blackbird

"3 A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool’s back. 4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. 5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." Proverbs 26:3, 4 KJV

No credibility at all.

Yes, I think you really do believe Satan. Your false accusations prove it. First off, I don't praise Israel for bombing men, women, or children. That's one of your big lies. Secondly, opposing the murder of pre-born babies is therefore the right way to believe. It is not fanatical. Believing in the Bible or Biblical Christianity and preserving the life of the pre-born is not fanatical. You need to look in the mirror to see what a fanatic is.

Can't stay on the topic eh?

If the article I gave you obtained verification from Wikipedia about this secret trip to an unknown island and this was also stated in the Ottawa Journal about the same time, how can it be "conjecture"? Sounds like you are in denial or just can't face the facts. Of course it doesn't prove it, what does this say about the mainline news that did not report these facts? Kind of like you denying basic information about it. " In April 1971, the Trudeaus took a long “second honeymoon” all around the Caribbean. According to Wikipedia, they visited one island they declined to disclose. It is the only island they did not disclose. From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Trudeau Footnote 19 of the same Wikipedia article cites to a April 13, 1971 article from The Ottawa Journal. The article states that the Trudeaus were visiting an unidentified island in the Caribbean and wanted the press to give them privacy:

Doesn't sound like you read it very carefully.

Of Course Fidel Castro is Justin Trudeau’s Dad. Nobody Has ‘Debunked’ Anything | by Karen Leibowitcz | Medium

Sounds like you believe everything that Satan suggests to you. You have not learned that everything happening in the world in politics is not black and white. To make it simple so you can understand everything Trump says is not false. But if you believe all the propaganda the Democrats tell you in the media, then of course it is only black and white. You are unable to discern what is going on in the world. The Devil has you in the palm of his hand. You also proved that by your constant rant against God's infallible written revelation, the King James Bible. That proves beyond a doubt you are in serious denial and in deep trouble with God. There is always hope. There is salvation, but that is only available through the gospel in the Bible, which you detest. Romanism cannot save you. If you are trusting in anything to do with that, it is a lost cause.

You are way off on a different topic than this OP. Have you actually read the Trudeau son of Castro article or just one or two articles that are uninformed on the topic? Why don't you read about the actual story and comment on it instead of deviating into something else for a change? It's not that difficult to find. Just takes a little common sense. By now you should know how to use a search engine to find the actual article making the claim Trudeau is Castro's son. It's really not that difficult.

Generally sounds like things that should have been done. Would you agree? The Democrats and Biden have completely messed up and illegal migrants are pouring in and nothing much being done about it. Biden also hammered the U.S. with environmental policies. Cost of living is getting much worse. Is that true? Kamala will do the same things as Biden, maybe worse. What do you think of the Trudeau-Castro claim?

You obviously never read the story and have a foul mouth. So I will not let you in on the evidence which is in the relevant article. You deserve to remain in ignorance.

"3 A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool’s back. " Proverbs 26:3 KJV

"4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. 5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." Proverbs 26:4, 5 KJV

This CBC News item proves your claim that women have a "right" to abortion in Canada is complete and utter BS. quote A leaked draft of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion suggesting that the justices might overturn the landmark Roe v. Wade abortion case prompted Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to assure Canadian women that their rights are well protected. "Every woman in Canada has a right to a safe and legal abortion," he tweeted Tuesday, a day after the document was first published by Politico. And while there are no laws barring women in Canada from having an abortion, it's also not considered a constitutionally protected right under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as it has been in the U.S. since their top court's 1973 ruling. "That's going too far," Bernard Dickens, a professor emeritus of health law and policy at the University of Toronto, said about Trudeau's use of the word "right." American women can obtain abortions in Canada if Roe v. Wade falls, minister says Analysis How would abortion work in the U.S. post-Roe v. Wade? Just look at Texas No constitutional right That's because no Supreme Court in Canada has ever said in a majority decision that a woman has the constitutional right to an abortion, said Daphne Gilbert, a University of Ottawa law professor who specializes in criminal and constitutional law. Scrapping Roe v. Wade would mean that, in regards to abortion, Canada and the U.S. would on the surface be similar — in that neither country would have a Supreme Court case enshrining the right to abortion. unquote Why Canada's Roe v. Wade didn't enshrine abortion as a right | CBC News Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court recently overturned Roe versus Wade which means there is no such "right" in the U.S. Neither Canada nor the U.S. Supreme Courts have recognized a woman's "right" to an abortion. This means Trudeau was incorrect when he stated "every woman in Canada has a right to a safe and legal abortion". No such right exists in Canada. In the U.S., as it stands now since Roe versus Wade was thrown out recently, every state has the power to legislate for or against abortion and some have passed laws on it. All of this does not change the fact there is a higher law, which is God's law in his written revelation, the King James Bible, that should be followed but often isn't.

We know that it is legal in Canada. You are saying nothing new on this discussion. The whole point of this topic is to point out the depravity of Canadian governments allowing abortion. Historically, what is right and wrong comes from the western world's Judeo-Christian heritage. That is why we have laws against murder, and Charter Rights to protect basic freedoms of the individual. So where did this so-called "rights over her reproductive health" come from? Perhaps you could give the history of this claim. I don't think there is historically any such thing as the right to kill one's baby before it's birth in Canada. I doubt if there is anything remotely related in the Charter of Rights. It sounds more like you are pulling something out of thin air. Well that's your problem. The Bible certainly has had a huge influence on western civilization the past several thousand years. Many of our laws are based on the principles taught in the Bible. The fact we have democracy and human rights is because of the influence of Judeo-Christian civilization. The rights we have do not exist in much of the rest of the world which did not have a historical Judeo-Christian civilization. The fact you try to compare banning abortion with Islam shows you have no knowledge about the Bible or the difference between western biblical Christianity and eastern Islam..

The GG is supposed to be independent. But if you make it an elected post, then right there you make it a partisan post. It would quickly become an major political post with the various parties putting their nominations forward and debating the nominations. I think that is something they want to avoid.

You know quite well that my comment refers to killing pre-born babies. Men or women do not have the right to kill pre-born babies. There is no such thing as a woman's right over her body if what you really mean is a right to kill the baby in her womb. You are playing with words loosely and crookedly. The Biblical teaching that pre-born babies are persons and the commandment "thou shalt not kill" has nothing to do with Islam. Therefore the statement that women have no blanket right over their bodies to kill their babies is not Islamic. It is a bare-faced lie to equate Biblical Christianity with Islam.

It is a serious mistake to fight against God and his written word, in English, the King James Bible 1611. On the issue of the pre-born, God recognizes them as persons. Questioning or disputing that, or insisting women have the right to do what they want with their own body is really treading on dangerous ground. Consider this carefully in the light of God's word, the King James Bible. A good place to start is the Gospel of John. We are all facing death and the judgment, but with faith through grace (Ephesians 2:8,9) we will overcome and spend eternity in a glorious place. That faith must be in our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ and what he has done for us on the cross. " 12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. " Hebrews 9:12 KJV "1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. {substance: or, ground, or, confidence} 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. 4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh. {yet…: or, is yet spoken of} 5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. 7 By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. {moved…: or, being wary} 8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. 9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: 10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. 11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised. 12 Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable. 13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. {in faith: Gr. according to faith} 14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. 15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. 16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city. " Hebrews 11:1-16 KJV

"The Devil walketh about seeking whom he may devour." We need to be very cautious. Some posters on here are not serious and only post for devious motives.

Yes, I've known that for a long time. I also know the reason for that. quote In Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5—7), the Lord presents a word picture of two gates, one wide and one narrow. Jesus explains to His listeners that to see and participate in His coming kingdom a person must have true, inner righteousness and not simply an external adherence to a code of laws. The scribes and Pharisees were teaching a kind of works-based salvation, asserting that obedience to the law was how people could be right in the sight of God. Jesus counters that directly, saying poignantly that, unless a person’s righteousness surpassed that of the scribes and Pharisees, that person would not enter the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:20). In Matthew 7:13–14 Jesus describes two gates: the wide gate—taken by many—that leads to destruction (Matthew 7:13); and the narrow gate—taken by few—that leads to life (Matthew 7:14). One gate is wide to accommodate the many who enter the way leading to destruction, while the other is narrow to represent the relatively few who seek life and find it. Jesus exhorts His listeners to enter through the narrow gate rather than attempting to enter through the broad gate. The broad gate was the way advocated by those who were teaching falsehood (including the scribes and Pharisees). The broad gate was the appearance of righteousness but not actual righteousness. The scribes and Pharisees (and other false teachers and prophets) were teaching that a person could enter the kingdom of heaven simply based on either a relation to Abraham and Moses or by following the Law of Moses. Instead, Jesus advocated the narrow gate—this was the way to enter the kingdom. This narrow gate was the path of true righteousness. This kind of righteousness would cause people to see and glorify God rather than glorify the person doing the work (Matthew 5:16). unquote For the full article: Why is the gate that leads to destruction wide (Matthew 7:13)? | GotQuestions.org This same principle applies to other things as well. The bottom line is never go by the majority. They are not always right.

"13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb. 14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. 15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. 16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them." Psalm 139:13-16 KJV Then of course that type of birth control would be causing an abortion and would be killing the pre-born person. I understand from the verses I quoted and others that human life begins at conception. So that is not something that man should interfere with. Man is not God.

That's not correct. The words embryo and fetus are only technical terms to describe the stage of a human being in the pre-born stages. These terms do not deny it is a human being. Human life begins at the moment of conception. That is denied by many abortion supporters for the obvious reason of trying to escape the allegation they are killing a person. Not everyone is buying that argument. God in his written word recognizes the pre-born as human beings. What you believe doesn't change that. It only exposes your lack of faith in God and his word.

Your problem is you don't talk facts. What God thinks is the bottom line. Yet you reject that because of your blindness to the reality of God. Says who? Since nobody can get inside the fetus' body, they cannot say what it feels. It is pure speculation. Common sense should tell you if you stab a living being with an object to try to kill it, it is going to feel something pretty terrible. It cannot escape that. It is trapped and it is a human. Pre-born babies are given a name such as a fetus as a technical term because they are at a certain stage. It does not take away their humanity or the fact they are human beings. They are just an early stage person. It is a terrible lie to say they are not human. People that have no conscience use some technical term to try to hide the fact they are human beings. Of course it's a choice. Why shouldn't it be? Abortion is killing a human being. There should be no choice to do that. Comparing rehab with abortion and saying both should be a choice is ludicrous. Apples and oranges are not the same. In Canada is is not illegal to have an abortion. You claim this is a right. But we are talking about what is moral or immoral, right or wrong, evil or good. What is the historical Judeo-Christian view which is ultimately how does God view this. The answer is in the Holy Bible. God created man and woman. God owns our bodies and has said "thou shalt not kill". God says in his written revelation that he recognizes a person from the moment of conception as a person. So regardless whether they would be pain or no pain, God says it is murder to kill a person. The fact you don't accept what God says doesn't change the fact there is no such right to take a preborn baby's life.

Much like decriminalization of hard drugs and safe supply. The answer is not to make evil or immoral things legal. The answer is rehabilitation, counselling, and support systems for people who need it. Also, adoption for those who don't want their babies or can't care for them.

What right is that? If one becomes pregnant, the mother has no right to kill the baby. Would you say a mother with a one year old baby has a right to take it's life if having it is not convenient? The right to life for a baby begins the moment it comes into existence, that is, the moment of conception. You have not walked in the shoes of an aborted baby who may have suffered unimaginable pain as it was being killed. Yes, God is Lord over all humans including the pre-born babies who have a right to life. This is God's world, humans belong to God. He created mankind and said "thou shalt not kill". It is wrong to kill children, babies, and pre-born babies. There is no difference between them as far a being human beings.