A question for all you conservative Christians (Page 6): Good morning, The trouble is that you're comparing apples and oranges. An unborn child is an innocent and Jesus said in so many...

maximus Loc: Chattanooga, Tennessee

whitnebrat wrote:

The question is as follows: As a practicing Christ... (show quote)

Good morning,
The trouble is that you're comparing apples and oranges.
An unborn child is an innocent and Jesus said in so many words,"Woe to him that hurts one of these little ones, it would be better if he had a millstone tired to his neck and was thrown into the sea."
Only cold blooded murder would be cause for the death penalty. A murderer is NOT innocent but is guilty of the taking of anothers life. In the OT, God did command that Thou shalt not k**l. There were, however, several acts that required the death penalty. So, what does this mean? It means thou shalt not murder.
Jesus forgave even his direst enemy...why? Because he was Jesus, the Christ, the Messiah. He was THE example for all mankind, as to how we should live. Also, had he called ten thousand angels to rescue him from the cross, he would NOT have finished God's work that he was set to do and we would have no salvation.
The death penalty was still in effect when Jesus was alive...the woman caught in the act of adultery...and the whole episode was a lesson that we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God..that we should forgive and not condemn. God said vengeance is mine, not judgement. We have judges to try criminals because they disrupt society. What do we do in the case of cold blooded murder? The death sentence is justified NOT as vengeance but as punishment. I will say this...ONLY after exhaustive evidence proves guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt.

whitnebrat Loc: In the wilds of Oregon

OK, let's take a look at what's being said here. "A******n is slaughter of unborn children."
This depends on when you consider that a gamete is truly alive. Where you stand on this depends on what pew you sit in. This whole issue is based on religious dogma that is being foisted off on the American public as a universally moral issue. It is not.
If these moral issues were valid, we would be putting people in stocks for profanity; burning witches at the stake; branding women with a scarlet "A" for adultery; and any number of other religious offenses. And you rail against the Sharia law as being barbaric and ungodly, which has the same general traits that we as a country used to have in the original colonies.
With the exception of the moral Commandments (which are universally accepted in all cultures in one form or another) the rest of these so-called moral offenses are based on religious beliefs that are not universally accepted.
Roger Williams in Rhode Island, William Penn in Pennsylvania, Lord Baltimore in Maryland, the Puritans in Massachusetts ... all ran religious communities/colonies. If you didn't belong to the church as they saw it, you didn't stay long. These were effectively theocracies.
What they determined was that to survive as individual states, they had to band together ... which meant compromising on what they wanted a federal government to do (remembering that federal derives from 'federation').
It was because of these religious differences that the First Amendment was added to the Constitution. It's an amendment because had it been included in the main body of the Constitution, the Constitution would never have been adopted. But since amendments only require the consent of two-thirds of the states to be ratified, it passed ... to prevent the open internecine warfare that would have broken out to establish a state religion.
What the conservative Christians are doing is trying to establish a de-facto state religion by passing moral imperatives that much of the rest of the population does not ascribe to. This includes not only a******n, but gay rights, same-sex marriage, sodomy, and other 'values' concepts that are religiously based.
We used to have blue-laws that required businesses to close on Sunday. They were overturned.
We used to have stocks in the public square and ducking stools. No more.
We used to have prohibition of alcoholic beverages. It was overturned.
There are numerous others.
In short, these issues are fine as long as they are observed in private lives and church environment. The Hasidim manage to do this very nicely, as do the Mormons. Within their own communities they observe their own standards of conduct. For the most part, they do not impose their religious practices on the rest of the population. I wish that the conservative Christian sects would do the same.

jimpack123 Loc: wisconsin

Jimmy Boy wrote:

Morning Mr.Whitnebrat& Mr.Canuckus , hope all ... (show quote)

I agree with the Alabama law with a exception Rape should be reasonable for a A******n however it is the woman's body and there choice in my opinion there has to be a middle ground 8 weeks? as a missed period should be a clue to take pregnancy test what do the conservative readers here think about this ?

bggamers Loc: georgia

whitnebrat wrote:

The question is as follows: As a practicing Christ... (show quote)

An ADULT MADE the choice to break the law/A child is helpless and is innocent of any crime

bggamers Loc: georgia

whitnebrat wrote:

OK, let's take a look at what's being said here. "A******n is slaughter of unborn children."
This depends on when you consider that a gamete is truly alive. Where you stand on this depends on what pew you sit in. This whole issue is based on religious dogma that is being foisted off on the American public as a universally moral issue. It is not.
If these moral issues were valid, we would be putting people in stocks for profanity; burning witches at the stake; branding women with a scarlet "A" for adultery; and any number of other religious offenses. And you rail against the Sharia law as being barbaric and ungodly, which has the same general traits that we as a country used to have in the original colonies.
With the exception of the moral Commandments (which are universally accepted in all cultures in one form or another) the rest of these so-called moral offenses are based on religious beliefs that are not universally accepted.
Roger Williams in Rhode Island, William Penn in Pennsylvania, Lord Baltimore in Maryland, the Puritans in Massachusetts ... all ran religious communities/colonies. If you didn't belong to the church as they saw it, you didn't stay long. These were effectively theocracies.
What they determined was that to survive as individual states, they had to band together ... which meant compromising on what they wanted a federal government to do (remembering that federal derives from 'federation').
It was because of these religious differences that the First Amendment was added to the Constitution. It's an amendment because had it been included in the main body of the Constitution, the Constitution would never have been adopted. But since amendments only require the consent of two-thirds of the states to be ratified, it passed ... to prevent the open internecine warfare that would have broken out to establish a state religion.
What the conservative Christians are doing is trying to establish a de-facto state religion by passing moral imperatives that much of the rest of the population does not ascribe to. This includes not only a******n, but gay rights, same-sex marriage, sodomy, and other 'values' concepts that are religiously based.
We used to have blue-laws that required businesses to close on Sunday. They were overturned.
We used to have stocks in the public square and ducking stools. No more.
We used to have prohibition of alcoholic beverages. It was overturned.
There are numerous others.
In short, these issues are fine as long as they are observed in private lives and church environment. The Hasidim manage to do this very nicely, as do the Mormons. Within their own communities they observe their own standards of conduct. For the most part, they do not impose their religious practices on the rest of the population. I wish that the conservative Christian sects would do the same.

OK, let's take a look at what's being said here. &... (show quote)

Then you believe in silencing people no one is shoving christ down anyone's throat unlike gay/feminist movement or A****a we could go on all they ask is you respect their rights to practice their belief it isn't just Christians who are horrified about the new a******n law I belong to no church and have never been baptized but believe in God and Christ but not the churches. I do believe there are times early in pregnancy that a******n is acceptable as u say rape/ incest/health but to abort a baby UP TO delivery date is out right murder no ands ifs or buts just murder.

maximus Loc: Chattanooga, Tennessee

OPP, what do you think?

( I hit the wrong button.
This is in response to Kevyn's posts.)

ExperienceCounts

rafterman wrote:

For me, easily reconciled. Against a******n (unle... (show quote)

You wife/girl friend/sister/aunt has twins. They are 4 years old. A gang breaks into the home,holds the family at gunpoint and repeatedly rapes the mother and both children. They take and post video, brag on social media And talk about doing it again to someone new. A pledge is going to k**l one of the next victims to join the gang. It happens, they repeat the posting and plan the next group event. Finally someone notices their postings, and they are tried, convicted.Life in prison. About 10-15 years later, the prison is crowded, they get out on probation: after all it wasn't mass murder. Cycle repeats, only this time they dont post and do k**l everyone. A security camera catches them. Trial. Death penalty or life in prison? I know which one I'd choose, do you?

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

All those identified after the first crime should have been tried and legally executed.

There would never have been a second crime

ExperienceCounts wrote:

You wife/girl friend/sister/aunt has twins. They a... (show quote)

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

What do you suppose the nation's junk yards are assembling themselves into as we speak?

maximus wrote:

OPP, what do you think?

( I hit the wrong button.
This is in response to Kevyn's posts.)

Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...

It is the murder of a human being.

When one human sperm unites with one human egg, and creates a cell, human DNA is present, unique and different than the mother's DNA. A human being has been created.

jimpack123 wrote:

I agree with the Alabama law with a exception Rape should be reasonable for a A******n however it is the woman's body and there choice in my opinion there has to be a middle ground 8 weeks? as a missed period should be a clue to take pregnancy test what do the conservative readers here think about this ?

Manning345 Loc: Richmond, Virginia

Canuckus Deploracus wrote:

I doubt many would consider me to be a "Conse... (show quote)

Agreed!

Liberty Tree

whitnebrat wrote:

OK, let's take a look at what's being said here. "A******n is slaughter of unborn children."
This depends on when you consider that a gamete is truly alive. Where you stand on this depends on what pew you sit in. This whole issue is based on religious dogma that is being foisted off on the American public as a universally moral issue. It is not.
If these moral issues were valid, we would be putting people in stocks for profanity; burning witches at the stake; branding women with a scarlet "A" for adultery; and any number of other religious offenses. And you rail against the Sharia law as being barbaric and ungodly, which has the same general traits that we as a country used to have in the original colonies.
With the exception of the moral Commandments (which are universally accepted in all cultures in one form or another) the rest of these so-called moral offenses are based on religious beliefs that are not universally accepted.
Roger Williams in Rhode Island, William Penn in Pennsylvania, Lord Baltimore in Maryland, the Puritans in Massachusetts ... all ran religious communities/colonies. If you didn't belong to the church as they saw it, you didn't stay long. These were effectively theocracies.
What they determined was that to survive as individual states, they had to band together ... which meant compromising on what they wanted a federal government to do (remembering that federal derives from 'federation').
It was because of these religious differences that the First Amendment was added to the Constitution. It's an amendment because had it been included in the main body of the Constitution, the Constitution would never have been adopted. But since amendments only require the consent of two-thirds of the states to be ratified, it passed ... to prevent the open internecine warfare that would have broken out to establish a state religion.
What the conservative Christians are doing is trying to establish a de-facto state religion by passing moral imperatives that much of the rest of the population does not ascribe to. This includes not only a******n, but gay rights, same-sex marriage, sodomy, and other 'values' concepts that are religiously based.
We used to have blue-laws that required businesses to close on Sunday. They were overturned.
We used to have stocks in the public square and ducking stools. No more.
We used to have prohibition of alcoholic beverages. It was overturned.
There are numerous others.
In short, these issues are fine as long as they are observed in private lives and church environment. The Hasidim manage to do this very nicely, as do the Mormons. Within their own communities they observe their own standards of conduct. For the most part, they do not impose their religious practices on the rest of the population. I wish that the conservative Christian sects would do the same.

OK, let's take a look at what's being said here. &... (show quote)

You seem perfectly willing to force your religion of secular humanism on everyone else.

PJT

Who is forcing Christianity on anyone?
Why do atheists force their "religion" on us?

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

whitnebrat wrote:

OK, let's take a look at what's being said here. "A******n is slaughter of unborn children."
This depends on when you consider that a gamete is truly alive. Where you stand on this depends on what pew you sit in. This whole issue is based on religious dogma that is being foisted off on the American public as a universally moral issue. It is not.
If these moral issues were valid, we would be putting people in stocks for profanity; burning witches at the stake; branding women with a scarlet "A" for adultery; and any number of other religious offenses. And you rail against the Sharia law as being barbaric and ungodly, which has the same general traits that we as a country used to have in the original colonies.
With the exception of the moral Commandments (which are universally accepted in all cultures in one form or another) the rest of these so-called moral offenses are based on religious beliefs that are not universally accepted.
Roger Williams in Rhode Island, William Penn in Pennsylvania, Lord Baltimore in Maryland, the Puritans in Massachusetts ... all ran religious communities/colonies. If you didn't belong to the church as they saw it, you didn't stay long. These were effectively theocracies.
What they determined was that to survive as individual states, they had to band together ... which meant compromising on what they wanted a federal government to do (remembering that federal derives from 'federation').
It was because of these religious differences that the First Amendment was added to the Constitution. It's an amendment because had it been included in the main body of the Constitution, the Constitution would never have been adopted. But since amendments only require the consent of two-thirds of the states to be ratified, it passed ... to prevent the open internecine warfare that would have broken out to establish a state religion.
What the conservative Christians are doing is trying to establish a de-facto state religion by passing moral imperatives that much of the rest of the population does not ascribe to. This includes not only a******n, but gay rights, same-sex marriage, sodomy, and other 'values' concepts that are religiously based.
We used to have blue-laws that required businesses to close on Sunday. They were overturned.
We used to have stocks in the public square and ducking stools. No more.
We used to have prohibition of alcoholic beverages. It was overturned.
There are numerous others.
In short, these issues are fine as long as they are observed in private lives and church environment. The Hasidim manage to do this very nicely, as do the Mormons. Within their own communities they observe their own standards of conduct. For the most part, they do not impose their religious practices on the rest of the population. I wish that the conservative Christian sects would do the same.

OK, let's take a look at what's being said here. &... (show quote)

What a load of prog psychobabble. When you questioned whether or not a gamete (male or female) is "truly alive", I had no need to read the rest of this crap. How could a gamete not be a living organism? The lifespan of a sperm cell in a woman's body is around 5 days. Once released, an ovum lives for 12 to 24 hours. The life of these organisms have nothing to do with what seat one is sitting in. Good grief, your ignorance is astounding.

ringoffire

[quote=Pennylynn]First, the commandment is not "you will not k**l" it is thou shall not "murder." (לֹא תִּרְצָח ; lo tirṣaḥ) Second, there is a difference between an innocent baby that has done nothing to warrant the taking of its life. It is a clean slate, an innocent. Now then, the bible references..... only Saul/Paul implies that vengeance is improper. The "old" Testament gives specific reasons to putting a person to death. The major, of course is for murdering .... disobeying the 6th Commandment. Now before you get into the price for causing death of an unborn child, that is for "accidental loss." The "old" testament does not permit or allow the murder of an unborn with one exception, to spare the life of the mother.

I do not quote bible verses because most do not pertain to today’s society. That said, when a woman has an a******n it is incredibly emotional and a very difficult decision.
An unborn is a fetus that cannot function outside a woman’s body. Anyone ignorant enough to call a dot on sonogram a baby should be checked by a shrink.