Save the unborn babies

[Charles Anthony]

Folks, 

Stop the thread drift. 

[Guest]

Condoms in a thread about abortion?  It's not drifting very far...

[dialamah]

7 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Condoms in a thread about abortion?  It's not drifting very far...

Perhaps it was the details of your wife's menopause?  

[Guest]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

Perhaps it was the details of your wife's menopause?  

I didn't give any details!  The stories I could tell!

[blackbird]

4 hours ago, Rue said:

Embryos or fetuses are not unborn babies. That has always been the case and will always be the case and its been known since women started having babies. Spontaneous termination of  pregnancies at early stages, called miscarriage taught  women so did their own frequent birth rates in the past. Mid wifery is as old as my sperm so to speak and that is very old man,.

The fact you think life starts at the moment the sperm and egg cell inter-connect does not mean others in the past or even today call or have ever believed fetuses or embryos are immediately unborn babies once the sperm penetrates the cell Your calling them unborn babies reflects a deep ignorance as to the developmental stages of a fetus.

I can not stand people passing off late stage embryonic development as being one and the same with early fetal growth where the entity is not yet hman and formed.

Also you should note Trudeau is a Catholic and still practices Catholicism and would never have aborted any of his children and he welcomes people of fundamentalist faiths into Canada who define women as not having any say as to their bodies and are defined as subordinates to men,

Stop portraying him as progressive. This is someone who plays lip service to feminism while embracing archaic fascist religions.

He fools no one but you. His need to be called a feminist in fact reflects his own unresolved sexual conflicts with men and feeling safer being the only man in a group of women at any given time. There's nothing feminist about him, When he's with women he demands their undivided fawning attention. He has a classic  1950's marriage with his air head wife that idolizes him like he is some sort of messiah.

He's a putz. The only one with balls in his cabinet is his Justice Minister.

I believe the King James Bible (1611) is the inspired word of God.  "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" 2 Timothy 3:16  

"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.  2 Peter 1:21.

The Word of God, the Bible, is food for the soul.

"And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live."  Deuteronomy 8:3

God gave us his word not to harm us, but to give us life.  It is for our good that God instructs us on how to live.

For our good, he has instructed us by revealing himself and his will for man through inspiration of certain men to write the holy scriptures over a period of about 1500 years, and completed almost 2000 years ago.

What God said concerning when we become persons known by God himself is shown in these verses: 

"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." Jeremiah 1:5

"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb."  Psalm 139:13

[?Impact]

7 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I believe the King James Bible (1611) is the inspired word of God.

 

Your daughters are your chattel.

And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money. - Exodus 21:7-11

Abortion is bad, but not as bad as murder.

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. - Exodus 21:22-23

Beat your slaves to keep them in line, but don't kill them.

And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money. - Exodus 21:20-21

 

[blackbird]

20 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

 

Your daughters are your chattel.

And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money. - Exodus 21:7-11

Abortion is bad, but not as bad as murder.

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. - Exodus 21:22-23

Beat your slaves to keep them in line, but don't kill them.

And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money. - Exodus 21:20-21

 

I have heard those arguments against the bible frequently.  Those verses come from a part of the Old Testament which is a historical record of Israel and how God dealt with Israel at that time.  Israel was God's chosen people and the first five books and other books in the Old Testament of the Bible are a history of that.   They are in no way an instruction for how a christian is to live today.  No christian takes those verses to be instruction on how to live today. 

Edited March 10, 2017 by blackbird

[?Impact]

5 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Those verses come from a part of the Old Testament

I have heard that excuse frequently as well. Will you denounce the Old Testament as being filled with many vile things? 

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

I have heard that excuse frequently as well. Will you denounce the Old Testament as being filled with many vile things? 

No.  That's not how to interpret or understand the Old Testament. As I said it is partly a historical record and not meant to be an instruction on how to live today.  Israel was in a unique situation as God's chosen people and Exodus tells the story of how God brought the people of Israel out of captivity and slavery in Egypt and brought them to the promised land under the leadership of Moses.  You've probably seen the movie The Ten Commandments.  It is probably a rough approximation of what happened but not exact.

What God gave for instructions in those days were meant for Israel, not for today.  There are some instructions that are for all time such as most of the ten commandments.  Examples such as thou shalt not kill.   not steal,   love thy neighbour ,  etc.

Edited March 10, 2017 by blackbird

[blackbird]

12 minutes ago, blackbird said:

No.  That's not how to interpret or understand the Old Testament. As I said it is partly a historical record and not meant to be an instruction on how to live today.  Israel was in a unique situation as God's chosen people and Exodus tells the story of how God brought the people of Israel out of captivity and slavery in Egypt and brought them to the promised land under the leadership of Moses.  You've probably seen the movie The Ten Commandments.  It is probably a rough approximation of what happened but not exact.

?Impact,   I can't give you an analysis of those verse right now because of time constraints.  I'm not sure if you have a particular comment or question about them.  Not exactly sure why you quoted them.

[?Impact]

27 minutes ago, blackbird said:

No.  That's not how to interpret or understand the Old Testament.  Did you read my comments?  The O.T. parts you quoted are historical in nature.  Just because something is written as history does not mean it is an instruction on how to live today.  If you do some Googling for information on the meaning of a book of the O.T., you may be able to find out.

Stop it with the O.T. denounce it now or accept that Christians are guided by the same vile laws as other religions. Jesus says many times that he did not come to abolish the old laws but to fulfil them. You brought up Jeremiah & Deuteronomy

In the meantime please explain: But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. - Luke 19:27

14 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Not exactly sure why you quoted them.

I thought that was clear when I replied to your admiration of the inspired word of God.

Edited March 10, 2017 by ?Impact

[blackbird]

42 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Stop it with the O.T. denounce it now or accept that Christians are guided by the same vile laws as other religions. Jesus says many times that he did not come to abolish the old laws but to fulfil them. You brought up Jeremiah & Deuteronomy

In the meantime please explain: But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. - Luke 19:27

I thought that was clear when I replied to your admiration of the inspired word of God.

OK.  I think I answered your questions about those verses in the O.T.

[BillyBeaver]

14 hours ago, Rue said:

Embryos or fetuses are not unborn babies. That has always been the case and will always be the case and its been known since women started having babies. Spontaneous termination of  pregnancies at early stages, called miscarriage taught  women so did their own frequent birth rates in the past. Mid wifery is as old as my sperm so to speak and that is very old man,.

The fact you think life starts at the moment the sperm and egg cell inter-connect does not mean others in the past or even today call or have ever believed fetuses or embryos are immediately unborn babies once the sperm penetrates the cell Your calling them unborn babies reflects a deep ignorance as to the developmental stages of a fetus.

I can not stand people passing off late stage embryonic development as being one and the same with early fetal growth where the entity is not yet hman and formed.

Also you should note Trudeau is a Catholic and still practices Catholicism and would never have aborted any of his children and he welcomes people of fundamentalist faiths into Canada who define women as not having any say as to their bodies and are defined as subordinates to men,

Stop portraying him as progressive. This is someone who plays lip service to feminism while embracing archaic fascist religions.

He fools no one but you. His need to be called a feminist in fact reflects his own unresolved sexual conflicts with men and feeling safer being the only man in a group of women at any given time. There's nothing feminist about him, When he's with women he demands their undivided fawning attention. He has a classic  1950's marriage with his air head wife that idolizes him like he is some sort of messiah.

He's a putz. The only one with balls in his cabinet is his Justice Minister.

I never said that an embryo is a human.

I agree that embryos are not unborn babies. They are more like planted seeds.  If Monsanto and various agrotech companies can patent seed hybrids and the resulting IP, why are humans not afforded the same rights. A planted seed naturally wants to grow.  It took two farmers to put it there, and one field to grow it in. The current argument is that the one farmer that doesn't own the field gets to choose whether or not to continue the growth of the seed they knowingly fertilized. I say that's bullshit. If both "farmers" did not acknowledge that they were only having sex for recreation, nor use any protection, and both of them consented. The decision on whether to allow that seed to become a plant should rest in both of the "farmers" decisions. Not the one that owns the field.

Fetal consciousness is highly debated but by month 6, fetuses can detect light, heat and sound. I would go so far as to say that as soon as a fetus develops a heartbeat it should be considered human based on common medical practise of calling death after the heart has stopped beating for so many minutes.

Yes, women should be able to abort fetuses that test positive for known defects and genetic aberrations. I eventually want to see our children's genes being enhanced with testing done of both parents to ensure the strongest offspring possible. I also think that reproduction is a privilege, not a right and many societal ills could be cured by limiting uncontrolled reproduction by unfit parents. But I digress.

 

Trudeau isn't just a Catholic, he's a f****** Jesuit. As was his father. Check the Jesuit Oath. The UK parliament passed an Unlawful Oaths act in the 1800s to prevent people in secret societies and orders from taking public office. I'd like to see something similar in Canada. He claims transparency but the only thing obvious about him is his globalist agenda.

Neocons and neo libs have the same agenda with similar authoritarian measures. The only difference is the approach. Neocons go for "its for your own safety and security" angle with neolibs take the humanist, equality of outcome, virtue signal cultural marxist approach. Expanding corporate power and limiting personal freedoms is the end game.

 

Edited March 10, 2017 by Michael Hardner
profanity

[-1=e^ipi]

On 3/8/2017 at 11:59 PM, bcsapper said:

The problem occurs when women don't abort the babies men don't want to be responsible for. I'm pro choice on that, too.

Or when a 15 year old boy gets raped and then is forced by the government to pay his rapist child support money for children he did not consent to.

[-1=e^ipi]

I'd take pro-life people more seriously if the majority of them were vegan. Why is it immoral to kill a zygote, but not immoral to kill a cow or chicken?

[-1=e^ipi]

Also, Justin Trudeau isn't pro-choice. If he were pro-choice, he would ban genital mutilation without consent. But we all know he is fine with the practice of infant genital mutilation of males and has no desires to change that stance due to his desire to capture the islamist voting bloc in the name of diversity.

Edited March 10, 2017 by -1=e^ipi

[BillyBeaver]

1 hour ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Or when a 15 year old boy gets raped and then is forced by the government to pay his rapist child support money for children he did not consent to.

and what bcsapper said. Sorry I'm new and have no clue how to multiquote.

Both situations are covered by my position. Rape isn't consent to produce  a child. In this instance, the child's right to life supersedes the man's absolvement of parental responsibility. Please keep the hypotheticals coming, I've thought a lot about my position on this and it's unassailable.

If a man uses a condom, it fails, woman gets pregnant, the man needs some redress and protection against being culpable for another human life that he has very little control over after the deed is done. In this era of promiscuous, casual, recreational sex, there needs to be protections for both sides. Only misandry would argue against that.

 

Edited March 10, 2017 by BillyBeaver

[?Impact]

5 hours ago, BillyBeaver said:

If Monsanto and various agrotech companies can patent seed hybrids and the resulting IP, why are humans not afforded the same rights.

Two wrongs don't make a right. The whole IP mess needs to be cleaned up. Get the vested monied interests out of influencing our government with these stupid notions. Monsanto sues farmers when their viral seed infects the farmers land, it should be the other way around.

Quote

Trudeau isn't just a Catholic, he's a f****** Jesuit. As was his father.

Yes, they both did attend Collège Jean-de-Brébeuf which was run by the Jesuits but that might have more to do with it being the most prestigious private schools in Quebec. These well off families wanted the best education for their children and the networking that comes from attending these elite schools. Note that Justin did go to public school during his elementary years as his mother saw the benefits of being "normal". The high school did become secular during Justin's time there. Do you have any evidence that the Jesuits demanded the young students to take this oath you claim?

4 hours ago, -1=e^ipi said:

Also, Justin Trudeau isn't pro-choice. If he were pro-choice, he would ban genital mutilation without consent. But we all know he is fine with the practice of infant genital mutilation of males and has no desires to change that stance due to his desire to capture the islamist voting bloc in the name of diversity.

Supporting male genital mutilation would be trying to capture the Jewish voting bloc, not Islamist.

3 hours ago, BillyBeaver said:

Sorry I'm new and have no clue how to multiquote.

Easy, just click the '+' sign next to the Quote button. You can accumulate many quotes in a buffer across multiple pages of comments if you wish, and when you are ready just click the button that will appear at the bottom right of your window when you use the feature.

Quote

If a man uses a condom, it fails, woman gets pregnant, the man needs some redress and protection against being culpable for another human life that he has very little control over after the deed is done.

Anyone who relies on a condom is asking to be a dad, they are only 85% effective. They should be used in casual sex to help prevent transmission of disease but they need to be combined with another method of birth control to prevent pregnancy. It is your responsibility as a man to know that, they are not a free pass.

Edited March 10, 2017 by Michael Hardner
profanity

[BillyBeaver]

If you're using a condom on a one-off relationship, you are still making an effort to prevent pregnancy. Of course anything that has a 1/5 failure rate isn't effective long term. The point is that the conscious effort was there.  Unfortunately, most birth control methods rely on the woman's preparation, there is also a morning after pill. Using a condom on a one-night stand should be enough to prove that the outcome of a child was not intended. Many women have claimed to be on the pill when in fact they weren't. A man can only do so much.

Thanks for the quote tutorial.

Going to a Jesuit school doesn't necessarily make you a Jesuit. Taking the Jesuit oath does. You can't tell me that one of most devious Catholic organizations in history would pass on an opportunity to recruit somebody so highly placed.

The mosque shooting fits the Hegelian dialectic to a T.

Edited March 10, 2017 by BillyBeaver

[?Impact]

6 minutes ago, BillyBeaver said:

Using a condom on a one-night stand should be enough to prove that the outcome of a child was not intended.

That was my excuse when I put only one bullet in the six shooter, spun the barrel, and gave it to my friend when we played Russian roulette. Now he did accept the rules of the game, he would be the only player to put the gun to his head so it was consensual. What would the judge rule in my manslaughter trial?

[BillyBeaver]

I call false equivalence. And it would depend on who was the owner of the firearm. I doubt a charge of manslaughter would even be brought forward. Likely would be criminal negligence causing death.

[Moonlight Graham]

It's pretty hard to pregnant with the pill/condom combo.  Everyone should be using this at minimum if they don't want babies.

[Rue]

On ‎2017‎-‎03‎-‎09 at 10:14 PM, blackbird said:

I believe the King James Bible (1611) is the inspired word of God.  "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" 2 Timothy 3:16  

"For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.  2 Peter 1:21.

The Word of God, the Bible, is food for the soul.

"And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live."  Deuteronomy 8:3

God gave us his word not to harm us, but to give us life.  It is for our good that God instructs us on how to live.

For our good, he has instructed us by revealing himself and his will for man through inspiration of certain men to write the holy scriptures over a period of about 1500 years, and completed almost 2000 years ago.

What God said concerning when we become persons known by God himself is shown in these verses: 

"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." Jeremiah 1:5

"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb."  Psalm 139:13

" I believe the King James Bible, and all versions of the Bible, Koran, any holy book you care to mention were written by people who may have believed they were inspired by what they call "God" but are in fact their own projections of what they think "God" said..  I don't find  such projections inspiring just self-indulgent and most usually annoying"

Rue 2017-123

 

" Yah yah you think your words have taken on the shape of "God". No not really, and you'd probably be better off to stop playing with that, put it in a bag and dispose of it before you get sick. I never did understand people  who are fascinated with and play with dog poo."

Rue 2016-666

 

" I find very little if any difference between someone trying to preach and their passing gas. Either way I stand down-wind."

Rue 40 a.d.

 

"They say be careful of who you keep company with and who you quote. Your credibility could be at stake. That's why I refer to myself as the ultimate authority as to who I quote. That way at least I get it right."

Rue the year 5023

"I know why they come only to preach the King James Bible. They don't know how to juggle them. "

Rue 1743

 

:

 

 

 

Edited March 11, 2017 by Rue

[Rue]

20 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

It's pretty hard to pregnant with the pill/condom combo.  Everyone should be using this at minimum if they don't want babies.

I always say never enter any place without giving it some thought. Some people call it paranoia, others being astute.

You walk around with a  loaded weapon with a hair trigger in the dark, its always makes sense to keep the safety on.

Even as a kid I was careful when I took my pistol out of the holster. Too much paper work if the damn thing goes off.

 

[Rue]

On ‎2017‎-‎03‎-‎10 at 2:35 AM, BillyBeaver said:

I never said that an embryo is a human.

I agree that embryos are not unborn babies. They are more like planted seeds.  If Monsanto and various agrotech companies can patent seed hybrids and the resulting IP, why are humans not afforded the same rights. A planted seed naturally wants to grow.  It took two farmers to put it there, and one field to grow it in. The current argument is that the one farmer that doesn't own the field gets to choose whether or not to continue the growth of the seed they knowingly fertilized. I say that's bullshit. If both "farmers" did not acknowledge that they were only having sex for recreation, nor use any protection, and both of them consented. The decision on whether to allow that seed to become a plant should rest in both of the "farmers" decisions. Not the one that owns the field.

Fetal consciousness is highly debated but by month 6, fetuses can detect light, heat and sound. I would go so far as to say that as soon as a fetus develops a heartbeat it should be considered human based on common medical practise of calling death after the heart has stopped beating for so many minutes.

Yes, women should be able to abort fetuses that test positive for known defects and genetic aberrations. I eventually want to see our children's genes being enhanced with testing done of both parents to ensure the strongest offspring possible. I also think that reproduction is a privilege, not a right and many societal ills could be cured by limiting uncontrolled reproduction by unfit parents. But I digress.

 

Trudeau isn't just a Catholic, he's a f****** Jesuit. As was his father. Check the Jesuit Oath. The UK parliament passed an Unlawful Oaths act in the 1800s to prevent people in secret societies and orders from taking public office. I'd like to see something similar in Canada. He claims transparency but the only thing obvious about him is his globalist agenda.

Neocons and neo libs have the same agenda with similar authoritarian measures. The only difference is the approach. Neocons go for "its for your own safety and security" angle with neolibs take the humanist, equality of outcome, virtue signal cultural marxist approach. Expanding corporate power and limiting personal freedoms is the end game.

 

I just read this. No you did not say an embryo is a human, I did not mean to infer that, it was rhetorical not meant to be directed at you.. I actually respect your opinions stated just as they are. Mostly agree with them. The only thing is due to your last name and the subject of female reproductive organs I got a little antsy in the pansty. It could be worse. Your last name could be Long or Rocketlauncher. Carry on all.

 

Edited March 12, 2017 by Rue