Christian Forums

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!

  • Christian Forum aspires to be an online community where Christians can come together in fellowship with the purpose to encourage, inspire and build up our faith in Christ Jesus. John 13:34-35
  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Help Stop Abortion: Let’s all fight back.

Isilwen

Member
From
Central Florida
Gender
Male
Messages
447
Joined
Feb 22, 2021
You can say whatever you like. If you want to highlight just one brief sentence from a whole post, you can make it say whatever you like.

When you just cherry pick one sentence from a whole post, you don't know the goose from the gander. You're just looking for whatever kind of bird you think represents you.

I find this common among liberals. I mean, buzzards are birds also.

Quantrill

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.
 

Quantrill

 
Member
From
Texas
Gender
Male
Messages
2,138
Joined
Jul 21, 2020
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.

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
 

Rollo Tamasi

Warrior for Christ
Supporter
From
Inverness Florida
Gender
Male
Messages
15,018
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
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
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
From
Kewana, Indiana
Gender
Male
Christian
No
Messages
4,397
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
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.

I don't disagree that our system is messed up. That's the nature of privatized systems.
 

Milk-Drops

Member
From
Kewana, Indiana
Gender
Male
Christian
No
Messages
4,397
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
But the employers have rights as well, you said. How would I be violating the 14th amendment?
By discriminating based on religion/creed and skin color.

Yes, you know. Again, intent plays no role in your supposed 'bodily autonomy'. If the indiviudal decides yes, or no, doesn't matter the intent.
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.

It is their body. That is what you have been saying. Of course you change your story to 'intent' now. That is handy.
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.

No, I understand perfectly what you're saying. And you understand perfectly what a mess you are in, in trying to use this so called 'bodily autonomy'. A ruse, for leftist liberals.
This is what we call in the biz projection. You are making a baseless claim.

I am arguing against things you have said. No strawman. Just things you have said, but now seem to crawfish from.
It's. Strawman because you keep projecting an intent I do not hold.

No 'and?' You recognize that aborition is not a human right. It is only under the government where one exists. Correct? Do I need to repeat it again?
What I don't understand is why you think this a sticking point. I have not made an argument suggesting anything to the contrary.

The founding fathers, whoever you consider them to be, have no relation to liberalism of today.

I mean,, when your. Take on liberalism can just be boiled down to the bad people, sure.
The terms liberal and conservative do not always carry the same definition over time. It depends on the generation they are applied to.
Not really. That's more a modern simplistic way of looking at politics.

I'm talking about the legal system also. The one this country was founded on. Where did the founding fathers sanction or say abortion was legal?

Quantrill
The Founders don't have to say something is defacto legal. What is important is the protections within the Constitution.
 

Quantrill

 
Member
From
Texas
Gender
Male
Messages
2,138
Joined
Jul 21, 2020
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
From
Kewana, Indiana
Gender
Male
Christian
No
Messages
4,397
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
No. Again, how would I be violating the 14th amenment?
You are discriminating based on race and religion. I'll repeat that until it sinks in.

No, 'Bodily autonomy' says I have say what I want to do with my body.
Yep, no disagreement


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.
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.

In other words, the woman has a right to drink and drug all she wants. It is her body.
Unless she excepts responsibility for caring a child.

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 keep missing the main point.

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.
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.

What intent are you talking about?
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.
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?
What dodge? I never said abortion was human right.


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.
This is bait


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.
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
Except that first amendment. I know you are just going to keep baiting me at this point.
 

tim-from-pa

Member
From
Eastern Pa
Gender
Male
Messages
4,500
Joined
Aug 4, 2005
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.



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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JLB

Rollo Tamasi

Warrior for Christ
Supporter
From
Inverness Florida
Gender
Male
Messages
15,018
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
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.
I'm OSAS.
Am I breaking any laws?
 

kiwidan

Supporter
Messages
17,128
Joined
Feb 17, 2013
I dont get it. This world is confusing.

I mean its all about saving lives in this world at the moment but how can you save lives if humans are not even given there choice to life to even start?.
 
Last edited:

kiwidan

Supporter
Messages
17,128
Joined
Feb 17, 2013
As long as no one intends to harm or is harming another human being then i have no business in anyone elses life. If i see or hear of people being abused or assualted or are being harmed in any way i will do my best to defend the victim as a good neighbour does.

.
 
Last edited:

Quantrill

 
Member
From
Texas
Gender
Male
Messages
2,138
Joined
Jul 21, 2020
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.

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
 

Milk-Drops

Member
From
Kewana, Indiana
Gender
Male
Christian
No
Messages
4,397
Joined
Apr 10, 2012
I dont get it. This world is confusing.

I mean its all about saving lives in this world at the moment but how can you save lives if humans are not even given there choice to life to even start?.
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.
 
Top