historian said:

---

Another bogus argument. Clever but still fallacious. Preventing someone from murdering an innocent human is not the same as forcing them to do something. The fundamental purpose of the government is to protect our rights, all of us and all our rights, life being the most basic. Allowing nature to run its course, even if that means carrying a pregnancy to term, is not forcing anything upon someone.

In the final analysis it's about taking responsibility for one's actions and accepting the consequences of poor choices.

Again, let me be very clear:

THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE JUSTIFICATION FOR KILLING THE INNOCENT.

There is no argument anyone could make to change that. Abortion is barbaric & evil. Period.

---

What if say in a hypothetical God tells you to kill your innocent child? Legit?

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

historian said:

---

Another bogus argument. Clever but still fallacious. Preventing someone from murdering an innocent human is not the same as forcing them to do something. The fundamental purpose of the government is to protect our rights, all of us and all our rights, life being the most basic. Allowing nature to run its course, even if that means carrying a pregnancy to term, is not forcing anything upon someone.

In the final analysis it's about taking responsibility for one's actions and accepting the consequences of poor choices.

Again, let me be very clear:

THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE JUSTIFICATION FOR KILLING THE INNOCENT.

There is no argument anyone could make to change that. Abortion is barbaric & evil. Period.

---

Abortion has existed as long as mankind. You writing your opinion in capital letters, while impressive and dramatic, dioesnt change the fact that you cant make decisions for others. You can take away a safe way and condemn them to knitting needles , wire hangers, caustic drinks or excessive exercise. I made my choice and I am happy with it. I chose life.

It is a personal decision and no matter how intensely you want to force others to believe as you believe, you cant. We cant make a woman continue through a pregnancy she doesnt want. Only a woman can do that. We can condemn them, torture them, make them look at gross pics, march in parades shouting personal beliefs, fine drs that help them, pass laws till we run out of paper. Abortion will happen. It happened in 1550 BC and it will happen somewhere today.

We can pray. We can help the women that feel they dont have a choice. We can shame women that get pregnant without the means to care for it. We can ridicule women that hook up with sorry ass men that wont take responsibility for their part .in creating an embryo. But in the end we cant force a woman to have a baby.

---

murder, theft, rape,... all have existed as long as mankind too... does that make them OK as well? Should we try to insure safe & effective rape too?

Just because something horrible has existed for forever... that doesn't make it good or something that should continue.

The Bible speaks out and condemns rape murder and theft. Even though it existed in Biblical times the Bible doesnt condemn abortion. Exodus 21 seems to suggest the mothers life is much more valuable than the embryo. This doest support the recently adopted life begins at conceotion

Its not a pleasant topic. I am against it but dont feel comfortable telling a woman what to do with her body. Its really her decision. Always has been. I wish the world was a better place where all babies were welcomed and all mothers and fathers welcomed new offspring. Thats not reality.

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

historian said:

---

Another bogus argument. Clever but still fallacious. Preventing someone from murdering an innocent human is not the same as forcing them to do something. The fundamental purpose of the government is to protect our rights, all of us and all our rights, life being the most basic. Allowing nature to run its course, even if that means carrying a pregnancy to term, is not forcing anything upon someone.

In the final analysis it's about taking responsibility for one's actions and accepting the consequences of poor choices.

Again, let me be very clear:

THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE JUSTIFICATION FOR KILLING THE INNOCENT.

There is no argument anyone could make to change that. Abortion is barbaric & evil. Period.

---

Abortion has existed as long as mankind. You writing your opinion in capital letters, while impressive and dramatic, dioesnt change the fact that you cant make decisions for others. You can take away a safe way and condemn them to knitting needles , wire hangers, caustic drinks or excessive exercise. I made my choice and I am happy with it. I chose life.

It is a personal decision and no matter how intensely you want to force others to believe as you believe, you cant. We cant make a woman continue through a pregnancy she doesnt want. Only a woman can do that. We can condemn them, torture them, make them look at gross pics, march in parades shouting personal beliefs, fine drs that help them, pass laws till we run out of paper. Abortion will happen. It happened in 1550 BC and it will happen somewhere today.

We can pray. We can help the women that feel they dont have a choice. We can shame women that get pregnant without the means to care for it. We can ridicule women that hook up with sorry ass men that wont take responsibility for their part .in creating an embryo. But in the end we cant force a woman to have a baby.

---

All kinds of barbarism has existed throughout human history that doesn't make any of it justifiable.

Killing innocent humans is always wrong, regardless of circumstances. There is no way to excuse it, justify it, or legitimize it. It's the difference between being civilized & uncivilized. Such heinous crimes should always be punished. Instead, there are Americans arguing they have a "right" to kill their children. This neo-paganism illustrates how far into depravity our society has fallen.

It's still evil.

"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." Isaiah 5:20

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

The Bible speaks out and condemns rape murder and theft. Even though it existed in Biblical times the Bible doesnt condemn abortion. Exodus 21 seems to suggest the mothers life is much more valuable than the embryo. This doest support the recently adopted life begins at conceotion

Its not a pleasant topic. I am against it but dont feel comfortable telling a woman what to do with her body. Its really her decision. Always has been. I wish the world was a better place where all babies were welcomed and all mothers and fathers welcomed new offspring. Thats not reality.

---

The Bible absolutely does condemn abortion in no uncertain terms:

"Thou shall not kill." Exodus 20:13

There is nothing ambiguous about that.

And don't tell me a baby in the womb is not human. That's patently false and definitely unscientific. Also, don't waste your effort with red herrings, straw men, or any other fallacies. They prove nothing except the emptiness of efforts to defend evil.

The very same book says its ok to kill a thief in the dark but not after sunrise. I dont like to argue with people that cherry pick verses. Look at the big picture.

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

The Bible speaks out and condemns rape murder and theft. Even though it existed in Biblical times the Bible doesnt condemn abortion. Exodus 21 seems to suggest the mothers life is much more valuable than the embryo. This doest support the recently adopted life begins at conceotion

Its not a pleasant topic. I am against it but dont feel comfortable telling a woman what to do with her body. Its really her decision. Always has been. I wish the world was a better place where all babies were welcomed and all mothers and fathers welcomed new offspring. Thats not reality.

---

Let me get this straight...

The same God that said to Jeremiah, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart"... is totally cool with people intentionally killing unborn babies in the womb??

What god do you pray to? Certainly not the Creator of the universe.

KaiBear said:

---

Practicing Christians, the birthday girl announced her support of abortion.

---

So, not practicing Christians.

"The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child" (Didache 2:12 [A.D. 70]).

The Teaching of the Twelve predates the completed canon of scripture by several hundred years, and pretty well nails Christian morality.

ShooterTX said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

The Bible speaks out and condemns rape murder and theft. Even though it existed in Biblical times the Bible doesnt condemn abortion. Exodus 21 seems to suggest the mothers life is much more valuable than the embryo. This doest support the recently adopted life begins at conceotion

Its not a pleasant topic. I am against it but dont feel comfortable telling a woman what to do with her body. Its really her decision. Always has been. I wish the world was a better place where all babies were welcomed and all mothers and fathers welcomed new offspring. Thats not reality.

---

Let me get this straight...

The same God that said to Jeremiah, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart"... is totally cool with people intentionally killing unborn babies in the womb??

What god do you pray to? Certainly not the Creator of the universe.

---

Not to mention parts of Psalm 139.

Those who support abortion are more like Herod, who ordered all the babies in Bethlehem murdered, than they are like Jesus or any other leader of the first century church. None of them advocating killing the innocent.

Abortion is infanticide, plain & simple. Curious that some modern pro-abortion people are calling for "post-birth abortion". That is a convenient euphemism for infanticide that demonstrates how the two are the same. It's just like those trying yo legitimize pedophilia use "minor-attracted persons" to cover up their perversion. Either way, the doublespeak does not hide the evil. It's demonic.

Jim wards granddaughter? Poor little girl. I feel for her.

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

The very same book says its ok to kill a thief in the dark but not after sunrise. I dont like to argue with people that cherry pick verses. Look at the big picture.

---

The big picture is very clear.

Millions of humans are being slaughtered.

The vast majority out of a desire for convience.

Much of the time the girl in question is pressured to have the abortion by her boyfriend, husband and / or parents.

So this mantra of 'choice' is oftern a lie as it is anything but her choice.





And the emotional damage to many of these girls goes on for years.

historian said:

---

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

historian said:

---

Another bogus argument. Clever but still fallacious. Preventing someone from murdering an innocent human is not the same as forcing them to do something. The fundamental purpose of the government is to protect our rights, all of us and all our rights, life being the most basic. Allowing nature to run its course, even if that means carrying a pregnancy to term, is not forcing anything upon someone.

In the final analysis it's about taking responsibility for one's actions and accepting the consequences of poor choices.

Again, let me be very clear:

THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE JUSTIFICATION FOR KILLING THE INNOCENT.

There is no argument anyone could make to change that. Abortion is barbaric & evil. Period.

---

Abortion has existed as long as mankind. You writing your opinion in capital letters, while impressive and dramatic, dioesnt change the fact that you cant make decisions for others. You can take away a safe way and condemn them to knitting needles , wire hangers, caustic drinks or excessive exercise. I made my choice and I am happy with it. I chose life.

It is a personal decision and no matter how intensely you want to force others to believe as you believe, you cant. We cant make a woman continue through a pregnancy she doesnt want. Only a woman can do that. We can condemn them, torture them, make them look at gross pics, march in parades shouting personal beliefs, fine drs that help them, pass laws till we run out of paper. Abortion will happen. It happened in 1550 BC and it will happen somewhere today.

We can pray. We can help the women that feel they dont have a choice. We can shame women that get pregnant without the means to care for it. We can ridicule women that hook up with sorry ass men that wont take responsibility for their part .in creating an embryo. But in the end we cant force a woman to have a baby.

---

Killing innocent humans is always wrong, regardless of circumstances. There is no way to excuse it, justify it, or legitimize it.

---

Unless they're Palestinians.

The Catholic Church has allowed in the distant past.

Terrorists and their supporters are far from innocent. Especially when Hamas uses them as human shields. Hamas is to blame for every one of their deaths.

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

The Catholic Church has allowed in the distant past.

---

Never.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12340403/

Laws that prohibit absolutely the practice of abortion are a relatively recent development. In the early Roman Catholic church, abortion was permitted for male fetuses in the first 40 days of pregnancy and for female fetuses in the first 80-90 days. Not until 1588 did Pope Sixtus V declare all abortion murder, with excommunication as the punishment. Only 3 years later a new pope found the absolute sanction unworkable and again allowed early abortions. 300 years would pass before the Catholic church under Pius IX again declared all abortion murder. This standard, declared in 1869, remains the official position of the church, reaffirmed by the current pope.


I believe thee was a period of time when the point of animation was important in determining whether is was considered murder by the Church.

However, I will defer to your much better understanding of Catholicism and abandon any more posts on abortion. I had a tough situation once and have a 48 year old daughter to prove our decision. I still think a woman has the final say about her body and whats in it.

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12340403/

Laws that prohibit absolutely the practice of abortion are a relatively recent development. In the early Roman Catholic church, abortion was permitted for male fetuses in the first 40 days of pregnancy and for female fetuses in the first 80-90 days. Not until 1588 did Pope Sixtus V declare all abortion murder, with excommunication as the punishment. Only 3 years later a new pope found the absolute sanction unworkable and again allowed early abortions. 300 years would pass before the Catholic church under Pius IX again declared all abortion murder. This standard, declared in 1869, remains the official position of the church, reaffirmed by the current pope.


I believe thee was a period of time when the point of animation was important in determining whether is was considered murder by the Church.

However, I will defer to your much better understanding of Catholicism and abandon any more posts on abortion. I had a tough situation once and have a 48 year old daughter to prove our decision. I still think a woman has the final say about her body and whats in it.

---

"relatively recent development" is rather ironic given the dates involved, isn't it?

In that regard, things like self-government, natural rights, due process, are also "relatively recent developments" which perhaps do not reflect the proper order of the human condition, some might argue......

The debate here is not whether or not a women should have right to control their body. The argument is about what is HER body and not. No social contract formed upon concepts such as natural rights, due process, rule of law, and general welfare all in pursuit of protecting "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" could sweep aside a debate about the meaning of life as irrelevant. Such a question dwells at the heart of why we bother to engage in social contract at all.

Exactly. A woman's right to "control her body" does not include the right to commit infanticide.

Fascinating loop:

1. Donors fund activist groups that adopt new, less popular framings
2. Staffers who rotate between the groups and campaigns pressure candidates to adopt the new framing
3. Candidates lose and policy moves to the right

I would simply not do this pic.twitter.com/rvJRqqqlFm

— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) May 25, 2024

The primary sacrament of the progressive religion is the "right" to murder your child so you can keep on having irresponsible sex and if you attempt to hinder the exercise of this sacrament you will rot in prison.
This is where we are. https://t.co/OlLsUZfkSC

— Cardinal Curmudgeon (@Gimblin) June 3, 2024

Redbrickbear said:

---

Fascinating loop:

1. Donors fund activist groups that adopt new, less popular framings
2. Staffers who rotate between the groups and campaigns pressure candidates to adopt the new framing
3. Candidates lose and policy moves to the right

I would simply not do this pic.twitter.com/rvJRqqqlFm

— Matthew Yglesias (@mattyglesias) May 25, 2024

---

he's inadvertently used the template for the argument against term limits here = term limits will significantly increase the power/influence of the insiders, the staff and interest PACs, people who are absolutely not accountable to the voters.

Limited IQ Redneck in PU said:

---

historian said:

---

Another bogus argument. Clever but still fallacious. Preventing someone from murdering an innocent human is not the same as forcing them to do something. The fundamental purpose of the government is to protect our rights, all of us and all our rights, life being the most basic. Allowing nature to run its course, even if that means carrying a pregnancy to term, is not forcing anything upon someone.

In the final analysis it's about taking responsibility for one's actions and accepting the consequences of poor choices.

Again, let me be very clear:

THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE JUSTIFICATION FOR KILLING THE INNOCENT.

There is no argument anyone could make to change that. Abortion is barbaric & evil. Period.

---

Abortion has existed as long as mankind. You writing your opinion in capital letters, while impressive and dramatic, dioesnt change the fact that you cant make decisions for others. You can take away a safe way and condemn them to knitting needles , wire hangers, caustic drinks or excessive exercise. I made my choice and I am happy with it. I chose life.

It is a personal decision and no matter how intensely you want to force others to believe as you believe, you cant. We cant make a woman continue through a pregnancy she doesnt want. Only a woman can do that. We can condemn them, torture them, make them look at gross pics, march in parades shouting personal beliefs, fine drs that help them, pass laws till we run out of paper. Abortion will happen. It happened in 1550 BC and it will happen somewhere today.

We can pray. We can help the women that feel they dont have a choice. We can shame women that get pregnant without the means to care for it. We can ridicule women that hook up with sorry ass men that wont take responsibility for their part .in creating an embryo. But in the end we cant force a woman to have a baby.

---

see that part in bold. think it thru.....

Redbrickbear said:

---

historian said:

---

Abortion on demand is America's Holocaust. It's the moral equivalent.

---

Amen,

But numerically it's even worse.

6-8 million Jews were murdered during the Holocaust.

The USA has allowed at least 50 million children to be aborted/killed since 1973



https://iowastatedaily.com/177100/opinion/potratz-50-million-dead-babies-is-50-million-too-many/

---

and here we stand today with a sub-replacement birth rate, importing without controls people by the millions from slums and jails all over the third world to ensure we have population growth.

historian said:

---

Terrorists and their supporters are far from innocent. Especially when Hamas uses them as human shields. Hamas is to blame for every one of their deaths.

---

That's a simple justification. Are you suggesting that babies in the womb are innocent life unless they're in Gaza?

historian said:

---

Exactly. A woman's right to "control her body" does not include the right to commit infanticide.

---

True

However unless the Republicans accept that the majority of women demand the right to commit infanticide ……Democrats will continue to hold power in DC.


So now that abortion is a state option it is time for Republicans to accept the political realities involved and back off .

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

historian said:

---

Terrorists and their supporters are far from innocent. Especially when Hamas uses them as human shields. Hamas is to blame for every one of their deaths.

---

That's a simple justification. Are you suggesting that babies in the womb are innocent life unless they're in Gaza?

---

No. Babies in the womb are innocent life everywhere. However, I've never seen any accusation that the Israelis is forcing Gazan women to have abortions. That's the kind of thing totalitarian regimes do such as Nazi Germany or communist China. Even if I did see such an accusation I would be skeptical since most of the accusations of alleged Israeli "war crimes" are bogus Hamas propaganda that our fascist leaders & press repeat mindlessly.

That's an absurd circular argument. The primary responsibility of government is to protect the people's rights, all the people & all their rights. This includes babies in the womb and the right to life is the most basic and important. Natural law theory 101.

historian said:

---

That's an absurd circular argument. The primary responsibility of government is to protect the people's rights, all the people & all their rights. This includes babies in the womb and the right to life is the most basic and important. Natural law theory 101.

---

My friend I feel the same way you do.

However the reality is that a significant majority of women demand the right to abortion.

With many such women it is the single biggest issue of the 2024 election.

In order to improve our country Trump needs to beat Biden. To stand any chance; Trump somehow has to increase his number of votes from these younger single women.

And there is no practical gain in losing the election holding fast to an ethical position that would only worsen under the continued control of Joe Biden's puppet masters.

I understand your point but disagree. There have been plenty of candidates over the years who have won elections with strong pro-life views, including presidential elections. And I would not want any leader who is willing to compromise on anything so fundamental as the lives of innocent Americans.

Abortion on demand is America's Holocaust. It is the moral equivalent but on a much larger scale. I am not exaggerating. One cannot justify compromising on such a thing. It reduces one's humanity.

Our culture is descending deeper into the abyss of depravity & chaos, partly because of Roe v Wade (the Sexual Revolution was another major part of that). The last we should do is compromise further with the forces of evil. It is imperative that all decent people stand up to what is moral and right. This is more important than the fight over slavery or the fight for civil rights.

historian said:

---

There have been plenty of candidates over the years who have won elections with strong pro-life views, including presidential elections. And I would not want any leader who is willing to compromise on anything so fundamental as the lives of innocent Americans.

---

Times have changed. A majority of women want abortion and they will vote for whomever provides it.

At least Trump appoints pro life federal judges. Biden won't....not the slightest chance.
He will push for even more abortion throughout the country.

So you might want to re consider the wisdom of shunning the candidate who is willing to compromise.

You are making blanket assumptions that are not necessarily accurate. But even if true it's not the only electoral strategy to consider. No winning presidential candidate focuses solely on one narrow demographic in seeking votes. One does not need to rely on single women who want to kill their babies to be elected president. Electoral dynamics are more complicated: there are many groups that are important, several more important than that one narrow group, and most voters look at multiple issues, not just a bloodlust for murder.

historian said:

---

You are making blanket assumptions that are not necessarily accurate. But even if true it's not the only electoral strategy to consider. No winning presidential candidate focuses solely on one narrow demographic in seeking votes. One does not need to rely on single women who want to kill their babies to be elected president. Electoral dynamics are more complicated: there are many groups that are important, several more important than that one narrow group, and most voters look at multiple issues, not just a bloodlust for murder.

---

The weak Republican'wave' during the 2022 midterms should open anyone's eyes in regards to the popularity of abortion with American women.

Bottom line

It's Biden or Trump


Trump needs every vote he can get to stand any chance to keep Biden out.

The votes of old Christian grannies alone won't be near enough. He needs the single working / suburban women.

KaiBear said:

---

historian said:

---

You are making blanket assumptions that are not necessarily accurate. But even if true it's not the only electoral strategy to consider. No winning presidential candidate focuses solely on one narrow demographic in seeking votes. One does not need to rely on single women who want to kill their babies to be elected president. Electoral dynamics are more complicated: there are many groups that are important, several more important than that one narrow group, and most voters look at multiple issues, not just a bloodlust for murder.

---

The weak Republican'wave' during the 2022 midterms should open anyone's eyes in regards to the popularity of abortion with American women.

Bottom line

It's Biden or Trump


Trump needs every vote he can get to stand any chance to keep Biden out.

The votes of old Christian grannies alone won't be near enough. He needs the single working / suburban women.

---

part of the 2022 dynamic is that Trump was not on the ballot....the Trump voter is the low-propensity voter. Not having him on the ballot reduced turnout of "his" voters.

The single working women (SWW) demo is different from the suburban mom (SM) demo. SWW are an overwhelmingly blue demographic. Dems used the abortion issue to turn them out at historically high rates, offsetting GOP advantages in the cycle. The SM demo, on the other hand, is a swing demo. Trump does have a chance to win that one, or at least cut into it significantly, due to Biden weakness on the economy and illegal immigration.

Trump polling on "independents" (which includes SMs) is encouraging.....many polls show him winning independents at this time. Hard to do that without polling well with SMs.

This might be the most honest pro-abortion video ever

https://notthebee.com/article/pro-abort-brags-that-she-loves-king-babies-and-that-shes-had-like-45-abortions