 |
You answered a question as "yes", so this belongs to you. "Yes, a 'worthless thief' if it's inside your abdominal cavity." It is how you characterized an unborn child.
You are guilty as charged. Whining will get you nowhere.
But if you want to become honest, simply say whether or not you agree with the statement. You said "yes" to that yesterday. Is it still "yes"? I'll even go first. I would give a resounding "NO!" to both your "thing" statement and your "worthless thief" agreement.
You?
"If your granddaughter is 12 and has been raped by her uncle" was the beginning of that story.
I knew you wouldn’t answer. You consider unborn children to be nothing more than things and thieves. I have found that if I ask you the right questions, you usually avoid them, like now, but if you answer, like yesterday, you dig yourself a hole that your ideology won’t allow you to escape from.
Please ask your primary physician to give you a cognitive test.
So scared of answering a simple question? Doesn’t that cowardice get embarrassing? Now if you want me to treat you like the sweet little old lady at the church picnic then I can, but I had hoped you were better than that. I guess not.
You are the scared one. I asked ages ago a what-if your 12 yo granddaughter got raped. I hear only crickets chirping.
And as anyone interested in the truth already knows, I answered that on post 46. Kind of beginning to wonder about someone's memory. Since you clearly can't find it, then here is the question you asked. "If that girl is your granddaughter, what would you advise?" And I answered as follows.
I know why you are so fearful, and I can understand why. When you answer questions, you come up with horrible answers such as, " "Yes, a 'worthless thief' if it's inside your abdominal cavity." Then, having been induced to reveal what is evidently your true view on the subject, you get angry because you've been had. It is exactly why you won't answer the current question. You hardly ever do. It is the behavior of moral cowards.Quote:
I would advise her not to have her unborn child murdered. It's the same advice I would give her if she had a newborn that was a problem for her. The reason is that I actually take the fifth/sixth commandment seriously. It's not just lip service for a message board. If you are genuinely against abortion, your posts should reflect that.
I'll post the question again in case you can summon the courage to answer it. Note that I have already done so.
If I was you, I would answer (as I did above) just to show that I have the courage to do it.Quote:
But if you want to become honest, simply say whether or not you agree with the statement. You said "yes" to that yesterday. Is it still "yes"? I'll even go first. I would give a resounding "NO!" to both your "thing" statement and your "worthless thief" agreement.
What's the current question?
It's the other one.
Ah, you don't know either.
Post 31. But you will just evade. Fearful.
"Yes, a 'worthless thief' if it's inside your abdominal cavity."
The lsst thing I am is fearful. It's difficult to get past your twists and turns to have a rational discussion with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I was merely quoting your very judgmental term, "worthless thief". And we were discussing an immature 12 yo girl who had been raped by her uncle.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
No answer. Fearful.Quote:
Post 31. But you will just evade. Fearful.
Sorry, but that's a lie. You were "merely" affirming your belief that babies are worthless thieves. It's why you started with "yes". I don't mean that to be ugly, but truth is truth. You were asked a question and you answered it, and now you are trying to extricate yourself with dishonesty.Quote:
I was merely quoting your very judgmental term, "worthless thief".
Why not just answer the post 81 question and make your views clear? I did. Waiting on you now. Here it is.
Unborn children are not "things" and are not "worthless thives".Quote:
But if you want to become honest, simply say whether or not you agree with the statement. You said "yes" to that yesterday. Is it still "yes"? I'll even go first. I would give a resounding "NO!" to both your "thing" statement and your "worthless thief" agreement.
Post 31:
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/images...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by jlisenbe https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/images...post-right.png
Yes. That's the one you referred to. "Thou shall not kill." More accurately, it is a command not to commit murder.
In my Bible, and during all of my years of Christian education, "Thou shalt not kill" is the Fifth Commandment.
****************************************
Because of Christ's suffering, death, and resurrection, the commandments are only a guide now. Obedience to them ("work righteousness") will not save us. Jesus, because of His great love for us, suffered and died and rose again. All He asks of us is to love each other like He loves us.
You will not answer. I knew it. So predictable.
The rest of your post is lunacy. So not stealing, murdering, and lying are merely guidelines now??? It's an idea supported nowhere in the Bible and is an absurdity.
In Christ's name and surrounded by His love, plus His love is reflected off us onto others, we don't steal, murder, and lie.
Read Micah 6:8.
Any female who wants an abortion should talk with a trained counselor about it. Reasons are varied. Testing will have to be done, decisions made. Not a simple, easy walk-through. Yet God's love and forgiveness will prevail.
Your first sentence is reasonable. It's much better than suggesting the Ten Commandments have become the Ten Guidelines.
If a woman walks in the love of Christ, she will not allow a doctor to kill her unborn child. It is not a "thing" or a "worthless thief".
Why would a female want an abortion?
This has become beyond tiresome. You are asking why a woman wants to have her unborn child killed. It's on the same level as finding out that a man murdered his wife, and then wanting to ask why he did so as some means of providing justification. It makes no difference. Innocent human lives should not be destroyed.
It's the destruction of an innocent human life in my view, and the destruction of a "thing" and a "worthless thief" in your view. That is an irreconcilable difference between the two of us.
To avoid unwanted pregnancies, men must keep their pants zipped up.
WG's real name. "Avoid the real issue at all costs." Men should be more responsible. Women, who have far more to lose, should be more responsible. None of that makes it OK to have an abortion.
There won't be a reason or need or desire for an abortion if men keep their pants zipped up.
You libs live in such a strange world. You shout loudly that women should have control over their own bodies, and yet when it comes to women avoiding pregnancy, those weak and silly women are evidently either too stupid or too lazy to make wise decisions to protect themselves, so they must depend on men to do that for them. Hmmm.
I'm very convinced that women are quite capable and have the capacity to protect themselves. I would suggest, "If you want intimacy with me, you'll need to commit yourself to marriage."
We have discussed this enough. I'll leave with this. "It's the destruction of an innocent human life in my view, and the destruction of a 'thing' and a 'worthless thief ' in your view. That is an irreconcilable difference between the two of us." You stated the "thing" element and agreed ("Yes") to the second element and have refused multiple chances to correct those horrid statements.
How many times have you wrestled with a female in order to get her on her back and be able to pull off her clothes? Or laid on the charm to accomplish the same thing? Too often, it's too late for her to object and escape. He's driven into a cornfield or to a bluff overlooking the lake. He pulls apart her clothing for easy access. Next act will be his zipper pulled down.
Only sick-minded perverts think in that way.
How does a female get pregnant? (Apparently, you've never been been on a date with a male teen--or older guy.)
Done. Too much sick, perverted thinking for my taste.
Sick? Perverted? My life growing up in a farm and orchard community, dating Christian farmers' sons who had one thing on their minds.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Dems are using the Alabama passing of life at conception law to target Repubs in swing districts nation wide. Ads accuse them of being anti-IVF .
Democrats hit vulnerable Republicans over IVF, support of Life At Conception Act : NPRQuote:
The ads will be displayed in districts represented by Republican Reps. David Schweikert (AZ-01), Mike Garcia (CA-27), Michelle Steel (CA-45), Marianette Miller-Meeks (IA-01), Don Bacon (NE-02), and Scott Perry (PA-10). The campaign will also target two former members who are running to return to Congress: Yvette Herrell in New Mexico and Marya Flores in Texas.
The law is already having an impact in Alabama Dem Marilyn Lands crushed her Repub opponent in Alabama District 10 special election.
Now it is in Huntsville where there are a lot of transplants from other parts of the country due to a military base and Aerospace industry. But that could be an even better indicator of how the vote will go nationally.
Democrat Marilyn Lands flips District 10 Alabama House seat (mynbc15.com)
She campaigned heavily on the issue of abortion /IVF
England, in the 18th and 19th centuries, flipped its position on both the slave trade and slave ownership because of a concerted effort by Christians led by Wilberforce, Wesley, and others. That black Africans were human beings made in God's image was the core of their argument. It took several decades, and yet they prevailed. Here, the church has largely abandoned the pro-life cause, and the so-called news media is very much anti-life in this regard. Until the church takes up the cause in an impassioned and well-informed way, then it's going to be tough sledding. That's a shame because the truth is very much in our favor.
The Catholics are unambiguous .They oppose abortion and IVF.
I break ranks with them over IVF. I don't think that a pregnancy begins until implanting. Before then ;even naturally ,more than half the fertilized eggs don't implant . Some implanted embryos spontaneously abort without the woman ever knowing she was pregnant.
Are we to believe that God would allow half the children of the world to die ?
Human life beginning at conception means that everyone in the artificial insemination business from the scientists to the people who donate sperm and egg are complicit in murder.
Without question life itself begins at conception. I say that since the ovum is very much alive and contains all of the genetic information it will ever have. It is unarguably human since it cannot be otherwise. What are we to say, that it is canine? Choosing the point of implantation seems rather arbitrary to me. Still, if you want to say that human life begins at implantation, then at least that would be the end of abortion as we think of it. It would certainly be a major step forward.Quote:
Human life beginning at conception means that everyone in the artificial insemination business from the scientists to the people who donate sperm and egg are complicit in murder.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:57 AM. |