Oldbear83 said:

---

So BBL has abandoned reasoned discussion in favor of bitter rancor ...

Ah well, the subject has always been difficult to discuss,

---

What?

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

That's a very dishonest statement when context is applied, and completely invalid in the context of abortion.

---

Deliberate killing is completely in context of the OT and the Quran.

---

Really? Cite the Bible verses, and their context, then.

War and self-defense do not count.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

FormerFlash said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

FormerFlash said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Depends. Do you support the proposal to kill an infant after it has been born?

---

If you don't know the answer to that question, then you either haven't been reading, or you're playing games.

I'm done.

---

The question is reasonable. Your pettiness is ... unfortunate.

---

I'm not being petty. I've stated no fewer than a dozen times -some in response to you directly- that I am against abortion in nearly every case with the only exceptions being nonviable fetuses or danger to the mother.

I've said it so many times.

---

Yet you defend the NY bill

---

Not really. I'm just trying to get people to characterize it accurately. Go back to my first post. There's too much echo-chamber here. Y'all have lost grip on any nuance -and there's a lot.

Having an abortion doesn't necessarily mean you're a murderer. I personally know a woman who had an abortion who didn't really have a choice. Her child was never going to live and was going to die within her.

The law literally only allows late term abortion when the mother's life is in danger or when the fetus is no longer viable. That's it. That's fact.

If you don't have use for facts, the game is over.

---

BBL said: The law literally only allows late term abortion when the mother's life is in danger or when the fetus is no longer viable. That's it. That's fact.

The reality is, the bill states "mother's health" and that can include many, many things.

When stating facts, I always find it is best to stick to the facts. That is why you continuously are asked about your position, because you leave gaps. Whether those gaps are purposeful or not, I don't know.

---

This all makes sense if you think there's an army of women (LIBERALS!) just waiting, gleefully, for a chance to get pregnant, wait 8 months, and THEN murder the children's!

---

One of the main proponents of abortion, Lena Dunham, has publicly stated she wishes she had an abortion just so she can claim it as a badge of honor which sort of shoots a hole in your argument, albeit anecdotal. Unfortunately for her she's disgusting so no one will sleep with her to allow her to fulfill her perverse abortion fantasies. Is there an army of women? No. There isn't. But isn't one too many? Isn't a law that allows it to happen simply because a "healthcare professional" (in quotes because the bill is very loose with the terminology of who that may be) determines the "health" (in quotes because they intentionally used vague language to broaden the scope of those eligible) of the mother is at risk?

Is there an army of women lining up to get late term abortions? Not yet. Could there be? Of course there could. The argument that no women carries a baby for 9 months just to terminate the pregnancy at the very end for any reason that doesn't include the viability of the baby or the life of the mother is overly assumptive. No women spends a year or more of their time and thousands of dollars planning a wedding just to leave a man standing at the altar but sometimes people get cold feet. Does it happen often? No. But will I stand by while legislation is passed allowing it to happen? Not a chance.

---

Whoa. If conservatives won't claim Steve Bannon or the KKK, then you can't make Liberals claim Lena Dunham.

No one ****ing likes Lena Dunham.

If you can't see the issue with labeling every polarity with the actions of the most extreme member, then you can't act like you're interested in actual debate.

---

This is a major deflection from the vast majority of my post. I stated it was anecdotal evidence that it's not crazy to think that some people may share her line of thinking. I am certainly not equating that viewpoint to the majority of those in favor of late term abortions. You created that strawman and then knocked it over by claiming I wasn't interested in debate as you ignored the rest of my post. You conveniently glossed over my analogy regarding the planning of a wedding. People panic and make rash decisions. This bill opens the door for rash decisions to result in tragic loss of life at a point when even the most hardcore proponents of abortion can't call it a "lump of cells."

---

First off, that wasn't ME using a "straw man." You were using an obviously extreme example that literally no one likes and passing it off as proof of a realistic threat (that's if she even did say that).

You were the one with the straw man. I merely took issue with it. If you're going to invoke terminology, please use it correctly.

Secondly, the rest of your "argument" that "there could be" a wave of women just chomping at the bit to get pregnant, wait 30 weeks and THEN have an abortion... just, y'know... cause feminism and man-hate and George Soros and stuff.

There is NO evidence of that. None. There is nothing to support your aspersions that there are just lots of women out there waiting and begging for late term abortions because they want to kill a healthy baby.

---

There aren't just lots of Jeffrey Dahmers out there waiting to torture people to death, either. I guess that's a pretty good argument for making it legal, since it isn't a huge problem or anything.

---

LMAO! Now THAT'S how you commit to a straw man argument. [golf clap]

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

That's a very dishonest statement when context is applied, and completely invalid in the context of abortion.

---

Deliberate killing is completely in context of the OT and the Quran.

---

Really? Cite the Bible verses, and their context, then.

War and self-defense do not count.

---

Well now you're moving the goalposts.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Small wonder Waco abandoned the Bible. Stop hating babies, Waco, you make Jesus cry when you do.

---

Apparently your hate blinds you. I said, "Oldbear, my compassion is Biblical . It extends to women. Jesus was big! On women's rights. See Luke and the resurrection stories. Who are the first evangelists? Women. "He is risen." You got a problem with my compassion with women then take it up with Jesus."

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

That's a very dishonest statement when context is applied, and completely invalid in the context of abortion.

---

Deliberate killing is completely in context of the OT and the Quran.

---

Really? Cite the Bible verses, and their context, then.

War and self-defense do not count.

---

Well now you're moving the goalposts.

---

Not at all. TS' original comment was that the OT God demanded killing. Context is vital.

If he can't defend his claims, that's his problem.

Now about the thread topic. I posted a detailed thought twice now, and you have ignored it twice BBL. May I ask why?

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Small wonder Waco abandoned the Bible. Stop hating babies, Waco, you make Jesus cry when you do.

---

Apparently your hate blinds you. I said, "Oldbear, my compassion is Biblical . It extends to women. Jesus was big! On women's rights. See Luke and the resurrection stories. Who are the first evangelists? Women. "He is risen." You got a problem with my compassion with women then take it up with Jesus."

---

You sided with TS when he claimed God likes killing. Then when I noted the Bible, in context, forbids killing, you abandoned Scripture and tried to pretend the Constitution supported your blood-lust.

It's your hate at issue, Waco.

God help you son, you don't even see it.

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

That's a very dishonest statement when context is applied, and completely invalid in the context of abortion.

---

Deliberate killing is completely in context of the OT and the Quran.

---

Really? Cite the Bible verses, and their context, then.

War and self-defense do not count.

---

Well now you're moving the goalposts.

---

Not at all. TS' original comment was that the OT God demanded killing. Context is vital.

If he can't defend his claims, that's his problem.

Now about the thread topic. I posted a detailed thought twice now, and you have ignored it twice BBL. May I ask why?

---

I don't think you're as articulate as you think you are.

Does "BBL IS WHININNNNNNG" and "BBL IS [blablabla] rancor."

You don't really give a ***** Stop acting like you do. If you're going to be a dick, be authentic.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Small wonder Waco abandoned the Bible. Stop hating babies, Waco, you make Jesus cry when you do.

---

Apparently your hate blinds you. I said, "Oldbear, my compassion is Biblical . It extends to women. Jesus was big! On women's rights. See Luke and the resurrection stories. Who are the first evangelists? Women. "He is risen." You got a problem with my compassion with women then take it up with Jesus."

---

You sided with TS when he claimed God likes killing. Then when I noted the Bible, in context, forbids killing, you abandoned Scripture and tried to pretend the Constitution supported your blood-lust.

It's your hate at issue, Waco.

God help you son, you don't even see it.

---

No. You're not even reading the posts, you're just knee-jerk responding with word-salad boilerplate mixed in with judgements made in statements they haven't made.

You keep making these absolute statements and they're responding with nuance and then you move the goalposts. When someone calls you out on it, you just ignore the point they made and go back to previous points.

You're not an honest debater.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

FormerFlash said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

FormerFlash said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Depends. Do you support the proposal to kill an infant after it has been born?

---

If you don't know the answer to that question, then you either haven't been reading, or you're playing games.

I'm done.

---

The question is reasonable. Your pettiness is ... unfortunate.

---

I'm not being petty. I've stated no fewer than a dozen times -some in response to you directly- that I am against abortion in nearly every case with the only exceptions being nonviable fetuses or danger to the mother.

I've said it so many times.

---

Yet you defend the NY bill

---

Not really. I'm just trying to get people to characterize it accurately. Go back to my first post. There's too much echo-chamber here. Y'all have lost grip on any nuance -and there's a lot.

Having an abortion doesn't necessarily mean you're a murderer. I personally know a woman who had an abortion who didn't really have a choice. Her child was never going to live and was going to die within her.

The law literally only allows late term abortion when the mother's life is in danger or when the fetus is no longer viable. That's it. That's fact.

If you don't have use for facts, the game is over.

---

BBL said: The law literally only allows late term abortion when the mother's life is in danger or when the fetus is no longer viable. That's it. That's fact.

The reality is, the bill states "mother's health" and that can include many, many things.

When stating facts, I always find it is best to stick to the facts. That is why you continuously are asked about your position, because you leave gaps. Whether those gaps are purposeful or not, I don't know.

---

This all makes sense if you think there's an army of women (LIBERALS!) just waiting, gleefully, for a chance to get pregnant, wait 8 months, and THEN murder the children's!

---

One of the main proponents of abortion, Lena Dunham, has publicly stated she wishes she had an abortion just so she can claim it as a badge of honor which sort of shoots a hole in your argument, albeit anecdotal. Unfortunately for her she's disgusting so no one will sleep with her to allow her to fulfill her perverse abortion fantasies. Is there an army of women? No. There isn't. But isn't one too many? Isn't a law that allows it to happen simply because a "healthcare professional" (in quotes because the bill is very loose with the terminology of who that may be) determines the "health" (in quotes because they intentionally used vague language to broaden the scope of those eligible) of the mother is at risk?

Is there an army of women lining up to get late term abortions? Not yet. Could there be? Of course there could. The argument that no women carries a baby for 9 months just to terminate the pregnancy at the very end for any reason that doesn't include the viability of the baby or the life of the mother is overly assumptive. No women spends a year or more of their time and thousands of dollars planning a wedding just to leave a man standing at the altar but sometimes people get cold feet. Does it happen often? No. But will I stand by while legislation is passed allowing it to happen? Not a chance.

---

Whoa. If conservatives won't claim Steve Bannon or the KKK, then you can't make Liberals claim Lena Dunham.

No one ****ing likes Lena Dunham.

If you can't see the issue with labeling every polarity with the actions of the most extreme member, then you can't act like you're interested in actual debate.

---

This is a major deflection from the vast majority of my post. I stated it was anecdotal evidence that it's not crazy to think that some people may share her line of thinking. I am certainly not equating that viewpoint to the majority of those in favor of late term abortions. You created that strawman and then knocked it over by claiming I wasn't interested in debate as you ignored the rest of my post. You conveniently glossed over my analogy regarding the planning of a wedding. People panic and make rash decisions. This bill opens the door for rash decisions to result in tragic loss of life at a point when even the most hardcore proponents of abortion can't call it a "lump of cells."

---

First off, that wasn't ME using a "straw man." You were using an obviously extreme example that literally no one likes and passing it off as proof of a realistic threat (that's if she even did say that).

You were the one with the straw man. I merely took issue with it. If you're going to invoke terminology, please use it correctly.

Secondly, the rest of your "argument" that "there could be" a wave of women just chomping at the bit to get pregnant, wait 30 weeks and THEN have an abortion... just, y'know... cause feminism and man-hate and George Soros and stuff.

There is NO evidence of that. None. There is nothing to support your aspersions that there are just lots of women out there waiting and begging for late term abortions because they want to kill a healthy baby.

---

There aren't just lots of Jeffrey Dahmers out there waiting to torture people to death, either. I guess that's a pretty good argument for making it legal, since it isn't a huge problem or anything.

---

LMAO! Now THAT'S how you commit to a straw man argument. [golf clap]

---

Waco1947 is famously incognizant of the meaning of the term "straw man."

Don't be like Waco1947.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

That's a very dishonest statement when context is applied, and completely invalid in the context of abortion.

---

Deliberate killing is completely in context of the OT and the Quran.

---

Really? Cite the Bible verses, and their context, then.

War and self-defense do not count.

---

Well now you're moving the goalposts.

---

Not at all. TS' original comment was that the OT God demanded killing. Context is vital.

If he can't defend his claims, that's his problem.

Now about the thread topic. I posted a detailed thought twice now, and you have ignored it twice BBL. May I ask why?

---

I don't think you're as articulate as you think you are.

Does "BBL IS WHININNNNNNG" and "BBL IS [blablabla] rancor."

You don't really give a ***** Stop acting like you do. If you're going to be a dick, be authentic.

---

Well, you've proven you have abandoned any pretense at courtesy, BBL. So thanks for the clarification.

"You're not an honest debater."

I have made repeated attempts to have a civil discussion. You have repeatedly deserted the effort, BBL.

From your one courteous exchange, I hoped we could establish a base for intelligent discussion and mutual respect.

You, sir, abandoned that effort, not I.

Oldbear83 said:

---

"You're not an honest debater."

I have made repeated attempts to have a civil discussion. You have repeatedly deserted the effort, BBL.

From your one courteous exchange, I hoped we could establish a base for intelligent discussion and mutual respect.

You, sir, abandoned that effort, not I.

---

Your last 20 posts hav been accusations and recriminations, and you're accusing others of abandoning discourse?

Are you high or just naturally obtuse?

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Small wonder Waco abandoned the Bible. Stop hating babies, Waco, you make Jesus cry when you do.

---

Apparently your hate blinds you. I said, "Oldbear, my compassion is Biblical . It extends to women. Jesus was big! On women's rights. See Luke and the resurrection stories. Who are the first evangelists? Women. "He is risen." You got a problem with my compassion with women then take it up with Jesus."

---

"Compassion" is concern for the suffering and misfortune of others. I have a problem with the idea that it is "compassionate" to tell a woman that killing her unborn offspring is her human right and no one else's business. That is not " compassionate," it is cruel in the extreme both to her and her unborn offspring. "Sure," you say, "go ahead and kill it, those who would tell you that clump of tissue connected to you is a person deserving of compassion are lying and just hate women."

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"You're not an honest debater."

I have made repeated attempts to have a civil discussion. You have repeatedly deserted the effort, BBL.

From your one courteous exchange, I hoped we could establish a base for intelligent discussion and mutual respect.

You, sir, abandoned that effort, not I.

---

Your last 20 posts hav been accusations and recriminations, and you're accusing others of abandoning discourse?

Are you high or just naturally obtuse?

---

** sigh **

Please go back and read what I really posted.

Take off the 'everybody hates me' blinders, mister. They are spoiling your perspective.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

That's a very dishonest statement when context is applied, and completely invalid in the context of abortion.

---

Deliberate killing is completely in context of the OT and the Quran.

---

Really? Cite the Bible verses, and their context, then.

War and self-defense do not count.

---

Numbers 25; Exodus 19f:12-13 are just a few examples.

TS: "Numbers 25; Exodus 19f:12-13 are just a few examples."

OK, so let's look at those. Numbers and Exodus are set during the exodus from Egypt and the journey to Canaan, which was held by Abraham back in Genesis. With this in mind, I look at Numbers 25:

Verses 1-2: "While Israel was staying in ****tim, the men began to indulge in sexual immorality with Moabite women, who invited them to the sacrifices to their gods."

Verse 5: "So Moses said to Israel's judges, "Each of you must put to death those of your people who have yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor."

Sounds cruel, huh? But read the context. From verses 8-9:

"Then the plague against the Israelites was stopped; 9 but those who died in the plague numbered 24,000."

This means that the sex was a vector for a pandemic crisis. In other words, the death penalty for sex with the Moabites was necessary to prevent massive loss of life from spreading the plague.

Given the technology and courses of action available, this action was reasonable and necessary when context is applied.

With that, let's move on to your second selection, Exodus 19:12-13:

" Put limits for the people around the mountain and tell them, 'Be careful that you do not approach the mountain or touch the foot of it. Whoever touches the mountain is to be put to death. They are to be stoned or shot with arrows; not a hand is to be laid on them. No person or animal shall be permitted to live.' Only when the ram's horn sounds a long blast may they approach the mountain."

So let's apply the context to that warning. In verse 4 God tells Moses " You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt", which is a clear warning, and in verse 6 God tells Moses "you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation ". 'Holy', by the way, in this context means 'set apart' which takes on specific meaning in terms of precautions, quite possibly consistent with the restrictions just discussed in the Numbers passage.

Note what verse 9 says on that point: "I am going to come to you in a dense cloud, so that the people will hear me speaking with you and will always put their trust in you."

That is, these warnings are in place not to kill people but to establish clear and strict rules for behavior under conditions of God's appearance. The context shows that the meaning was not that God likes killing, but that the prohibition was strictly for protection of the people as a whole.

These passages in the Old Testament occurred at a time when the whole of Israel was vulnerable to disease and contagion. A number of the laws and rules in place at that time were necessary for the same reasons any exposure to new environment requires precautions and restrictions. Frankly, given the knowledge of disease vectors in ancient times, I would have expected a scientist to be impressed with the steps taken. In any case, the two passages very clearly do not support the claim that God was bloodthirsty or malicious.

BBL will come back hard..

"you're just a poopy pants"

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Small wonder Waco abandoned the Bible. Stop hating babies, Waco, you make Jesus cry when you do.

---

Apparently your hate blinds you. I said, "Oldbear, my compassion is Biblical . It extends to women. Jesus was big! On women's rights. See Luke and the resurrection stories. Who are the first evangelists? Women. "He is risen." You got a problem with my compassion with women then take it up with Jesus."

---

You sided with TS when he claimed God likes killing. Then when I noted the Bible, in context, forbids killing, you abandoned Scripture and tried to pretend the Constitution supported your blood-lust.

It's your hate at issue, Waco.

God help you son, you don't even see it.

---

No. You're not even reading the posts, you're just knee-jerk responding with word-salad boilerplate mixed in with judgements made in statements they haven't made.

You keep making these absolute statements and they're responding with nuance and then you move the goalposts. When someone calls you out on it, you just ignore the point they made and go back to previous points.

You're not an honest debater.

---

Preacher Bro BBL!

Hate on, Waco. It's what you do, it's who you are.

The day you must explain your hate to God is coming, but deny it for now you will.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Hate on, Waco. It's what you do, it's who you are.

The day you must explain your hate to God is coming, but deny it for now you will.

---

God: "Waco, did you protect women from Oldbear arbitrary demands. Did you protect their free will? Did you love these women in tough decisions?
Waco: "Yes."
God: "Did you protect a woman's right to her own reproductive health?"
Waco: "Yes"
God: "Thank you for standing up them. Did you protect their reputations? You know that they were not ****s or simply inconvenienced. You also know that all those children are in my care now?"
Waco: "Yes"
God: "Finally do you love Jesus and feed his sheep?"
Waco: "Yes"

Waco, you are not God, and that is not what you will face when you see Him.

PS
God: "Did Oldbear feed, clothe, educate, provide health care to the women and children through public policy?"
Waco: "Well, God all I can say is that he fought those policies saying you can't force charity."
God: "Does Oldbear not know charity can be expressed through public policy?"
Waco: "I don't know. That's you and Oldbear. Tell him I said hello."

God: "Waco, why did you kill my children?"
Waco: "I protected women from having to raise children."
God: "Waco, why do you hate my children?"
Waco: "I protect women's free will"
God: "Why did you ignore my laws?"
Waco: "You aren't in the Constitution."
God: "Why didn't you save babies instead of killing them?"
Waco: "F you God"

You in a heap o trouble unless you repent, Waco.

Sincerely, you need to change and follow God, not pretend you are God.

Well that was weird

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Well that was weird

---

Keep Waco weird.

PSS
God: "Hey, Waco! Before you go; isn't Oldbear a man?
Waco: "Yes he is."
God: "He wants to force women to through with pregnancy and delivery?"
Waco: "Yes"
God: " Let me get this straight he wants to force women to carry through on birthing which is something he cannot do himself?
Hmmmmm. What if I told him women could force him to stop having sex? Would he see the irony?
Waco: "God, I don't know. He's not big on nuance. But you could ask him yourself the next time he prays which he does often. I am sure he's all ears when it comes to following you."
God: "I don't know. He thinks he speaks for me so I am not sure he will listen."
Waco: "What have you got to lose? You're God."
God: "I'll give it a shot. I am all about love you know - Oldbear, those women he hates, and you, Waco."
Waco: "Do me a favor please? Let me know what he says? He yells hateful stuff at me."
God: "Will do. Good night Waco."
Waco: "Thank you for your love presence with me, Oldbear and those women. Good night God"

Are you there God? It's me, Margaret.

Waco1947 said:

---

PSS
God: "Hey, Waco! Before you go; isn't Oldbear a man?
Waco: "Yes he is."
God: "He wants to force women to through with pregnancy and delivery?"
Waco: "Yes"
God: " Let me get this straight he wants to force women to carry through on birthing which is something he cannot do himself?
Hmmmmm. What if I told him women could force him to stop having sex? Would he see the irony?
Waco: "God, I don't know. He's not big on nuance. But you could ask him yourself the next time he prays which he does often. I am sure he's all ears when it comes to following you."
God: "I don't know. He thinks he speaks for me so I am not sure he will listen."
Waco: "What have you got to lose? You're God."
God: "I'll give it a shot. I am all about love you know - Oldbear, those women he hates, and you, Waco."
Waco: "Do me a favor please? Let me know what he says? He yells hateful stuff at me."
God: "Will do. Good night Waco."
Waco: "Thank you for your love presence with me, Oldbear and those women. Good night God"

---

So god says the following:
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart..." Jeremiah 1:5

So everyone is a creation of god and he knows your soul, he knows you before you are on earth.
You actively push for, endorse and help women get abortions which prevent the life that God has intended.

God will not be pleased with your actions. You will beg and plead for forgiveness.
And if your own arrogance and ego reject God, you will feel the wrath and pain of every abortion for eternity.

Imagine all the souls who were ripped out of the womb staring at you as you face God, and they ask "why wasn't I valuable enough in your eyes to have a life Waco? Why have you decided whose life is more valuable instead of God?"

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

PSS
God: "Hey, Waco! Before you go; isn't Oldbear a man?
Waco: "Yes he is."
God: "He wants to force women to through with pregnancy and delivery?"
Waco: "Yes"
God: " Let me get this straight he wants to force women to carry through on birthing which is something he cannot do himself?
Hmmmmm. What if I told him women could force him to stop having sex? Would he see the irony?
Waco: "God, I don't know. He's not big on nuance. But you could ask him yourself the next time he prays which he does often. I am sure he's all ears when it comes to following you."
God: "I don't know. He thinks he speaks for me so I am not sure he will listen."
Waco: "What have you got to lose? You're God."
God: "I'll give it a shot. I am all about love you know - Oldbear, those women he hates, and you, Waco."
Waco: "Do me a favor please? Let me know what he says? He yells hateful stuff at me."
God: "Will do. Good night Waco."
Waco: "Thank you for your love presence with me, Oldbear and those women. Good night God"

---

So god says the following:
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart..." Jeremiah 1:5

---

EXACTLY

Father Gregg recently discussed the entire passage at length .

There is ZERO ambiguity. ZERO room for 'interpretation'.

Abortion is wrong ....horribly wrong .

And no one claiming to be a Christian can possibly 'spin' it any other way.

And yet we have a delusional, semi literate, fool claiming to be a minister while promoting abortion .

Evil

Waco: "I killed babies because I support 'reproductive rights' "

Jesus: "I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoer."

Matthew 7:23

FormerFlash said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

FormerFlash said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

FormerFlash said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Depends. Do you support the proposal to kill an infant after it has been born?

---

If you don't know the answer to that question, then you either haven't been reading, or you're playing games.

I'm done.

---

The question is reasonable. Your pettiness is ... unfortunate.

---

I'm not being petty. I've stated no fewer than a dozen times -some in response to you directly- that I am against abortion in nearly every case with the only exceptions being nonviable fetuses or danger to the mother.

I've said it so many times.

---

Yet you defend the NY bill

---

Not really. I'm just trying to get people to characterize it accurately. Go back to my first post. There's too much echo-chamber here. Y'all have lost grip on any nuance -and there's a lot.

Having an abortion doesn't necessarily mean you're a murderer. I personally know a woman who had an abortion who didn't really have a choice. Her child was never going to live and was going to die within her.

The law literally only allows late term abortion when the mother's life is in danger or when the fetus is no longer viable. That's it. That's fact.

If you don't have use for facts, the game is over.

---

BBL said: The law literally only allows late term abortion when the mother's life is in danger or when the fetus is no longer viable. That's it. That's fact.

The reality is, the bill states "mother's health" and that can include many, many things.

When stating facts, I always find it is best to stick to the facts. That is why you continuously are asked about your position, because you leave gaps. Whether those gaps are purposeful or not, I don't know.

---

This all makes sense if you think there's an army of women (LIBERALS!) just waiting, gleefully, for a chance to get pregnant, wait 8 months, and THEN murder the children's!

---

One of the main proponents of abortion, Lena Dunham, has publicly stated she wishes she had an abortion just so she can claim it as a badge of honor which sort of shoots a hole in your argument, albeit anecdotal. Unfortunately for her she's disgusting so no one will sleep with her to allow her to fulfill her perverse abortion fantasies. Is there an army of women? No. There isn't. But isn't one too many? Isn't a law that allows it to happen simply because a "healthcare professional" (in quotes because the bill is very loose with the terminology of who that may be) determines the "health" (in quotes because they intentionally used vague language to broaden the scope of those eligible) of the mother is at risk?

Is there an army of women lining up to get late term abortions? Not yet. Could there be? Of course there could. The argument that no women carries a baby for 9 months just to terminate the pregnancy at the very end for any reason that doesn't include the viability of the baby or the life of the mother is overly assumptive. No women spends a year or more of their time and thousands of dollars planning a wedding just to leave a man standing at the altar but sometimes people get cold feet. Does it happen often? No. But will I stand by while legislation is passed allowing it to happen? Not a chance.

---

Whoa. If conservatives won't claim Steve Bannon or the KKK, then you can't make Liberals claim Lena Dunham.

No one ****ing likes Lena Dunham.

If you can't see the issue with labeling every polarity with the actions of the most extreme member, then you can't act like you're interested in actual debate.

---

This is a major deflection from the vast majority of my post. I stated it was anecdotal evidence that it's not crazy to think that some people may share her line of thinking. I am certainly not equating that viewpoint to the majority of those in favor of late term abortions. You created that strawman and then knocked it over by claiming I wasn't interested in debate as you ignored the rest of my post. You conveniently glossed over my analogy regarding the planning of a wedding. People panic and make rash decisions. This bill opens the door for rash decisions to result in tragic loss of life at a point when even the most hardcore proponents of abortion can't call it a "lump of cells."

---

First off, that wasn't ME using a "straw man." You were using an obviously extreme example that literally no one likes and passing it off as proof of a realistic threat (that's if she even did say that).

You were the one with the straw man. I merely took issue with it. If you're going to invoke terminology, please use it correctly.

Secondly, the rest of your "argument" that "there could be" a wave of women just chomping at the bit to get pregnant, wait 30 weeks and THEN have an abortion... just, y'know... cause feminism and man-hate and George Soros and stuff.

There is NO evidence of that. None. There is nothing to support your aspersions that there are just lots of women out there waiting and begging for late term abortions because they want to kill a healthy baby.

---

Straw man: an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

Just for context because as smart as you pretend to be on this board, this concept seems to be lost on you. As far as your post is concerned, I used anecdotal evidence (by my own admission) to simply negate your claim that no one is going to get pregnant just to have an abortion. With zero research I had evidence of at least one person that wouldn't apply to. Where there is one, there's likely more. As for your skepticism: "that's if she even did say that" Here you go:

http://time.com/4608364/lena-dunham-wish-abortion-comments/

It's worth noting I wasn't even making the argument that women would get pregnant so they could have an abortion. I was saying they may have had every intention of having the baby, but that for any number of reasons they may change their mind. I was simply making the point that even those with good intentions can sometimes make drastic decisions in stressful times and this bill opens up the door for that.

Here was your straw man:

"If you can't see the issue with labeling every polarity with the actions of the most extreme member, then you can't act like you're interested in actual debate."

You took one piece from my post that I literally stated was anecdotal evidence and turned that into "labeling every polarity with the actions of the most extreme member." Hence your straw man was created so you could feel intellectually and morally superior as you blasted to smithereens and argument I wasn't even making then declared the battle won stating I'm the one not interested in actual debate.

You may want to throw in the towel. This isn't going well for you and it's clear from your posts that you're letting your emotions get the best of you.

---

That's not what happened.

I stated that there wasn't an army of liberal feminist women just waiting to terminate babies and you literally said there could be, and offered Lena Dunham as an example citing something stupid she might have said.

I stated that was a bad example as she was the most extreme person you could come up with. You probably know this, but you used her as an example to score some sort of internet point.

I'm not misstating your point. It's there in black and white.

All I have said, from the beginning, is that abortions should be safe, rare, and legal (at least in some cases). I've also stated that much of the criticism of this law is misplaced. It is clearly only allowing late-term abortions for unviable fetuses and for the life of the mother.

We've shown that late term abortions are incredivly rare and pretty much only for those previous listed reasons.