BrooksBearLives said:

---

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.

---

Before the latest bill in NY passed, abortions were legal if the life of the mother was endangered. NY changed that language to "health of the mother". If abortions were legal in cases where the life of the mother was endangered, why change it?

It allows for late-term abortion (i.e., after 24 weeks) if the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable. Previously, late-term abortions had only been legal in New York if the life of the mother was at risk.

Currently, late term unborn children are protected in New York State law after 24 weeks except to save a mother's life. RHA would repeal that standard and exchange it for a "health" exception, broadly interpreted by courts to include age, economic, social and emotional factors, rather than the biological definition of "health" that normally comes to mind.

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

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?"

---

Jeremiah is immaterial to anything I said. It's a non sequiter And then you made up a bunch of stuff like "God will not be pleased." Who died and made you.....well god?

Everyone is a child of God. But you treat women like they were ****s for having sex - that's not treating woman children of God. You believe belittle women by declaring they have abortions for "convince." You reduce women to little prima donnas. They are humans.
You give men a pass who can't keep their "d***" in their pant and ignore that men demand abortions too. You are a .... Wait for it. It's one of your favorite words "You're a fraud." Your words and demands that women carry to term are the opposite of valuing women as children of Hod. They, too, were formed in By God. You treat them as things. Do women have the right to say men "put a $1,000,000 bond so if you get me pregnant I know I have financial support because you oppose any social nets. Your precious tax dollars need to support me if you insist I carry to term." If that law is passed is it a fair proposal to make you post the bond.

Doc, you and Oldbear are blowhards who think self righteously you can force a pregnany to term because it's your faith.

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc, you and Oldbear are blowhards who think self righteously you can force a pregnany to term because it's your faith.

---

We follow the law of Jahweh and Jesus, as set out in Scripture. You do as you please and pretend it counts as good.

Therefore you are called out as false, Waco.

If you dislike your condition, stop opposing God.

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc, you and Oldbear are blowhards who think self righteously you can force a pregnany to term because it's your faith.

---

Its barbaric regardless of faith.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc, you and Oldbear are blowhards who think self righteously you can force a pregnany to term because it's your faith.

---

Its barbaric regardless of faith.

---

It's barbaric to demand every pregnant woman carry a fetus to term. Especially barbaric for men. It's none of their business

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc, you and Oldbear are blowhards who think self righteously you can force a pregnany to term because it's your faith.

---

We follow the law of Jahweh and Jesus, as set out in Scripture. You do as you please and pretend it counts as good.

Therefore you are called out as false, Waco.

If you dislike your condition, stop opposing God.

---

And you're barbaric in forcing women to carry to term because your "faith."

I support Life, you support Death.

Pretty clear which motive is "barbaric".

Oldbear83 said:

---

I support Life, you support Death.

Pretty clear which motive is "barbaric".

---

And you're barbaric in forcing women to carry to term because your "faith."

"He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!"


Mark 12:27


That's Christ speaking to you Waco, reaching out to you.

Listen and turn.

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc, you and Oldbear are blowhards who think self righteously you can force a pregnany to term because it's your faith.

---

Its barbaric regardless of faith.

---

It's barbaric to demand every pregnant woman carry a fetus to term. Especially barbaric for men. It's none of their business

---

It is barbaric to support the wholesale killing of unborn human offspring, it is especially barbaric for humans to support such killing.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc, you and Oldbear are blowhards who think self righteously you can force a pregnany to term because it's your faith.

---

Its barbaric regardless of faith.

---

It's barbaric to demand every pregnant woman carry a fetus to term. Especially barbaric for men. It's none of their business

---

It is barbaric to support the wholesale killing of unborn human offspring, it is especially barbaric for humans to support such killing.

---

In your opinion but it's more barbaric (unamerican and unconstitutional) for you to demand a woman carry to term a baby. It is also ungodly to demand of a child of God that she acquiesce to your demand, that she submit to your willl. It's called slavery.

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

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.

---

Before the latest bill in NY passed, abortions were legal if the life of the mother was endangered. NY changed that language to "health of the mother". If abortions were legal in cases where the life of the mother was endangered, why change it?

It allows for late-term abortion (i.e., after 24 weeks) if the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable. Previously, late-term abortions had only been legal in New York if the life of the mother was at risk.

Currently, late term unborn children are protected in New York State law after 24 weeks except to save a mother's life. RHA would repeal that standard and exchange it for a "health" exception, broadly interpreted by courts to include age, economic, social and emotional factors, rather than the biological definition of "health" that normally comes to mind.

---

Are you quoting something?

Or are you TRULY trying to assert there are women who would use this loophole to terminate a late term abortion, just... yknow... "because?"

You keep trying to make a distinction between "health" and "life" as if it's a giant deal.

I don't agree it is.

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc, you and Oldbear are blowhards who think self righteously you can force a pregnany to term because it's your faith.

---

Its barbaric regardless of faith.

---

It's barbaric to demand every pregnant woman carry a fetus to term. Especially barbaric for men. It's none of their business

---

It is barbaric to support the wholesale killing of unborn human offspring, it is especially barbaric for humans to support such killing.

---

In your opinion but it's more barbaric (unamerican and unconstitutional) for you to demand a woman carry to term a baby. It is also ungodly to demand of a child of God that she acquiesce to your demand, that she submit to your willl. It's called slavery.

---

It is not slavery to expect that a person, any person, not kill a baby, nor is it "ungodly" to expect that a person, any person, not kill a baby.

At least you are making a little progress in that you admit it is barbaric to support the wholesale killing of unborn human offspring and that we are, in fact, talking about a baby.

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

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.

---

Before the latest bill in NY passed, abortions were legal if the life of the mother was endangered. NY changed that language to "health of the mother". If abortions were legal in cases where the life of the mother was endangered, why change it?

It allows for late-term abortion (i.e., after 24 weeks) if the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable. Previously, late-term abortions had only been legal in New York if the life of the mother was at risk.

Currently, late term unborn children are protected in New York State law after 24 weeks except to save a mother's life. RHA would repeal that standard and exchange it for a "health" exception, broadly interpreted by courts to include age, economic, social and emotional factors, rather than the biological definition of "health" that normally comes to mind.

---

Are you quoting something?

Or are you TRULY trying to assert there are women who would use this loophole to terminate a late term abortion, just... yknow... "because?"

You keep trying to make a distinction between "health" and "life" as if it's a giant deal.

I don't agree it is.

---

You don't agree that there is a pretty big distinction between "economic factors" and "life?" That's a pretty bizarre perspective.

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Doc, you and Oldbear are blowhards who think self righteously you can force a pregnany to term because it's your faith.

---

Its barbaric regardless of faith.

---

It's barbaric to demand every pregnant woman carry a fetus to term. Especially barbaric for men. It's none of their business

---

It is barbaric to support the wholesale killing of unborn human offspring, it is especially barbaric for humans to support such killing.

---

In your opinion but it's more barbaric (unamerican and unconstitutional) for you to demand a woman carry to term a baby. It is also ungodly to demand of a child of God that she acquiesce to your demand, that she submit to your willl. It's called slavery.

---

You accidentally admit in your wanting to kill babies is at least partially "barbaric" in 1st sentence by saying something else is more barbaric! See your slip up? Then in rest of your post you only mention Mom and not baby as children of God. You're a sick sick man! Sad existence

BBL, someone asked above and I never saw your answer to this question, the old law state "life". Why did it need to be changed to "health"? It's a simple question and should be easy for you to answer without diverting down a lot of rabbit trails. So why do you think the new law was needed?

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

BBL, someone asked above and I never saw your answer to this question, the old law state "life". Why did it need to be changed to "health"? It's a simple question and should be easy for you to answer without diverting down a lot of rabbit trails. So why do you think the new law was needed?

---

This has been answered. The law was changed to de-criminalize it in NY state statutes. Basically, should Roe V Wade be overturned, the standard would revert back to the individual states. New York State laws hadn't been updated in 30+ years, so that's why all this was done. The Health was changed, supposedly, because it's a better legal standard (because "life of the mother" is nearly impossible to define and unsafe).

This was answered like 6 pages ago. That's why this whole law was being updated in the first place.

D. C. Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

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.

---

Before the latest bill in NY passed, abortions were legal if the life of the mother was endangered. NY changed that language to "health of the mother". If abortions were legal in cases where the life of the mother was endangered, why change it?

It allows for late-term abortion (i.e., after 24 weeks) if the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable. Previously, late-term abortions had only been legal in New York if the life of the mother was at risk.

Currently, late term unborn children are protected in New York State law after 24 weeks except to save a mother's life. RHA would repeal that standard and exchange it for a "health" exception, broadly interpreted by courts to include age, economic, social and emotional factors, rather than the biological definition of "health" that normally comes to mind.

---

Are you quoting something?

Or are you TRULY trying to assert there are women who would use this loophole to terminate a late term abortion, just... yknow... "because?"

You keep trying to make a distinction between "health" and "life" as if it's a giant deal.

I don't agree it is.

---

You don't agree that there is a pretty big distinction between "economic factors" and "life?" That's a pretty bizarre perspective.

---

That's not what I said.

Health of the mother doesn't equal "economic factors". This is a weird version of the slippery slope fallacy.

That's why I asked if he was quoting something or just talking out of his ass.

It's barbaric to force a woman to carry to term against her will.

Waco1947 said:

---

It's barbaric to force a woman to carry to term against her will.

---

Is it more "barbaric" to kill a child or to force a woman to carry to term(not kill the baby) against her will?

Yes or no please?

BrooksBearLives said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

BrooksBearLives said:

---

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.

---

Before the latest bill in NY passed, abortions were legal if the life of the mother was endangered. NY changed that language to "health of the mother". If abortions were legal in cases where the life of the mother was endangered, why change it?

It allows for late-term abortion (i.e., after 24 weeks) if the health of the mother is threatened or the fetus is not viable. Previously, late-term abortions had only been legal in New York if the life of the mother was at risk.

Currently, late term unborn children are protected in New York State law after 24 weeks except to save a mother's life. RHA would repeal that standard and exchange it for a "health" exception, broadly interpreted by courts to include age, economic, social and emotional factors, rather than the biological definition of "health" that normally comes to mind.

---

Are you quoting something?

Or are you TRULY trying to assert there are women who would use this loophole to terminate a late term abortion, just... yknow... "because?"

You keep trying to make a distinction between "health" and "life" as if it's a giant deal.

I don't agree it is.

---

You don't agree that there is a pretty big distinction between "economic factors" and "life?" That's a pretty bizarre perspective.

---

That's not what I said.

Health of the mother doesn't equal "economic factors". This is a weird version of the slippery slope fallacy.

That's why I asked if he was quoting something or just talking out of his ass.

---

You say repeatedly that abortions under the new New York law would happen if the life of the mother was endangered. I have posted numerous times that the old NY law had 'life of the mother" in it.

The new law deleted that standard and substituted 'health'. Courts have broadly interpreted 'health' to mean much more than 'life of the mother'. It is a giant deal. Surely you can see that 'health of the mother' is quite different from 'life of the mother'. Do you trust Snopes?

Currently, late term unborn children are protected in New York State law after 24 weeks except to save a mother's life. RHA would repeal that standard and exchange it for a "health" exception, broadly interpreted by courts to include age, economic, social and emotional factors, rather than the biological definition of "health" that normally comes to mind.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/new-york-abortions-birth/

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

No matter how you phrase it or try to justify it, these clearly are examples of deliberate killing condoned in the OT, which is the point of discussion. Whether it can be justified by some convoluted religious reasoning is irrelevant.

Although, for argurment, the plague is clearly sent in the context of the wrath of god. Why would a loving merciful god want to kill people with a plague or a spear?

Exodus 19:12... "Whoever touches the mountain is to be put to death. 13 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." Why would an all loving, merciful, all powerful god give such an arbitrary nonsensical order to kill? It's rediculous and is another of many OT examples of condoned killing. An all powerful, merciful, all loving god, wouldn't have a need for self aggrandizement at the pain and expense of the people he supposedly created. This is all the product of a primitive peoples' attempt at understanding, and trying to make sense of the circumstance of life.

Nope, you are clearly twisting Scripture out of context in order to claim something not stated.

You'd laugh someone out of the room for taking empirical evidence out of context to support claims in Science, you are being a total hypocrite to do that here.

To the point at hand, however, there is a simple test - go through Scripture, and try to find even one verse where abortion is praised.

I will save you the effort, and confirm there no such passage. Not even in the Quran, which is far more violent than the Judeo-Christian Scripture.

I have not read all of them, but I'd wager there is no support for abortion in any of the Vedas, nor in Plato's essays.

No moral pro-abortion argument exists in ethics. It's tolerated, sometimes treated as a tragic fact of modern society, but there is absolutely no ethical support for abortion.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Nope, you are clearly twisting Scripture out of context in order to claim something not stated.

You'd laugh someone out of the room for taking empirical evidence out of context to support claims in Science, you are being a total hypocrite to do that here.

To the point at hand, however, there is a simple test - go through Scripture, and try to find even one verse where abortion is praised.

I will save you the effort, and confirm there no such passage. Not even in the Quran, which is far more violent than the Judeo-Christian Scripture.

I have not read all of them, but I'd wager there is no support for abortion in any of the Vedas, nor in Plato's essays.

No moral pro-abortion argument exists in ethics. It's tolerated, sometimes treated as a tragic fact of modern society, but there is absolutely no ethical support for abortion.

---

What I have said is totally in context of what was written. I don't have to twist anything. What is written clearly speaks for itself.

By your logic, one could Biblically justify killing pregnant women (no need to abort) for reason of "sexual sin." That's essentially what you are saying is justified in Numbers.

You should be careful with absolute statements. There most certainly can be ethical reasons to abort a pregnancy.

Come on TS, you're only spoiling your rep here by trying that hard to twist clear meaning.

Man up.

TS: " There most certainly can be ethical reasons to abort a pregnancy."

Go try again. I said no ethical argument praises abortion. It's allowed, not a virtue.

All Waco or anyone who is pro choice has done is determine that 1 out of 2 lives is more important than the other.

Period.

When you are confronted by the souls you have denied life to by endorsing and promoting murder...they will ask why their lives were not valuable enough to live. Can you answer that?

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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.

---

"Why would a loving merciful god want to kill people with a plague or a spear?"

---

You're confusing old testament God with new testament God. I'm sure there are biblical scholars on this board far more qualified than me to explain the New Covenant to you. Would any of you care to take a crack at it?

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

It's barbaric to force a woman to carry to term against her will.

---

You are completely unhinged.

No one is executing the mother .

But the baby certainly is being put to death .

---

So you have no answer for your barbaric law.

Waco1947 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

It's barbaric to force a woman to carry to term against her will.

---

You are completely unhinged.

No one is executing the mother .

But the baby certainly is being put to death .

---

So you have no answer for your barbaric law.

---

Vice versa - you cannot defend your blood lust on any level.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

It's barbaric to force a woman to carry to term against her will.

---

You are completely unhinged.

No one is executing the mother .

But the baby certainly is being put to death .

---

So you have no answer for your barbaric law.

---

Vice versa - you cannot defend your blood lust on any level.

---

And you have no answer. You sir barbaric.