1. You can just as easily look without ones self and form whatever ideas you want and many people with reference books can have their own ideas separate and apart from others readings of the same book/bible. I can respect that and have no control over others, just MYSELF. I guess that's between the individual and his God. My own relationship with a God that I understand gives me much peace and understanding as well as guidance through this reality. What more should I want?

2. True of course the struggles to gain freedom, equality, and that struggle continues after all of those changes in law, many years and decades after the civil war, as it was with abortion becoming legal. That's just a fact of reality, right or wrong. You make your own call and follow your own actions as you struggle to change the laws you disagree with. That doesn't mean I take abortion as fine, just take a different tact than yours.

3. You may believe in what you wrote, but I do not and you can blast me for it, but that's okay, nothing new there, but changing your mind about it is pretty useless as a point of discussion at this time.

4. Are procedures done within the first month or too in a private doctors office considered an abortion?

5. LOL, Clinics for women's heath are basically non-partisan because who cares about party or church affiliations. Not saying churches and conservatives don't give as good a care just because of those affiliations, nor would they turn away anyone because of race religion or party affiliation.

Your not saying that only Christian churches and conservatives run clinics for women are you? Just seems that way in your area right?

Quote:

---

3. You may believe in what you wrote, but I do not and you can blast me for it, but that's okay, nothing new there, but changing your mind about it is pretty useless as a point of discussion at this time.

---

I haven't blasted you. You stated that what I wrote was not accurate. So for the third time, what was inaccurate?

Quote:

---

4. Are procedures done within the first month or too in a private doctors office considered an abortion?

---

Yes. I was at the clinic today and thought about you. You should have seen the cars coming and going. They were not the cars of the poor.

Quote:

---

5. Not saying churches and conservatives don't give as good a care just because of those affiliations, nor would they turn away anyone because of race religion or party affiliation.

---

That is actually exactly what you said. I'm glad to see you don't really believe it.

Quote:

---

Your not saying that only Christian churches and conservatives run clinics for women are you? Just seems that way in your area right?

---

I was replying to your contention that conservatives don't care about women after the baby is born. That is just flatly untrue. In fact, I would argue that outside of bragging about what the feds do with other people's money, liberals do very little to help single moms. That might be an overstatement, but conservative Christian churches are generally very ready to help single mothers.

How do you support a political party that proudly flies the flag of unrestricted abortion up to nine months of pregnancy? Nearly a million deaths a year of the unborn, but you want to complain about keeping meat facilities open? How is that consistent?


A misrepresentation of facts and exaggeration to boot, and your usual lumping different subjects together makes you very consistent for sure, but abortions are lawful with restrictions, and the meat supply and the virus are happening NOW! I will never be holier than thou, nor do I try too be.

That's what you wrote and my response.

As a party the dems don't support abortion up to nine months though some individuals do, but most late term proponents recognize and support the mothers life be saved if life threatening complications happen. A nuanced caveat, but an important one. Hope that explains my position and response better.

Quote:

---

As a party the dems don't support abortion up to nine months though some individuals do, but most late term proponents recognize and support the mothers life be saved if life threatening complications happen. A nuanced caveat, but an important one. Hope that explains my position and response better.

---

Can you name a single major democrat who has called for making late term abortions illegal, or who has introduced legislation to prevent those?

They are already illegal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aborti...tates_by_state

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partia...ortion_Ban_Act

This can be found in the link you provided that supposedly shows late term abortions to be illegal. "Since 1995, led by Congressional Republicans, the US House of Representatives and US Senate have moved several times to pass measures banning the procedure of intact dilation and extraction, also commonly known as partial birth abortion. After several long and emotional debates on the issue, such measures passed twice by wide margins, but President Bill Clinton vetoed those bills in April 1996 and October 1997 on the grounds that they did not include health exceptions."

So in what possible way do you think they are illegal???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

President Bill Clinton vetoed those bills in April 1996 and October 1997 on the grounds that they did not include health exceptions."

So in what possible way do you think they are illegal???

---

Clinton vetoed them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

This can be found in the link you provided that supposedly shows late term abortions to be illegal. "Since 1995, led by Congressional Republicans, the US House of Representatives and US Senate have moved several times to pass measures banning the procedure of intact dilation and extraction, also commonly known as partial birth abortion. After several long and emotional debates on the issue, such measures passed twice by wide margins, but President Bill Clinton vetoed those bills in April 1996 and October 1997 on the grounds that they did not include health exceptions."

So in what possible way do you think they are illegal???

---

Did you even read the second link?

Did you read the final paragraph of the second link?

"In response to this statute, many abortion providers have adopted the practice of inducing fetal demise before beginning late-term abortions. Typically, a solution of potassium chloride or digoxin is injected directly into the fetal heart using ultrasound to guide the needle.[29][30] This is often done by providers who do not perform intact dilation and extraction procedures (as well as by those who do) because they feel the broad wording of the ban compels them "to do all they can to protect themselves and their staff from the possibility of being accused."

So does it really sound to you like late term abortions are not being performed??? Read the description of that procedure several times. If it doesn't make you sick, then your humanity is suspect. Of all the dem candidates, only Tulsi Gabbard came out against late term abortions, and she was kicked repeatedly by other dems for doing so.

In addition, as far as I could figure it out, the PBAB only applies to abortions performed on women crossing state lines to get it done. What occurs within a state is still subject to state law. "Inducing fetal demise" is, of course, a euphemism for killing the baby in the womb so the staff can deliver a guaranteed dead child. I'm happy to report that those options are illegal in Mississippi.

Eight states presently allow abortion through nine months: Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Vermont, along with Washington, D.C. And guess who controls Washington, D.C.? If you said the feds, then you got it right.

https://www.christianpost.com/news/7...-new-york.html

Quote:

---

Clinton vetoed them?

---

Twice.

Former Pres Obama goes golfing a day after Michelle (and others) put out PSA's reminding people (black people specifically) how important it was to shelter in place. He and his entourage were the only ones on the course. It must be nice being part of the chosen few with no sense of the importance of setting a good example for others. You guys don't like to admit it, but he and Trump are just two peas in a pod. https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politic...7ZePc2A4Qtutyo

https://pjmedia.com/wp-content/uploa...-1-730x400.jpg

What do you think is the rationale for those RARE late term abortions? Do you also consider the procedure most women with resources have done by an OBYGYN in her office very early on in possible pregnancies to be a procedure to be banned also?

You did read the entire history of abortions that point out that Bush signed legislation that banned the procedure that Clinton vetoed, on the grounds on health considerations, didn't you? Even your own previous links point out that abortions in America are declining mostly because science is providing better options that are safer, as seen in the links that evolve the trimester restrictions to viability, effectively shrinking the window in which an abortion can be legally done.

Quote:

---

It must be nice being part of the chosen few with no sense of the importance of setting a good example for others. You guys don't like to admit it, but he and Trump are just two peas in a pod.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politic...7ZePc2A4Qtutyo

---

At least you have stopped blasting Obama for his handling of the flu epidemic on his watch, and given the dufus handling now, nobody is giving him high marks as more is revealed about it, and as his antics become more prevalent. I like Obama you like the dufus, sounds like partisan opinions clashing as usual.

Quote:

---

Do you also consider the procedure most women with resources have done by an OBYGYN in her office very early on in possible pregnancies to be a procedure to be banned also?

---

Why wouldn't they be banned? Is a baby any less human because of its age? I've included a pic of a baby at eight weeks. Look nonhuman to you?

https://assets.babycenter.com/ims/20....jpg?width=600

Quote:

---

You did read the entire history of abortions that point out that Bush signed legislation that banned the procedure that Clinton vetoed, on the grounds on health considerations, didn't you? Even your own previous links point out that abortions in America are declining mostly because science is providing better options that are safer, as seen in the links that evolve the trimester restrictions to viability, effectively shrinking the window in which an abortion can be legally done.

---

The "shrinking" of the window has been accomplished by restrictive state laws advocated by people like me and opposed by the party you support. The viability argument is balogna. A baby is perfectly viable in his/her mother's womb. It is only when a "doctor" kills the baby that viability is threatened.

Quote:

---

At least you have stopped blasting Obama for his handling of the flu epidemic on his watch,

---

You have me confused with someone else. I haven't blasted Obama for that. I would think he probably did fairly well, just like I think Trump is doing fairly well.

I'm still waiting for you to take up the banner of justice for Biden's accuser in the same way you did for Kavanaugh's accuser. You do apply your standards uniformly, don't you?

Interesting that for 2,500 years (as far back as possible to know) abortion was not considered murder or illegal. Around the late 19th century, it started to be thought of as murder and early in the 20th century, it became illegal in the industrialized countries.

Are you ignoring my questions or have no answers?

What do you think is the rationale for those RARE late term abortions? Do you also consider the procedure most women with resources have done by an OBYGYN in her office very early on in possible pregnancies to be a procedure to be banned also?

Quote:

---

Interesting that for 2,500 years (as far back as possible to know) abortion was not considered murder or illegal. Around the late 19th century, it started to be thought of as murder and early in the 20th century, it became illegal in the industrialized countries.

---

The same could basically be said of slavery or the rule of kings. The same could be said of the theory of evolution or of the nature of matter.

I'd still like to know why you accept some of the words of Christ but not all of them. What is the standard you are applying?

Quote:

---

What do you think is the rationale for those RARE late term abortions?

---

I don't think there is an acceptable rationale for killing a 9 month fetus. Can you think of one?

Quote:

---

Do you also consider the procedure most women with resources have done by an OBYGYN in her office very early on in possible pregnancies to be a procedure to be banned also?

---

I've already answered that, so I'll just copy and paste my answer which you missed. "Why wouldn't they be banned? Is a baby any less human because of its age? I've included a pic of a baby at eight weeks. Look nonhuman to you?" I even included a picture of an eight week fetus and asked if it looked nonhuman to you. Does it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I don't think there is an acceptable rationale for killing a 9 month fetus. Can you think of one?

---

The mother's life becomes an issue.

At nine months that is extremely rare, but I would certainly agree it would be valid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I don't think there is an acceptable rationale for killing a 9 month fetus. Can you think of one?

I've already answered that, so I'll just copy and paste my answer which you missed. "Why wouldn't they be banned? Is a baby any less human because of its age? I've included a pic of a baby at eight weeks. Look nonhuman to you?" I even included a picture of an eight week fetus and asked if it looked nonhuman to you. Does it?

---

1. Serious life threatening health complications to mother or child, or both.

2. Just want to clarify your life begins at conception position, for future reference as I return to the topic.

Quote:

---

1. Serious life threatening health complications to mother or child, or both.

---

Well, that is extremely rare, but I would agree with that for the mom, but on what planet would you justify an abortion for fear of a health complication for the child??? I would think an inhumane death is about as big a health complication as you can fine.

Quote:

---

2. Just want to clarify your life begins at conception position, for future reference as I return to the topic.

---

That's fine. Why don't you clarify (and justify!!) your position on when life begins.

1. Modern science can identify many catastrophic health conditions of life in the womb.

2. When it can live independently on its own. Evolved from when it's born/at birth.

The real question is when can a woman decide to terminate a pregnancy, in which 4 to 6 weeks seems reasonable to me.

Quote:

---

1. Modern science can identify many catastrophic health conditions of life in the womb.

---

Modern science can identify many catastrophic health conditions of life post-birth. So can we continue to kill them then?

Quote:

---

2. When it can live independently on its own. Evolved from when it's born/at birth.

---

So you would not allow abortions after 6 months?

Quote:

---

The real question is when can a woman decide to terminate a pregnancy, in which 4 to 6 weeks seems reasonable to me.

---

Why 4 to 6 weeks? Is the baby less human at that point? What happens at six weeks that would cause you to now allow abortions after that point?



This is the baby at six weeks. Legs, arms, head, eyes, heartbeat, brainwaves, etc.
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/fY7x2hsazTU/hqdefault.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

The same could basically be said of slavery or the rule of kings. The same could be said of the theory of evolution or of the nature of matter.

---

How is slavery the same as abortion? How is the rule of kings the same as abortion? Evolution? The nature of matter?

Quote:

---

I'd still like to know why you accept some of the words of Christ but not all of them. What is the standard you are applying?

---

This was from another thread. I will now go and find it and answer it there. Give me a little time. In the meantime, I would like to hear your explanation of what you wrote above re abortion.

Quote:

---

How is slavery the same as abortion? How is the rule of kings the same as abortion? Evolution? The nature of matter?

---

They all represent conditions or ideas which changed the past two centuries, just like you said was true of abortion. So a change of perspective doesn't indicate falsehood like you certainly seemed to indicate was the case with abortion. Ideas change all the time. It was certainly never true, however, that abortions took place by the millions, nor were they ever as commonplace as they have become.

Quote:

---

This was from another thread. I will now go and find it and answer it there. Give me a little time. In the meantime, I would like to hear your explanation of what you wrote above re abortion.

---

Yeah. Right. It was post 114 from this thread which was YESTERDAY. But I'll wait patiently as I always do for you to answer a question.

1. They probably were never as public as they are today.

2. I would rather talk about the dufus ordering meat packing plants opened without enforcing guidelines to protect workers, or help for the rising virus infections in those communities. Between those plants, prisons, and nursing homes we have several hotspots while in some places they have run out of places to put the dead bodies.

I figured it wouldn't be too long before you were back on your pet bashing project.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

1. They probably were never as public as they are today.

---

Nope. There were fewer people back then, and Granny Jones or Aunt Maude or the neighbor lady or anyone who "knew how" initiated abortions.

From https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-b...tion_b_6324610

"Abortion isn’t new
Abortion has been widely used in America since its earliest days. In the 1950s, estimates of numbers of illegal, unsafe abortions ranged widely, from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. The methods used were often ineffective and dangerous. Desperate women were driven into the back alley, where they endured danger and abuse, sometimes sexual.

Tools of the trade
Surveys in New York City in the mid-1960s revealed the variety of methods used. Treatments women took by mouth included turpentine, bleach, detergents and a range of herbal and vegetable teas. Quinine and chloroquine (malaria medicines) were ingested, and potassium permanganate was placed in the vagina, often causing chemical burns. Toxic solutions were squirted into the uterus, such as soap and turpentine, often causing kidney failure and death...Insertion of foreign bodies was common and more effective than oral agents. Objects included a coat hanger, knitting needle, bicycle spoke, ball-point pen, chicken bone and rubber catheter. Some women threw themselves off of stairs or roofs in an attempt to end a pregnancy."

From 1970-2016 there were 46,413,319 abortions reported to the CDC. (Wikipedia, Abortion Statistics). Roe vs. Wade was passed in 1973.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You posted earlier that the NT teaches love for God, love for others, and love for self. That is based upon a completely literal acceptance of the words of Jesus. Why is it that you accept literally the parts you like, and completely reject the notion of coming judgment which is clearly spelled out (every bit as clearly as love for God, neighbor, and self) in Matthew 25? What objective standard are you applying?[

---

An objective standard would presume a standard against which the Bible could be compared for its accuracy. The Bible consists of 70+ books written by almost as many authors in source languages in original books that are no longer available for comparison to apply a measurement. The result is that an objective standard does not exist. What is left is hermeneutics and exegesis.

The Catholic Church has an approach as good as any. It understands the Bible in a literal sense, a moral sense, an allegorical sense and a mystical sense. The point being - there are a number of ways to interpret the Bible.

Literalists (speaking for myself, not the Catholic Church) give the words their meaning without applying any connotations or deeper levels the words may have - in other words; strictly - according to the basic primary meaning of the words.

For example the literalist believes that a talking snake tempted Eve in the garden, that God created the world in six days, and that Noah built an ark that carried all the living creatures during a global flood so that the animals would repopulate the planet after the waters receded. These are creation myths - stories that have useful points (morals) but not to be taken literally.

To answer your question - Jesus' words of love are taken as written since they are wholly consistent with his message and with the message of both Old and New Testaments. Matthew 25 as you interpret it is wholly inconsistent with Jesus.

Quote:

---

The conviction of the Holy Spirit is "fundamentalist jargon"? Huh. I thought it was the words of Christ. I suppose that's another NT concept you don't accept as literal

---

I don't think those are the exact words of Christ but I have no argument with it.

Quote:

---

When you read a passage which agrees with your ideas and strikes you as reasonable, then you accept it as true.

---

This is not a bad argument. Don't you do the same thing? Doesn't everybody do the same thing? We apply our brains and reasoning power to make decisions, even of faith - especially of faith!

Quote:

---

When you read a passage which does not agree with your ideas, well then it, etc., etc., etc.

---

This, of course, has been my argument against your interpretation of Bible verses which you have simply turned around and used the same argument against me. (This is a typical tactic of Trump).

Your argument boils down to, "The Bible is true". Why? "Because the Bible says it's true". I hope you see the faulty logic there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

They all represent conditions or ideas which changed the past two centuries, just like you said was true of abortion. So a change of perspective doesn't indicate falsehood like you certainly seemed to indicate was the case with abortion.

---

I NEVER indicated what you say I did. Your hostility is getting the best of you.

Quote:

---

It was certainly never true, however, that abortions took place by the millions, nor were they ever as commonplace as they have become.

---

WG disagrees. How do you come by that information about abortion in the past?

Quote:

---

Yeah. Right. It was post 114 from this thread which was YESTERDAY. But I'll wait patiently as I always do for you to answer a question.

---

More nastiness. I don't spend my life here, as you apparently do.

Quote:

---

To answer your question - Jesus' words of love are taken as written since they are wholly consistent with his message and with the message of both Old and New Testaments. Matthew 25 as you interpret it is wholly inconsistent with Jesus.

---

Since the Bible is, in your view, unreliable and certainly not, itself, an objective standard, then aren't you left in the position of basically guessing which statements of Christ to accept and which to reject? How would you possibly know what His message was if the NT is not reliable?

Quote:

---

This is not a bad argument. Don't you do the same thing? Doesn't everybody do the same thing? We apply our brains and reasoning power to make decisions, even of faith - especially of faith!

---

You are making two arguments at once. It is one thing to suggest that we only accept the ideas of the Bible we agree with. A person who does so sets him/herself above the Bible and becomes, in effect, its judge. Now to apply our brains and powers of reason to understand the Bible is proper. It is two entirely different concepts.

But I'm glad you have finally "gone public" and admitted that you basically have no objective standard to apply to the Bible than your own personal tastes. What I find surprising is that you have no inclination to allow others to do the same.

Quote:

---

"Abortion isn’t new
Abortion has been widely used in America since its earliest days. In the 1950s, estimates of numbers of illegal, unsafe abortions ranged widely, from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year. The methods used were often ineffective and dangerous. Desperate women were driven into the back alley, where they endured danger and abuse, sometimes sexual.

Tools of the trade
Surveys in New York City in the mid-1960s revealed the variety of methods used. Treatments women took by mouth included turpentine, bleach, detergents and a range of herbal and vegetable teas. Quinine and chloroquine (malaria medicines) were ingested, and potassium permanganate was placed in the vagina, often causing chemical burns. Toxic solutions were squirted into the uterus, such as soap and turpentine, often causing kidney failure and death...Insertion of foreign bodies was common and more effective than oral agents. Objects included a coat hanger, knitting needle, bicycle spoke, ball-point pen, chicken bone and rubber catheter. Some women threw themselves off of stairs or roofs in an attempt to end a pregnancy."

---

So? Tragedies happened. Women and babies died. You feel better now that only the babies die? Is that really your point???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Since the Bible is, in your view, unreliable and certainly not, itself, an objective standard, then aren't you left in the position of basically guessing which statements of Christ to accept and which to reject? How would you possibly know what His message was if the NT is not reliable?

---

You have totally missed Athos' (not Athos's!) point.

Quote:

---

So? Tragedies happened. Women and babies died. You feel better now that only the babies die? Is that really your point???

---

I was actually responding to your recent comment (via tal's response), "It was certainly never true, however, that abortions took place by the millions, nor were they ever as commonplace as they have become."

The statistics refute that.
"In the 1950s, estimates of numbers of illegal, unsafe abortions ranged widely, from 200,000 to 1.2 million per year.

Quote:

---

You have totally missed Athos' (not Athos's!) point.

---

Fine. Summarize it for us and tell me where I missed it specifically, but don't put the summary in quotes! I will warn you that I'm pretty sure I didn't miss it at all. And remember that you are no longer the grammar guru. 8D 8D

Quote:

---

I was actually responding to your recent comment (via tal's response), "It was certainly never true, however, that abortions took place by the millions, nor were they ever as commonplace as they have become."

---

You do realize that the context was relative to centuries ago, not 1950. But even at that, I hope you understand that your estimate came from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a research arm associated with Planned Parenthood. In fact they characterize themselves as, "a leading research and policy organization committed to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights in the United States." So I very much doubt those figures.

You did not answer this. "You feel better now that only the babies die? Is that really your point???"

Hate to break up boble scholars but we do have current events!

https://www.foxnews.com/us/michigan-...ol-guns-rifles

https://pbs.twimg.com/ext_tw_video_t...g&name=900x900

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Fine. Summarize it for us and tell me where I missed it specifically, but don't put the summary in quotes! I will warn you that I'm pretty sure I didn't miss it at all. And remember that you are no longer the grammar guru. 8D 8D

---

I'll let Athos follow up. :D

Quote:

---

You do realize that the context was relative to centuries ago, not 1950. But even at that, I hope you understand that your estimate came from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a research arm associated with Planned Parenthood. In fact they characterize themselves as, "a leading research and policy organization committed to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights in the United States." So I very much doubt those figures.

---

They're probably higher. Remember your not knowing (or believing) how we females passed along information to each other about abortions by females we knew or heard about?

Quote:

---

I'll let Athos follow up. :D

---

Hmmm.

Quote:

---

They're probably higher. Remember your not knowing (or believing) how we females passed along information to each other about abortions by females we knew or heard about?

---

So now you're appealing to anecdotal information? Hmmm again.

http://dailytorch.com/wp-content/upl...ats-Ad-600.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

So now you're appealing to anecdotal information? Hmmm again.

---

Our menfolk weren't interested. Apparently, they still aren't....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Our menfolk weren't interested. Apparently, they still aren't....

---

You have heard the one about the one who cried wolf, well we heard the cry of wolf too many times and so we remain sceptical because little girls caught in the act used the excuse

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

You have heard the one about the one who cried wolf, well we heard the cry of wolf too many times and so we remain skeptical

---

The cries by the women you wolves got pregnant on those hot dates?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

The cries by the women you wolves got pregnant on those hot dates?

---

I never got anyone pregnant on a hot date, not all of us live our life the way the americans do

Quote:

---

The cries by the women you wolves got pregnant on those hot dates?

---

You must have had some kind of really different childhood. That kind of thing, in my day, was RARE.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You must have had some kind of really different childhood. That kind of thing, in my day, was RARE.

---

You have no clue. There weren't cornfields and haylofts and lake bluffs where you lived as a teen and young adult?