SCOTUS Rules Texas Abortion Restictions Unconstitutional

[AR Husker Fan]

I really think this discussion is getting too philosophical. As I pointed out earlier, science is proving the pro-life movement right with each passing day. With the pre-born able to feel excruciating pain beginning around 20 weeks, there is no justification for allowing abortions to continue unless the mother's life is in danger and it's an either/or choice where someone must feel the pain.

Except that's not what the scientific evidence establishes.

 

While I am ok if some oppose abortion based upon their own religious believes, it's also ok to declare something morally wrong that is not based upon a religious doctrine. It's comical to me that the same group that claims we must pass gun control legislation which has its basis in a Constitutional amendment, and by which ownership of a gun does not mean someone will be hurt or die, approves of the right to have unlimited abortions which GUARANTEES pain and suffering of the innocent pre-born.

Which, like guns, said right is derived from the Constitution.

 

[knapplc]

 

It isn't by choice. You've been commanded to do so by Jesus. He couldn't have been more clear about it.

 

I don't see any commands issued in the scriptures you referenced. I see Jesus explaining certain things, and I see a depiction of what the early church was like, but the commandment part is missing as far as I can tell.

 

 

What are you actually arguing for, by the way? What's your perspective? Surely you don't believe in the idea of a theocracy or a non-separation of church and state.

 

So... Jesus doesn't command his followers to give to the poor, or to take care of their fellow man?

[NM11046]

 

 

 

Could you turn that ball like half an inch to the left before zoogs knocks it into the middle of next week? I don't think you teed it up 100% perfectly.

 

I can't hardly hold in my excitement to hear how it's moral to murder unborn babies.

When do you consider them "unborn babies?" Conception or a certain amount of weeks?

 

 

Fixed this for you.

 

At the time of conception, it is a baby in my opinion. In other words, once the sperm fertilizes the egg.

 

[knapplc]

Why did that need fixing? Of course it's his opinion.

[HuskerShark]

So people honestly think it's not a baby until birth or...

[NM11046]

In my opinion, it's a baby when it would be viable outside the womb. Approx week 26+.

[HuskerShark]

You all realize that there have been babies born as much as 4 months premature that have survived, right?

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you're talking about taking care of the poor, I'm all for that idea. But the idea that a government would step in, require us to pay our hard earned money, and then divvy it out to poor people is NOT the way Jesus would have intended it. It should be an entirely free will thing, not something that's forced upon people.

Matthew 25: 37-40 Then the righteous will answer him, Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you? The King will reply, Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.

 

Mark 12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they marveled at him.

Notice how he didn't say "Render unto Caesar your money so he can give it to those less fortunate."

 

Once again, I believe Jesus would have it be a free will offering rather than a payment to the government for them to disburse.

Acts 4:32-35 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And Gods grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

 

We can quibble about who's doing the distributing - the government or the church - but it's still about as Socialist as Medicare.

 

And we can quibble about the government being "them" or "us" all you want, but Abraham Lincoln said the government was "Of the people, by the people, for the people." If the government is "them," then who is "us?"

The dots don't connect the way you want them to. Bottom line is, people work hard for their money. They shouldn't be forced to hand over a portion of it so that it can be distributed by a current-day government that has shown time and again not to be trustworthy. Giving money to the poor should be entirely by choice.

It isn't by choice. You've been commanded to do so by Jesus. He couldn't have been more clear about it.

So you're forcing the Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Pagans, and Satanists to participate in a Christian program through the government? That doesn't seem right...

Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security aren't Christian programs.

That's what you're trying to argue. Bottom line, no government should force anyone to give money in order for them to re-disburse to those they deem worthy. It should be entirely by free will choice, as Jesus intended it if that's what you're coming back at me with.

Let's try that for 2 years. Get back to me when your car is done falling into a giant pothole that didn't get repaired because people didn't freely donate their time and money to repair it.

[NM11046]

Why did that need fixing? Of course it's his opinion.

Wait for it ...

[knapplc]

So people honestly think it's not a baby until birth or...

I think it's a baby really, really early on. Like, so early that I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong for your "from conception" stance. I've heard lots of arguments for & against, lots of science about heartbeats and pain and thumb-sucking and viability, and frankly I don't know what's right. But I believe it's a baby, a real person, real real close to conception, if not right at.

 

What I can't tell you is what I know. Because I know nothing.

 

Which is what makes the abortion argument so hard. I could argue for and against it with about the same level of facts & fervor.

 

And the reason we're still debating this in 2016 is that nobody really knows the truth. It's all what we believe.

[HuskerShark]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you're talking about taking care of the poor, I'm all for that idea. But the idea that a government would step in, require us to pay our hard earned money, and then divvy it out to poor people is NOT the way Jesus would have intended it. It should be an entirely free will thing, not something that's forced upon people.

Matthew 25: 37-40 Then the righteous will answer him, Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you? The King will reply, Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.

 

Mark 12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they marveled at him.

Notice how he didn't say "Render unto Caesar your money so he can give it to those less fortunate."

 

Once again, I believe Jesus would have it be a free will offering rather than a payment to the government for them to disburse.

Acts 4:32-35 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And Gods grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

 

We can quibble about who's doing the distributing - the government or the church - but it's still about as Socialist as Medicare.

 

And we can quibble about the government being "them" or "us" all you want, but Abraham Lincoln said the government was "Of the people, by the people, for the people." If the government is "them," then who is "us?"

The dots don't connect the way you want them to. Bottom line is, people work hard for their money. They shouldn't be forced to hand over a portion of it so that it can be distributed by a current-day government that has shown time and again not to be trustworthy. Giving money to the poor should be entirely by choice.

It isn't by choice. You've been commanded to do so by Jesus. He couldn't have been more clear about it.

So you're forcing the Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Pagans, and Satanists to participate in a Christian program through the government? That doesn't seem right...

Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security aren't Christian programs.

That's what you're trying to argue. Bottom line, no government should force anyone to give money in order for them to re-disburse to those they deem worthy. It should be entirely by free will choice, as Jesus intended it if that's what you're coming back at me with.

Let's try that for 2 years. Get back to me when your car is done falling into a giant pothole that didn't get repaires because people didn't freely donate their time and money to repair it.

(facepalm)

 

Like usual, you're not understanding the issue. We're not talking about taxation in general. Just social security and other socialist programs to pay for poor people.

[Moiraine]

Also, get back to me on how well this "free giving" goes with the police force and stopping these illegal abortions. Or are you wanting us to just have several random militias in this tax-free utopia?

[knapplc]

In my opinion, it's a baby when it would be viable outside the womb. Approx week 26+.

No baby is "viable" outside the womb. Take a baby at birth and leave it alone in the wild. It isn't going to survive, not without outside intervention.

 

The "viability" argument makes zero sense to me.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you're talking about taking care of the poor, I'm all for that idea. But the idea that a government would step in, require us to pay our hard earned money, and then divvy it out to poor people is NOT the way Jesus would have intended it. It should be an entirely free will thing, not something that's forced upon people.

Matthew 25: 37-40 Then the righteous will answer him, Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you? The King will reply, Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.

 

Mark 12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." And they marveled at him.

Notice how he didn't say "Render unto Caesar your money so he can give it to those less fortunate."

 

Once again, I believe Jesus would have it be a free will offering rather than a payment to the government for them to disburse.

Acts 4:32-35 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And Gods grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.

 

We can quibble about who's doing the distributing - the government or the church - but it's still about as Socialist as Medicare.

 

And we can quibble about the government being "them" or "us" all you want, but Abraham Lincoln said the government was "Of the people, by the people, for the people." If the government is "them," then who is "us?"

The dots don't connect the way you want them to. Bottom line is, people work hard for their money. They shouldn't be forced to hand over a portion of it so that it can be distributed by a current-day government that has shown time and again not to be trustworthy. Giving money to the poor should be entirely by choice.

It isn't by choice. You've been commanded to do so by Jesus. He couldn't have been more clear about it.

So you're forcing the Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Pagans, and Satanists to participate in a Christian program through the government? That doesn't seem right...

Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security aren't Christian programs.

That's what you're trying to argue. Bottom line, no government should force anyone to give money in order for them to re-disburse to those they deem worthy. It should be entirely by free will choice, as Jesus intended it if that's what you're coming back at me with.

Let's try that for 2 years. Get back to me when your car is done falling into a giant pothole that didn't get repaires because people didn't freely donate their time and money to repair it.

(facepalm)

 

Like usual, you're not understanding the issue. We're not talking about taxation in general. Just social security and other socialist programs to pay for poor people.

Oh I underatand the issue perfectly. You just don't understand what you're saying.

 

All tax money is used for things that people can't afford on their own. The police help everyone including poor people. As do road repairs. As would help for parents of newborns.

 

I guess you're only agains things that ONLY help poor people. 'Cause they just don't deserve it.

 

I'm pro-life but the Republicans are completely ass-backwards on their philosophy about it. You want people to help their babies? Don't be such jerks to people of need.

[Landlord]

 

So people honestly think it's not a baby until birth or...

I think it's a baby really, really early on. Like, so early that I'm not going to tell you that you're wrong for your "from conception" stance. I've heard lots of arguments for & against, lots of science about heartbeats and pain and thumb-sucking and viability, and frankly I don't know what's right. But I believe it's a baby, a real person, real real close to conception, if not right at.

 

What I can't tell you is what I know. Because I know nothing.

 

Which is what makes the abortion argument so hard. I could argue for and against it with about the same level of facts & fervor.

 

And the reason we're still debating this in 2016 is that nobody really knows the truth. It's all what we believe.

 

 

 

I agree. But because of that last line, shouldn't it be an absolute imperative to err on the side of caution? Of extreme caution?

 

There is at least a puncher's chance that it's murder. At what point do we say the risk of that being true is too great to allow it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the record I don't have much of a hard line stance on pro-life vs. pro-choice. I think that's silly and simplistic, and I don't ascribe to either mainstream default positions, nor do I much enjoy talking about this in a political context.