Florida passes 6 week abortion plan

[creepycoug]

My mom said when of sound mind that she wanted us to kill her if she went bad

Instead she got 5 to 10 of dementia because she was so healthy

At that point she isn't of sound mind

Then I sincerely wish the law had given you the freedom to acede to her wishes. She had the moral right to the autonomy over her own existence. I believe in that, and even if I didn't, it's not the government's business.

If, on the other hand, she had never communicated any such wish and you and/or your siblings wanted to take it upon yourselves to decide, that would be the government's business. Her life, her choice. The fetus can't decide or communicate, so we have to default to protecting it. If it wants to end its life later on as a clear-thinking adult, then that's another matter.

 

[Blueduck]

I also see a lot of “GOOD LUCK IN 2024 LADIES!!!!” from HH and zero in the way of making an argument against the legislation.

I personally think 6 weeks is a tight frame, and I’m not factoring the subjective argument in terms of when life begins that the left likes to get itself embroiled in.

For me, it’s what’s a reasonable timeline for someone to learn that they’re pregnant and make a rational decision to keep or terminate the pregnancy. 6 weeks is enough for many people, but apparently not all, and I get that. I had a friend whose aunt was 10 weeks along before she knew she and her husband were expecting. It’s not the norm but it definitely happens.

The Throbber is an expert on the female anatomy and skillfully tracking when his significant other’s period is scheduled. No nookie during the rainy season.

Needs to be set at least at 8 to 9 weeks so a skipped period doesn’t trigger an immediate trip to the abortion clinic during the first pass.

Whatever the time-frame, it'll always be a compromise and terminating a life. [/b]

Make it 16 to 20 weeks.

Some fat dumb women won't know until then, sad to say, and it's probably better for humanity that those folks don't propagate.

You are in contention for joining the right side. We have our eyes on you.

Sacrifices are part of life. Getting 50% of your way is better than losing 100%.

If a woman wants to off her fetus somewhere approaching viability that's between her and the man upstairs.

I don't have to agree with it to accept it as a fact of modern life.

True. But we pass laws all the time that take personal decisions into the public domain. So, "It was my personal decision to kill by mother-in-law" is fine, but we're prosecuting that person anyway because we decided we can't live with that personal decision.

Same thing here. The trick is helping people understand what it is they're doing, even if it's on day 1. Political expediency and consensus has (or should have) nothing to do with it. It should be axiomatic.[/b]

At least 50% of women will never, ever go there. Maybe even 70%.

Political reality doesn't change the moral equation. God knows our politics are anything but an exercise in true moral thinking.

Agreed. But politics poison all morality. Better to keep them separate, as often as possible. [/b]

Otherwise you get Got Hates Fags on one side and God Loves Trannies on the other.

Enough to cause any rational person to avert their attention and not look again.

Fwiw...
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..

We were also warned by our forefathers not to elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, and look at what we have.

We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.

I would argue to bring morality back to the front, not keep it separate.

My $0.02

I"m not sure what the $0.02 means. Lawyers and politicians are just people, and they are as entitled to their own moral compass, informed by religion or not, as a reality TV star. Please.

The bottom line, which I once resisted but have come to embrace, is that we? are a nation whose most fundamental organizing principles are rooted in Judea-Christian/Western moral traditions. So, basic concepts like "leave me alone unless I'm bother you," sanctity of human life, etc., liberty, etc. are at the foundation of who we? are. I doesn't matter whether it was handed down by an actual deity or if it's humanism in its highest form. Either one works.

So, back to the issue: innocent human life cannot be taken for convenience, period. Has nothing to do with autonomy or privacy. We can't compromise on these things. Just like with slavery, we may need to fight this one out in the streets. I'm ready. Are you?

My $0.02 is just that, it's my view and it may or may not be to anyone's liking.
Take it or leave it.

 

[PurpleThrobber]

I also see a lot of “GOOD LUCK IN 2024 LADIES!!!!” from HH and zero in the way of making an argument against the legislation.

I personally think 6 weeks is a tight frame, and I’m not factoring the subjective argument in terms of when life begins that the left likes to get itself embroiled in.

For me, it’s what’s a reasonable timeline for someone to learn that they’re pregnant and make a rational decision to keep or terminate the pregnancy. 6 weeks is enough for many people, but apparently not all, and I get that. I had a friend whose aunt was 10 weeks along before she knew she and her husband were expecting. It’s not the norm but it definitely happens.

The Throbber is an expert on the female anatomy and skillfully tracking when his significant other’s period is scheduled. No nookie during the rainy season.

Needs to be set at least at 8 to 9 weeks so a skipped period doesn’t trigger an immediate trip to the abortion clinic during the first pass.

Whatever the time-frame, it'll always be a compromise and terminating a life. [/b]

Make it 16 to 20 weeks.

Some fat dumb women won't know until then, sad to say, and it's probably better for humanity that those folks don't propagate.

You are in contention for joining the right side. We have our eyes on you.

Sacrifices are part of life. Getting 50% of your way is better than losing 100%.

If a woman wants to off her fetus somewhere approaching viability that's between her and the man upstairs.

I don't have to agree with it to accept it as a fact of modern life.

True. But we pass laws all the time that take personal decisions into the public domain. So, "It was my personal decision to kill by mother-in-law" is fine, but we're prosecuting that person anyway because we decided we can't live with that personal decision.

Same thing here. The trick is helping people understand what it is they're doing, even if it's on day 1. Political expediency and consensus has (or should have) nothing to do with it. It should be axiomatic.[/b]

At least 50% of women will never, ever go there. Maybe even 70%.

Political reality doesn't change the moral equation. God knows our politics are anything but an exercise in true moral thinking.

Agreed. But politics poison all morality. Better to keep them separate, as often as possible. [/b]

Otherwise you get Got Hates Fags on one side and God Loves Trannies on the other.

Enough to cause any rational person to avert their attention and not look again.

Fwiw...
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..

We were also warned by our forefathers not to elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, and look at what we have.

We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.

I would argue to bring morality back to the front, not keep it separate.

My $0.02

I"m not sure what the $0.02 means. Lawyers and politicians are just people, and they are as entitled to their own moral compass, informed by religion or not, as a reality TV star. Please.

The bottom line, which I once resisted but have come to embrace, is that we? are a nation whose most fundamental organizing principles are rooted in Judea-Christian/Western moral traditions. So, basic concepts like "leave me alone unless I'm bother you," sanctity of human life, etc., liberty, etc. are at the foundation of who we? are. I doesn't matter whether it was handed down by an actual deity or if it's humanism in its highest form. Either one works.

So, back to the issue: innocent human life cannot be taken for convenience, period. Has nothing to do with autonomy or privacy. We can't compromise on these things. Just like with slavery, we may need to fight this one out in the streets. I'm ready. Are you?

Lawyers have the vril worm embedded in their eyes.

OBK would know what that is.

Damone and I ran that guy off like a beeitch. He dead man. He dead.

No. OBK is at Gitmo.

@MikeDamone was the clone.

 

[Blueduck]

l
Fwiw...
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..

We were also warned by our forefathers not to elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, and look at what we have.

We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.

I would argue to bring morality back to the front, not keep it separate.[/b]

My $0.02

Whose Morality? Should I stone my kids to death for pre-marital sex?

For children morality starts with the parents. If you don't lead by example and teach them that there are consequences for their actions and then follow through then they will not learn.
Stoning is a little harsh...but
Abortion is just consequences for the baby not the premarital sex.

Do not tie religion and government together, in any way, shape or form, or your lineage will live to regret it.

America exists as a beacon of religious freedom - from Government.

You wrote: We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.

You're half right: Morality, yes. Church or Religion, No. 100% Wrong.

If you mean the brick and mortar 501c3s that bow the knee to the state and the dollar then I would tend to agree as they all have been corrupted.
The church, the body of Christ not beholden to denomination or to a taxable write off is the church/religion, to which I refer.
This country was founded on "Christian" doctrine originally.
It has been chipped away at for 240+ years and history has been twisted and changed to mean something all inclusive for all religions, which is fine, but it was about Christianity first and being able to get away from persecution for not following the monarchy's brand of "Religion".
America is now far from "freedom of religion "because you have to bow to government to get a non profit status and avoid paying taxes on donations. When you do that you are then subject to certain governmental laws and regulations and restrictions on what your church can and cannot say and do in public.
Our Government is much more involved in the churches business and their speech than many realize.

 

[RaceBannon]

I also see a lot of “GOOD LUCK IN 2024 LADIES!!!!” from HH and zero in the way of making an argument against the legislation.

I personally think 6 weeks is a tight frame, and I’m not factoring the subjective argument in terms of when life begins that the left likes to get itself embroiled in.

For me, it’s what’s a reasonable timeline for someone to learn that they’re pregnant and make a rational decision to keep or terminate the pregnancy. 6 weeks is enough for many people, but apparently not all, and I get that. I had a friend whose aunt was 10 weeks along before she knew she and her husband were expecting. It’s not the norm but it definitely happens.

The Throbber is an expert on the female anatomy and skillfully tracking when his significant other’s period is scheduled. No nookie during the rainy season.

Needs to be set at least at 8 to 9 weeks so a skipped period doesn’t trigger an immediate trip to the abortion clinic during the first pass.

Whatever the time-frame, it'll always be a compromise and terminating a life. [/b]

Make it 16 to 20 weeks.

Some fat dumb women won't know until then, sad to say, and it's probably better for humanity that those folks don't propagate.

You are in contention for joining the right side. We have our eyes on you.

Sacrifices are part of life. Getting 50% of your way is better than losing 100%.

If a woman wants to off her fetus somewhere approaching viability that's between her and the man upstairs.

I don't have to agree with it to accept it as a fact of modern life.

True. But we pass laws all the time that take personal decisions into the public domain. So, "It was my personal decision to kill by mother-in-law" is fine, but we're prosecuting that person anyway because we decided we can't live with that personal decision.

Same thing here. The trick is helping people understand what it is they're doing, even if it's on day 1. Political expediency and consensus has (or should have) nothing to do with it. It should be axiomatic.[/b]

At least 50% of women will never, ever go there. Maybe even 70%.

Political reality doesn't change the moral equation. God knows our politics are anything but an exercise in true moral thinking.

Agreed. But politics poison all morality. Better to keep them separate, as often as possible.

Otherwise you get Got Hates Fags on one side and God Loves Trannies on the other.

Enough to cause any rational person to avert their attention and not look again.

I know. The idea of a secular government completely divorced from any structured religion is a good idea, but in the end, we can't govern any society without some concept of the prescriptive. Any "ought" or "should" statement presupposes some morality, even at the most basic level. Otherwise, we are nihilists; and having hung out with that crowd for a portion of my life, trust me when I tell you that we? don't want to go there.

I know lots of atheists who are moral AF. A bunch are ex-catholics in my family, including myself - at times.

The presupposition of no morality without religion is pure bunk.

Atheists are not Nihilists. Many outrank Christians IMO.

I agree with this. Beware of wolves in sheep's clothing

 

[WestlinnDuck]

I also see a lot of “GOOD LUCK IN 2024 LADIES!!!!” from HH and zero in the way of making an argument against the legislation.

I personally think 6 weeks is a tight frame, and I’m not factoring the subjective argument in terms of when life begins that the left likes to get itself embroiled in.

For me, it’s what’s a reasonable timeline for someone to learn that they’re pregnant and make a rational decision to keep or terminate the pregnancy. 6 weeks is enough for many people, but apparently not all, and I get that. I had a friend whose aunt was 10 weeks along before she knew she and her husband were expecting. It’s not the norm but it definitely happens.

The Throbber is an expert on the female anatomy and skillfully tracking when his significant other’s period is scheduled. No nookie during the rainy season.

Needs to be set at least at 8 to 9 weeks so a skipped period doesn’t trigger an immediate trip to the abortion clinic during the first pass.

Whatever the time-frame, it'll always be a compromise and terminating a life. [/b]

Make it 16 to 20 weeks.

Some fat dumb women won't know until then, sad to say, and it's probably better for humanity that those folks don't propagate.

You are in contention for joining the right side. We have our eyes on you.

Sacrifices are part of life. Getting 50% of your way is better than losing 100%.

If a woman wants to off her fetus somewhere approaching viability that's between her and the man upstairs.

I don't have to agree with it to accept it as a fact of modern life.

True. But we pass laws all the time that take personal decisions into the public domain. So, "It was my personal decision to kill by mother-in-law" is fine, but we're prosecuting that person anyway because we decided we can't live with that personal decision.

Same thing here. The trick is helping people understand what it is they're doing, even if it's on day 1. Political expediency and consensus has (or should have) nothing to do with it. It should be axiomatic.[/b]

At least 50% of women will never, ever go there. Maybe even 70%.

Political reality doesn't change the moral equation. God knows our politics are anything but an exercise in true moral thinking.

Agreed. But politics poison all morality. Better to keep them separate, as often as possible.

Otherwise you get Got Hates Fags on one side and God Loves Trannies on the other.

Enough to cause any rational person to avert their attention and not look again.

I know. The idea of a secular government completely divorced from any structured religion is a good idea, but in the end, we can't govern any society without some concept of the prescriptive. Any "ought" or "should" statement presupposes some morality, even at the most basic level. Otherwise, we are nihilists; and having hung out with that crowd for a portion of my life, trust me when I tell you that we? don't want to go there.

I know lots of atheists who are moral AF. A bunch are ex-catholics in my family, including myself - at times.

The presupposition of no morality without religion is pure bunk.

Atheists are not Nihilists. Many outrank Christians IMO.

Communism is a religion. So is the green gaia religion along with the LGBTQ∞ true believers. Toss in antifa and blm fanatics. There are true atheists, but just because it isn't a classic religion doesn't make it any less a religion.

 

[TurdBomber]

l
Fwiw...
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..

We were also warned by our forefathers not to elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, and look at what we have.

We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.

I would argue to bring morality back to the front, not keep it separate.[/b]

My $0.02

Whose Morality? Should I stone my kids to death for pre-marital sex?

For children morality starts with the parents. If you don't lead by example and teach them that there are consequences for their actions and then follow through then they will not learn.
Stoning is a little harsh...but
Abortion is just consequences for the baby not the premarital sex.

Do not tie religion and government together, in any way, shape or form, or your lineage will live to regret it.

America exists as a beacon of religious freedom - from Government.

You wrote: We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.

You're half right: Morality, yes. Church or Religion, No. 100% Wrong.

If you mean the brick and mortar 501c3s that bow the knee to the state and the dollar then I would tend to agree as they all have been corrupted.
The church, the body of Christ not beholden to denomination or to a taxable write off is the church/religion, to which I refer.
This country was founded on "Christian" doctrine originally.[/b]
It has been chipped away at for 240+ years and history has been twisted and changed to mean something all inclusive for all religions, which is fine, but it was about Christianity first and being able to get away from persecution for not following the monarchy's brand of "Religion".
America is now far from "freedom of religion "because you have to bow to government to get a non profit status and avoid paying taxes on donations. When you do that you are then subject to certain governmental laws and regulations and restrictions on what your church can and cannot say and do in public.
Our Government is much more involved in the churches business and their speech than many realize.

Judeo-Christian Doctrine.

Why are you shafting the Jews?

 

[TurdBomber]

 

[WestlinnDuck]

l
Fwiw...
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..

We were also warned by our forefathers not to elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, and look at what we have.

We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.

I would argue to bring morality back to the front, not keep it separate.[/b]

My $0.02

Whose Morality? Should I stone my kids to death for pre-marital sex?

For children morality starts with the parents. If you don't lead by example and teach them that there are consequences for their actions and then follow through then they will not learn.
Stoning is a little harsh...but
Abortion is just consequences for the baby not the premarital sex.

Do not tie religion and government together, in any way, shape or form, or your lineage will live to regret it.

America exists as a beacon of religious freedom - from Government.

You wrote: We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.

You're half right: Morality, yes. Church or Religion, No. 100% Wrong.

If you mean the brick and mortar 501c3s that bow the knee to the state and the dollar then I would tend to agree as they all have been corrupted.
The church, the body of Christ not beholden to denomination or to a taxable write off is the church/religion, to which I refer.
This country was founded on "Christian" doctrine originally.[/b]
It has been chipped away at for 240+ years and history has been twisted and changed to mean something all inclusive for all religions, which is fine, but it was about Christianity first and being able to get away from persecution for not following the monarchy's brand of "Religion".
America is now far from "freedom of religion "because you have to bow to government to get a non profit status and avoid paying taxes on donations. When you do that you are then subject to certain governmental laws and regulations and restrictions on what your church can and cannot say and do in public.
Our Government is much more involved in the churches business and their speech than many realize.

Judeo-Christian Doctrine.

Why are you shafting the Jews?

Don't forget the essential contributions of the Muslims to our founding. Barry thought so although for some reason he didn't show his work to come that conclusion.

"ince our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States."

 

[Blueduck]

l
Fwiw...
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..

We were also warned by our forefathers not to elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, and look at what we have.

We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.

I would argue to bring morality back to the front, not keep it separate.[/b]

My $0.02

Whose Morality? Should I stone my kids to death for pre-marital sex?

For children morality starts with the parents. If you don't lead by example and teach them that there are consequences for their actions and then follow through then they will not learn.
Stoning is a little harsh...but
Abortion is just consequences for the baby not the premarital sex.

Do not tie religion and government together, in any way, shape or form, or your lineage will live to regret it.

America exists as a beacon of religious freedom - from Government.

You wrote: We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.

You're half right: Morality, yes. Church or Religion, No. 100% Wrong.

If you mean the brick and mortar 501c3s that bow the knee to the state and the dollar then I would tend to agree as they all have been corrupted.
The church, the body of Christ not beholden to denomination or to a taxable write off is the church/religion, to which I refer.
This country was founded on "Christian" doctrine originally.[/b]
It has been chipped away at for 240+ years and history has been twisted and changed to mean something all inclusive for all religions, which is fine, but it was about Christianity first and being able to get away from persecution for not following the monarchy's brand of "Religion".
America is now far from "freedom of religion "because you have to bow to government to get a non profit status and avoid paying taxes on donations. When you do that you are then subject to certain governmental laws and regulations and restrictions on what your church can and cannot say and do in public.
Our Government is much more involved in the churches business and their speech than many realize.

Judeo-Christian Doctrine.

Why are you shafting the Jews?

The first Christians were Jews

 

[TurdBomber]

l
Fwiw...
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..

We were also warned by our forefathers not to elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, and look at what we have.

We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.

I would argue to bring morality back to the front, not keep it separate.[/b]

My $0.02

Whose Morality? Should I stone my kids to death for pre-marital sex?

For children morality starts with the parents. If you don't lead by example and teach them that there are consequences for their actions and then follow through then they will not learn.
Stoning is a little harsh...but
Abortion is just consequences for the baby not the premarital sex.

Do not tie religion and government together, in any way, shape or form, or your lineage will live to regret it.

America exists as a beacon of religious freedom - from Government.

You wrote: We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.

You're half right: Morality, yes. Church or Religion, No. 100% Wrong.

If you mean the brick and mortar 501c3s that bow the knee to the state and the dollar then I would tend to agree as they all have been corrupted.
The church, the body of Christ not beholden to denomination or to a taxable write off is the church/religion, to which I refer.
This country was founded on "Christian" doctrine originally.[/b]
It has been chipped away at for 240+ years and history has been twisted and changed to mean something all inclusive for all religions, which is fine, but it was about Christianity first and being able to get away from persecution for not following the monarchy's brand of "Religion".
America is now far from "freedom of religion "because you have to bow to government to get a non profit status and avoid paying taxes on donations. When you do that you are then subject to certain governmental laws and regulations and restrictions on what your church can and cannot say and do in public.
Our Government is much more involved in the churches business and their speech than many realize.

Judeo-Christian Doctrine.

Why are you shafting the Jews?

The first Christians were Jews

@Blueduck STOP!

 

[Blueduck]

l
Fwiw...
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..

We were also warned by our forefathers not to elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, and look at what we have.

We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.

I would argue to bring morality back to the front, not keep it separate.[/b]

My $0.02

Whose Morality? Should I stone my kids to death for pre-marital sex?

For children morality starts with the parents. If you don't lead by example and teach them that there are consequences for their actions and then follow through then they will not learn.
Stoning is a little harsh...but
Abortion is just consequences for the baby not the premarital sex.

Do not tie religion and government together, in any way, shape or form, or your lineage will live to regret it.

America exists as a beacon of religious freedom - from Government.

You wrote: We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.

You're half right: Morality, yes. Church or Religion, No. 100% Wrong.

If you mean the brick and mortar 501c3s that bow the knee to the state and the dollar then I would tend to agree as they all have been corrupted.
The church, the body of Christ not beholden to denomination or to a taxable write off is the church/religion, to which I refer.
This country was founded on "Christian" doctrine originally.[/b]
It has been chipped away at for 240+ years and history has been twisted and changed to mean something all inclusive for all religions, which is fine, but it was about Christianity first and being able to get away from persecution for not following the monarchy's brand of "Religion".
America is now far from "freedom of religion "because you have to bow to government to get a non profit status and avoid paying taxes on donations. When you do that you are then subject to certain governmental laws and regulations and restrictions on what your church can and cannot say and do in public.
Our Government is much more involved in the churches business and their speech than many realize.

Judeo-Christian Doctrine.

Why are you shafting the Jews?

The first Christians were jews

l
Fwiw...
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..

We were also warned by our forefathers not to elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, and look at what we have.

We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.

I would argue to bring morality back to the front, not keep it separate.[/b]

My $0.02

Whose Morality? Should I stone my kids to death for pre-marital sex?

For children morality starts with the parents. If you don't lead by example and teach them that there are consequences for their actions and then follow through then they will not learn.
Stoning is a little harsh...but
Abortion is just consequences for the baby not the premarital sex.

Do not tie religion and government together, in any way, shape or form, or your lineage will live to regret it.

America exists as a beacon of religious freedom - from Government.

You wrote: We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.

You're half right: Morality, yes. Church or Religion, No. 100% Wrong.

If you mean the brick and mortar 501c3s that bow the knee to the state and the dollar then I would tend to agree as they all have been corrupted.
The church, the body of Christ not beholden to denomination or to a taxable write off is the church/religion, to which I refer.
This country was founded on "Christian" doctrine originally.[/b]
It has been chipped away at for 240+ years and history has been twisted and changed to mean something all inclusive for all religions, which is fine, but it was about Christianity first and being able to get away from persecution for not following the monarchy's brand of "Religion".
America is now far from "freedom of religion "because you have to bow to government to get a non profit status and avoid paying taxes on donations. When you do that you are then subject to certain governmental laws and regulations and restrictions on what your church can and cannot say and do in public.
Our Government is much more involved in the churches business and their speech than many realize.

Judeo-Christian Doctrine.

Why are you shafting the Jews?

The first Christians were Jews

@Blueduck STOP!

Im sorry... you asked me a direct question, if you don't want a response....

Im out

 

[TurdBomber]

The first Christians were the jews. Jesus. Sounds like my Catholic mother.

She also found it amusing to tell Jewish people, "You killed Christ! Hahahahaha!"

It's a miracle I survived those years of embarrassment.

 

[RaceBannon]

Not the. The first Christians were Jewish as was Jesus

It's historical or mythical fact depending on your view

Peter ministered to the church in Jerusalem while Paul went to the gentiles

Being a catholic damaged your faith. Quite common really

 

[Blueduck]

The first Christians were the jews. Jesus. Sounds like my Catholic mother.

She also found it amusing to tell Jewish people, "You killed Christ! Hahahahaha!"

It's a miracle I survived those years of embarrassment.

What is it about facts don't you like? or do you just want to insult me without the burden of me defending myself.

Btw
Your mother was only half right.

Dtm

 

[PurpleThrobber]

All this hot Jewish talk and missing the point(s) entirely.



And a little something for the Papists.

Sorry, Presbyterians.

 

[TurdBomber]

The first Christians were the jews. Jesus. Sounds like my Catholic mother.

She also found it amusing to tell Jewish people, "You killed Christ! Hahahahaha!"

It's a miracle I survived those years of embarrassment.

What is it about facts don't you like? or do you just want to insult me without the burden of me defending myself.

Btw
Your mother was only half right.

Dtm

Not insulting anyone. Jesus WAS a jew. Yeah, okay, whatevs, but let's just say he was heretical then.

Obviously the jews weren't worth the squeeze for the faith-challenged carpenter. SWIDT?

Anecdotal, to be sure. Much like muslims claiming Jesus was a Muslim.

Perhaps the best shoe-horning of a prophet in the history of man.

Which is, of course, only 6k years old.

 

[TurdBomber]

Not the. The first Christians were Jewish as was Jesus

It's historical or mythical fact depending on your view

Peter ministered to the church in Jerusalem while Paul went to the gentiles

Being a catholic damaged your faith. Quite common really

Throbber restored my faith in Joobs. I'll happily get on my knees for those.

Oy Vey!

 

[Blueduck]

The first Christians were the jews. Jesus. Sounds like my Catholic mother.

She also found it amusing to tell Jewish people, "You killed Christ! Hahahahaha!"

It's a miracle I survived those years of embarrassment.

What is it about facts don't you like? or do you just want to insult me without the burden of me defending myself.

Btw
Your mother was only half right.

Dtm

Not insulting anyone. Jesus WAS a jew. Yeah, okay, whatevs, but let's just say he was heretical then.

Obviously the jews weren't worth the squeeze for the faith-challenged carpenter. SWIDT?

Anecdotal, to be sure. Much like muslims claiming Jesus was a Muslim.

Perhaps the best shoe-horning of a prophet in the history of man.

Which is, of course, only 6k years old.

The first Christians were the jews. Jesus. Sounds like my Catholic mother.

She also found it amusing to tell Jewish people, "You killed Christ! Hahahahaha!"

It's a miracle I survived those years of embarrassment.

What is it about facts don't you like? or do you just want to insult me without the burden of me defending myself.

Btw
Your mother was only half right.

Dtm

Not insulting anyone. Jesus WAS a jew. Yeah, okay, whatevs, but let's just say he was heretical then.

Obviously the jews weren't worth the squeeze for the faith-challenged carpenter. SWIDT?

Anecdotal, to be sure. Much like muslims claiming Jesus was a Muslim.

Perhaps the best shoe-horning of a prophet in the history of man.

Which is, of course, only 6k years old.

I was done but since you quoted me again....

I would like to share something with you.

In any military position you have superiors to report to, it was no different in the Roman empire.
Pontius Pilate had to report directly to Caesar and those official reports were saved and stored.

Chapter 8 of this Archive
Titled Valleus's notes -"Acta Pilati" contains Pontius Pilates report to Casear on The arrest trial and crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth and in the report Pilate gives his personal thoughts and feelings about the man.

This entire archive is fascinating and worthy of study but Pilates report is the point of sharing.

You can try to impeach the source if you wish but since the Archive comes from the Library of Congress and there is a section of provanance at the beginning explaining how/who /where and when the documents were obtained so you can research for yourself,
I am confident that you will find I am not deliberately bringing you a hoax and from my personal research study I believe them to be genuine.

Read, dont read, it is your choice
Will reading it change your view? Not the point.
Am I trying to save your soul? ... That's not my job
This is a sharing of information, only.
What you do with this information is entirely up to you.
https://ia800205.us.archive.org/5/items/archkovolume00mahaiala/archkovolume00mahaiala_djvu.txt

 

[creepycoug]

I also see a lot of “GOOD LUCK IN 2024 LADIES!!!!” from HH and zero in the way of making an argument against the legislation.

I personally think 6 weeks is a tight frame, and I’m not factoring the subjective argument in terms of when life begins that the left likes to get itself embroiled in.

For me, it’s what’s a reasonable timeline for someone to learn that they’re pregnant and make a rational decision to keep or terminate the pregnancy. 6 weeks is enough for many people, but apparently not all, and I get that. I had a friend whose aunt was 10 weeks along before she knew she and her husband were expecting. It’s not the norm but it definitely happens.

The Throbber is an expert on the female anatomy and skillfully tracking when his significant other’s period is scheduled. No nookie during the rainy season.

Needs to be set at least at 8 to 9 weeks so a skipped period doesn’t trigger an immediate trip to the abortion clinic during the first pass.

Whatever the time-frame, it'll always be a compromise and terminating a life. [/b]

Make it 16 to 20 weeks.

Some fat dumb women won't know until then, sad to say, and it's probably better for humanity that those folks don't propagate.

You are in contention for joining the right side. We have our eyes on you.

Sacrifices are part of life. Getting 50% of your way is better than losing 100%.

If a woman wants to off her fetus somewhere approaching viability that's between her and the man upstairs.

I don't have to agree with it to accept it as a fact of modern life.

True. But we pass laws all the time that take personal decisions into the public domain. So, "It was my personal decision to kill by mother-in-law" is fine, but we're prosecuting that person anyway because we decided we can't live with that personal decision.

Same thing here. The trick is helping people understand what it is they're doing, even if it's on day 1. Political expediency and consensus has (or should have) nothing to do with it. It should be axiomatic.[/b]

At least 50% of women will never, ever go there. Maybe even 70%.

Political reality doesn't change the moral equation. God knows our politics are anything but an exercise in true moral thinking.

Agreed. But politics poison all morality. Better to keep them separate, as often as possible. [/b]

Otherwise you get Got Hates Fags on one side and God Loves Trannies on the other.

Enough to cause any rational person to avert their attention and not look again.

Fwiw...
I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..

We were also warned by our forefathers not to elect a bunch of lawyers to run the country, and look at what we have.

We are where we are because the church and morality have been removed from all political discussion.

I would argue to bring morality back to the front, not keep it separate.

My $0.02

I"m not sure what the $0.02 means. Lawyers and politicians are just people, and they are as entitled to their own moral compass, informed by religion or not, as a reality TV star. Please.

The bottom line, which I once resisted but have come to embrace, is that we? are a nation whose most fundamental organizing principles are rooted in Judea-Christian/Western moral traditions. So, basic concepts like "leave me alone unless I'm bother you," sanctity of human life, etc., liberty, etc. are at the foundation of who we? are. I doesn't matter whether it was handed down by an actual deity or if it's humanism in its highest form. Either one works.

So, back to the issue: innocent human life cannot be taken for convenience, period. Has nothing to do with autonomy or privacy. We can't compromise on these things. Just like with slavery, we may need to fight this one out in the streets. I'm ready. Are you?

My $0.02 is just that, it's my view and it may or may not be to anyone's liking.
Take it or leave it.

I understand it's your .02 and I understand that I may take it or leave it. Those comments are not worth the effort it takes to type them out. My point is that I'm not sure what it is you mean. The lawyers / politicians kicked the church out of the political process? Nobody is forcing anybody to vote to send atheists to the House or Senate. You send who you send. Those people are either driven by a moral compass informed by some religion or they are not. Nobody is excluding these people from the Congress.

Moreover, religion, by its very nature, is not about compromise. In fact, it's the opposite. It's about rules and values that don't move with the times. It's about eternal truths and principles that are above compromise. That's the entire point of it. It's not for lack of religious input that things don't get done, or if it is, you didn't adequately make your case.

In fact, on the issue being discussed, the religious view would be to make no compromise, because most branches of Christianity with which I'm familiar define taking innocent life as a sin. Most Christians who take their religion seriously (as opposed to using it for selective outrage) oppose abortion.

So I ask, again, what you mean by this:

I just want to point out that separation of church and state was originally meant to keep the state out of the church, not the church out of the state.
Our founding fathers invoked God several times in our Constitution because they believed that the church was supposed to be a moral compass for the state.
I would like to say that, for the majority of the history of this country we have had leaders who drew upon their religious beliefs but the Politicians and lawyers have argued and corrupted everything along the way to the point of expelling the church's morality stumbling block for compromise on issues to get something instead of nothing..
[/i]