Yeah, and look what's happened to it.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Help Stop Abortion: Let’s all fight back.
- Thread starter JLB
- Start date
Alot of words there to try and discredit my post. However, the only relevant part of your post that I wanted to reply to is what I quoted. I am not obligated to respond to the whole post if I choose not to.
What I quoted was able to stand alone. I am sorry that you do not see that.
Oh and I have been likened to a wise owl and I am more of a moderate than either Democrat or Republican. I am liberal in some areas and conservative in others.
Milk-Drops
Member
We became the most powerful military and Economy on the planet. Our culture Influences the globe, and many advancements in technology and medicine have helped billions?
Of course you don't have to respond to a whole post. But to isolate one short sentence that contributes to the context of the whole, means you are not contributing to what has been said.
The point of the sentence is that liberals are evil, but legally right in this country. Once a country abandons God it is left to only what is legal to determine right from wrong.
Quantrill
Advances in medicine?
Where have you been?
The quality of hospitals around the world are passing us left and right.
And so many drugs we use on people are barred around the world.
Medicine in this country is big business, and the people pay for it.
Milk-Drops
Member
I don't disagree that our system is messed up. That's the nature of privatized systems.
Milk-Drops
Member
By discriminating based on religion/creed and skin color.
Yes it would. Yes would be intent to keep the baby. No would be a choice to give up responsibility. If you the responsibility and then act recklessly it shows intent.
No, I think the problem is your own ignorance of the issue at hand. I know you want to stop abortion, but if you have no idea why it's even legal, it's no wonder you don't understand where I am comming from.
This is what we call in the biz projection. You are making a baseless claim.
It's. Strawman because you keep projecting an intent I do not hold.
What I don't understand is why you think this a sticking point. I have not made an argument suggesting anything to the contrary.
I mean,, when your. Take on liberalism can just be boiled down to the bad people, sure.
Not really. That's more a modern simplistic way of looking at politics.
The Founders don't have to say something is defacto legal. What is important is the protections within the Constitution.
No. Again, how would I be violating the 14th amenment?
No, 'Bodily autonomy' says I have say what I want to do with my body. Intent plays no role. If a woman says she wants to get pregant, but then says she wants to do drugs and drink, that is up to her, according to your bodily autonomy. In other words, the woman has a right to drink and drug all she wants. It is her body.
No. The problem is your having to add intent to your story because there are many states that prosecute women for doing things which place the unborn fetus at risk. As though 'abortion' doesn't place the unborn at risk. How ludicrous.
You can call it whatever you want. You brought up bodily autonomy, not me. I am just showing you how ridiculous such a claim is so that even the Peoples Republic of California reject it....when they want to.
What intent are you talking about?
It's a sticking point because it is an important point. Which is why you are dodging. Do you agree that abortion is not a human right? And, that rights are only based upon the the government one is under?
No. It is boiled down to the liberalism of the founding fathers cannot be compared to the anti-god, anti-christian, liberalism of today.
Yes, really. To understand the terms of liberalism and conservatism you must understand the times they are being used in. Basic history.
In other words the founding fathers didn't say abortion was illegal. Abortion wasn't included in the Constitution as a right to be protected. Why? Because America as a predominately Christian people, knew abortion was wrong. They didn't have to be told. And they wouldn't stand for anyone having an abortion and calling it right.
Quantrill
Milk-Drops
Member
You are discriminating based on race and religion. I'll repeat that until it sinks in.
Yep, no disagreement
I'll explain it once more. The woman chooses whether or not to continue the pregnancy. If the woman INTENDS to carry to term, and does anything to endanger the health of the fetus, we have intent.
Unless she excepts responsibility for caring a child.
You keep missing the main point.
The issue is you don't understand what I'm talking about and seem more interested in getting a dunk on me than an explanation.
Whether or not to continue the pregnancy.
It's related to child endangerment. If you get drunk and pass out on your day off, what ever. I'd you do the same while being responsible for children, that's a crime.
What dodge? I never said abortion was human right.
This is bait
Except that first amendment. I know you are just going to keep baiting me at this point.
tim-from-pa
Member
Yes, I support this organisation. Abortion is a sore spot in the minds of the left when they want to "save lives" from the COVID disease but then they wanted abortion clinics to stay open as "essential services". 800K children are aborted each and every year, and after TWO years we are hitting that target with COVID. Almost a 2:1 ratio. So, how messed up is that?We as Christians should be in unity about this issue.
This is a cause we can all unify together over.
Let’s pray!
Let’s Vote!
ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow and the ACLJ legal team are preparing to defend South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem and her state's critical pro-life law before the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The law requires third-party counseling BEFORE obtaining an abortion. Imagine how many precious unborn babies' lives could be saved if pregnant women were actually given THE FACTS about abortion, instead of the abortion industry's propaganda and deception.
Desperate to topple any legislation that affects its immense profits, Planned Parenthood got this lifesaving law blocked in court.
Now, South Dakota is appealing at the 8th Circuit to have this absurd injunction OVERTURNED, and they'll have the full strength of the ACLJ.
As Jay prepares to battle the powerful abortion giant in court and save countless defenseless babies, we need YOU.
Defend South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem’s Pro-Life Law To Save Unborn Babies | American Center for Law and Justice
The State of South Dakota and Governor Kristi Noem passed a lifesaving law requiring third-party counseling for pregnant women to protect them from coercion and misinformation on abortion. For decades, the abortion industry has relied on deceptions, legal fallacies, and looking the other way...aclj.org
I'm OSAS.
Am I breaking any laws?
Milk-Drops
Member
I don't think so. :p
So? The employer who fires someone for not being vaccinated is discriminating against him. Not allowing his 'bodily immunity' right. You see, you like the 14th amendment when you use it as you want to. You reject it when it is used contrary to the way you want to. Just like with the racist affirmative action. So, explain how the 14th amendment is against me as a business and an employer for not wanting to do business with non-whites or non-christians.
That is not true. Your statement is dishonest. You don't agree. You simply used a small sentence you can say you agree with, yet ignored the emphaiss of the paragraph where it was stated. What was being said was that 'intent' plays no role with your 'bodily autonomy'. The woman is free to do whatever as it is her body. Yet courts have said otherwise. Thus you have the contradiction between 'bodily autonomy', and 'courts prosecuting women for endangering the fetus', and 'abortion'.
I will explain it once more. Intent plays no role in your bodily autonomy. If bodily autonomy allows a woman to destroy a fetus by abortion, then bodily autonomy must allow the woman her right to drink or drugs even though it results in the death or harm of the fetus. It's her body. In other words, the use of 'bodily autonomy' to allow a woman to have an abortion is a joke. It is simply the liberal anti-god, anti-christian people using it for their own ends.
'Accepting Responsibility'? Then women should not be allowed to have abortions unless they were raped or the mothers life is in danger. When you have sex you know that there is the possibility of becoming pregnant. If your intent is to disregard that, you are not acting responsible. If your intent is to kill the fetus if that happens, then you are guilty of killing the fetus. Actually you are guilty of murder.
No, I haven't missed the point at all. At first you preach the right of bodily autonomy to allow the woman to do what she wants to with her body concerning abortion. But the laws of several states prove that wrong when they prosecute women for endangering a fetus when they drink or do drugs. In other words, your bodily autonomy just went out the window. So, you now add 'intent' to get around that. But that is a contradiction as has been explained. So you cloak it in 'responsibility'. But that too is a contradiction because if you have sex you are taking responsibility for the fetus. Unless your a liberal, then you just go ahead and kill it. Problem solved.
I understand what you are talking about. Do you? Sadly, I know you do.
If getting drunk is related to child endangerment for the fetus, then abortion must also be related to child endangerment for the fetus. Don't you see? A crime is committed both ways. The severity of the crime may change, just like with murder verses manslaughter. But the crime is committed both ways.
Then you agree that abortion is not a human right and that rights only apply to the government one is under. Correct?
Bait? In other words you won't answer to your error. Liberalism and conservatism must be defined in the generations they are used. Simple history.
Bait? The first amendment doesn't say abortion is a right. Where in the world do you get that?
Quantrill
Corn Pop
Member
The wizard is out, no more sourcery from his state sponcer?.
After 2 decades of allegedly being paid to do sourcery in the city of ChristChurch.
www.theguardian.com
After 2 decades of allegedly being paid to do sourcery in the city of ChristChurch.
New Zealand council ends contract with wizard after two decades of service
Ian Brackenbury Channell was paid $16,000 a year to provide ‘acts of wizardry’ for the city of Christchurch
www.theguardian.com
Last edited:
Milk-Drops
Member
That is why I focus on supporting programs and structures to help people while the legal side is messy. We need strong community and stability to help, so people don't feel like they are going it alone. Give a person less reason to choose abortion.