all out there for you. You just have to look outside your secular feminist sources.

            d

            Sorry, one thing about having lived a long life is that I know things that you do not. Consider much of this information that you will ignore because you think I’m a “radical feminist”.

            I don’t have a problem with women.

            You most certainly do. Nor did you know how high the risk was that a woman would die from pregnancy. All of this information was, likewise, available to you, but you choose to ignore it. You don’t bother to LISTEN to women who had abortions because this would upset you world view. Nor do you listen to it now.

            Instead you want to paint me as some form of “radical feminist” – a convenient label for someone who expects equal rights.

            We are equal, I’ve stated this many times.

            Then here is a thought if we are so equal: worry about your man parts. Let women worry about whether or not they will have an abortion or method of contraception (which you should be pushing as it prevents abortion). Stop pushing your religious extremism as if everyone is required to believe as you do.

            And stop calling women who exercise their equal rights “radical feminists”. There is nothing radical about my exercising my rights.

            You have the inequality problem, the equality of a baby in the womb.

            This is where your argument fails.

            A woman and the embryo/fetus are not peers. You have a screwed up view of how things work if you think adults and the unborn are peers. It is a laughable argument.

            You hate it maybe as much as you seem to hate men!

            I don’t hate anyone.

            But I dislike stupid people.

          • Pererin

            Again, there was no copy and paste accusation? Taking things out of context is different to copying and pasting.

            Once again, we disagree. Homosexuality in the Bible is clearly wrong and punished by God. Ignoring or twisting bits of the Bible doesn’t make them untrue.

            If you really don’t hate men, you aren’t doing yourself any favours.

            “Men do not trust women to make the right decision. They only trust men to make the right decision.”

            “Most men think pregnancy is safe. Idiots.”

            These are your words, yet you don’t hate men? You keep telling me I have a problem with women with no evidence other than your secular feminist dogma, yet you spew the above words, no you don’t hate men!

            I don’t need to put words in your mouth, you have clearly stated your position on men.

            I didn’t know the odds did I? How do you know that? Because I’m an idiot man? Of course I know the dangers of pregnancy and labour. Your sexist views on men are typical of your secular feminist practices.

            Wrong answer. Abortion is literally a death sentence, or do you deny that the foetus is alive as well as the foetuses right to personhood too?
            Ignore these things to fit your world view as much as you like, it doesn’t deny the murder happening over and over and over every day.

            I need to do some reading? Do I? I’ll give you a few quotes as a head start then hopefully you can do the rest as I don’t believe you have done much reading, or at least no reading outside sources that support your view.

            Barnabas: “You shall not kill either the fetus by abortion or the new born” (Letter of Barnabas, circa 125AD)

            Athenagoras: “We say that women who induce abortions are murderers, and will have to give account of it to God. For the same person, would not regard the child in the womb as a living being and therefore an object of God’s care and then kill it…. But we are altogether consistent in our conduct. We obey reason and do not override it.” Petition to Emperor Marcus Aurelius (121-180 CE), circa 150AD

            Tertullian (circa 155 – 225AD): “…we are not permitted, since murder has been prohibited to us once and for all, even to destroy …the fetus in the womb. It makes no difference whether one destroys a life that has already been born or one that is in the process of birth.”

            There are many more examples and clearly by their statements, the church fathers thought abortion to be murder. Your information is incorrect.

            I thought that as you have lived so much longer than I have and that you have access so to someone who has lived even longer and has a qualification that you would have come across this information, or you and your contact have decided to ignore it.
            Someone as young as me could possibly have found this information before two people of such great wisdom collected of so many years!

            Can you see how highly you incorrectly hold yourself and your friend. Age doesn’t always bring wisdom. Age can also breed ignorance when the chosen path is wrong. You can travel down a really long road and still end up in the wrong place. Sure, you might have a lot of information, but is that information wisdom? In your case it doesn’t seem so. The good news is, you can turn around and get back onto the correct road.

            I believe you be a secular feminist because of your own words. To you, and secular feminism, abortion seems to be all about the woman. It is not. You and secular feminism refuse to acknowledge the life that has been created. Ignoring the offspring created and developing inside the womb might help you feel better about your beliefs, but not everyone is like you. Throughout our discussion I have pointed out that the saving lives is my problem with abortion. The gender of the mother has no baring on the discussion. If men had wombs my opinion would be the same. Equality is not what secular feminism wants. Secular feminism wants to beat down men and keep them down. Taking power not sharing power. when this carries over to the abortion issue, the choice of the woman is pushed to the forefront. The life in the womb is seen as insignificant. This is the problem I have with secular femism and is my problem with your views.

            I have a reason for believing life in the womb to be equal to our lives. I have shown you why I disagree with current abortion law.
            But through this discussion you have not once given me a reason for your upholding of abortion law. Why do you believe that life in the womb doesn’t deserve to be considered a person as you and I do? Science cannot give any support to either of us as there cannot be a point of life starting outside what we ourselves declare. So what are the reasons for your beliefs on abortion?

          • feloneouscat

            Once again, we disagree. Homosexuality in the Bible is clearly wrong and punished by God. Ignoring or twisting bits of the Bible doesn’t make them untrue.

            And yet you can not find an instance where it is said that it is a sin. Quite the dilemma… And if it was that big a deal, why did Jesus totally ignore it? Just like abortion, he just skipped over those and went for the poor, the hungry and the abused.

            These are your words, yet you don’t hate men? You keep telling me I have a problem with women with no evidence other than your secular feminist dogma, yet you spew the above words, no you don’t hate men!

            Nope. My husband tells me frequently, “men are idiots” – including himself.

            So, no, I don’t hate men.

            I didn’t know the odds did I? How do you know that? Because I’m an idiot man? Of course I know the dangers of pregnancy and labour. Your sexist views on men are typical of your secular feminist practices.

            Not have you ever mentioned it – as if it wouldn’t be on a woman’s mind. Now why is that?

            Because you either didn’t know the odds or, far worse, you didn’t think it important.

            Yet, in spite of that, you are for forced birth. Because 1 in 5500 women dying is good enough for you as long as there are no abortions.

            There are many more examples and clearly by their statements, the church fathers thought abortion to be murder. Your information is incorrect.

            Okay, you are an idiot with access to the internet. Lose lose for the internet.

            When you see “fetus” that usually means about 12-16 weeks. Do your homework and stop misrepresenting what people said as backing you up.

            So, yes, you lose again because you don’t read.

            Age doesn’t always bring wisdom. Age can also breed ignorance when the chosen path is wrong.

            He is a Reverend and you are what again? Oh, right a nothing.

            Perhaps, rather than talk about people you don’t know with a supercilious attitude, we might go back to you insulting me:

            I believe you be a secular feminist…

            At this point I don’t even think you know what a secular feminist is. It’s just your slur against women who actually believe they have equal rights.

            The rest of you post is just more noise. You have no argument. You lie repeatedly about the Bible (and can produce little that backs you up) then drag up quotes from dead men when women were considered property.

            And, of course, you ignore the fact that at the time of these quote, the death rate from pregnancy was 1 in 40.

            But you have pointed out that you care little about the life of women, just the fetus.

          • feloneouscat

            No we do not got by the law solely. If the law is in error we must do all we can to change it.

            In this case the law is the Constitution.

            Knock yourself out.

          • Pererin

            Well I’m glad people like William Wilberforce and Martin Luther King didn’t get a pep talk from you. We would never have seen the progress they made if not for changing the system in front of them. It’s possible, you just don’t want the killing to stop for your precious but deadly world view.

          • feloneouscat

            Why do you persistently appeal to the law of men?

            Because those are the only laws that govern all people of the United States, whether they are Christian or not.

            God is my moral compass and when men change the law beyond Gods limits I stand firm within Gods limits.

            Then don’t have an abortion. You get one body and you don’t get to rule other people.

        • Kandy

          It is killing a Human Life. You can deny the Humanity of the Unborn. But you can not take away their Humanity.

          • OldGP

            BS

          • Kandy

            What is that?

    • Pererin

      What, attempting to stop the murder of children? I know, so evil!

      • OldGP

        which children?

        • afchief

          The ones inside a woman’s womb!

        • Pererin

          The ones you are tragically ignoring in the womb.

  • OldGP

    Are you of such limited understanding that that is necessary?

  • feloneouscat

    This is not Christianity. Violence is never the answer.

    Nor do you blame people who were doing nothing illegal for getting shot.

    Perhaps she might blame the shooter?

    • Rebecca

      You speak of violence, but then support abortions. Silly child.

    • Pererin

      Thank you, you are absolutely correct, violence is not the answer, so let’s stop the slaughter of these defenceless children.

      • feloneouscat

        Abortion is a medical procedure, it is not violence.

        Children are born. No one is slaughtering defenseless children.

        Emotional rhetoric is not an argument. Abortion (at the moment) is Constitutionally protected medical procedure. Calling it violence is just another lie.

        • Pererin

          I beg you to look into the procedures used in abortion. They are utter violence and slaughter. Babies are ripped to pieces, chopped up. Please look into this, it is shocking.

          • feloneouscat

            Yes, I’m in my 50’s. Do try to tell me something that I don’t know.

            They are not “utter slaughter”.

            Again, your use of emotional rhetoric doesn’t change the fact that it is a medical procedure.

            Or do you want to tell me about the “violence” in heart transplants?

          • Pererin

            That’s terrible, you come an intricate, delicate life saving medical procedure to a medical procedure that rips a baby to pieces with the intention to kill. They couldn’t be more different. Indeed, you should know better at 50!

          • feloneouscat

            I’ve know plenty of women who have had abortions (I never did). One went on to save hundreds of lives as an EMS nurse. Another went on to have a child when she wanted one with the person she loved.

            You are arguing that a LAW should determine what should be a WOMAN’S choice based on YOUR religion.

            Pretty selfish of you. How about you just control your own body?

          • Pererin

            Do you use that arguement against judges convicting murderers too? My God not my religion is the basis my beliefs and is also the basis of the constitution that you keep bring up as gospel so I don’t see your problem there, only when it tells you not to do something you really want to do. A lot of women have done wonderful things. Women are wonderful indeed. But they should have a choice in the death of a baby. This is what I call selfish, killing a baby because they are inconvenient or unwanted.

          • feloneouscat

            Do you use that argument against judges convicting murderers too?

            Let us get this straight. Abortion is not murder. Not in US Law, not in Biblical Law.

            My God not my religion is the basis my beliefs and is also the basis of the constitution

            The Constitution is not based on God, Christianity, or gospel. You’re just making things up now.

            Women are wonderful indeed.

            But you don’t trust them. You don’t trust them to make the best choices for themselves, so you want to legislate their choices to fit your religious views.

            But they should have a choice in the death of a baby.

            Emotional rhetoric again – look, a baby is one that is born. Women are not committing infanticide. That’s what was allowed in the Bible (true, go look it up: Psalm 137:9 – killing of Babylonian infants as being fair and just).

            It’s called my body, not yours. A woman stands a 1 in 5500 chance of dying due to pregnancy. That is my reality.

            You have indicated over and over you do not really care about women at all. What you care about is their progeny.

            This is what I call selfish

            You know what is selfish? Believing that your religious views should govern others. Over and over you have proclaimed, in large letters:

            OTHERS SHOULD BELIEVE AS I DO BECAUSE I AM SELFISH

            You’ve not asked what others wanted, you do not care. You see only what YOU WANT. You don’t even bother to ask what others NEED.

            That is because you are selfish.

    • Kandy

      And Abortion is Violence against the Unborn. Violence should never be used against the Unborn Human Life.

      • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.anziulewicz Chuck Anziulewicz

        At ANY point in pregnancy? Taking Plan B is violence?

        • feloneouscat

          I’m sure some would argue an IUD is violence. They are crazy with no concept of the meaning of words.

      • feloneouscat

        A fetus or embryo has no rights – only the born have rights. For example, if a Mexican woman is impregnated by a Mexican man in the US and gives birth their child is American. If she gives birth in Mexico, that child is Mexican.

        Birth is our standard, not conception.

        Since there is only one legal person in cases of an abortion (the woman having the abortion) there is no violence. She is having a legal and safe abortion.

  • http://www.facebook.com/chuck.anziulewicz Chuck Anziulewicz

    As long as abortion is a legal medical procedure, Ms. Windholz’ comments are irrelevant. Terminating a pregnancy is not violence.

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      “As long as abortion is a legal medical procedure, Ms. Windholz’ comments are irrelevant. Terminating a pregnancy is not violence.”

      As long as slavery is a legal practice, Frederick Douglass’ comments are irrelevant. Whipping a slave is not violence, because a slave is not a person.

      • feloneouscat

        As long as slavery is a legal practice

        Except a fetus is not a slave.

        This is the dumbest comparison and yet I keep seeing it raised over and over as if it is a legitimate argument.

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          What? You do not understand the argument by analogy very well. The point is that Chuck’s comments could equally have applied to slavery 160 years ago.

          BTW, slavery and abortion are even more directly related: in order for a woman to agree to killing her offspring, she must first think she’s owns them as property.

          You should think more deeply before posting.

          • feloneouscat

            What? You do not understand the argument by analogy very well. The point is that Chuck’s comments could equally have applied to slavery 160 years ago.

            I understand analogy quite well.

            Reread Chuck’s comment and explain to me how any of it applied to slaves?

            BTW, slavery and abortion are even more directly related: in order for a woman to agree to killing her offspring, she must first think she’s owns them as property.

            No.

            For a woman to have an abortion she must believe that she has the right to privacy and the right to determine her biological future; the right of bodily autonomy.

            So far, you have not established that women do not have the right to bodily autonomy. You have made a weak argument, but have proven nothing.

            Your argument is that the embryo has priority over the woman; that the woman is merely a walking host for the embryo with no thought or control.

            What you deny is the very meaning of humanity to women.

            You should think more deeply before posting.

            I suggest you think before posting.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “I understand analogy quite well. Reread Chuck’s comment and explain to me how any of it applied to slaves?”

            This just shows that you do not understand argument by analogy at all. Chuck made an argument in favor of abortion, which I showed was an equally poor analogous argument made in favor of slavery. That is precisely the point. I am surprised you STILL do not understand something so simple.

            “So far, you have not established that women do not have the right to bodily autonomy.”

            A woman’s bodily autonomy has absolutely nothing to do with the distinctly different body of the child in her womb. Just so you know, bodily autonomy is being abandoned as an argument for abortion in the same way that bodily autonomy does not apply to a man raping a woman: there are TWO human bodies involved in both cases.

            “Your argument is that the embryo has priority over the woman”

            False. That is not the pro-life argument at all. Human lives have equal rights. it is the pro-abortion argument that values these lives unequally. YOUR argument is that the woman can treat the human in her womb as her property and kill him or her. That is quite reprehensible, in a moral sense.

            “What you deny is the very meaning of humanity to women.”

            Not at all. I deny the right of a woman to kill the child in her womb. YOU, on the other hand, deny the humanity of that child, and in so doing, you deny Human Biology 101.

            I am glad you waited 5 days before posting – you at least thought about it.

          • Guest

            Everyone knows you rejoice at forced births.

            Everyone gets it.

          • feloneouscat

            This just shows that you do not understand argument by analogy at all. Chuck made an argument in favor of abortion, which I showed was an equally poor analogous argument made in favor of slavery. That is precisely the point. I am surprised you STILL do not understand something so simple.

            Because it isn’t an analogy.

            It is impossible to make embryos analogous to slaves. No amount of pushing that square peg into that round hole will do so.

            A woman’s bodily autonomy has absolutely nothing to do with the distinctly different body of the child in her womb. Just so you know, bodily autonomy is being abandoned as an argument for abortion in the same way that bodily autonomy does not apply to a man raping a woman: there are TWO human bodies involved in both cases.

            Sorry, bodily autonomy is not being abandoned because law. You can not force me to bear a child, no matter how much you think it is a good idea. In the same way you can not force me to donate a kidney, even if it will save the President of the United States.

            Rape…

            Only a man would compare rape to pregnancy.

            Not at all. I deny the right of a woman to kill the child in her womb.

            Your argument is that you do not trust women to make that best decision for themselves based on your belief system and want the State to get involved to force them to give birth.

            This takes away agency and in doing so it denies women their humanity.

            I am glad you waited 5 days before posting – you at least thought about it.

            On the other hand, you apparently still have not bothered to understand that you wish to deny women the right of being human.

            What a woman does with a zygote/embryo/fetus is her own business. Not yours, not the State’s, not the person next door and it kills you that they have that freedom.

            False. That is not the pro-life argument at all. Human lives have equal rights. it is the pro-abortion argument that values these lives unequally.

            But a woman is inherently not equal to a fetus. Your argument fails because there is no inherent equality. A born child is inherently not equal to an adult (this is US Law as well as Biblical Law). The forced birth contingent fails both logic as well as inherent understanding of biology.

            If this is the BEST argument at your disposal, it is no wonder you fall back on wretched attempts at analogies.

            it is the pro-abortion argument that values these lives unequally. YOUR argument is that the woman can treat the human in her womb as her property and kill him or her. That is quite reprehensible, in a moral sense.

            My argument is that it is none of your damn business. I don’t care what you do with your body. You shouldn’t be messing with mine.

            The stupidity of the forced birth people is that they believe that it has always been “life begins at conception” when, in fact, that is about a 40 year old meme.

            YOU, on the other hand, deny the humanity of that child

            First, are all of you forced birthers just dumb? A child is born. Prior to birth it is a zygote/embryo/fetus. And, yes, I will call it that because those words are specific to the unborn.

            You, on the other hand, wish to use emotional rhetoric and flawed logic in attempt to sway. You misuse words, by intent, you use flawed comparisons, even going so far as to compare rape to pregnancy.

            You. Don’t. Think.

            For you five days or fifty would not matter: you can’t create a cogent argument.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Because it isn’t an analogy.”

            Yes, it is.

            “It is impossible to make embryos analogous to slaves. No amount of pushing that square peg into that round hole will do so.”

            False. A woman and her abortionist must believe that the child in the womb is the property of the woman in order to kill him or her.

            Furthermore, the analogy was not even that: it was to Chuck’s argument from legality, which applies equally poorly to slavery and abortion.

            “You can not force me to bear a child, no matter how much you think it is a good idea. In the same way you can not force me to donate a kidney, even if it will save the President of the United States.”

            None of that grants you the “right” to kill another human. And that is abortion.

            “Only a man would compare rape to pregnancy.”

            Only a deranged woman would claim bodily autonomy for herself to kill her baby while denying bodily autonomy for a man to rape.

            “Your argument is that you do not trust women to make that best decision for themselves based on your belief system and want the State to get involved to force them to give birth.”

            Haha – the “best decision” to do what?!? Kill her baby, that’s what. Try this on for size to show how ridiculous that argument is:

            Your argument is that you do not trust slaveowners to make that best decision for themselves based on your belief system and want the State to get involved to force them to free their slaves.

            Another analogous point that you doubtless do not understand. 🙂

            “On the other hand, you apparently still have not bothered to understand that you wish to deny women the right of being human.

            How so?!? How is telling you that you can’t kill your baby (inside or outside of the womb) denying you the right to be human? Sounds like you are the one denying someone the right to be human: the innocent baby in the womb. Sick!

            “What a woman does with a zygote/embryo/fetus is her own business.”

            What a plantation owner does with a slave is his own business. You are in “good” company with all of those who have legitimized barbaric atrocities across history.

            “A born child is inherently not equal to an adult (this is US Law as well as Biblical Law).”

            Both are given the right to life, however. In fact, your argument backfires on you, since apparently you are using the age of the human in the womb to deny her the right to life. Not logical!

            “My argument is that it is none of your damn business.”

            That’s what the concentration camp guards said to the locals who asked what was happening in there. 🙁

            “You shouldn’t be messing with mine.”

            Not messing with yours – just trying to get you to quit “messing with” (killing) others. 🙂

            “they believe that it has always been “life begins at conception” when, in fact, that is about a 40 year old meme.”

            Now you are denying Human Biology 101?!? Well, I guess it takes that to be on the wrong side of the Abortion Holocaust.

            “A child is born.”

            Do pro-deathers not even own dictionaries?!?

            child

            [chahyld]

            NOUN [PLURAL CHIL·DREN.]

            1. a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for children.
            2. a son or daughter: All my children are married.
            3. a baby or infant.
            4. a human fetus.
            5. a childish person: He’s such a child about money.

            No charge for educating you. 🙂

            “For you five days or fifty would not matter: you can’t create a cogent argument.”

            Well, one of us can’t, hehe. 🙂 OK, so since you have no choice but to use euphemisms and irrational arguments to support your baby sacrifice, here is some abortion video. I DARE you to watch it (just take the space out of the URL):

            http://abortioninstruments .com/

          • feloneouscat

            Yes, it is.

            If it is an analogy, explain to me what labor the fetus is performing. Slavery in the United States was to perform labor without being paid.

            A woman and her abortionist must believe that the child in the womb is the property of the woman in order to kill him or her.

            The zygote/embryo/fetus is not a person.

            None of that grants you the “right” to kill another human. And that is abortion.

            That is merely emotional rhetoric. It totally disregards that the odds of a woman dying in the United States from pregnancy is 1 in 5500. There is a very good reason for not being pregnant.

            Only a deranged woman would claim bodily autonomy for herself to kill her baby while denying bodily autonomy for a man to rape.

            Do you not own a dictionary? Babies are those that are born.

            Are you justifying rape?!?!

            That’s what the concentration camp guards said to the locals who asked what was happening in there. 🙁

            So your argument is now that my body is not under my control? What about your body? Should we decide what you can and can’t do with it?

            Now you are denying Human Biology 101?!? Well, I guess it takes that to be on the wrong side of the Abortion Holocaust.

            Jumps from Slavery to Nazi’s. You guys can’t create a cogent argument. Just emotional ones.

            Do pro-feathers not even own dictionaries?!?

            Anti-women dolts love to tell us what words mean. Fortunately, we have the dictionary to tell us what they really mean.

            Definition of Child
            Oxford English Dictionary and American Oxford English Dictionary:

            child |CHīld| noun (pl. children |ˈCHildrən| )

            a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.

            • a son or daughter of any age.

            • an immature or irresponsible person: she’s such a child!

            • a person who has little or no experience in a particular area: he’s a child in financial matters.

            • (children) the descendants of a family or people: the children of Abraham.

            • (child of) a person or thing influenced by a specified environment: a child of the sixties | OPEC was in a sense a child of the Cold War.

            So, no. But good attempt.

            OK, so since you have no choice but to use euphemisms and irrational arguments to support your baby sacrifice, here is some abortion video.

            Wow… baby sacrifice isn’t emotional rhetoric? You are a nut job. But, of course, what nutty-emotional-Nazi/Slavery rhetoric isn’t complete with the requisite abortion video?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “If it is an analogy, explain to me what labor the fetus is performing. Slavery in the United States was to perform labor without being paid.”

            You are confusing an identicality with an analogy. Chuck argued that abortion should be allowed because it was legal, and I showed the fallacy in such thinking by pointing to slavery. The point about the woman and abortionist is merely icing on the cake. So, let me make this simple for you – here is Chuck’s argument:

            1. If something is legal, it should be allowed.
            2. Abortion is legal.
            3. Therefore, abortion should be allowed.

            The argument is logically sound, but morally repugnant:

            1. If something is legal, it should be allowed.
            2. Slavery is legal. (circa 1800’s America)
            3. Therefore, slavery should be allowed.

            1. If something is legal, it should be allowed.
            2. Jew gassing is legal. (circa 1940’s Germany)
            3. Therefore, Jew gassing should be allowed.

            Of course, Chuck specifically sought to silence this lawmaker’s opinions on abortion, which would be equivalent to silencing William Wilberforce or Frederick Douglass on slavery and Dietrich Bonhoeffer or Pastor Niemoller on the mistreatment of Jews.

            Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

            “The zygote/embryo/fetus is not a person.”

            Prove it! Thus far, no one has been able to show that there are humans who are not persons in a scientific sense, so good luck on that one! Please note, moreover, that you follow in a long line of morally depraved people who denied personhood to certain humans who clearly ARE persons. You are in “good” company. 🙁

            “There is a very good reason for not being pregnant.”

            There is never a good reason to kill a baby. Except in the minds of moral degenerates.

            “Do you not own a dictionary? Babies are those that are born.”

            Really?!? I leave that absurd statement to my colleague to destroy:

            “If you can either call or email these guys to let them know that “they’re so obsessed with fetuses to the point of calling them babies”, I’ll consider becoming a pro abort like you:

            http://www .nlm .nih .gov/medline…
            http://www .mayoclinic .org/heal…
            http://www .babycenter .com/preg…
            http://www .parents .com/pregnan…
            http://www .webmd .com/baby/ss/s…
            http://americanpregnancy .org/w…

            et al, to let them know that if they don’t stop referring to a fetus as an “imaginary” baby, they’ll be seriously making you look silly. *Be
            sure to contact all the obgyn’s who do the same. I know my OB always referred to my babies when they were in the womb, as babies. Please let all these doctors know that they are “obsessed with fetuses to the point of calling them babies”.” — PJ4

            You’re welcome. 🙂

            “Are you justifying rape?!?!”

            Not at all. It is your side that does that. Did you not know that abortion mills are the favorite places for rapists because they can have their “evidence” destroyed there?

            My argument was that if a woman gets to kill her baby based on “bodily autonomy,” then a man gets to rape a woman based on HIS bodily autonomy. So, it is actually your argument that justifies rape, and that is no surprise, since so many rapists use abortion clinics.

            “So your argument is now that my body is not under my control? What about your body? Should we decide what you can and can’t do with it?”

            Yes, we should decide that I cannot use the excuse of bodily autonomy to justify rape or murder or burglary. There are always limits to what we can and cannot do with our bodies – and our rights disappear when others’ right get taken away, as happens in the cases of abortion and rape.

            “Jumps from Slavery to Nazi’s. You guys can’t create a cogent argument. Just emotional ones.”

            Well, abortion has a lot in common with both slavery and the Holocaust, as I showed in my argument above. Here is another one:

            “It’s legal, I have the right to choose, it should be allowed for economic reasons, they aren’t human, it’s better for them too, who are you to force your religion on me?” Is this a 21st century Democrat defender of the “right” to abort or a 19th century Democrat defender of the “right” to own black people? Answer: Both.

            So, you have a couple of dictionaries that leave off fetus and I have a couple that don’t. What is your point? You like “baby” better?!? OK, see my links above and refer to yourself as a baby sacrificer instead of a child sacrificer, if that makes you feel better. 🙂

            “You are a nut job.”

            Emotional, much? 🙂

            “with the requisite abortion video?”

            So, did you:

            A. Not watch the video?
            B. Watch the video, but was unmoved by it? Or,
            C. Watch the video, was moved by it, but cannot change your view even when your ideology comes face to face with its victims?

          • feloneouscat

            Chuck argued that abortion should be allowed because it was legal, and I showed the fallacy in such thinking by pointing to slavery.

            Slavery which is illegal per the Constitution.

            But, let’s play-pretend you actually have an analogy… you then run into the problem that a fetus has no personhood – it has no rights. An abortion doesn’t even fall into the category of murder because you can only murder those who are people.

            There are always limits to what we can and cannot do with our bodies…

            However you wish to argue that I may not have an abortion because of a potential that doesn’t exist. Worse, your group also wants to argue that contraception is so close to being something like abortion (it isn’t) that it should also be outlawed.

            I’ve been down this road. You have not.

            Emotional, much? 🙂

            No. Not really. I certainly don’t rely on fallacious analogies to “prove” a point.

            Well, abortion has a lot in common with both slavery and the Holocaust, as I showed in my argument above.

            No, it does not. You made no argument, just a bunch of rambling that went no where.

            Look, if you call it a “bun in the oven” it doesn’t mean that the embryo is actually a bun or that the uterus is an oven. Yet this is what you are attempting to argue.

            So, did you:

            I make it a rule not to watch or read propaganda.

            However, have I known and talked with friends who have abortions, yes. What much of the propaganda tends to neglect is the pregnant woman. Most of you don’t even know that pregnancy is a risky business, pretending that it is risk free.

            Your ignorance about half of the human race is pathetic.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Slavery which is illegal per the Constitution.”

            So is abortion. But, the point is that it was not always legal, and just as many people could not see any problem with it because it was legal, so, too, can you not see the atrocity of abortion because it is legal.

            “But, let’s play-pretend you actually have an analogy”

            Thanks for the concession! It’s not my analogy – it was proposed long ago.

            “you then run into the problem that a fetus has no personhood”

            Prove it! Thus far, no one has been able to scientifically prove that there are certain human beings who are not persons. The fact that the law does not grant personhood to the preborn is not a good argument, as the law also did not grant personhood to black people or Jews. Since you cannot scientifically prove that the preborn human (or any human) is not a person, we should always err on the side of caution, lest we end up with a holocaust of 60 million.

            “However you wish to argue that I may not have an abortion because of a potential that doesn’t exist.”

            Calling a human life a “potential” is tremendously morally repugnant. It would mean that you were only a potential once – that you somehow existed but only as a potential. How hypocritical and arrogant.

            “Worse, your group also wants to argue that contraception is so close to being something like abortion (it isn’t) that it should also be outlawed.”

            How so?!? True contraception is not abortifacient. It is contra-CEPTION, not contra-human life. I’m not familiar with anyone advocating for making true contraception illegal, but that is completely different from abolishing the killing of human life in the womb.

            “I’ve been down this road. You have not.”

            How do you know that?!? Mind reader?

            “I certainly don’t rely on fallacious analogies to “prove” a point.”

            Fallacious arguments are all your side has. And those arguments are dropping like flies.

            “No, it does not. You made no argument, just a bunch of rambling that went no where.”

            I gave you three arguments each with two premises and a conclusion, and you call them “ramblings” just because you do not understand them?

            “Yet this is what you are attempting to argue.”

            I’m not arguing anything about buns or ovens, just that if Chuck’s argument that “legal makes moral” were true, then we would still have slavery. Slavery was once legal, but never moral.

            “I make it a rule not to watch or read propaganda.”

            That’s a “yes, I know it is wrong, but cannot give up my ideology” from you!

            How do you know it is propaganda if you don’t watch it?!? Also, you must read your own posts, and they are all propaganda. I think that the reason you do not have the courage to watch an abortion video is that you are afraid that your ideology will come face-to-face with its victims. In which case, you will be forced to change your ideology or deny its victims – and neither one is what your feelings will allow.

            “Your ignorance about half of the human race is pathetic.”

            Somebwody got her feewings hurt. 🙂 What is really pathetic is that the over half of all abortions are done on the half of the human race that you claim to care about.

          • Joe Soap

            “”Slavery which is illegal per the Constitution. So is abortion”

            It is? Where?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Amendment 14, Section 1.

          • Joe Soap

            Wording?

          • feloneouscat

            Actually, WGC, that is wrong.

            The THIRTEENTH Amendment abolished slavery. Wording:

            Section 1.

            Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

            Section 2.

            Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

            For someone who talks a lot about slavery you know zip about it.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Re-read the thread – you goofed. The question is NOT which amendment abolished slavery. See if you can figure out what it is. For a stalking troll, you are not so smart.

          • feloneouscat

            Well, the 14th didn’t make abortion illegal. That was done by individual states and was not based on the 14th.

            In fact, the 9th and the 14th were used to determine that anti-abortion laws were unconstitutional.

            So slavery was the 13th and abortion was by individual states.

            Tell me a gain how the 14th made abortion illegal?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Read it. At least you have the correct amendment now. 🙂

          • Elie Challita

            WGC, we get it that you’re morally opposed to abortion. That’s your position, and while I disagree it’s certainly yours to hold.
            However, abortion is currently legal. What’s more, denying a woman access to abortion has been deemed unconstitutional. You might not hold much stock by the laws of men, but most of society does live by them.
            If you want to eliminate legal abortions, then you have one of two choices:
            1- Pass a constitutional amendment explicitly granting personhood to fetuses, and banning abortions for any reason (or with very few exceptions).
            2- Armed violence to forcibly close all medical centers providing abortions, as well as physically punishing anyone performing them, seeking them, or advocating for them.

            The first approach, while the moral one in your opinion, is unlikely to garner much public support considering that 58% of the US population thinks that voluntary abortions should be allowed. The second one makes you a terrorist.

            In either case the artificial restrictions being imposed on women’s access to abortions and medical care are illegal and should be treated as such. Disingenuous attacks like the alleged PP videos are simply a cowardly underachiever’s attempt at option 2, as far as I’m concerned.

            So which one are you for?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “However, abortion is currently legal.”

            Slavery was once legal, as was Jew gassing. And it was not “enlightened” atheists who ended slavery and the slave trade, so what’s your point?

            “Having for most of my life believed that our acceptance of equality–racial, class, gender–was the result of the overthrow of past superstitions and prejudice by reason, I was perplexed: why had the fight against slavery, and the concern for aboriginal peoples, been so overwhelmingly the province of religious? … Hume, Voltaire, and Kant saw the African–the non-European, generally–as beyond the category of human to which the European belonged; race concerned them (particularly Kant) only to the extent that it could show the superiority of the European. It was not the philosophies of Paris or Edinburgh or East Prussia who fought slavery, but the evangelical Christians and Quakers who drew their inspiration not from philosophy but from ‘superstitious religion’. It was from the Evangelical Revival that the loudest claims for what we now call racial equality came.” — non-Christian historian Robert Kenny

            I want you to re-read that paragraph closely, and decide if perhaps this is a tremendous flaw in the atheistic worldview (for most but not all atheists) – and one that merits a revisiting of it on your part? In addition, do I need to get out the stats on which worldview contributes more to charitable causes, even secular charitable causes?

            “What’s more, denying a woman access to abortion has been deemed unconstitutional.”

            By reversing the burden of proof on personhood – as is admitted by even those who were arguing in favor of abortion at the time. The ends really do justify the means for wicked men. Happened with slavery and civil rights too.

            “You might not hold much stock by the laws of men, but most of society does live by them.”

            What laws have I violated?

            You should spend some time on Live Action News. The arguments you put forward in favor of abortion “rights” are routinely dismantled over there. There are better arguments to make, although none of them are good.

            I am for your first option. But, since pro-aborts are typically nasty violent Democrats, I see another Civil War in our future.

            “In either case the artificial restrictions being imposed on women’s access to abortions and medical care”

            Killing babies is NOT medical care. Except in the minds of the depraved.

            “Disingenuous attacks like the alleged PP videos”

            Go to LAN – those videos have been forensically tested and found to be rock solid. You just cannot handle the fact that your false ideology has come face-to-face with its victims, so you must deny the evidence rather than change your ideology. Happened with slavers too.

            Nowhere is PP suing CMP for what the high ranking PP executives said on that video. I am surprised that a smart guy like you is not more discerning in an area of human rights. Have you watched the video I linked to you? It’s not a CMP video. Have you ever watched ANY video of any abortion or looked a the dismembered babies resulting from abortions?!? I find it hard to believe that you could be this callous, but, as you say, so are the majority. That was once true for slavery and the slave trade too.

            BTW, Elie: you used the term “terrorists” some in your reply. Now, as you recall, nearly 3000 Americans lost their lives in the 9-11 terrorist attack. Suppose that happened every day in America – 3000 innocent human lives were destroyed. Surely you would call that organization “terrorists.” Well, it does happen, Elie, and the name of the group of terrorists are called “abortionists.” Since you support them, what does that make you, Elie?!?

          • feloneouscat

            My turn:

            Slavery was once legal, as was Jew gassing. And it was not “enlightened” atheists who ended slavery and the slave trade, so what’s your point?

            1. Fetuses are not slaves. There is no analogy there. Just pure stupidity.
            2. Fetuses are not Jews who are being gassed.

            Christians Against Slavery

            Again, this is a non-point. A fetus is not a slave and is not viewed as such.

            By reversing the burden of proof on personhood – as is admitted by even those who were arguing in favor of abortion at the time. The ends really do justify the means for wicked men. Happened with slavery and civil rights too.

            A pregnant woman and a fetus are NOT in a peer relationship. The woman is a person. Period. The fetus is not. No country I know of grants personhood at conception. Women have personhood by the act of birth. There IS no “reversing the burden of proof” – because there is nothing to reverse.

            Killing babies is NOT medical care. Except in the minds of the depraved.

            No one is killing babies. That is merely one of your twisted groups lies. An embryo is not a baby. That’s why we call it an embryo. It is also not a bun (as in “bun in the oven”).

            Nowhere is PP suing CMP for what the high ranking PP executives said on that video.

            Actually, they are in court right now and depending on how it works out, CMP could be looking at a) privacy violations b) criminal conspiracy to defraud c) racketeering d) violation of confidentiality agreements that they signed… so, no, it’s not going well for CMP. To be fair, they’ve tried to do some very interesting, if hilariously stupid, legal stunts.

            But, yes, they are in court and yes, CMP is getting its ass whipped. If they lose the racketeering (which is highly likely), they will pay triple the damages. That’s what lying gets you.

            Go to LAN – those videos have been forensically tested and found to be rock solid.

            OR do what I do and go to the women who actually had abortions and talk with them.

            Have you ever watched ANY video of any abortion

            Yes I have. I also know that 1/3 of abortions occur at or prior to six weeks. 89% occur before 12 weeks.

            That was once true for slavery and the slave trade too.

            There is no analogy here with slavery. Seriously, you need to get off it.

            Well, it does happen, Elie, and the name of the group of terrorists are called “abortionists.”

            See, here is the problem with you dolts: you don’t know what words mean. A woman having an abortion is not terrorism. A man shouting “baby parts” and shooting up a Planned Parenthood site is terrorism.

            Terrorism: the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims. (Oxford English Dictionary)

            So, no, women having abortions is not terrorism. It’s just you proving you don’t know what the word means.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Fetuses are not slaves.”

            Actually, they are in the minds of pro-aborts. You gotta own them before you can kill them. But, the argument you made was that legal makes moral, and I just disproved you using slavery.

            “Fetuses are not Jews who are being gassed.”

            Again, you made the argument that legal is moral, and I disproved you once again – this time using Jew gassing. You’re welcome.

            “Christians Against Slavery Again, this is a non-point. A fetus is not a slave and is not viewed as such.”

            Oh, where, oh where were those atheists when it came time to end slavery?!? 🙂

            “A pregnant woman and a fetus are NOT in a peer relationship.”

            All humans have a basic human right to life. Sorry your parents failed to teach you basic ethics.

            “The fetus is not.”

            Prove it!

            “No country I know of grants personhood at conception.”

            Mexico, Poland. But, even if none did, that still does not make it moral to withhold personhood from certain humans. There is a long history of atrocities in doing so, and you are a part of it right now. Enjoy the limelight – in 50 years, people will be running around saying “How could ANYONE have been FOR abortion,” and you will be nodding in agreement and pretending you were against it all along.

            “There IS no “reversing the burden of proof” – because there is nothing to reverse.”

            Even pro-abort lawyers admit that the Roe decision was pathetic and did indeed reverse the burden of proof.

            “An embryo is not a baby.”

            Nice goalpost shift from fetus to embryo. 🙂 Tell it to these “science-y organizations” – I will let another pro school you here:

            “If you can either call or email these guys to let them know that “they’re so obsessed with fetuses to the point of calling them babies”, I’ll consider becoming a pro abort like you:
            http://www .nlm .nih .gov/medline…
            http://www .mayoclinic .org/heal…
            http://www .babycenter .com/preg…
            http://www .parents .com/pregnan…
            http://www .webmd .com/baby/ss/s…
            http://americanpregnancy .org/w…
            et al, to let them know that if they don’t stop referring to a fetus as an “imaginary” baby, they’ll be seriously making you look silly.

            *Be sure to contact all the obgyn’s who do the same. I know my OB always referred to my babies when they were in the womb, as babies. Please let all these doctors know that they are “obsessed with fetuses to the point of calling them babies”.” — PJ4

            “But, yes, they are in court and yes, CMP is getting its ass whipped.”

            Which means nothing. Courts decided Dred Scott too. So, you are agreeing with me that nowhere is PP suing CMP for what the ghouls at PP said on that video, do I have you correct?!?

            “OR do what I do and go to the women who actually had abortions and talk with them.”

            Right, because feelings and emotions trump science and logic for pro-aborts like you. Can’t let the images of your victims get in the way of your ideology, huh?

            “Yes I have.”

            And you are still for it?!? You are a sick, cruel, compassionless person. Other than that, you are kinda fun – in a Josef Mengele kinda way. 🙂 (just take the spaces out in this link – quite entertaining job by New Wave Feminists.)

            http://nortonsafe .search .ask .com/search?q=new%20wave%20feminists&ctype=videos&geo=&prt=cr&o=apn10506&chn=&ver=&v=JDKdStRl_EE

            “There is no analogy here with slavery. Seriously, you need to get off it.”

            Sucks when you realize that many of the same arguments used for slavery are being used for your own pet cause, huh?!?

            “It’s legal, I have the right to choose, it should be allowed for economic reasons, they aren’t persons, it’s better for them too, who are you to force your religion on me?”
            Is this a 21st century Democrat defender of the “right” to abort or a 19th century Democrat defender of the “right” to own black people? Answer: Both.

            “Terrorism: the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.”

            We aren’t talking about the woman, we are talking about the abortionist. Tsk, tsk – shifting the goalposts again. Nice try, nice fail. You better believe it is for political, and monetary, which is always linked to political, aims. If you doubt this, look at the contributions from PP to the Demon-crap Party.

          • feloneouscat

            Actually, they are in the minds of pro-aborts. You gotta own them before you can kill them.

            Again, you argue that there is a peer relationship between a fetus and the mother. There is not.

            This is why your whole “fetuses are just like slaves” is absurd. It’s just plain dumb. It’s like saying free health care is slavery.

            Dumb.

            Again, you made the argument that legal is moral, and I disproved you once again – this time using Jew gassing.

            No. You make a false argument that abortion is somehow immoral. You have yet to prove it. Nor will I assume it is based on your weak arguments. You have nothing.

            Again, a fetus is not a Jew in Nazi Germany. Or a slave in Nazi Germany. Or any other stupid combination that you can come up with.

            Oh, where, oh where were those atheists when it came time to end slavery?!? 🙂

            I found several just using Google. I suggest you do the same. Look under “abolitionists”.

            Mexico, Poland. But, even if none did, that still does not make it moral to withhold personhood from certain humans.

            Mexico: that’s a nope. In 2007 Supreme Court of Mexico upheld a Mexico City law the that decriminalized abortion up to 12 weeks. States are allowed to control abortion, but as I said, it is not national.

            Poland: “Several international human rights bodies have found that the Polish government’ failure to ensure women’s access to abortion even when the law permits it violates women’s fundamental rights.”

            Violating human rights. That is what you see as being a “perfect world”?

            So, you are agreeing with me that nowhere is PP suing CMP for what the ghouls at PP said on that video, do I have you correct?!?

            And precisely what would they sue for? Someone took words and rearranged them? That’s not illegal. However, what IS illegal is invasion of privacy, violating agreements, and racketeering.

            The problem here is you don’t understand enough law to understand what is and is not illegal.

            Right, because feelings and emotions trump science and logic for pro-aborts like you.

            You seem to be the one who is running away with the ridiculous emotional rhetoric, with fetuses as slave or Jews.

            Meanwhile I post reasons why women fear pregnancy. I talk to women about their abortions.

            Not being about to support a child tends to be pretty high on the list.

            By the way, I’m pro-Choice, not pro-abortion. Please represent my position correctly rather than through your skewed filter.

            And you are still for it?!? You are a sick, cruel, compassionless person.

            Clinical footage is far less dramatic than your silly antiabortion flicks.

            Sucks when you realize that many of the same arguments used for slavery are being used for your own pet cause, huh?!?

            Forced births? No.

            Inability for women to control their destiny? Yes.

            Which puts you, again, on the wrong side of the argument.

            Is this a 21st century Democrat defender of the “right” to abort or a 19th century Democrat defender of the “right” to own black people? Answer: Both.

            Pray, where did I say anything about owning black people?

            No where.

            Making things up is one thing but carrying on a rational and cogent argument seems to be beyond your ken.

            Instead you want to make emotion and highly charged accusations – accusations that are both baseless and silly.

            We aren’t talking about the woman, we are talking about the abortionist. Tsk, tsk – shifting the goalposts again.

            Doctors who perform abortions don’t do them randomly. Women pay them to perform the service. There is no violence, no intimidation, and certainly no political aims.

            No goalposts were moved. You just don’t understand the meaning of words. You use terrorism when you don’t know what it means. Then when someone explains it to you, you argue that is somehow moving the goalposts.

            You have no argument, just repetition of a stock phrase that doesn’t apply. Do you even understand what “moving the goalposts” means?

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Again, you argue that there is a peer relationship between a fetus and the mother. ”

            Strawman. never argued it. Glad to see you are admitting that women who have abortions believe that their pre-born babies are their property.

            “This is why your whole “fetuses are just like slaves” is absurd.”

            Strawman. Never said it. You said that legal makes moral, and I proved you wrong with slavery and the Holocaust. You just cannot admit you were wrong.

            “You have nothing.”

            That’s a “yes!” 🙂

            “The problem here is you don’t understand enough law to understand what is and is not illegal.”

            No, the problem is that you are so morally depraved you do not understand basic morality, compassion, and human rights – nor do you understand the difference between legality and morality.

            “Meanwhile I post reasons why women fear pregnancy. I talk to women about their abortions.”

            Emotions and feelings is all you have. Not science or logic. You know that abortion kills a human life – you just cannot admit it, because then you would have to change your ideology, and you just will NOT do that.

            “Not being about to support a child tends to be pretty high on the list.”

            So you advocate killing them?!? Why do pro-aborts always leave out the adoption option. “Better dead than adopted” should be your motto.

            “By the way, I’m pro-Choice, not pro-abortion.”

            Nope, I am pro-choice, and you are anti-choice (for the child in the womb). I am pro-choice about chocolate, cars, and the schools I send my kids to. You are anti-choice about rape and murder. Aren’t you?!? (Perhaps you are not.) Even PP has given up on that silly line of pro-choice. But, keep using it – it shows how disingenuous pro-aborts are. 🙂

            “Clinical footage is far less dramatic than your silly antiabortion flicks.”

            Killing is killing – at least you admit it – you just don’t know it is wrong. Unbelievable!

            “Forced births? No.”

            Really, telling a woman she can’t kill the child in her womb is “forced birth?” You have a strange love of homicide.

            “Inability for women to control their destiny? Yes.”

            What about the child’s destiny?!? (BTW, the destiny of the mother who signs off on the death of her baby and the abortionist who kills the babies is Hell – lest they repent. Just sayn.)

            “Pray, where did I say anything about owning black people?”

            The same arguments used for slavery are the ones used right now for abortion – and by the same political party no less. You really do not understand analogous logic. Back to school time for you.

            “Doctors who perform abortions don’t do them randomly. Women pay them to perform the service.”

            Who said that terrorists are random?!? The fact that abortionists get paid to kill makes it that much worse.

            “There is no violence, no intimidation, and certainly no political aims.”

            How callous you are to ignore what happens to a baby in an abortion – the violence. You better believe there are political aims: the same party that advocated slavery now advocates abortion.

            “You have no argument”

            That’s another “yes!” Thanks for making my day! 🙂

          • feloneouscat

            Glad to see you are admitting that women who have abortions believe that their pre-born babies are their property.

            Straw man as I never said that.

            You said that legal makes moral, and I proved you wrong with slavery and the Holocaust.

            Straw man as I never said that.

            No, the problem is that you are so morally depraved you do not understand basic morality, compassion, and human rights – nor do you understand the difference between legality and morality.

            Ad hominem fallacy.

            Emotions and feelings is all you have. Not science or logic.

            No, I explained the odd of dying during pregnancy. That is a fact. You explain your emotional feelings about it – that is not a fact.

            You lack either science or logic yet argue you are using both. You are just silly.

            Nope, I am pro-choice, and you are anti-choice (for the child in the womb).

            And how would you have the fetus make a choice? Is this more of your alleged logic?

            Killing is killing – at least you admit it – you just don’t know it is wrong.

            Forced births is your solution.

            Really, telling a woman she can’t kill the child in her womb is “forced birth?

            So you admit you are pro-forced-birth.

            What about the child’s destiny?!?

            There is no child until birth.

            (BTW, the destiny of the mother who signs off on the death of her baby and the abortionist who kills the babies is Hell – lest they repent. Just say.)

            Good luck finding the Biblical passage that indicates this. So you can “just say” all you want, but I actually know my Bible.

            The same arguments used for slavery are the ones used right now for abortion – and by the same political party no less. You really do not understand analogous logic. Back to school time for you.

            Okay, first, you do not understand analogies. I’ve tried to be nice, but you really are pretty dense to not understand that a slave and a fetus are not in analogous positions. First, a slave may be bought and sold or, even, set free. Second, a slave is not connected to the masters body – if the master is killed, the slave does not die.

            Your weak, and it is horribly weak, attempt to argue that a slave is property in the same way as a fetus is property is just dumb. An automobile is property, yet you do not argue that a fetus is like an automobile.

            I shan’t continue with this stupid argument. If you are incapable of seeing how the two are NOT analogous the problem lies in you, not in me.

            Who said that terrorists are random?!?

            Again, you use the word “terrorist” incorrectly. Explain to me who is being terrorized? What is the political motive?

            How callous you are to ignore what happens to a baby in an abortion – the violence. You better believe there are political aims: the same party that advocated slavery now advocates abortion.

            Again, there is no violence. Your emotional outrage at a medical procedure is absurd.

            Supporting abortion rights is not a political cause: abortion is a Constitutional right. That was decided in Roe. You are confusing people (and yes, women are people) exercising their rights with the politics of people attempting to prevent them from exercising their rights.

            That’s another “yes!” Thanks for making my day! 🙂

            No, it was pointing out that you have no argument. Your only justification is that “you don’t like it”.

            That, in a nutshell, is your argument.

            Never mind the fact that you will never, either willingly or unwillingly, ever become pregnant. Never mind the fact that for you the concept of pregnancy is “what women have to endure”. Never mind the fact that pregnancy is risky in the U.S.

            Nowhere is PP suing CMP for what the high ranking PP executives said on that video.

            Planned Parenthood is now suing CMP. Two of the people of CMP are charged with Federal crimes by a grand jury in Texas (yes, Texas).

            This is reality.

          • feloneouscat

            Thanks for the concession! It’s not my analogy – it was proposed long ago.

            Yes, back in the 70’s and it was dumb then as it is now.

            Age didn’t make it any better. In fact, it now looks like the rubbish that some half-wit dreamed up.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Did the pro-abort get her feewwings hurt by losing an argument?

    • afchief

      Where is it legal? Abortion is not legal anywhere in America. There is no Federal Law on the books regarding abortion. None! There is a “Supreme” Court opinion called Roe v Wade, but that is merely an opinion…not a law! They just tell us that it is and we believe them, follow the lie, and teach it to others.

      In fact, if you were to ask any judge anywhere to show you the abortion law, he or she would have to refer you to state law because that is the only place you will find any law regarding abortion. In 30 U.S. states abortion is illegal. In the other 20 states it is legal only with exceptions for the life or health of the mother.

      Access to abortions of “convenience” is illegal in all 50 states. A “Supreme” Court decision cannot and does not change the law. They just tell us that it does, and we, like gullible subjects, believe them.

      Planned Parenthood has been violating the law in all 50 states and should be closed, and all of the directors and abortionists should go to prison as accessories to murder. That is the law of the land, and that is the Truth.

      • Ambulance Chaser

        Afchief: Commenting by CTRL-V since 2015.

        So, where are all the women being prosecuted for having abortions, if they’re not legal?

        • afchief

          You really are dense!!!! A “Supreme” Court opinion called Roe v Wade, is merely an opinion…not a law! They just tell us that it is and we believe them, follow the lie, and teach it to others. IT IS NOT LAW!!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Yes, you keep saying that. So the truth is one of three things:

            1) That’s how it works.
            2) Thats not how it works and 100% of the American legal system is deluded.
            3) 1 and 2 are indistinguishable.

          • afchief

            Then show me where the law is written in the Constitution? Show me where it is written in the states constitutions.

            Waiting…………………………………………………

          • Ambulance Chaser

            It’s not. That’s what case law is for.

            Anyway, why don’t you answer my question? Why does every government official on every level obey Supreme Court rulings?

          • afchief

            Yes, you are NO lawyer!!!! For the umpteenth time!!! They tell us that it is law and we believe them, we follow the lie, and teach it to others. IT IS NOT LAW!!!! It is NOT written anywhere!!!!! WE ARE BELIEVING LIES!!!

            A law that is not written is NO law!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Still waiting for an answer to my question. All state and federal officials are deluded, and only you know the way our government works?

          • afchief

            I have answered your questions numerous times. For instance since the SCOTUS says homos can marry, where is it written that they can? Why do the states Constitutions still state marriage is between one man and one woman? Why hasn’t Congress amended the Constitution to reflect this?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Because they don’t need to; Obergefell is binding, which is what I’ve been trying to tell you all along.

          • afchief

            OMG!!!! Where is it written that it is a law?

            And you call yourself a lawyer????????????

          • Patrick Van Der Ven

            You called me a liar on another site and left. So here is the proof you that again it is Aramaic. The language of Jesus.
            Here we go The spelling Yahshua (יהושע) is found in Hebrew texts transliterated as Yothe He Waw Shin Ayin. The Hebrew Bible uses Yehoshua (יְהוֹשֻׁעַ for Joshua, which means “Yah is Salvation.” Christians, historians, and linguists outside the sacred name movement for the most part reject the term Yahshua (יהשע) in favor of Yeshua (ישוע) as the original pronunciation. Tal Ilan’s Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity (2002), notes Yehoshua (יהושע), and the later Aramaic form Yeshua among many names containing Yah derived from YHWH. Guess what Atchief Jesus and his disciples and inhabitants of Judaea spoke Aramaic

          • afchief

            Stop following me! You are a liar and there is NO truth in you. NONE!!!

          • Patrick Van Der Ven

            Sorry dude you disappeared in during a debate. You said Satan was my father. I needed to counter your 4th grade Hebrew. You’re just a fraud and a liar lol. End of story bye.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            It’s not “written that it is a law.” It’s a Supreme Court ruling, interpreting a Constitutional Amendment. It is informally known as “case law,” but what you call it is irrelevant. It’s binding.

          • afchief

            Bye! I’m tired of dealing with stupidity!!!!!

          • feloneouscat

            No, what you’re tired with is dealing with someone who understands law better than you do. You want someone to repeat your delusions as if they were true.

            Not going to happen.

          • afchief

            Then show me where the law is written in the Constitution? Show me where it is written in the states constitutions.

            Waiting…………………………………………………

          • feloneouscat

            It IS the Constitution you dolt!

          • afchief

            Then show me where the law is written in the Constitution? Show me where it is written in the states constitutions.

            Waiting…………………………………………………

          • feloneouscat

            Read the 9th Amendment. I have rights that aren’t mentioned specifically by the Constitution.

            Antiabortion laws violated my rights. Supreme Court agreed.

            Antiabortion laws were struck down.

            That is why abortion is legal. My repeating all of this won’t change the answer.

          • afchief

            WRONG!!!! It has NOTHING to do with the 9th amendment. NOTHING!!! If the SCOTUS determined that abortion was a woman’s right, then the legislative branch would have to amend the constitution just like they did with a woman’s right to vote.

            KNOW YOUR CONSTITUTION!!!!

            It’s called Judicial Tyranny!!!

          • feloneouscat

            I do know the Constitution and SCOTUS has the right to judicial review. Do you know what that is?

            It’s isn’t Judicial Tyranny, it’s doing their job under the Constitution.

          • afchief

            I swear the more I converse with liberals the more I see it truly is a mental disorder!!!!!

            The SCOTUS is supposed to only hear cases the may violate or come in conflict with the federal constitution period!!!!!!

            Now tell me, in 1973 the states had in their Constitutions (and still do) that abortion is illegal in accordance with the 10th amendment. Where in the federal constitution was there a right to abort a human life?

            Also, the states had in their constitutions that marriage was between a man and a woman in accordance with the 10th amendment. Now tell me, where is marriage mentioned in the federal constitution?

          • feloneouscat

            The SCOTUS is supposed to only hear cases the may violate or come in conflict with the federal constitution period!!!!!!

            Which is what happened with Roe v Wade. Women (who I’m pretty sure you don’t quite grasp are human beings) were having their rights denied by anti-abortion laws.

            SCOTUS ruled the anti-abortion laws violated the Constitution.

            They did their job. What is your problem?

          • afchief

            Show me where in the Constitution abortion is mentioned? What part of the Constitution was violated?

            If you say the 14th amendment I will shoot that done in a heartbeat.

          • feloneouscat

            What part of the Constitution was violated?

            Ninth says: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

            What this means is that I have the right to an abortion even thought the Constitution doesn’t mention it. Why? For the same reason I have the right to drink to excess, dance silly, or have plastic surgery.

            What the Ninth is saying is that I have my rights (as one of “the people”) and the fact the Constitution doesn’t mention them doesn’t mean they are not a right.

            The Fourteenth has the Due Process Clause usually used to prevent one group of people from being denied their rights in favor of another group. In other words, legally, you and I both have rights, mine are not secondary to yours.

            If you say the 14th amendment I will shoot that done in a heartbeat.

            So, please, shoot it down.

          • afchief

            OMG!!! Why do I bother????? So if the government passed a law saying that parents had the right to kill their three year old sons, would that be a valid, just law? Would we be duty bound to follow it?

            If the government passed a law that said that workers were entitled to keep 10% of what they earned and that the rest was to be “withheld” by your employer and given to the government, would it be a valid law?

            LOL! The 9th amendment has NOTHING to do with abortion. NOTHING!!!

            The 14th does NOT give the right to an abortion or give same gender couples the right to marry. This is a post Civil War amendment that has nothing to do with marriage, but activist federal judges have wrongly use the “due process ” clause as the basis for their incorrect interpretation . “Due process” correctly applies only to judicial proceedings. These activist judges should be impeached, removed from the bench and disbarred.

            If the 14th Amendment did not give women the right to vote, the 19th Amendment did. What make you think it gives women the right to an abortion or homo marriage? IT DOES NOTNEITHER!!!

            Supreme Court decisions which overthrow State abortion or marriage laws (among other legitimate State laws) violates the U.S. Constitution – specifically those decisions violate the 10th amendment because power over abortion or marriage is not granted to the Federal Government in the U.S. Constitution – those powers therefore fall to the States under the 10th amendment. Thus, the Supreme Court has nullified the U.S. Constitution by violating it – by violating and nullifying the 10th amendment. One immediate remedy for the States, if they wish, is to nullify, via their legislatures, any un-Constitutional Supreme Court decision (or any un-Constitutional Federal Law, Executive order or regulation). State nullification of un-Constitutional Federal nullification is State affirmation of the Constitution.

          • feloneouscat

            So if the government passed a law saying that parents had the right to kill their three year old sons, would that be a valid, just law?

            No. It would be considered unconstitutional as it violated the childs rights.

            If the government passed a law that said that workers were entitled to keep 10% of what they earned and that the rest was to be “withheld” by your employer and given to the government, would it be a valid law?

            Tricky. Depends on how the law was written, etc. Too many variables.

            LOL! The 9th amendment has NOTHING to do with abortion. NOTHING!!!

            So you do not believe that the 9th Amendment says that I have rights that are not enumerated by the Constitution? Is that what you are saying?

            “Due process” correctly applies only to judicial proceedings.

            Wouldn’t you agree that the Supreme Court is a judicial arena?

            Supreme Court decisions which overthrow State abortion or marriage laws (among other legitimate State laws) violates the U.S. Constitution

            No, because Constitutional law trumps state law. Period. Federal always trumps state.

            So, no, there is no violation.

          • feloneouscat

            YOU CAN’T SHOOT IT DOWN!

            lol

          • afchief

            I’m done casting my pearls before swine!!!!

            Matthew 7:6 (NASB) “Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

          • feloneouscat

            You can’t shoot it down.

            After you go on and on about “I will shoot it down”, instead you give up.

            You lied about shooting it down. You lie about other things as well.

            Look, I have the advantage: I’ve been reading the Bible before you were born. I have the advantage of a very good friend who is far more knowledgeable on the subject than you will ever be.

            Call it an age vs youth issue.

            The one thing I do not ever do is argue that the Bible says things that it clearly does not.

            In other words, I do not make thing up as you and others have.

          • feloneouscat

            Show me where it is written in the states constitutions.

            Federal law trumps state law. Constitution beats a four of a kind.

            I win, you lose.

          • Elie Challita

            Chief, can you answer this simple yes or no question?
            Are women in the United States being prosecuted for having an abortion, and are medical centers being prosecuted for providing them?

          • afchief

            What you do not understand is that people are “sheeple” An “opinion” does not change the law. They just tell us that it does and we believe their lies. We then repeat their lies and teach them to others. The lies soon become “truth”, although it is not The Truth. I’ll say it again. Courts do not make laws.

          • Elie Challita

            Courts prosecute violations of the laws, regardless of “sheeple’s” opinions. So tell me again: Are women in the US being prosecuted for having abortions, or are medical providers prosecuted for providing them?

          • afchief

            Are you really this blind? We have a totally corrupt and evil government now. The people at Planned Parenthood should be out of business, prosecuted and in jail!!!!!! Yet our evil government is still funding them. And you are wondering why women are not prosecuted for having abortions?!?!?!?!

            OPEN YOUR EYES!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I’m not wondering. I already know the answer: because there’s nothing to prosecute. Having an abortion isn’t a crime.

          • afchief

            Does not even deserve an answer!!!!

          • Elie Challita

            Chief, I’m asking you a very simple question, which I’m sure a legal scholar like you should have no problem answering: Under the current laws, do you have legal standing to prosecute a medical providing for performing an abortion based on the wishes of the mother, as long as it is an early term abortion?

          • afchief

            Yes, they would and it depends on the state. In 30 U.S. states abortion is illegal. In the other 20 states it is legal only with exceptions for the life or health of the mother.

            Access to abortions of “convenience” is illegal in all 50 states. A “Supreme” Court decision cannot and does not change the law. They just tell us that it does, and we, like gullible subjects, believe them.

            Let me ask you this question; Why are people charged with a double murder when they kill a pregnant woman?

          • Elie Challita

            Funny, I was pretty sure that those states passed laws banning abortion past a certain period (21 weeks, I think). Doesn’t that specific ban mean that abortions are legal beforehand?
            How about the slew of requirements that women must go through in many states before getting an abortion? Are those not a tacit admission that abortions are legal, but restricted?

            Regarding your question, you’ll note that the Unborn Victims of Violence act and bills like it specifically say that you are charged with fetal homicide if you injure or kill a fetus while committing one of 60 or s federal violent crimes, like assault or attempted homicide on the mother. These laws also specifically exclude voluntary abortions from being prosecuted as fetal homicide.
            The intent of these laws is not to grant personhood to fetuses, but to be able to punish criminals who robbed a mother of her child contrarily to the mother’s wishes.

          • afchief

            Liberal logic at it’s best!!!!

          • feloneouscat

            It is logic and a fact.

          • Elie Challita

            Chief, your entire argument rests on the fact that neither Congress nor state government passed a law specifically permitting abortions. Is that correct?

          • feloneouscat

            OMG!!!! Where is it written that it is a law?

            You do realize that we have rights that are not written into law, yes?

            For example, there doesn’t have to be a law saying that I have the right to kiss my sweetie, right?

          • feloneouscat

            It’s called the Constitution. Laws banning abortion were deemed to be UnConstitutional. Read the majority opinion and you should understand why.

          • afchief

            Then why is abortion in 30 U.S. states illegal. In the other 20 states it is legal only with exceptions for the life or health of the mother.

            PROVE ME WRONG!!!!

          • feloneouscat

            “In that year (1973), the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade invalidated all of these laws, and set guidelines for the availability of abortion.”

            It is still legal in all 50 states.

            You are wrong. That was super easy.

          • afchief

            You have proved NOTHING!!!!! Show me WHERE the legislative branch changed the law!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • feloneouscat

            Okay, let me make is simple.

            1. People have rights. I have the right to kiss my sweetie. There is no law that has to be made for that.

            2. If someone made a law that said “Catalina has no right to kiss her sweetie” I could take it to court.

            3. I would win under the 14th Amendment “Equal Protection Clause”. That law would be struck down. Note: the legislative branch doesn’t get involved because it does not have the right to review laws.

            Supreme Court said that anti-abortion laws violated the Constitution (9th and 14th Amendments). We have rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution. The 9th SAYS that very thing.

            Even if the Legislative branch made a law, it can be found to be unConstitutional (see the Line Item Veto under Clinton).

            Welcome to America!

          • afchief

            WRONG!!!!! Read a book on our Constitutional government!!!! You have NO idea how it works. NONE!!!! Supreme Court decisions which overthrow State abortion or marriage laws (among other legitimate State laws) violates the U.S. Constitution – specifically those decisions violate the 10th amendment – because power over abortion or marriage is not granted to the Federal Government in the U.S. Constitution – those powers therefore fall to the States under the 10th amendment. Thus, the Supreme Court has nullified the U.S. Constitution by violating it – by violating and nullifying the 10th amendment. One immediate remedy for the States, if they wish, is to nullify, via their legislatures, any un-Constitutional Supreme Court decision (or any un-Constitutional Federal Law, Executive order or regulation). State nullification of un-Constitutional Federal nullification is State affirmation of the Constitution.

            I repeat!!!! Abortion is not legal anywhere in America. There is no Federal Law on the books regarding abortion. None! There is a “Supreme” Court opinion called Roe v Wade, but that is merely an opinion…not a law! They just tell us that it is and we believe them, follow the lie, and teach it to others.

            In fact, if you were to ask any judge anywhere to show you the abortion law, he or she would have to refer you to state law because that is the only place you will find any law regarding abortion. In 30 U.S. states abortion is illegal. In the other 20 states it is legal only with exceptions for the life or health of the mother.

            Access to abortions of “convenience” is illegal in all 50 states. A “Supreme” Court decision cannot and does not change the law. They just tell us that it does, and we, like gullible subjects, believe them.

          • feloneouscat

            You have absolutely no idea how laws work in this country do you? Or that the Supreme Court has the right of judicial review? Did you ever take civics?

            The Supreme Court has the right to review state laws. Because Federal trumps State, if those laws are Unconstitutional, they are no longer laws.

            The rest of your post is just gibberish.

            Abortion is not illegal. A woman has the right to choose in all 50 states. That has not changes since 1973 since Roe.

          • afchief

            You are proving my point that you have NO idea how our Constitution works!!! NONE! What is not mentioned in the federal Constitution is left up to the states to put in their constitutions in accordance with the 10th amendment. Abortion, homo marriage is NOT mentioned in the Federal Constitution therefore the SCOTUS has NO right to here the case. It NEVER violated the federal constitution. NEVER. The SCOTUS is ONLY supposed to hear cases that may violate the federal constitution.

            ITS CALLED JUDICIAL TYRANNY!!!!

            Go get a book on Constitutional law and READ IT!!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            You keep demanding that people read a book on Constitutional law. Which book?

          • feloneouscat

            You are proving my point that you have NO idea how our Constitution works!!! NONE!

            No, I’m proving your understanding of the Constitution is warped and twisted. It certainly doesn’t jive with how law is taught.

            Abortion, homo marriage is NOT mentioned in the Federal Constitution therefore the SCOTUS has NO right to here the case.

            Neither is peeing. Is your argument that everything needs to have a law? How about eating too much? Or too little? Do you know the word “homosexual” was invented in the 19th century, way after the Founders had died? Did you know that the man you planned the Revolutionary War was homosexual?

            NEVER. The SCOTUS is ONLY supposed to hear cases that may violate the federal constitution.

            Anti-abortion laws violated women’s rights (I know you have very low respect for us, but we ARE human). Since the Constitution also applies to women, “the federal constitution” was being violated by these laws.

            ITS CALLED JUDICIAL TYRANNY!!!!

            No, it’s called judicial review. Otherwise, what is the Supreme Court good for?

          • afchief

            Oh please!!! What a bunch of liberal garbage!!! Abortion is not legal anywhere in America. There is no Federal Law on the books regarding abortion. None! There is a “Supreme” Court opinion called Roe v Wade, but that is merely an opinion…not a law! They just tell us that it is and we believe them, follow the lie, and teach it to others.

            In fact, if you were to ask any judge anywhere to show you the abortion law, he or she would have to refer you to state law because that is the only place you will find any law regarding abortion. In 30 U.S. states abortion is illegal. In the other 20 states it is legal only with exceptions for the life or health of the mother.

            Access to abortions of “convenience” is illegal in all 50 states. A “Supreme” Court decision cannot and does not change the law. They just tell us that it does, and we, like gullible subjects, believe them.

            Planned Parenthood has been violating the law in all 50 states and should be closed, and all of the directors and abortionists should go to prison as accessories to murder. That is the law of the land, and that is the Truth.

            The same Truth also applies to homo marriage. Before the recent “opinion” of the “Supreme” Court, marriage was strictly between a man and a woman in 39 states. 11 states had legalized it through the legislative process, 3 by direct election of the people, and 8 by action of State Legislatures. Today, marriage is still illegal in all 39 of the states where the law is still on the books. The “Supreme” Court cannot change the law, but can only offer opinions about it.

            Interestingly enough, there actually was a Federal Law regarding homo-marriage. It was called the Defense of Marriage Act and was passed by the U.S. Congress in 1996. The activist courts illegally overturned it by judicial fiat in 2013; however this did not nullify the law that was on the books. They only told us that it did, and we believed it, and told others to believe it.

            This is called Judicial Tyranny and it has radically transformed the direction of this nation. Laws can only be made by one of two ways in America: by an act of the Legislative Branch, or by a citizen’s initiative through a direct vote of the people. Courts can never make laws. They just tell us that they can, and we believe it, and teach it to others until the lie eventually becomes accepted as “truth.”

          • feloneouscat

            Oh please!!! What a bunch of liberal garbage!!! Abortion is not legal anywhere in America. There is no Federal Law on the books regarding abortion. None! There is a “Supreme” Court opinion called Roe v Wade, but that is merely an opinion…not a law! They just tell us that it is and we believe them, follow the lie, and teach it to others.

            We call this “The Constitution” and some of us hold it dear. Apparently, you do not.

            In 30 U.S. states abortion is illegal. In the other 20 states it is legal only with exceptions for the life or health of the mother.

            That was PRIOR to Roe. Abortion is legal in all 50 states. You are a horrible legal scholar.

            Access to abortions of “convenience” is illegal in all 50 states.

            Abortion for any reason is legal in all 50 states. You know why? Roe v. Wade determined that it is a Constitutional right.

            Planned Parenthood has been violating the law in all 50 states

            If it was illegal, then why is it only YOU who knows the “truth”?

            It was called the Defense of Marriage Act and was passed by the U.S. Congress in 1996. The activist courts illegally overturned it by judicial fiat in 2013; however this did not nullify the law that was on the books.

            Yes, it was found to be unconstitutional. The Constitution trumps laws passed by Congress. Please read the Constitution.

            This is called Judicial Tyranny

            Your ignorance about law doesn’t make it judicial tyranny.

            Courts can never make laws.

            No, and they never have. What courts have done, and this is what you object to, is determine whether laws are Constitutional or not.

            This is where you fail.

            They just tell us that they can…

            I am unaware of any court making a law. Perhaps you can tell me of one? Roe was striking laws DOWN. That’s not making law.

          • feloneouscat

            Thus, the Supreme Court has nullified the U.S. Constitution by violating it – by violating and nullifying the 10th amendment.

            No, it didn’t violate anything. You’re just ignorant.

            There is no Federal Law on the books regarding abortion. None!

            There doesn’t have to be. It falls under the 9th and 14th Amendment. Just like my right to get wildly drunk and have an orgy is never mentioned. Or run topless on a beach where local laws allow.

            A “Supreme” Court decision cannot and does not change the law.

            No, it either upholds or invalidates a law. Whining otherwise doesn’t change this fact.

          • Bob Johnson

            In California that would be The Reproductive Privacy Act (2003), specifically,

            Cal. Health & Safety Code 1233460 et seg

          • feloneouscat

            I think you may have to explain to him what case law is… for the millionth time.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            If I thought it would do any good, I might 🙂

          • feloneouscat

            You are the dense one. Roe v Wade overturned laws banning abortion. It said that banning abortion violates the Constitution.

            Read that slowly: banning abortion VIOLATES the Constitution.

          • afchief

            You are a liar!!! Abortion is not legal anywhere in America. There is no Federal Law on the books regarding abortion. None! There is a “Supreme” Court opinion called Roe v Wade, but that is merely an opinion…not a law! They just tell us that it is and we believe them, follow the lie, and teach it to others.

            In fact, if you were to ask any judge anywhere to show you the abortion law, he or she would have to refer you to state law because that is the only place you will find any law regarding abortion. In 30 U.S. states abortion is illegal. In the other 20 states it is legal only with exceptions for the life or health of the mother.

            Access to abortions of “convenience” is illegal in all 50 states. A “Supreme” Court decision cannot and does not change the law. They just tell us that it does, and we, like gullible subjects, believe them.

            Show me WHERE it is written? Guess what? YOU CAN’T!!!!

          • feloneouscat

            You are a liar!!! Abortion is not legal anywhere in America. There is no Federal Law on the books regarding abortion. None! There is a “Supreme” Court opinion called Roe v Wade, but that is merely an opinion…not a law!

            I assure you I do not lie.

            Abortion is totally legal in the US. Roe v Wade struck down anti-abortion laws as violating the Constitution (you love the Constitution, right? Everyone does!).

            I’m not sure what you mean “merely an opinion” – from the Constitution:

            The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. . . . The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority.

            My thinking that you should read up more is an opinion. Their opinion becomes case law. What do you think courts and judges do?

            In 30 U.S. states abortion is illegal. In the other 20 states it is legal only with exceptions for the life or health of the mother.

            That was in 1973 prior to Roe!!! “In that year (1973), the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade invalidated all of these laws, and set guidelines for the availability of abortion.”

            So, no, abortion is not illegal.

          • afchief

            Show me WHERE IT IS WRITTEN?????? A court cannot make or change laws!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ONLY the legislative branch can!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • feloneouscat

            The Supreme Court has the right under the Constitution to determine if a law is Constitutional. Prior to Roe v Wade we had many laws banning abortion. Those laws were proven to be unConstitutional.

            Show me WHERE IT IS WRITTEN??????

            9th Amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

            14th Amendment: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

            The decision said that “right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the district court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”

            Thus all laws which stated a woman could not terminate a pregnancy became null and void.

            As I said, it was the Constitution. That’s where it is written.

          • afchief

            WRONG! You are grasping at straws!!!! The 9th and 14th amendment have NOTHING to do with abortion. If that were the case, then putting an amendment for women to vote in the Constitution would NOT have been necessary! That is NOT why these two amendments were put into the Constitution.

            Given that the Constitution has not been amended, it’s clear that any Supreme Court decision that changes America is unconstitutional and an exercise in judicial tyranny.

            If the people’s representatives pass a law and the Supreme Court hears a case that simply ensures that the law is followed as intended by the people’s representatives, the Supreme Court’s decision will not, cannot, change America. Rather, it would be the law passed by Congress that is changing America.

            Only by acting in opposition to the Constitution and providing judgments not in keeping with the intent of the people’s representatives can the Supreme Court “change America.”

            The people’s representatives have never passed a law legalizing abortion for any reason through all nine months of pregnancy, nor have they passed a law that legalized gay marriage. If they had, then there would be laws, not Supreme Court rulings, that “changed America” on these issues.

          • feloneouscat

            WRONG! You are grasping at straws!!!! The 9th and 14th amendment have NOTHING to do with abortion.

            Actually they do. The Supreme Court said they do.

            Given that the Constitution has not been amended, it’s clear that any Supreme Court decision that changes America is unconstitutional and an exercise in judicial tyranny.

            Except that the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the right of judicial review. That means they can look over things and see if they violate the Constitution.

            The people’s representatives have never passed a law legalizing abortion for any reason through all nine months of pregnancy, nor have they passed a law that legalized gay marriage. If they had, then there would be laws, not Supreme Court rulings, that “changed America” on these issues.

            They didn’t have to pass a law. The Supreme Court found that the laws restricting abortion was unconstitutional.

            Look, no one passed a law saying it was okay to drink alcohol. You don’t have to. Only when they passed an Amendment saying it was illegal was it illegal to drink alcohol.

            The Supreme Court in Roe v Wade was merely upholding the Constitution. You don’t like the result, but that is exactly what happened.

            You can say WRONG or whatever, but my knowledge beats your ignorance.

          • afchief

            I see you are a product of our indoctrination centers we call public schools. You have absolutely NO idea how our government works. NONE!!! The SCOTUS cannot strike down any law. NONE!!!! ONLY Congress can change or make laws. That is why we have three branches of government. If the SCOTUS says something is unconstitutional, then Congress has to change or write the law and the executive branch signs it into law.

            Did you know that the Supreme Court once rendered the opinion that black men were inferior to whites? Did you know that the Supreme Court once ruled that women had no legal right to vote? Did you know that as recently as 1986 the Supreme Court ruled that there was no right to homosexual sodomy?

            Opinions can change when judges change. The law cannot be changed by a “judge.” If that were the case, our “laws” would be as constantly changing as the “judges” are.

            If “judges” ruled that sodomy was illegal in 1986, how did sodomy become “legal” today? Did the law change, or did the “opinions” of the “judges” change?

            The SCOTUS does not make or change ANYTHING!!!!!!! NOTHING!!!! You cannot legislate from the bench!!!!

            Go get a book on Constitutional law and READ IT!!!!!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            You’re the one that has no idea how law works if you think a law can’t be declared unconstitutional and rendered void by the Supreme Court. Maybe you don’t think they should have that power, okay, fair enough I guess if you feel that way, I’d disagree myself, though. But you should at least realize that that is the way things are, and have been for about the last 200 years, with the Supreme Court having the power of judicial review. Your idea of the way the government works seems to be that the judicial branch exists for no other reason than to give opinions that have no force of law. You do know it’s supposed to be three equal branches of government, right? How would the judicial branch be equal if all they do offer opinions?

          • afchief

            So when the SCOTUS rules that a law is unconstitutional, who takes it off the books?

            I’ll give you three guesses!!!!!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            It doesn’t have to be taken off the books. The decision made it unconstitutional.

          • afchief

            I’ll ask you again. Since the law was put there by the legislative branch and the SCOTUS rules it is unconstitutional, WHO removes the “law”?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            I don’t know, does anyone remove it from the books? Isn’t DOMA still on the books, for example? That doesn’t mean the SC decision rendering it invalid doesn’t apply.

          • afchief

            Nope! Congress took it off the books!

            I’ll ask you again. Since the law was put there by the legislative branch and the SCOTUS rules it is unconstitutional, WHO removes the “law”?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Like I said, I don’t know. Congress? It doesn’t matter who does it, though. When the SC rules (that’s RULES, not “offers the opinion”) a law is unconstitutional, it is no longer valid, no longer enforceable. At that point, it doesn’t matter if it’s in the books, or who takes it out, or when they do it.

          • afchief

            Wrong!!! Courts only offer opinions. Opinions can change when judges change. The law cannot be changed by a “judge.” If that were the case, our “laws” would be as constantly changing as the “judges” are. If “judges” ruled that sodomy was illegal in 1986, how did sodomy become “legal” today? Did the law change, or did the “opinions” of the “judges” change?

            Did you know that the Supreme Court once rendered the opinion that black men were inferior to whites? Did you know that the Supreme Court once ruled that women had no legal right to vote? Did you know that as recently as 1986 the Supreme Court ruled that there was no right to homosexual sodomy?

            President Andrew Jackson, made a statement regarding a Supreme Court ruling in 1832 famously said, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” President Jackson ignored the decision that the Supreme Court handed down. Congress can ignore it also. Which means NO law has changed or been made.

            Congress makes laws. Courts render opinions. Opinions are…opinions. Judges give their opinions of what they think the law says. Congress makes and changes laws. The executive branch signs them into law.

            KNOW your Constitution!!!!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            So if a court says I’m going to jail, that’s just an opinion, huh?

          • afchief

            Come on man! Use that little liberal cranium of yours. Criminal cases are not law cases. Does the SCOTUS hear criminal cases?

            An “opinion” does not change the law. They just tell us that it does and we believe their lies. We then repeat their lies and teach them to others. The lies soon become “truth”, although it is not The Truth. I’ll say it again. Courts do not make laws.

            Get a book on Constitutional law and read it!

          • TheKingOfRhye

            So, the government is all buying into the lies too, then, right? They certainly seem to think abortion and same-sex-marriage are legal. (Like George Carlin once said, it’s weird that people who are against abortion are usually against homosexuals. Who has less abortions than homosexuals?)

            “Get a book on Constitutional law and read it!”

            Okay, which one do you recommend?

          • afchief

            The government is the problem!!!

            I recommend any constitutional law book not written by a godless anti-american liberal.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            So in other words you don’t know any books on constitutional law yourself? Have YOU ever even read one?

            Also, please tell me how someone’s being “godless” would mean they don’t know constitutional law. Or how being a liberal would mean the same. Or even being “anti American”!

            Nice how you just lump all those three things together, too. I’m one of those “godless” folks myself. I call myself a liberal, but I’m probably not what YOU think of as a liberal, and I am certainly not anti-American.

          • afchief

            Again, I recommend any constitutional law book not written by a godless anti-american liberal.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            That answered absolutely none of my questions, of course. I’ll just consider myself the winner of this argument, given that you refuse to answer any of my questions any more.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Ok, like which one for instance? Which law professor is not a “godless, anti-American liberal?”

          • afchief

            Go do a search on Amazon. You will find them!

          • feloneouscat

            So, I gather you’ve never read anyconstitutional law book.

            BTW, how do I know if they are “godless anti-American liberals” who wrote it? Not a normal thing to put on a dust jacket.

          • afchief

            Our schools have been taken over by godless liberal socialists. Most of the books written today are by this these godless people.

          • feloneouscat

            Our schools have been taken over by godless liberal socialists. Most of the books written today are by this these godless people.

            Actually, this is false. I know plenty of people in education who are devout. Because one doesn’t proselytize in school does not mean one is not a devout person.

          • afchief

            Do liberals ever stop lying? What do you think Common Core is?!?!?!

          • feloneouscat

            Do liberals ever stop lying? What do you think Common Core is?!?!?!

            I have never lied to you. Not once.

            You, on the other hand, have lied multiple times to me.

          • afchief

            Yes you are a liar and serve the father of lies…..satan!!!

          • feloneouscat

            Again, I recommend any constitutional law book not written by a godless anti-american liberal.

            Wait a minute, I’m a liberal and I believe in God and I’m an American.

          • afchief

            Can True Christians Be Liberals?

            By Geri Ungurean

            My husband and I attended a church back in 2008 which was predominately black. The senior pastor was black as well. We loved that church. The worship experience was wonderful, and the preaching that we heard seemed solidly-based in Scripture.

            There was a prayer service on Wednesday nights that was always packed out. We had never been in a church that seemed to love the Lord like this one.

            The presidential election campaign was well underway. We were alarmed at what we were finding out about Obama. He had close ties with Planned Parenthood. His voting record in the Senate was deemed even to the left of Ted Kennedy. He had ties with the unrepentant home grown terrorist, Bill Ayers. He attended a church which proclaimed Black Liberation, a theology that serves not to reconcile and unite blacks with the larger cultural, but to keep them separate. [1]

            In my mind I thought, “Surely, these people will not vote for Obama.” Well, I was dead wrong.

            One night I went online and searched out my pastor’s name. He was well-known for writing many books, so I thought I would find something about his life.

            I came upon a website which was all about politics from a “black”perspective. Our pastor, Pastor David, had been interviewed along with a black woman who was the head of Black Conservatives of America. I listened in horror, as my pastor spoke about Obama as if he was a god. The conservative woman was talking all about his lack of character and ties to Planned Parenthood. She said that although the black community would love to see their first black president, it was the heart and character of the person that was of more importance than the color of his or her skin.

            The next morning I called my church to speak with Pastor David. He and I spoke for well over an hour about Obama. He had the nerve to ask me, “Are you one of the white people who think that Obama is the Antichrist?” I could not even dignify that with a response. I realized that he was skirting the important issues of which I spoke, and he wanted to discredit me.

            I asked him if he was aware of Obama’s stand on abortion. He said that he was, but that the idea of America voting in their first black president was the most exciting thing he had ever encountered. I was horrified. Needless to say, we stopped attending that church.

            After the election, that pastor wrote a letter to his church on their website. He spoke about a “White woman who just couldn’t be happy with them that America had their first black president.”

            Can a true Christian vote for the party that supports abortion up to the time of birth? Can a true Christian vote for a party who booed God at their Convention? Can a true Christian vote for a party which believes in and promotes same sex marriage?

            I say NO. You cannot be a Christian liberal. That is like saying, “A Jewish Nazi.” It does not work.

            Exodus 20:13 says: “You shall not murder.”

            What is abortion if not murder?

            It is taking the life of an innocent baby. The liberal Democrats scream about a woman’s right to “choose” abortion. They say that she has control over her own body. Well I have news for them: When she conceived, there are now two bodies – not just her own.

            The Word of God says:

            Psalm 139:14: “I will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;

            Wonderful are Your works, and my soul knows it very well”

            Jeremiah 1:5: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

            We were made and fashioned by His hand. From the time we were conceived, we have a soul. Abortion IS murder.

            Let’s look at what the Word says about homosexuality:

            Genesis 19:4-9: “Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; 5 and they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.” But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said,”Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly.”

            Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.” But they said, “Stand aside.” Furthermore, they said, “This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them.” So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door.”

            Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”

            Leviticus 20:13: “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them.”

            Romans 1:24-27: “Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.”

            1 Corinthians 6:9-11: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”

            Paul said, “Such were some of you, but you were washed, but you weresanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:11).

            1 Timothy 1:9-10: “Realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching.”

            Brethren, these Scriptures are clear. There is no room for various interpretations! Our God detests the act of homosexuality. He LOVES the person, but the act is detestable to Him. His will is that the person repent of this behavior, and come to Him for salvation!

            If we are truly born-again from above, and love the Lord with all of our hearts, then we cannot justify voting for a liberal party. They ridicule and laugh at Christians. How can anyone say he or she is a Christian and yet vote for liberals? And so blatantly go against the Word of God!

            Last week, the mayor of Houston demanded that pastors hand over their sermons about homosexuality. She said that they needed to be sure they were correct (I say politically correct) and if not, they would be corrected. What? THIS is what happens when liberals get into power.

            Being raised in a Jewish home, we were expected to be liberal and vote Democratic always. When I was born-again in 1983, almost immediately I realized that the platform of the Democratic Party was in direct conflict with the Word of God in almost every area.

            My mother was distraught over my becoming a conservative. She even told me that she could accept me believing in Jesus more than knowing that she gave birth to a conservative!

            Brothers and sisters in Christ, if you have made the error of voting for liberals in the past, PLEASE repent of this and go before the Lord. If you know of other Christians who have made the mistake of voting for liberals – show them this article. Direct them to the Scriptures referenced here.

            I pray that Christians in America would fall to their knees and ask God to bless this country again. We are in trouble.

            2 Chronicles 7:14: “And My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”

            Our Founding Fathers would weep if they saw what is taking place in America today.

            MARANATHA!

            Blessings in Yeshua.

          • feloneouscat

            Can True Christians Be Liberals?

            By Geri Ungurean

            This is the silliest article I’ve read in a long time.

            Here’s the truth:

            You can be Christians and (whatever your political ideals are). But if your political ideals say that the poor should suffer, you’re not being very Christian. If it says to hate your enemies, you’re not being very Christian. If it says to be racist, you are not being very Christian.

          • afchief

            I speak the “hard truths”. Liberals like you cannot and do not want to hear them. Again, you CANNOT be a Christian and be a liberal who believes in murder (abortion), homosexuality, the evils of socialism, etc.

            It is NOT possible!!!!

          • feloneouscat

            I speak the “hard truths”.

            No, what you say I’ve seen:

            o Women treated as inferior
            o Abortion made illegal
            o Hate called “Christianity”

            I’ve seen them all. They are not truths and they certainly aren’t Christian.

            Liberals like you cannot and do not want to hear them.

            Yeah, you know the burning of Black Churches was also done under the auspices of hatred. Yeah, not really keen on hate.

            Again, you CANNOT be a Christian and be a liberal who believes in murder (abortion), homosexuality, the evils of socialism, etc.

            Oh, of course you can. To be Christian you have to love your neighbors as well as your enemies. And here is the trick, you know what it means to be Christian? Accepting Jesus. Pretty much that’s it.

            Nowhere does Jesus say hate abortion, homosexuality or socialism. Nowhere. In fact, I don’t recall anywhere Jesus asks people to hate.

            So, not only can you be a Christian and a socialist, it’s like the two aren’t even connected! Actually, you know what isn’t very Christian? Capitalism because in economics it invariably leads to wealth being concentrated in the hands of the few (you remember Jesus talking about the rich man and heaven, right?).

            Oh, but there I go talking about something else you know little about.

          • afchief

            Leviticus 18:22 (NASB) You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

            You are calling God hateful. Not me!!!!

          • JGC

            That’s the verse that condemns participation by members of the nation of Israel in non-Jewish rites of worship that included temple prostitution, identifying it as a religious violation: the word translated here as ‘abomination’ is the Hebrew word to’evah, which denotes ‘ritually impermissible”. It’s the same word used most frequently in Torah to condemn idolatry–and the same word used in the Levitical Holiness Code to condemn wearing clothes made of mixed fibers, shaving your beard, failing to isolate females during their menses, eating shellfish, etc.
            If the author’s had wished to indicate homosexuality in and of itself was condemned as immoral they’d have had to use another word (such as zi’mah, which denotes ‘morally perverse’).
            Question, afchief–do you believe that eating shrimp or wearing cotton/polyester shirts is just as ‘abominable’ as homosexuality? If not, on what rational basis do you pick and choose what Leviticus labels as ‘to’evah’ one must eschew and what acts one needn’t be concerned with?

          • afchief

            As a Buddhists please do NOT try and understand the Word of God. You have NO clue what you are talking about. God’s view on homosexuality has NOT changed. It is sin. It is death. With food Jesus declared all foods clean in the New Testament.

            Mark 7:19 (NASB) because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.)

            Homosexuality is STILL sin.

            1 Corinthians 6:9-11 (NASB) Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

          • JGC

            Whatever makes you think I’m a Buddhist, afcheif? I’m not, and I’m at least as familiar with what you would refer to as the Old Testament as you are.

            The word you’ve translated as ‘homosexuals’ here is actually ‘arsenokoitai’, a word that Paul invented specifically for this verse to reference the verse in Leviticus prohibiting Jews participating in non-Jewish rites involving temple prostitution.. If he wanted to refer to homosexuals in and of themselves there’d be no need to invenet a new Greek word–he could have used any of the existing Greek words which explicitly denoted a homosexual (such as paiderasste).
            I’ll note also the Greek word rendered here as ‘effiminate’ (malakoi) more accurately denotes ‘licentious’.

          • afchief

            I find this from almost every homosexual trying to justify their sin. It is a BOLDFACE LIE. Man has been trying to justify their sin for 6000 years. You and other homosexuals are no different!!!

            Romans 1:18-28 (NASB) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

            24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

            26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

            28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,

          • feloneouscat

            I find this from almost every homosexual trying to justify their sin. It is a BOLDFACE LIE. Man has been trying to justify their sin for 6000 years. You and other homosexuals are no different!!!

            You are lying about it being a sin. Nowhere in the Bible does it call homosexuality a sin.

            Oh, and this passage, you forgot to point out that it is God, not man who makes them act the way they do.

            Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.

            Again, you lose.

          • afchief

            Now you blaming God for their sin. Did I not say you are a liar? I sure did and your posts are proof!!!!

          • feloneouscat

            They would not have sinned were it not for God.

            Blame the victim much?

          • feloneouscat

            Dude, it actually says God did it:

            Therefore God gave them over…

            They would not have acted out this way had not God forced them, it’s pretty obvious.

          • JGC

            You’re speaking as if the text of Romans –demonstrably the work of a human author–possessed some inherent authority. Whatever for?
            In any case, I’ll note that this passage again does not condemn homosexuality in and of itself rather than within a specific context: god causing people to act in an “unnatural manner” as a punishment for failing to worship him to his satisfaction. The Greek phrase that Paul used and that is translated here as ‘unnatural’ in verse 26 is “para physin”, which denotes ‘against one’s own nature’–not against some arbitrary standard of natural behavior. a better translation would be ‘”typical function for that which was atypical” or “usual function for that which was unusual”, and while for a heterosexual man or woman to engage in homosexual intercourse, as god has caused people to do here as punishment, would be to act contrary to their own nature for a homosexual man or woman to engage in heterosexual intercourse would be to act contrary to their own nature (i.e., para physin’).
            The two other words in this passage Paul uses to characterize homosexuality are ‘dishonorable’ and ‘unseemly’, but these only reflect social condemnation rather than moral transgression. Recall Paul describes his actions as being seen as dishonorable for preaching the message of Christ in second Corinthans, but he’s hardly accusing himself as sinning by doing so.

          • afchief

            That is a boldface LIE!!!! This is sooooooooooo typical from homosexuals and liberals. I see it ALL the time!!!

            You fit this scripture to the “T”

            For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

            You and other liberal/homosexuals continuously suppress the truth in unrighteousness i.e. sin!!!!

          • feloneouscat

            I was a Christian before I was a Buddhist.

            Fortunately, I have a very good friend who is an Episcopal priest and has degrees in history who I love to chat with. He knows far more than you do.

            Homosexuality is STILL sin.k

            Um, no. Nowhere in the Bible does it say it is a sin. I know all the verses, punkin, and you lose on that.

          • afchief

            Yes, there is no doubt you are a liar and serve the father of lies……satan!!!!!

          • feloneouscat

            Yes, there is no doubt you are a liar and serve the father of lies……satan!!!!!

            Which means you realized I am correct. Nowhere does it EXPLICITLY say it is a sin.

            The difference between you and me is 30 years worth of reading scripture.

          • afchief

            You sound like a homosexual. Are you? I see this ALL the time from homosexuals. They try to disprove scripture, quote homo friendly websites and lie continuously.

            I give you three guesses what gross immorality and strange flesh means here: We Christians who have the “mind of Christ” already know!!!!

            Jude 6-7 (NASB) And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

          • feloneouscat

            You sound like a homosexual. Are you? I see this ALL the time from homosexuals.

            No. I’m a heterosexual woman who believes God loves all his children.

            I’m also someone who finds people who lie about the Bible to be abominations.

          • feloneouscat

            He tends to cherry-pick….

          • feloneouscat

            Leviticus 18:22 (NASB) You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

            You are calling God hateful. Not me!!!!

            Leviticus is full of fun things that good Christians don’t do. For example:

            o Shave: Leviticus 19:27
            o Shellfish: Leviticus 11:12
            o Eating pork: Leviticus 11:7-8
            o Cotton Blends: 19:19

            Do you violate any of these?

            Notice Leviticus says nothing about two women. Actually, pretty much the entire Bible is concerned about penises. Vaginas? Not so much.

          • afchief

            Again, do not try and understand the Word of God. Without the Holy Spirit within you, you have NO understanding of the Word of God. None!

            1 Corinthians 2:14 (NASB) But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

          • feloneouscat

            Again, do not try and understand the Word of God. Without the Holy Spirit within you, you have NO understanding of the Word of God. None!

            Well, you violate Leviticus on at least three counts.

            My response to you would be:

            Matthew 7:1-5: “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. 3 And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? 5 Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye

            .

          • afchief

            What? Quoting scripture is judging? LOL!

            I can’t stop laughing at how foolish liberalism truly is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • feloneouscat

            When you said “Again, do not try and understand the Word of God. Without the Holy Spirit within you, you have NO understanding of the Word of God.”

            That is JUDGING me.

            This has nothing to do with liberalism and more your poor understanding of English.

          • afchief

            LOL!!!! You are making me laugh!!!! You do not have the Holy Spirit living within you. You cannot possibly understand what the Spirit is saying to us. We Christians have the mind of Christ!!! You heathen do not!!!

            1 Corinthians 2:16 (NASB) For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.

          • feloneouscat

            Excuse me, but I’m not a heathen. You really need to learn the definition of words.

            I know plenty of Christians.

            You play-pretend, but you do not act like one.

          • afchief

            Then stop lying!!!

            We are NOT under the old covenant!!!!

          • feloneouscat

            Then stop cherry picking!

            We are NOT under the old covenant!!!!

            So then Leviticus 18:22 doesn’t apply and you were just playing a joke?

            So who is the wretched liar? Better go delete that remark!!!

          • afchief

            Homosexuality is still a sin today just like murder is still a sin today. The old testament law has been done away with. We no longer sacrifice animals for our sins and follow rules and rituals. Jesus went to the Cross once and for all to cover all of our sins.

            However, some sins of the OT never change i.e. homosexuality, murder, adultery, fornication, etc. They remain today.

          • feloneouscat

            Homosexuality is still a sin today just like murder is still a sin today.

            Get off of it. It never was a sin. Nowhere in the Bible does it say it is a sin. Abomination is not a synonym for sin (look the words up).

            Words have specific meanings and writers use them intentionally. Now, why did Leviticus not say it was a sin (there are ways to atone for the sin).

            Abomination means: a thing that causes disgust or hatred.

            That’s not a sin.

          • feloneouscat

            Homosexuality is still a sin today just like murder is still a sin today.

            Homosexuality was never a sin. That’s a falsehood. It isn’t in the Bible. I don’t know here you get it, but not once is it ever called a sin.

            Oh, please, you telling me that you were a virgin until you were married?

          • afchief

            Bye! I’m done dealing with a reprobate mind!!!!

            Romans 1:18 (NASB) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

            You fit this scripture to the “T”. All you do is suppress the truth in unrighteousness i.e. homosexuality.

            You are bound by your sin (homosexuality). Repent that you may live!

          • feloneouscat

            Romans 1:18 (NASB) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

            No, I keep telling you that I believe in god, just not in Jesus.

            My sin? LOL I shall have to tell my husband! We are a heterosexual couple who have been married for over 30 years!

            Perhaps you should repent for bearing false witness?

          • feloneouscat

            Homosexuality is still a sin today just like murder is still a sin today.

            Prove it. Find me a passage in the Bible where it says that homosexuality is a sin. You can’t.

            Why? Because it never says it. Not one single passage and the best you came up with was Leviticus and then you went and said “oh, but we don’t play by those rules anymore”.

            You remain dishonest.

          • feloneouscat

            You do not have the Holy Spirit living within you.

            Prove it.

          • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

            feloneouscat, on those particular ordinances that you cited from Leviticus, I would urge you to look at the chapters more closely.

            As for the ordinances against shellfish and pork, closely read verses 24-28 in that chapter: The end result of breaking those is being “unclean until the even[ing]”. Also, those sets of laws were exclusive to the Hebrews (i.e. dietary laws). Christians are not bound by those.

            As for Leviticus 19:19 and Leviticus 19:27, they are not qualified as abominations, like the commandments against sexual immorality are in Leviticus 18 & 20 (adultery, bestiality, fornication, homosexuality, etc.). Those sets of laws (i.e. moral laws) have not been abolished by God.

          • feloneouscat

            Sorry, punkin, but you really either didn’t read or are depending on weak memory muscles:

            24″‘You will make yourselves unclean by these; whoever touches their carcasses will be unclean till evening.

            So what Leviticus was talking about was touching the dead carcasses you would be unclean till evening.

            Why is this important? Disease. Dead animals carried with them disease and it was a smart idea to create these kind of laws.

            As for Leviticus 19 it ends with:

            37″‘Keep all my decrees and all my laws and follow them. I am the LORD.'”

            All of those were decrees.

            Now if you know words, you would know that abomination is not a synonym for sin. However, I’m willing to bet all of you have violated Leviticus 18:18:

            ‘Do not approach a woman to have sexual relations during the uncleanness of her monthly period.

            Or does this not fall within the “abominations”? Or is your argument that “all but THAT have not been abolished by God”? Or are you just confused.

            See the problem with arguing Leviticus is that it becomes an all or nothing deal. For the majority of Christians, Leviticus is a nothing.

            But things for playing “Why Leviticus Isn’t Relevant”.

          • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

            Abomination is a synonym for sin, ma’am. All sin will prevent one from entering the Kingdom of Heaven. And everyone has sinned.

            The Lord Jesus Christ died on a cross to take away the death of those who call out to Him.

            Will you call out to Him? Will you give your life to Him?

          • feloneouscat

            No, Adam, abomination is not a synonym for sin. You may wish to try the Oxford Dictionary or Merriam Webster. The results are pretty much the same.

          • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

            (feloneouscat, I had a response posted to you a couple of hours ago, but it’s pending due to containing a weblink. Here’s the original response, with the link altered)

            Give the Bible an opportunity to define it, instead.

            Here is a study document containing every Scriptural mention of “abomination” (all citations in context, and highlighted in bold). Look through it and observe the various references where an abomination is associated with breaking a commandment (e.g. adultery, idolatry, pride, etc.).

            biblewordstudyorg/abominations.html

          • afchief

            Adam, you are casting your pearls before swine!!!

          • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

            Nonetheless chief, I gotta keep “planting seeds”, in hopes that God will draw others to His Word and lead them to repent (even if just one on this public thread). Time is grower shorter.

            You’re doing a good job on citing those medical reports and statistics on homosexuality. It adds to the “cloud of witnesses” regarding it.

            Peace to you, brother!

          • feloneouscat

            Adam, you have been making up meanings and been intellectually dishonest with the Bible.

            You are not planting seeds of truth, but the opposite.

          • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

            The Lord rebuke you.

          • feloneouscat

            The Lord rebuke you.

            Interesting. Are you telling God to rebuke me? Do you believe you actually have that power? Since when did God become your underling to smite your foes?

          • Patrick Van Der Ven

            LOL she is telling the truth. Your posts on homosexuality are fabrications, half quotes, poor translations and verses taken out of context and when you are flailing in an argument you rebuke people. That amounts to as declaration of no contest. You are exposed as a fraud that you are..

          • feloneouscat

            No, Adam is making up meanings. That is both dishonest and foolish.

          • feloneouscat

            Sorry, Adam, but you understanding of the Bible now devolves into “hey, look, the word is near something else that is a sin, so abomination must mean sin”. No, Adam, it does not.

            Please do not attempt to lecture me on the meaning of words. It is not and does not mean sin.

            It never has.

            Making things up is not “proof”.

          • Patrick Van Der Ven

            How many times do we have to explain to you that toevah which means cultural taboo has been poorly translated to mean abomination in the KJV. Here is a verse to show how dishonest and disingenuous you are.

            Genesis 43:32King James Version (KJV)

            32 And they set on for him by himself, and for them by themselves, and for the Egyptians, which did eat with him, by themselves: because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians.

            Are you saying eating with shepherds is a detestable abomination.

          • Patrick Van Der Ven

            Actually Adam is Christ knows even the Hebrew word toevah means cultural taboo and has been poorly translated to abomination into the KJV, Let me show you an example where the KJV say it is an abomination for the Egyptians to eat with the Hebrews.

            Genesis 43:32

            Genesis 43:32Revised Standard Version (RSV)

            32 They served him by himself, and them by themselves, and the Egyptians who ate with him by themselves, because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews, for that is an abomination to the Egyptians.

            That shoots down the concept of abomination meaning sin.
            Unless of course Adam is maintaining it is sinful for Egyptians and Hebrews to eat together.

          • feloneouscat

            Abomination is not a synonym for sin, Adam.

            Use a dictionary and I think you might be surprised.

          • afchief

            It is quite obvious you are stuck in this sin (homosexuality) and are trying to justify it by your lies.

            You have NO understanding of the Word of God. NONE!!!!

          • feloneouscat

            It is quite obvious you are stuck in this sin (homosexuality) and are trying to justify it by your lies.

            No, my point is that abomination is not a synonym for sin. Go look abomination up.

            Even Leviticus does not deem it a sin.

          • feloneouscat

            It is quite obvious you are stuck in this sin (homosexuality) and are trying to justify it by your lies.

            I’m not a homosexual.

            However, nowhere in the Bible does it call homosexuality a sin.

          • sherrybb

            So you favor the stoning of smart mouthed kids? ( just a mere few verses in Leviticus from the ones you like about the gays)

          • JGC

            But Leviticus doesn’t describe ‘lying with another man as with a woman’ (i.e., temple prostitution) as immoral but as a religious violation similar to idolatry–it condemns the act using the same word most frequently used in Torah to condemn idolatry (to’evah, meaning ‘ritually impermissible) rather than a word such as zimah, which would denote ‘morally perverse’.
            And Deuteronomy does use the same word ‘toevah’ to condemn violating dietary restrictions such as by eating shellfish as ‘abominable’ (Deut 14:3).

          • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

            Does a baby form in another man’s behind?

          • JGC

            No-did you have a point?

          • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

            Then that should tell you that the male sexual organ doesn’t belong in there.

            (Thou shall not lie with mankind, as with womankind…)

          • JGC

            By what rational argument does the male sexual organ not belong there–surely you’re not presuming the only legitimate intent when engaging in sexual activity is conceiving a child?

          • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

            The rational argument that fecal matter discharges out of it.

          • JGC

            No, really, try to craft a rational argument–unless you also believe that a penis doesn’t belong in a vagina because urine discharges from it.

          • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

            A penis and a vagina make a baby, sir.

            A penis and a man’s behind only serves to make three things:

            1) A penis covered in fecal stench (and quite possibly blood).

            2) A likely torn rectal cavity for the other man.

            3) Shame and exceeding high risk for STDs for both participants.

          • feloneouscat

            Adam, you are sexually ignorant.

            1) Sex during menstruation also will result it blood.
            1a) Men and women also engage in anal sex, despite your belief otherwise.
            2) Your source?
            3) Shame? Why?
            3a) STD’s are just as likely with heterosexual participants. They don’t get a pass “from god”.

          • JGC

            So you’re abandoning your previous position that just because one of several functions a human anatomical feature exhibits is excretion of waste matter that doesn’t disqualify it from being used for other features, such as sexual intercourse?
            Good to hear–you’ve joined the rest of the 21st century.
            But I am curious–why would anyone presume that engaging in consensual anal sex, either with a partner of your own or of the opposite gender, be a shameful act? Where’s the harm?

          • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

            If you cannot comprehend that sticking your penis into something that EXPELS FECAL MATTER is not completely sickening and utterly disgusting — then you have indeed been given over to a reprobate mind, as it is written in the 1st chapter of Romans.

            God is calling for you to repent. An eternity separated from Him is not worth the season of pleasure.

          • JGC

            Adam, does the strongest argument you can offer against mutually
            consenting adults (either of the same or opposite gender) engaging in anal intercourse really take no form other than “Well, I think it’s icky”?

          • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

            Poop is icky, which is why we flush it down the toilet when we’re done expelling it.

            Your use of rhetoric here is the equivalent of planting flowers around an outhouse: It doesn’t change the fact that it is disgusting, and harmful for both participants (both in physiological damage to the cavity and exceeding risk of AIDS, etc.)

          • JGC

            Adam, I’m beginning to think you find sexual intimacy in and
            of itself icky.

            “It doesn’t change the fact that [although others, both heterosexual and homosexual, clearly feel otherwise I personally find consensual anal sex to be] disgusting”

            FTFY, Adam.

            “and harmful for both participants (both in physiological
            damage to the cavity and exceeding risk of AIDS, etc.)”

            Unless one is irresponsibly rough the risk of physiologic damage is really no greater than the risk associated with other practices, both
            sexual and non-sexual. Certainly the risk of ‘physiological injury’ associated with engaging in anal sex pales in comparison to the risk associated with engaging in football or other contact sports.

            Increased risk of HIV infection is associated with unsafe sex practices, not with anal sex in and of itself—you are aware that the
            majority of new HIV infections which occur today are associated with non-anal heterosexual intercourse? If those engaging I anal sex embrace safe sex precautions–use of barriers, etc., there’s no greater risk associated with anal sex than vaginal or oral sex.

          • feloneouscat

            As for the ordinances against shellfish and pork, closely read verses 24-28 in that chapter: The end result of breaking those is being “unclean until the even[ing]”.

            Adam, I’m not an idiot. The entire sentence is:

            Whoever touches their carcass shall be unclean until the evening, and he who carries their carcass shall wash his clothes and be unclean until the evening; they are unclean to you. – NIV

            So, no, you don’t understand basic English grammar, much less the Bible.

          • Patrick Van Der Ven

            Hi feloneouscat,

            Someone who is obsessed with homosexuality has decided to post Leviticus 18:22. For the reason they have no training in Aramaic, Hebrew or Koine Greek I am going to post a refutation of what they have said. For those who decide to read it the first few paragraphs will suffice, the rest of the post is for Sephardic Speakers of Hebrew on how the translation is made.

            Leviticus 18:22 – The translations of this verse found in most English Bibles are not supported by the Hebrew text:

            Incorrect translation:

            “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”(KJV)

            The honest and correct translation:

            “And with a male, thou shalt not lie down in a woman’s bed; it is a taboo.”

            Below, is a direct word by word translation from Hebrew to English of this verse:

            ואת זכר לא תשכב משכבי אשה תועבה הִוא

            V’et-zachar lo tishkav mishk’vei ishah to’evah hu.

            (Transliterated using modern Israeli Sephardic pronunciation.)

            V’et – This is two words. First, V’, which means and. This word cannot exist by itself, and therefore is attached to the word that comes after it, that is, et. This word means with. So the first two words of this verse are And with.

            zachar – This word means male. Hebrew has no indefinite article (a, an), so when the definite article (the) is not used, as in this case, an indefinite article is understood. Therefore, this word translates as a male. The verse so far reads And with a male.

            lo – This word is the Hebrew equivalent of our words noand not. It is used in this case to negate the verb that follows it. Because English has a more complicated verb structure than Hebrew, it will take more than one English word to translate the next Hebrew word, and the not will need to go in the middle of those words, so we won’t add this word to our translation yet.

            tishkav – This is a verb. Unlike English verbs, everything we need to know about tense and person is contained in this one word. No additional pronouns or tense markers are needed.

            The root of the verb is the last three letters: sh-k-v, and it meanslie down. The first letter of the word, t, is not part of the root, but indicates person and tense and even gender. To translate tishkav into English will require four words, as well as a parenthetical note to indicate the gender of the pronoun.

            The word translates as Thou (male) shalt lie down. The previous Hebrew word, lo, negated the verb, so we have And with a male thou (male) shalt not lie down. mishk’vei – This is a noun. The base form of the noun is mishkav, and it can be seen that the last three letters of the base, sh-k-v, are also the three letters of the verb root above, meaning lie down. This noun means bed. Hebrew nouns have more than one form. In addition to having singular and plural forms, many nouns also have absolute and construct forms. An absolute noun stands alone, with its own meaning. A construct noun is grammatically tied to the noun that follows it. In English it often translates by placing the English word “of” between the two nouns. A good example is the Hebrew Beit Lechem (Bethlehem), which in English translates as House of Bread. This is because the first word, Beit, is in the construct state.Mishk’vei is in the plural construct state, meaning beds of. It would be a good idea here to explain a bit about Hebrew prepositions:

            Hebrew has prepositions that correspond to ours, but doesn’t always use them the same way. For example, when people leave us, in English we say that we miss them. But in Hebrew, the verb to miss is used with a preposition, and we say that we miss to them. The same works in reverse, that is, sometimes English requires a preposition when Hebrew doesn’t. If a preposition can be derived from context, Hebrew will sometimes leave it out. In English, we need it. Therefore, we need to insert the English word in before the words beds of, in order for the sentence to make sense in English.

            The verse so far reads And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of.

            ishah – This is the Hebrew word for woman. Since there is no definite article (the), it is understood to mean a woman.And with a male thou shalt not lie down in beds of a woman.Since this is awkward, we will rephrase it to “in a woman’s bed.”And with a male thou shalt not lie down in a woman’s bed.

            (Note: The word mishk’vei only appears three times in scripture: Gen. 49:7; Lev. 18:22; Lev. 20:13. In Genesis, it is paired with the word avicha, which means “thy father,” and the phrase is correctly translated in most versions as “to thy father’s bed.” As in Lev. 18:22, the preposition is derived from context.)

            Punctuation as we know it was not part of the original text. Even modern Hebrew Bibles contain only one punctuation mark, which looks like a colon ‘:’, and serves only to point out the end of a verse (but not necessarily the end of a sentence). English is very difficult to read without punctuation marks, so we insert them as we translate. After the word woman, we may insert either a semicolon, or a period, to indicate that the following words are not part of the first phrase, but simply offer further information about it. And with a male thou shalt not lie down in a woman’s bed;

            to’evah – It has been traditionally translated as abomination, although this is not correct since there are many forms of a to’evah. A more correct word would be ‘taboo’. Without a definite article, it has been translated as ‘an abomination’, but the correct translation would be ‘a taboo’. Hebrew word order often varies from ours, and this is one case where this is true. In English, this will be the last word in the sentence, so we will hold off on adding it to the translation until we have finished with the next word.

            hu – This little word serves so many purposes, not only for readers of the Hebrew text, but also for those today who wonder about the accuracy of the Hebrew text. You see, this word is a grammatical error made by Moses. Moses was well schooled in the arts and sciences of ancient Egypt, but not in the tongue of his own people. Although he evidently spoke Hebrew well enough to be understood, like so many today, he did not always use proper grammar. His meaning remained the same, but the grammar was wrong.

            I want to repeat that: His meaning remained the same, only the grammar was wrong.The word הוא hu means both he and it. It means it when applied to masculine nouns. But to’evah is a feminine noun, so Moses should have used the word היא hi, which means she and it. It means it when applied to feminine nouns. (All Hebrew nouns are either masculine or feminine; there is no neuter gender. This gender concept is grammatical in nature only, and has nothing to do with men or women, per se. For example, in Hebrew a table is masculine, whereas in the Romance languages, it is feminine. It has nothing to do with the nature of the table; it’s simply grammatical.)

            The next point of grammar involves the present tense forms of the verb to be. In English these forms are am, art, is and are. Hebrew has such forms, but almost never uses them, except in reference to God, or when absolutely necessary for context.

            The reason for this may be that the forms are too close to God’s name in Hebrew. While this may seem awkward to us, there are many other languages that don’t use the present tense of the verb to be. For example, Russian has become so used to ignoring the forms, that some of them are completely obsolete. The Russian equivalent of am can’t even be found in a dictionary or grammar book any more. They get along fine without it, and so does Hebrew. But English can’t, so we have to insert the appropriate forms when translating: And with a male thou shalt not lie down in a woman’s bed; it is

            Finally, we put in the words a taboo: “And with a male thou shalt not lie down in a woman’s bed; it is a taboo.”

            This is the correct translation of Leviticus 18:22. It can be seen that, rather than forbidding male homosexuality, it simply forbids two males to lie down in a woman’s bed together, for any reason. If anyone finds that hard to believe, God also forbid anyone to wear clothing made of 2 different mixed fibres (such as wool and linen, or polyester and cotton today), and listed such as an ‘abomination’ as well

          • feloneouscat

            The government is the problem!!!

            Now you’re just repeating stupid lines.

            We only have one government. A government run by human beings who are fallible – and yet that is EXACTLY as the Framers intended.

            You know why you can drink your tap water without being poisoned? The government. You know why you have safety equipment in your car? The government.

            Do you know in the 60’s lakes and rivers were so polluted that some caught on fire? No, of course not. And if you were in a spaceship, you’d pop rivets saying “look, I popped one and nothing happened”…

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I’ve asked him that numerous times. I’m still waiting for an answer.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            Apparently, as long as I don’t read any by ‘godless liberals’, I’ll be okay.

          • feloneouscat

            An “opinion” does not change the law. They just tell us that it does and we believe their lies. We then repeat their lies and teach them to others. The lies soon become “truth”, although it is not The Truth. I’ll say it again. Courts do not make laws.

            1. SCOTUS can not make law.
            2. SCOTUS can interpret the Constitution.
            3. SCOTUS under the Constitution can do #3.

            In Roe, SCOTUS found the laws preventing abortion violated the Constitution. In the same way they found “separate but equal” schooling also violated the Constitution.

            The Supreme Court in Roe performed their Constitutional duties and determined that abortion laws violated the Constitution.

            That is the truth but it appears you can’t handle the truth.

          • afchief

            Where was Abortion in the Constitution that gave the SCOTUS authority to hear the case? WHERE? Roe v Wade is NOT the law of the land. Roe v Wade was an OPINION handed down by judges. Judges and courts do not make laws, but rather merely render opinions.

            The “Supreme” Court does not make laws, it simply offers opinions on whether or not a “law” meets Constitutional muster. If the law violates the Constitution, then the law is remanded back to the Legislative branch so that the law can be re-written to fall in line with the Constitution. This is how our government is supposed to create and change laws.

          • feloneouscat

            Where was Abortion in the Constitution that gave the SCOTUS authority to hear the case? WHERE? Roe v Wade is NOT the law of the land. Roe v Wade was an OPINION handed down by judges. Judges and courts do not make laws, but rather merely render opinions.

            1. Abortion didn’t have to be in the Constitution.
            2. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has the right to either hear the case or send it back to a lower court.
            3. The opinions handed down by the Supreme Court become part of case law. In Roe v. Wade, they said that anti-abortion laws violated the Constitution.
            4. Laws that are deemed unconstitutional can not be used. For example, the line item veto President Clinton used was deemed unconstitutional despite having passed by Congress. Congress does not always make laws that are Constitutional.
            5. What do you think opinions are? That they exist in a vacuum? Is your argument that if a judge sentences someone to life in prison for murder, well, that’s an opinion, but he doesn’t really have to go to prison?

          • afchief

            Negative!!!! For the SCOTUS to hear the case it has to be a “possible” violation of the federal constitution, PERIOD!!!

            Abortion violated NOTHING in the federal constitution. NOTHING!!!

            And do not try and say the 14th amendment. I will prove that wrong in a heartbeat!!!!

            IT’S CALLED JUDICIAL TYRANNY!!!!

          • feloneouscat

            For the SCOTUS to hear the case it has to be a “possible” violation of the federal constitution, PERIOD!!!

            And that is why they heard it, because the lawyer made a case that it was a violation of the Constitution.

            9th and 14th. Go for it.

          • afchief

            LOL!!!! Liberals think they can put reason to evil. Wait, liberals are EVIL !!! …you can’t even put reason to liberalism. No, we can’t, because Liberalism is a Mental disease. And a Mentally ill person can’t reason, nor can he/she analyze and rationalizes. It is quite obvious!!!

          • feloneouscat

            I thought you were going to “prove that wrong in a heartbeat!!!!”

            Instead you just yadayadayada.

            This isn’t an argument, this is just you boasting and then pretending you didn’t say anything.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Hey, I have a crazy idea. How about, instead of constantly stomping your foot and insisting that something is true because “it just is” and “because I said so,” you cite something that says it’s true?

            You know, from maybe a nice legal treatise. Written by a practicing attorney, or better yet, a former attorney who is now a law professor. But a “real” attorney. Not a “fake” one like me, because you don’t have any interest in what I say.

          • afchief

            You call yourself a lawyer and do not even know how our law and court system works!!!!

            Let me ask you some simple questions; Do we have three but separate and equal branches of government? Do they have to be in agreement when making law or changing law?

            As Mark Levin, an attorney and president of the Landmark Legal Foundation, wrote in Men in Black (2004), SCOTUS justices “have co-opted authority that has not been granted to them [by the Constitution]; they have usurped the authority that has been granted to Congress, the president, and the states, and they continually behave like an Olympian council.”

            There are other ways in which the SCOTUS’s justices can be said to constitute a judicial tyranny. First, even though the Constitution does not require a SCOTUS justice to be a lawyer, all nine current justices graduated from law school. All the justices who have been appointed to SCOTUS since 1941 have had JDs.

            Second, and perhaps more important, the six men and three women now on the court graduated from just two law schools. Six – Bader Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia – graduated from Harvard Law School, and three – Alito, Sotomayer, Thomas – got their JDs from Yale Law School.

            The fact that, as the recent SCOTUS decision on same-sex marriage shows, four Harvard Law School grads, joined by one Yalee, can dictate American law on this vital subject forces us to confront “an inconvient truth”: as few as five SCOTUS justices, unrepresentative of, insulated from, and unresponsive to the citizenry, can dictate policy to the rest of the country.

            An obvious question is, can anything be done to reduce the Supreme Court’s power, a situation that has been developing since Chief Justice John Marshall’s decision in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), which established the principle of judicial review? As Mark Levin noted in The Liberty Amendments (2013), that “ruling altered and expanded the Court’s limited authority to adjudicate civil disputes and criminal complaints into a judicial oligarchy with few institutional limits on its power.” In the 212 years since that decision, the notion of judicial review – which asserts that SCOTUS can declare congressional acts, presidential decisions, and state statutes unconstitutional – has been parlayed into judicial supremacy.

            Judicial supremacy – which many interpret as “judicial tyranny” – is a far cry from Alexander Hamilton’s claim in The Federalist #78 that the judiciary “will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution.” Because the judiciary lacked the powers of the purse and of the sword, Hamilton contended that it had “neither FORCE NOR WILL but merely judgment [my italics][.]”

            Hamilton’s benign view of the federal judiciary’s power was countered by the Anti-Federalist Robert Yates, a New York state judge and delegate to the Constitutional Convention in 1787, who probably wrote a series of “op-ed” essays under the pen name “Brutus.” In his 11th essay, “Brutus” contended that “[t]he opinions of the supreme court … will have the force of law; because there is no power provided in the constitution that can correct their errors, or control their adjudications. From this court there is no appeal” (my italics).

            Indirect testimony on behalf of “Brutus’s” view of the federal judiciary’s power, rather than Hamilton’s, can be adduced from the tack recommended by at least two analysts who are critical of the Supreme Court’s domination of American politics. Both of the Court’s critics have offered constitutional amendments.

            One of Levin’s “Liberty Amendments” – which would be proposed by conventions called by at least two thirds of the state legislatures – calls for term limits for associate justices who would serve staggered terms, and sets a 12-year limit on how long someone can be Chief Justice. Although presidents would still appoint members of the Supreme Court, who would be subject to senatorial approval, a three-fifths vote by both houses of Congress, which could not be vetoed by the president or nullified by a court, could overturn a Supreme Court’s decision. A Supreme Court decision could also be overturned by a vote of three fifths of the states’ legislatures, which could also not be nullified by the courts, Congress, or the president.

            Senator Ted Cruz (R, TX), who is a candidate for the GOP’s presidential nomination, proposed a constitutional amendment that would “render the justices [of SCOTUS] directly accountable to the people.” Cruz proposed that “every judge, beginning with the second national election after his or her appointment, will answer to the American people and the states in a retention election every eight years.” Any judge deemed unworthy of retention by a majority of the electorate and by majorities in at least half of the states “will be removed from office and disqualified from future service on the Court.” Cruz believes that “giving the people the regular, periodic power to pass judgment on the judgments of their judges strikes a proper balance between judicial independence and judicial accountability.”

            Others, such as Michael Grable, call for either impeaching a majority of current SCOTUS justices or at least congressional action to nullify judicial review.

            Regardless of their specific thrust, all proposed amendments suffer from the same problem: it is extremely difficult to amend America’s organic law. As much as anything, that explains why there have been only 27 amendments in the 227 years since the Constitution was ratified.

            The same can be said for efforts to impeach federal judges. Although the Constitution allows Congress to remove a federal judge by impeachment and conviction, American history shows that this tack has seldom been taken. No SCOTUS justice has been impeached and convicted since 1804. Only eight justices of lower federal courts have been impeached and convicted over the years, most before 1980. Alcee Hastings, a federal court judge who was impeached and convicted in 1989, now sits in the House of Representatives.

            I know of no attempt by Congress to rescind SCOTUS’s power of judicial review.

            I suggest a different approach. As I proposed in an essay on this blog in July 2013, Article III, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the Constitution permits Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of all federal courts. This power has been exercised at least once, and the Supreme Court acknowledged Congress’s power in its Ex Parte McCardle decision, 74 U.S. 506 (1869). (Whether today’s emboldened SCOTUS justices would accept limits on their appellate jurisdiction is an interesting question.) Since most of the major decisions SCOTUS makes fall under its appellate jurisdiction, restricting the type of cases the Court could take would seriously curtail “judicial tyranny.”

            There’s only one big problem: over half the members of Congress would have to summon the courage to take on SCOTUS and its allies. Don’t hold your breath waiting for Congress-members to exhibit courage.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            What is it that I “don’t know?” Even the author of your right wing screed agrees that the Supreme Court has the power to overturn laws. He says they SHOULDN’T, but they do.

            I’m not interested in abstract, philosophical arguments about the proper amount of power the justices should have. I’m a practitioner, not a professor and I simply don’t care about having “what-if” debates.

            As it stands now, SCOTUS has the power to overturn unconstitutional laws. Any abstract philosophizing about their role is simply irrelevant to me.

          • afchief

            Nope! The SCOTUS can overturn NO laws! NONE!!! They only render opinions!!!

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Yes, so you’ve said. And I’ve asked, many times, for you to provide some evidence of this, which you have consistently failed to do.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Oh no, what are you doing here then? All those women out there, having abortions! Why aren’t you reporting them to the police? They should be arrested immediately!

          • afchief

            So should lying incompetent make believe lawyers!

          • feloneouscat

            Nope! The SCOTUS can overturn NO laws! NONE!!! They only render opinions!!!

            Okay, then let’s pretend they can only render opinions. For your sake.

            What would be the point of that?

            Or are you arguing that Congress can make, for example, Free Speech illegal through a simple law?

          • afchief

            Yes they can. But don’t forget, the executive branch HAS to sign it into law. Or it is NO law at all.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            What? Congress can pass an unconstitutional law? Since when?

            I mean, this isn’t even case law, dude! It says right in the original text of the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech”!

          • afchief

            That’s right! It violates the Constitution!! That is why the executive branch should/would never sign it into law!

          • feloneouscat

            That’s right! It violates the Constitution!! That is why the executive branch should/would never sign it into law!

            The executive branch isn’t a group of Constitutional scholars.

            Bush, for example, wasn’t even a lawyer. Yet he signed into law the Patriot Act which did precisely that – violated Constitutionally protected acts.

            For example in ACLU v. DoJ, the ACLU filed suit that the Patriot Act, signed by the President, violated the Constitution by allowing the FBI to exercise searches without a warrant (violating the First and Fourth Amendment). The Supreme Court struck that part of the Patriot Act down as being unconstitutional.

            That’s recent history. Google for the background on it.

          • afchief

            I agree on this case. Bush was wrong to sign the Patriot Act into law. It violates the Constitution. Congress should throw it out.

          • feloneouscat

            I agree on this case. Bush was wrong to sign the Patriot Act into law. It violates the Constitution. Congress should throw it out.

            But my point remains, Bush signed a bad bill into law. Congress isn’t going to get rid of the Patriot Act. The best we have got, for now, is for the Supreme Court to find bits and piece of it unconstitutional.

          • afchief

            The WHOLE thing is unconstitutional.

          • feloneouscat

            The WHOLE thing is unconstitutional.

            Earlier you were saying that anything written by Congress and signed by the President was Constitutional. That no unconstitutional law would get by the executive branch (despite plenty of examples).

            Now you are claiming the opposite. Pick one or the other.

          • afchief

            LOL!! Yes liberalism truly is a mental disorder!!!!

          • feloneouscat

            LOL!! Yes liberalism truly is a mental disorder!!!!

            You are the one screaming that the Patriot Act is unconstitutional yet at the same time arguing that no unconstitutional law will be signed by the executive.

            This is you not me who is trying to argue two diametrically opposed arguments.

            The fact that I am stating fact and you are stating fiction is, of course, beside the point.

          • feloneouscat

            What? Congress can pass an unconstitutional law? Since when?

            Line item veto which Clinton used and then was hammered by SCOTUS as being unconstitutional.

            Though (I just looked at the numbers) the number of laws SCOTUS has said are unconstitutional are small (less than 200 IIRC).

          • feloneouscat

            Yes they can. But don’t forget, the executive branch HAS to sign it into law. Or it is NO law at all.

            And all it takes is someone to bring suit and take it to the Supreme Court who will find that the law violates the Constitution (First Amendment). The law will be struck and no one can be prosecuted under that law.

            The Constitution has precedence in this case. Perhaps that is the part you are not understanding?

            In order to make Free Speech illegal, one would have to pass a Constitutional Amendment.

          • afchief

            What are you talking about?

          • feloneouscat

            See my comment above.

          • feloneouscat

            I have to agree with Ambulance Chaser, this right wing diatribe is full of “what if’s” and “I don’t like’s” but nowhere does he say that SCOTUS does not have the power to review law.

            Nor, does he indicate, that Congress could successfully pass a law restricting SCOTUS without that law being ruled unconstitutional. Worse, for you, he DOES indicate that an amendment to the Constitution would be ideal, but it probably wouldn’t fly.

            In other words, he doesn’t like how the Supreme Court works but, for the most part, doesn’t seem to indicate what is wrong with the current system.

            Just screaming “judicial tyranny” isn’t a reason for change. It’s not an explanation. What problem does it fix? If the issue is to reduce the power of SCOTUS doesn’t that mean that it no longer is an equal branch of government? That’s what it implies to me.

            And what is this about “Do they (the three branches of government) have to be in agreement when making law or changing law?” – of course not. Congress will always come up with stupid and illegal laws. Reducing the Supreme Court’s power to declare them unconstitutional is not only a bad idea, but a pretty stupid one.

          • afchief

            OMG!!! Bye! I’m done dealing with stupidity!!!

          • feloneouscat

            OMG!!! Bye! I’m done dealing with stupidity!!!

            No, you don’t seem to understand what was written: he is proposing a solution for a non-existent problem.

            Calling me names doesn’t make the article any more intelligent.

          • feloneouscat

            OMG!!! Bye! I’m done dealing with stupidity!!!

            LIAR! You said this two hours ago and you are STILL arguing with me!

            You must be a son of Satan. And sin by shaving and eating pork.

          • feloneouscat

            President Andrew Jackson, made a statement regarding a Supreme Court ruling in 1832 famously said, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” President Jackson ignored the decision that the Supreme Court handed down. Congress can ignore it also. Which means NO law has changed or been made.

            That would be a violation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has been given the powers by the Constitution to rule on laws. Neither the President nor Congress can “decide” that they don’t like the ruling. To do so would be unconstitutional.

            So either you are going by law or you are making things up So far I just see you making things up.

          • afchief

            I see we have another product of our indoctrination centers we call public schools who has NO understanding how our government works. NONE!!!! We have 3 I repeat 3 branches of government who are in equal in power and have to be in AGREEMENT before a law is made or changed!!!!!

            A COURT DECISION IS NOT A LAW!! Judges and courts do not make laws, but rather merely render opinions. Did you know that the Supreme Court once rendered the opinion that black men were inferior to whites? Did you know that the Supreme Court once ruled that women had no legal right to vote? Did you know that as recently as 1986 the Supreme Court ruled that there was no right to homosexual sodomy? Opinions can change when judges change. The law cannot be changed by a “judge.” If that were the case, our “laws” would be as constantly changing as the “judges” are.

            If “judges” ruled that sodomy was illegal in 1986, how did sodomy become “legal” today? Did the law change, or did the “opinions” of the “judges” change?

            Get a book on Constitutional law and READ IT!!!!

          • feloneouscat

            If “judges” ruled that sodomy was illegal in 1986, how did sodomy become “legal” today?

            I’m assuming you’re talking about Bowers v. Hardwick where the judges ruled on a Georgia sodomy law criminalizing oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults when applied to homosexuals.

            I would argue the main flaw in this opinion was Justice Byron White, arguing that the Constitution did not confer “a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy” – was he arguing that the Constitution did confer a fundamental right to heterosexual sodomy? Nope. The Constitution actually is pretty much mum on the whole issue of sex.

            Now the hilarious part. Four years later, Justice White was asked about this opinion and said, “I do think it was inconsistent in a general way with Roe. When I had the opportunity to reread the opinions a few months later I thought the dissent had the better of the arguments.”

            So, in the end, reversing it was consistent both with case law and with the man who wrote the majority opinion. It was a case where law corrects itself.

          • afchief

            Let me repeat so it will sink in that little liberal cranium!!!! The law cannot be changed by a “judge.” If that were the case, our “laws” would be as constantly changing as the “judges” are.

            COURTS DO NOT MAKE OR CHANGE ANY LAWS. NONE!!!!

          • feloneouscat

            Let me repeat so it will sink in that little liberal cranium!!!! The law cannot be changed by a “judge.” If that were the case, our “laws” would be as constantly changing as the “judges” are.

            COURTS DO NOT MAKE OR CHANGE ANY LAWS. NONE!!!!

            Let me repeat because you apparently are not getting any of it: no law is being created. None. Zero. Zip.

            Bowers was overturned because it was the wrong decision. Human beings make mistakes and sometimes other humans have to fix it.

            But, again, the courts never made a law in Bower. Not one.

          • afchief

            LOL! Yes liberals are mentally ill!!!!

          • feloneouscat

            LOL! Yes liberals are mentally ill!!!!

            So all of your foot stomping, yelling, screaming, and this is all it comes down to?

            I thought conservatives are the ones with ideas? Or do they just name call and let the liberals come up with the ideas?

          • Trivia Jockey

            I’ve seen your posts about Constitutional law, and you are most definitely, 100% wrong. I am a lawyer, and I can assure you than a judicial opinion, despite being called an “opinion”, has the FULL FORCE OF LAW. If SCOTUS rules a law unconstitutional, that law becomes NULL AND VOID. It does not matter what Congress then does with the law, whether it stays on the books or not. It’s invalid and unenforceable. Take the sodomy law you referenced – Lawrence v. Kansas – SCOUTS struck down Texas’ sodomy law, making that law void. And yes, SCOTUS can reverse its own rulings. When SCOTUS rulings are called “opinions”, that’s in a legal sense, not in the sense that they’re ‘suggestions’. Those opinions have the full force of law.

          • afchief

            Wow! Another lying make believe lawyer. Go away with you lying liberal/homosexual garbage. Because I know what you are trying to do.

            So when the Supreme Court once rendered the opinion that black men were inferior to whites, that became law? When the SCOTUS ruled that women had no legal right to vote, that became law? Did you know that as recently as 1986 the Supreme Court ruled that there was no right to homosexual sodomy? What changed? JUDGES!!!!!!

            Opinions can change when judges change. The law cannot be changed by a “judge.” If that were the case, our “laws” would be as constantly changing as the “judges” are.

            If “judges” ruled that sodomy was illegal in 1986, how did sodomy become “legal” today? Did the law change, or did the “opinions” of the “judges” change?

            Stop your liberal/homosexual lying garbage!!!!

          • Trivia Jockey

            Which SCOTUS decisions are you referring to? Please list the case names so I can respond. But yes, the law can change depending on how the Court rules.

            The part you don’t seem to understand is that the SCOTUS has the power to determine if a law passed by Congress violates the Constitution or not. And that power has the force of law.

            For example, assume that Congress passed a law saying that citizens were required to hand over all their firearms and owning a firearm was illegal. SCOTUS would likely hear that case, and would most likely issue an opinion that the gun-banning law was unconstitutional and therefore void. Would you still say that this was just an “opinion” and the gun-ban law was still valid?

          • afchief

            Silly make believe lawyer, the SCOTUS can say whatever it wants and it changes NOTHING!!!!! The “Supreme” Court does not make laws, it simply offers opinions on whether or not a “law” meets Constitutional muster. If the law violates the Constitution, then the law is remanded back to the Legislative branch so that the law can be re-written to fall in line with the Constitution. This is how our government is supposed to create and change laws.

            Another liar!!!!!!

          • feloneouscat

            The “Supreme” Court does not make laws, it simply offers opinions on whether or not a “law” meets Constitutional muster. If the law violates the Constitution, then the law is remanded back to the Legislative branch so that the law can be re-written to fall in line with the Constitution.

            But you also believe the Supreme Court has no right to rule on laws passed by states?

            Where did you go to law school?

          • afchief

            Silly liberal!!! Do you know how long most states had their marriage clauses in their state constitutions? You know WHY they had a marriage clause in their Constitutions? Because the federal constitution said NOTHING about marriage. So the states put it in their Constitutions in accordance with the 10th amendment!!!

            So after hundreds of years in their states constitutions it takes 5 liberal homo friendly quackery judges to try and overturn states Constitutions in accordance with the 14th amendment???????? Do you know how stupid that sounds????

            Have you ever studied WHY the 14th amendment was added to the bill of rights? Do you have any idea at all????

            Please tell me you have a few brain cells left in that liberal cranium of yours and can think logically and rationally!!!!

            Just maybe!!!!

          • feloneouscat

            George W Bush filed suit based on the 14th Amendment so that he would win over Al Gore. Are you telling me his lawsuit was frivolous and wrong?

            Or perhaps you aren’t the Constitutional scholar you pretend to be?

          • feloneouscat

            The 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause was used in Loving v to point out that laws against Whites marrying non-Whites violated the Constitution. Marriage has been held to be a right in over 13 Supreme Court Cases.

            Is your argument that it is illegal for Whites to marry Non-Whites?

          • feloneouscat

            If “judges” ruled that sodomy was illegal in 1986, how did sodomy become “legal” today? Did the law change, or did the “opinions” of the “judges” change?

            The laws were reviewed and the previous opinion (remember, these are human beings) was found to be flawed.

            This was the law righting itself.

            Stop your liberal/homosexual lying garbage!!!!

            Why do you hate Freedom of Speech so much?

          • afchief

            You know NOTHING about constitutional law. NOTHING!!!!

          • feloneouscat

            You keep saying that and yet I seem to be trouncing you on the subject.

          • Joe Soap

            So according to you for the last 250 years or so the taxpayers have been paying these guys a fortune to sit on the SCOTUS so that they can offer “opinions”. Hmmm. Nice work if you can get it.

            You have been banging this particular drum for quite a while now yet nobody appears to be taking any notice. Maybe it’s because what you are saying makes no sense and in the meantime life goes on.

            All those things you are so opposed to, Obamacare, abortions, same sex marriage etc are happening as we speak and untangling them is just about impossible. Maybe you should bang on about something else. Maybe you’ll have more luck, but I doubt it.

          • afchief

            Only you godless liberal/homosexuals. You cannot bear to think homo marriage is not law. Which it is NOT!!!!

          • feloneouscat

            You cannot bear to think homo marriage is not law.

            Of course it is, silly. It’s called the Equal Protection Clause.

          • afchief

            Yes, liberalism truly is a mental disorder!!! From the Florida Constitution where I live;

            Article 1
            SECTION 27. Marriage defined.—Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.

          • JGC

            Article 1 Section 27 of the Florida constitution, as with every other state constitution that contained similar language restricting civil matrimony to individuals of opposite genders, was found to be unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges, however, and is null and void.

          • afchief

            Did I not say you are a liar? I sure did and your posts are proof!!!!

          • JGC

            You’ve said so many things that demonstrably aren’t true, afcheif, that I wouldn’t be surprised if accusing me of being a liar were on the list. Don’t expect me to keep track for you.

          • afchief

            Did I not say you are a liar? I sure did and your posts are proof!!!!

          • feloneouscat

            You call everyone who you disagree with either a liar or in league with Satan.

            I’m not sure those could be considered Christian acts, myself.

          • afchief

            Yes, this makes you a liar!!! There is NO law in the federal or states Constitutions that say homos can marry. NONE!

            Article 1

            SECTION 27. Marriage defined.—Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.

            There are laws on the books that say homos can’t marry!!!!

            YES, YOU ARE A LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • feloneouscat

            And this was determined to be unconstitutional. It violates the constitution. No one can be held to this law as it violates peoples rights under the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause (which holds that no state will make a law that allows some people to exercise rights but not others – I simplified the language for you).

            That is part of the Constitution. Whether you like it or not.

          • feloneouscat

            Oddly enough, Florida has same sex marriages as well!

            Tell me how that works again?

          • afchief

            Because people are “sheeple” and easily deceived and manipulated to believe lies. There is a “Supreme” Court opinion that said homos can marry, but that is merely an opinion…not a law! They just tell us that it is and we believe them, follow the lie, and teach it to others.

            Without the Spirit of God you cannot discern the lies! With the Spirit of God they are easy to see!!! Only through the Holy Spirit do I see the lies being told by you and the liberal godless media. The lies are very easy to see for me!

          • feloneouscat

            No, you are being silly and do not understand that the Supreme Court is equal to Congress, not subservient to it (remember three and equal branches?). This allows the Supreme Court to invalidate laws that are deemed unconstitutional.

            The person that has been lying has been you (or you are willfully ignorant).

            The fact that you neither understand nor comprehend law is obvious.

          • afchief

            BYE! I tired of dealing with mental disorders!!!

          • feloneouscat

            BYE! I tired of dealing with mental disorders!!!

            And yet you never leave.

          • Joe Soap

            You are right. Same sex marriage is not the law. But it is not against the law. There is no law prohibiting same sex marriage. Do you understand the difference?
            I’ll give you an example. Prohibition,
            Until prohibition was introduced prohibiting the sale and consumption of alcohol there was no law against it. When prohibition was repealed they didn’t enact a law saying you could now purchase and consume alcohol they simply said there is no law against it. That is how the law works. Laws are made against things not for them.

            Anything is legal until there is a law AGAINST it.

          • afchief

            It’s illegal in my state of Florida!

            Article 1

            SECTION 27. Marriage defined.—Inasmuch as marriage is the legal union of only one man and one woman as husband and wife, no other legal union that is treated as marriage or the substantial equivalent thereof shall be valid or recognized.

          • feloneouscat

            I guarantee you not a single person in Florida, your state, is being prosecuted for same gender marriage. In fact, legally, the State must allow it.

          • afchief

            That’s because we are a lawless country now. We are a country of lies. Lies rule the day in America. They rule in government, they rule in science, they rule in education, and the rule in the media. They rule the day because Truth has fallen in the streets.

            We have a Spiritual problem in America, not a political one. We are a rebellious people under the control of a rebellious system, controlled by rebellious leaders.

            “For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.” -I Samuel 15:23.

          • feloneouscat

            That’s because we are a lawless country now.

            That is a lie.

            We have a Spiritual problem in America, not a political one.

            That is also a lie.

            For someone so quick to scream that others are lying, you seem perfectly capable of lying yourself. Or is it that you do not see them as lies?

          • feloneouscat

            I keep telling you, I am NOT godless.

            BTW, Jesus was a liberal.

          • feloneouscat

            Careful, he may call you the child of Satan. Or satin. 😉

          • Doubting Thomas

            Please tell me, because I’m genuinely curious, if Supreme Court decisions are merely nonbinding opinions with no weight in law, and which can easily be ignored by the legislative and executive branches, what’s the point in having a Supreme Court at all? Why even have a third branch of government if it’s going to be totally ineffective at retaining the balance of powers?

          • afchief

            Your right the SCOTUS does not have as much authority as the legislative branch. The founders did it that way for a reason. The power of the Court is reflected in the work it does, and its decisions often shape policy as profoundly as any law passed by Congress or any action taken by the president. The power of the Court to implement its decisions is limited. For example, in the famous 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the justices ruled that racial segregation (separate but equal) in public places is unconstitutional. But, it took many years for school districts to desegregate.

            The Court has no means (such as an army) to force implementation. Instead, it must count on the executive and legislative branches to back its decisions. In the Civil Rights Movement, the Court led the way, but the other branches had to follow before real change could take place.

            People today think that once the SCOTUS makes a ruling it becomes law. That is not the case. Only the legislative branch can make or change law in our country.

            If Americans want America changed, they have agreed, through the Constitution, that the process requires that the changes be done by their elected representatives. If Americans wish to change that process and give up their rights, they can amend the Constitution, as defined in the Constitution.

            Given that the Constitution has not been amended, it’s clear that any Supreme Court decision that changes America is unconstitutional and an exercise in judicial tyranny.

            If the people’s representatives pass a law and the Supreme Court hears a case that simply ensures that the law is followed as intended by the people’s representatives, the Supreme Court’s decision will not, cannot, change America. Rather, it would be the law passed by Congress that is changing America.

            Only by acting in opposition to the Constitution and providing judgments not in keeping with the intent of the people’s representatives can the Supreme Court “change America.”

            The people’s representatives have never passed a law legalizing abortion for any reason through all nine months of pregnancy, nor have they passed a law that legalized gay marriage. If they had, then there would be laws, not Supreme Court rulings, that “changed America” on these issues.

          • feloneouscat

            Wait, wait, you said:

            Your right the SCOTUS does not have as much authority as the legislative branch. The founders did it that way for a reason.

            Yet even in the right wing screed you posted he stated “three branches of government with equal power”.

            Now your argument is that SCOTUS has less power than the legislative branch.

            People today think that once the SCOTUS makes a ruling it becomes law.

            It becomes part of case law. It is not a law that is enacted, their rulings either enforce or strike down laws that exist or, in some instances, infer what is not explicitly stated (for example the right to free speech does not confer the right to yell “fire” in a crowded movie theatre).

            Your argument is that the Supreme Court is not an equal branch of government. This is silly from the outset.

          • Elie Challita

            Chief: Are legal decisions binding?
            If a court finds you guilty and orders you to pay a settlement, are you legally obligated to do so?

          • afchief

            I’m talking about Constitutional violations. I’m talking about making and/or changing laws. Laws can only be made by one of two ways in America: by an act of the Legislative Branch, or by a citizen’s initiative through a direct vote of the people. Courts can never make laws.

            Abortion is still against the law. Marriage is still the union of one man and one woman. There is no separation between the church and the state as is currently accepted in America. They just tell us there is, we believe it, and we teach the lie to others.

            It’s called Judicial Tyranny!!!

          • Elie Challita

            So are court decisions merely opinions, or are they legally binding?

          • afchief

            Criminal cases are binding. The SCOTUS and some federal courts are violating the Constitution with their opinions. They are not binding.

          • Elie Challita

            Why are criminal decisions binding, but other judicial decisions non-binding? Especially considering that SCOTUS’ stated judicial purpose is to judge the constitutionality of laws?

          • afchief

            The Supreme Court versus Congress

            Even though the Constitution gave the lawmaking powers to the Congress, courts have become the predominant policy making body in the nation. In fact, on public tours of the Supreme Court, one often hears the ridiculous claim that “this is the building from which all the laws in the land emanate.” The Supreme Court, fully believing its own propaganda, regularly strikes down or rewrites the laws of Congress to conform to its own predilections and edicts.

            For example, in 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to correct an earlier Supreme Court decision that weakened a long-standing First Amendment protection for religious groups. That Congressional act reinstituted protection declaring that a government entity must not interfere with a religious body unless it had “a compelling state interest” for doing so. When a Catholic church in Boerne, Texas, sought to accommodate its burgeoning membership but was denied a building permit to expand its facilities, the church invoked relief under RFRA, claiming the city had no “compelling state interest” in denying the church expansion. The Court ruled otherwise, striking down Congress’ attempt to protect religious bodies from government intrusion. While most decried this decision for weakening the rights of religious bodies, there was a far greater question at stake.

            Congress invoked Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution in passing RFRA to protect religious freedoms from further governmental encroachment. Yet even though the Congress had acted on the power explicitly given it in the Constitution, the Court struck down the law, refusing to be corrected by Congress and warning that Congress should not attempt to correct a Court ruling. Significantly, Congress cited the Constitution as its authority for passing RFRA, but the Court did not cite the Constitution as its authority for striking RFRA down. The Court instead pointed to its own previous decisions, thus elevating its rulings higher than the Constitution itself. As it explained, “Any suggestion that Congress has a substantive, non-remedial power under the Fourteenth Amendment is not supported by our case law.” The Court then rebuked Congress, warning that its judicial edicts must be treated “with the respect due them.” In short, we the Court demand that you the Congress adhere to our opinions regardless of what the Constitution says.

            Obviously, the Supreme Court considers both itself and its decisions supreme over Congress. However, the Constitution disagrees – it deliberately empowers Congress with greater power. For example, the Constitution gives Congress the authority to set the salaries for judges, determine the size of the Judiciary, establish the scope of the Judiciary’s jurisdiction and the types of cases which come before it. Furthermore, judges cannot serve without the approval of Congress, and Congress may remove judges with whom it is dissatisfied. These are just some of the “constitutional arms” for Congress’ “powers of self-defense” (Federalist 73, Alexander Hamilton).

            The Constitution clearly places many of the operations of the Judiciary under the oversight of Congress – a power not granted reciprocally to the Judiciary. This is made clear in the Federalist Papers (described by James Madison as “the most authentic exposition of the heart of the federal Constitution”), which confirm that subjugating the Judiciary to Congress was deliberate and intentional. Federalist #51 declares:

            The legislative authority necessarily predominates.

            Federalist #78 then proclaims:

            The Judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power.

            Furthermore, Federalist #49 declares that Congress – not the Court – is “the confidential guardians of [the people’s] rights and liberties.” Why? Because the Legislature – not the unelected judiciary – is closest to the people and most responsive to them. In fact, the Court’s own history proves that it is not a proficient guardian of the people’s rights. For example, after the Civil War, Congress passed civil rights laws forbidding segregation, but the Court struck down these laws and instead instituted “separate but equal” in Plessey v. Ferguson. (While the Court eventually ended this racial segregation in Brown v. Board of Education, that decision was merely the Court’s reversal of its own segregation standard previously established in Plessey.)

            Moreover, had it been up to the Court, slavery would have never ended: in 1857, the Court declared it unconstitutional for the other branches to end slavery or to free slaves. Fortunately, Congress ignored that decision by declaring freedom for slaves in 1862 and President Lincoln also ignored that decision by issuing the “Emancipation Proclamation” in 1863. All substantive progress in civil rights after the Civil War was accomplished only after Congress used Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution to remove Reconstruction issues from the Court’s reach. Indeed, history demonstrates that the Court is less than a faithful guardian of the people’s rights, violating the people’s liberties as often as it protects them. As Thomas Jefferson pointed out:

            Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. . . . and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.

            Today, the Court claims that it is the only body capable of interpreting the Constitution – that Congress is incapable of determining constitutionality. However, the Founding Fathers vehemently disagreed. For example, James Madison declared:

            [T]he meaning of the Constitution may as well be ascertained by the Legislative as by the Judicial authority.

            Constitutional Convention delegate Luther Martin similarly attested:

            A knowledge of mankind and of legislative affairs cannot be presumed to belong in a higher degree to the Judges than to the Legislature.

            The Founders consistently opposed the Court being the final word on constitutionality. For example, Thomas Jefferson declared:

            [T]o consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. . . . The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.

            He further explained that if the Court was left unchecked:

            The Constitution . . . [would be] a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.

            Allowing the Court to enlarge its own sphere of power beyond what the Constitution authorizes, permitting the Court to usurp the powers of Congress, and tolerating the Courts’ disregard of constitutional separation of powers moves America ever further from being a representative republic and ever closer toward the oligarchy against which Jefferson warned. The Court must be resisted in these attempts.

            Impeachment: The Founders’ Solution

            As noted earlier, judges in previous generations who usurped powers from Congress or the people faced impeachment. But today’s critics claim that the use of impeachment would either make the judiciary a “political” branch (as if it were not already a political branch) or that it would violate the “independence of the judiciary.” Yet, as Thomas Jefferson so accurately cautioned,

            It should be remembered as an axiom of eternal truth in politics that whatever power . . . is independent is absolute also. . . . Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass.

            No judge should ever be so independent that he is unaccountable to the Congress, and thereby the people. As Justice James Iredell (placed on the Court by President George Washington) so clearly explained:

            Every government requires it [impeachment]. Every man ought to be amenable for his conduct.

            Iredell further noted that some officials will behave themselves only under “the very terror of punishment” that impeachment provides. Recent events suggest he was right.

            In 1996, six members of the Supreme Court voted to overturn the Colorado election forbidding special (rather than just equal) rights for homosexuals. Following that flagrant display of contempt for the will of Colorado voters, there was a national call for the impeachment of those six Justices. After this clamor for their removal, those same six Justices suddenly became ardent defenders of the people’s elections and in a subsequent decision unexpectedly and unanimously chastised a lower court that had overturned a statewide election in Arizona. (Interestingly, Thomas Jefferson on multiple occasions called impeachment a “scarecrow” – something used to frighten predators – and the threat of impeachment certainly had that effect on the Supreme Court.)

            Similarly, after a federal judge overturned a binding referendum by the voters of California (“Proposition 209”), national leaders called for the impeachment of that judge. Later, the 9th Circuit ordered the results of the election reinstated and criticized that judge for ignoring the will of the people. Yet, this same 9th Circuit Court had itself shortly before overturned at least three similar elections. Why the flip-flop? The “scarecrow” had been forcefully raised by Congress to make judges accountable for their decisions by returning to the original constitutional uses of impeachment.

            It is true that impeachment is a cumbersome process, and achieving a conviction is difficult. However, on most occasions, just the threat of impeachment produces results. In fact, there are several examples of federal judges correcting their own decisions after hearing Congressional calls for their impeachment; and an actual impeachment sends an even more powerful message to all other wayward leaning judges.

            Although Congress is ultimately responsible for the discipline of judges, far too many of our Congressmen (like far too many of our citizens) have no understanding of the proper use of impeachment. However, a wise political axiom declares that “Congress sees the light when it feels the heat,” and this is especially true on this issue. As citizens, we need to educate ourselves on the proper use of judicial impeachment, and then we need to educate our Representatives, reminding them of the need for judicial reform and alerting them to those judges showing a pattern of abuse. The time for encouraging judicial accountability is once again ripe. This is a golden opportunity for citizens to weigh in and make a difference.

          • Elie Challita

            Chief, while I stand in awe of your ability to copy and paste enormous amounts of absolutely irrelevant information, you still fail to make any sense.

            Let’s see if you can answer a set of Yes/No questions instead, shall we?

            1- Does the Supreme Court have the right and the duty to review the constitutionality of legislation?

            2- If a piece of legislation is found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, is it still enforceable?

            3- If a piece of legislation prohibits behavior X and is found to be unconstitutional, is behavior X still considered illegal until Congress or some other body get around to passing a bill expressly allowing citizens the right to perform behavior X?

            4- Even though a SCOTUS ruling might be overturned by a constitutional amendment, or an ulterior ruling, is that ruling legally binding until it is overturned?

          • afchief

            1. Yes
            2. Yes
            3. Yes
            4. No

          • Elie Challita

            Well, at least you got 1 out of 4 right…
            Can you explain, in less than 500 words, why an unconstitutional law can still be enforced?
            Do remember that “unconstitutional” means that it should not have been passed in the first place, given that it contradicts the constitution? And that it would necessitate a constitutional amendment to specifically introduce the changes to the constitution that would make that particular law constitutional.

          • feloneouscat

            It’s still on the books. I just checked.

            So DOMA is on the books, yet people of the same gender may marry…

            Or are they also breaking the law?

          • feloneouscat

            Looks like they finally banned me.

          • feloneouscat

            It becomes part of case law.

            What do you mean “who removes the law”? That makes no sense. If a law is unconstitutional it means no one can be prosecuted using that law.

          • afchief

            For the umpteenth time………..the SCOTUS cannot make, change any law. Only Congress can make, change and take laws off the book.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Then, I’ll ask you again: Why are women not being prosecuted for having abortions?

          • afchief

            Like I have told you!!! People are “sheeple”! They just tell us that it does and we believe their lies. We then repeat their lies and teach them to others. The lies soon become “truth”, although it is not The Truth. I’ll say it again. Courts do not make laws.

          • feloneouscat

            Courts do not make laws.

            Nor did they in Roe v. Wade.

            The part you aren’t understanding is they found state laws to be Unconstitutional. Hence, no one can be prosecuted for breaking those laws.

            There are no “lies” just your inability to understand our legal system at a basic level.

          • afchief

            That is a boldface lie!!! Since abortion is NOT addressed in the Federal Constitution and mentioned in states Constitutions in accordance with the 10th amendment the SCOTUS had NO jurisdiction to hear the case.

            Also, “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” —Marbury v Madison 1803.

            Repugnant – distasteful, offensive, disgusting. Contradictory, incompatible, inconsistent.

            Null – without value, effect, consequence, or significance.

            Void – having no legal force or effect; not legally binding or enforceable; useless, ineffectual, vain.

            Therefore, all laws inconsistent with the Constitution are without value or effect and have no legal force or effect and are useless, ineffectual and unenforceable.

            Or, as Saint Augustine so aptly warned us, “an unjust law is no law at all.”

            Murder of the unborn is an unjust law!!!!!

          • feloneouscat

            That is a boldface lie!!! Since abortion is NOT addressed in the Federal Constitution and mentioned in states Constitutions in accordance with the 10th amendment the SCOTUS had NO jurisdiction to hear the case.

            I assure you my vocabulary more than equals yours.

            Or, as Saint Augustine so aptly warned us, “an unjust law is no law at all.”

            The Constitution is just law. Saint Augustine was referring to laws, but what we have are rights. For example, the right to privacy while not enumerated, is still a right as indicated by the 9th Amendment.

            Anti-abortion laws flew in the face of the Constitution and, using the above: “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Thus anti-abortion laws became null and void.

            Do you understand now?

          • afchief

            Bye! I done dealing with stupidity because I know I’m right!! I know how laws are made and changed in this country and I know our Constitution. You and other godless liberals do not!!! It is quite obvious!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • feloneouscat

            I done dealing with stupidity because I know I’m right!!

            I’m a liberal, but I certainly am not godless, as I told you many times. Apparently, repeating a falsehood is okay with your religion?

          • feloneouscat

            For the umpteenth time…… SCOTUS did not make or change a law. They said the law was unconstitutional and thus you can’t be prosecuted by an unconstitutional law.

            But I’m sure you still don’t get it, even with a clear explanation.

          • afchief

            Wrong!!! If the law is still on the books (which it is because only congress can remove it) IT IS STILL LAW!!!!!

          • feloneouscat

            You keep saying “Wrong!!!” without providing any proof.

            Are you just broken in the head? If DOMA is still on the books (and it is, I just checked), then why are same sex marriages legal?

            Because DOMA was ruled to violate the Constitution. Duh.

          • feloneouscat

            You cannot legislate from the bench!!!!

            And they do not. Determining if a law is or is not Constitutional is within the Supreme Court’s purview. You even admitted that.

            Now you want to say it isn’t.

            You can’t have it both ways.

          • afchief

            That is correct! They can determine if a law is constitutional or not. If they say a law is unconstitutional, the legislative branch is the one who removes or changes the law. If the legislative branch refuses to do so, nothing changes. Nothing!

          • feloneouscat

            If the legislative branch refuses to do so, nothing changes. Nothing!

            So you are arguing that one can be prosecuted for an unconstitutional law?

          • Bob Johnson

            “Show me where it is written…”

            In California that would be The Reproductive Privacy Act (2003), specifically,

            Cal. Health & Safety Code 1233460 et seg

  • BarkingDawg

    Blame the victims.