Morality is unique to individuals, the law is NOT. That's what makes your question so stupid as you stated it because under law killing a child or any human is MURDER, not so with a fetus except for the establishment of viability which by law is generally around 20 weeks. Your muleheaded denial of the answers you have gotten which amounts to 2 people by my count, is but proof of dismissal of any thinking other than your own.

Accept that others do not share your passions, or some beliefs, you will get to a better understanding of the answers you have been given. You don't want to hear what others think, just confirm what YOU think! Such callous disregard for others, in my opinion, is why you draw the false equivalence between a fetus and a child, be it by law or moral law of which there is NONE, and as proof I offer the fact a fine human as yourself and religious as all get out can take a moral stance yet follow a PROVEN lying, cheating dufus because he delivers to you the things you want.

That's probably why you cannot that you have gotten answers to your question and accuse us of not have thought about our responses very deeply, because they are not what you want to hear. That's your issue to deal with and no one else's so at least don't LIE about it.

Quote:

---

Morality is unique to individuals, the law is NOT.

---

You actually have it backwards. Morality precedes law, and not the other way around. People can have different religious beliefs, but we enact laws based upon moral standards.

Quote:

---

That's what makes your question so stupid as you stated it because under law killing a child or any human is MURDER, not so with a fetus except for the establishment of viability which by law is generally around 20 weeks.

---

You contradict yourself. Killing a fetus after 20 weeks is most certainly not murder in any state. Many states have no limits whatsoever on the age of the fetus. At any rate, my question is absolutely a moral one and therefore of greater importance than law. It could, however, be phrased this way if you prefer a legal manner. Why should it be legal to kill a fetus at 18 weeks, but not at 22 weeks?

Quote:

---

accuse us of not have thought about our responses very deeply, because they are not what you want to hear.

---

Pay closer attention. Yours is the ONLY response so far, and your arugument is basically that it's legal, so it must be alright, which is the same terrible argument used in favor of slavery prior to 1860. Thankfully, many people then felt that the law was immoral even though, being the law, it was legal. I apply the same standard to abortion.

At least you tried.

Baby at seventeen weeks. Look human to you? Do you really believe it should be legal to kill that child? Really?

https://img.etsystatic.com/il/120116....jpg?version=1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

A completely ridiculous analysis. To refer to unborn children as unbelievers is totally non-biblical.

---

Fair enough. Then please describe what IS biblical when it comes to belief/unbelief in terms of age? Can a 1-year-old be condemned for unbelief? A 5-year-old? 10? 20? 50?

Quote:

---

Don't feel too badly about not answering the question.

---

I don't feel badly at all since I never saw the question and don't know what it is.

Quote:

---

Fair enough. Then please describe what IS biblical when it comes to belief/unbelief in terms of age? Can a 1-year-old be condemned for unbelief? A 5-year-old? 10? 20? 50?

---

Good question. The issue revolves around the guilt of sin. We need a Savior to absolve us of our sin guilt before God. Unborn children have no sin. Infants have no sin. Now when do children reach the age where their awareness of sin would make them accountable before God is a good question. So far as I know, the Bible never directly addresses it, but there are several scriptures that, at least indirectly, refer to it. Dt. 1:39 says, "And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it." Here are many other texts should you care to look at them. But one way or the other, we are not changing the subject here. The question, for your benefit, is this. What is the moral difference between killing an unborn child and killing a child that has been born?

https://www.openbible.info/topics/age_of_accountability

Quote:

---

We differ on that because most Americans would notify the FBI about being contacted by the Russians, and wouldn't lie about it repeatedly.

---

most administrations would've notified the candidate that the Russians may be trying to infiltrate their campaign if that was true ; and raised concerns to the candidate about their concerns about Russian ties that Carter Page and Manafort may have had .

No the Trump tower meeting was a set up orchestrated by Glenn Simpson and the Evita campaign as a sting. There was absolutely nothing wrong about having a meeting with someone who claimed to have dirt on their opposing candidate . Campaigns do it all the time . In fact ,the DNC and Evita paid for oppo research from someone who used Russian sources .

Quote:

---

People can have different religious beliefs, but we enact laws based upon moral standards.

---

Ergo abortions are legal and women can have them. Laws are changed and modified all the time in this country. It took a war to end slavery. You have said it's different when there is war and killing is legal, men women and children, so even you have a exception that you allow. That's why I ask whose morality becomes the law, and what is the course of action after the deed is done?

Did you thank the women with 4 kids for NOT having an abortion? Is abstinence the only option you offer going forward? You've never even commented on all those men with a bunch of baby mamas. In a perfect world, maybe you have a strong case, but reality says the world and the people in it are NOT perfect and nothing man does and creates is either, and you have to deal with that REALITY. You want to change the LAW? Okay then you have to ENFORCE it and punish those that break the law.

According to you also, you should pick who you help, and HOW, and that's fine, but what of those you do not help, and no one else does either?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

most administrations would've notified the candidate that the Russians may be trying to infiltrate their campaign if that was true ; and raised concerns to the candidate about their concerns about Russian ties that Carter Page and Manafort may have had .

No the Trump tower meeting was a set up orchestrated by Glenn Simpson and the Evita campaign as a sting. There was absolutely nothing wrong about having a meeting with someone who claimed to have dirt on their opposing candidate . Campaigns do it all the time . In fact ,the DNC and Evita paid for oppo research from someone who used Russian sources .

---

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckra...infiltrate-spy

That doesn't explain why members of the dufus campaign lied about Russian contact, if it was legit and innocent. My theory is that Vlad played every body and they all were set up. The whole story has yet to emerge.

Quote:

---

You have said it's different when there is war and killing is legal, men women and children, so even you have a exception that you allow.

---

I've never said that.

Quote:

---

Did you thank the women with 4 kids for NOT having an abortion? Is abstinence the only option you offer going forward? You've never even commented on all those men with a bunch of baby mamas.

---

Abstinence is not the only option and I've said that repeatedly. It is the best and only 100% reliable option. And yes, I've commented many times on men who father children and then walk away. It is a terrible thing to do. Are you having memory problems???

Quote:

---

In a perfect world, maybe you have a strong case, but reality says the world and the people in it are NOT perfect and nothing man does and creates is either, and you have to deal with that REALITY. You want to change the LAW? Okay then you have to ENFORCE it and punish those that break the law.

---

It's not a perfect world. OK, so should we then excuse rape? How about murder? How about if someone breaks into your house and takes everything you own at gunpoint. Would you be satisfied if the cops said, "Well, Mr. Tal, we can only do so much. After all, it's not a perfect world?" Why is it that people only drag the "perfect world" argument out when it is someone else who is being killed?

Quote:

---

According to you also, you should pick who you help, and HOW, and that's fine, but what of those you do not help, and no one else does either?

---

If I follow your logic, we could just go up and kill their children. Problem solved and after all, it's not a perfect world. That is exactly the approach you are taking with abortion. You are just killing the children at a different stage of development. Truthfully, in your fearful refusal to take a position of discouraging women from having babies outside of marriage, you are encouraging the very thing you claim to have such charitable impulses for. Your liberal orthodoxy is at the root of this problem. To persuade women to reserve child bearing for marriage is the most charitable, loving thing you can do for them, and yet it is the one thing above all else you will not do.

Quote:

---

You have said it's different when there is war and killing is legal, men women and children, so even you have a exception that you allow.

---

I've never said that.

Sure you did. The reference was your position of those that died in Benghazi, and my rebuttal was those that have died on the Dufus's watch. You can go back and check if you like.

Quote:

---

Did you thank the women with 4 kids for NOT having an abortion? Is abstinence the only option you offer going forward? You've never even commented on all those men with a bunch of baby mamas.

---

Abstinence is not the only option and I've said that repeatedly. It is the best and only 100% reliable option. And yes, I've commented many times on men who father children and then walk away. It is a terrible thing to do. Are you having memory problems???

So you do recommend the morning after pill, or seeing a doctor once pregnancy is suspected and confirmed.


I

Quote:

---

n a perfect world, maybe you have a strong case, but reality says the world and the people in it are NOT perfect and nothing man does and creates is either, and you have to deal with that REALITY. You want to change the LAW? Okay then you have to ENFORCE it and punish those that break the law.

---

It's not a perfect world. OK, so should we then excuse rape? How about murder? How about if someone breaks into your house and takes everything you own at gunpoint. Would you be satisfied if the cops said, "Well, Mr. Tal, we can only do so much. After all, it's not a perfect world?" Why is it that people only drag the "perfect world" argument out when it is someone else who is being killed?

What part of the LAW defines what rape and murder is and the consequences for committing them are you having trouble with? Cops gather facts from victims and TRY to solve the case, and in reality, many go unsolved. You can get emotional at that reality but does that help? Not always. You still have to overcome what reality has dealt you and put your life in order, or stay stuck by what has happened. As you have said everybody struggles. (Some more than others, and I guess it's easy to dismiss the struggles of others-My words.)

Quote:

---

According to you also, you should pick who you help, and HOW, and that's fine, but what of those you do not help, and no one else does either?

---

If I follow your logic, we could just go up and kill their children. Problem solved and after all, it's not a perfect world. That is exactly the approach you are taking with abortion. You are just killing the children at a different stage of development. Truthfully, in your fearful refusal to take a position of encouraging women to not have children outside of marriage, you are encouraging the very thing you claim to have such charitable impulses for. Your liberal orthodoxy is at the root of this problem. To persuade women to reserve child bearing for marriage is the most charitable, loving thing you can do for them, and yet it is the one thing above all else you will not do.

That's not my logic just your spin. My logic is let people make their own decisions and live with the consequences, or the blessings. Your conservative orthodoxy is YOUR right and every body else is wrong. Woman won the right to choose, as they did the vote. I'm not saying your wrong, but clearly the law says you cannot force your orthodoxy on others LEGALLY.

That leaves your only choice is to change the law, and express your displeasure. Neither you nor I can make anyone follow our suggestions, logical though they may be. We are free to act after the deed is done mistakes or not. My suggestion to females, and males, is make decisions based on facts and NO I will not join you promoting your child bearing only when married meme, or abstinence as a mandatory obligation until marriage.

Great ideas but totally voluntary. Are you suggesting laws for that, and enforcement and punishment?

Quote:

---

So you do recommend the morning after pill, or seeing a doctor once pregnancy is suspected and confirmed.

---

Just depends, from your point of view, on how you want to kill a human being. My recommendation is either abstinence or the rigorous use of effective birth control, and above all to honor life.

Quote:

---

What part of the LAW defines what rape and murder is and the consequences for committing them are you having trouble with? Cops gather facts from victims and TRY to solve the case, and in reality, many go unsolved. You can get emotional at that reality but does that help? Not always. You still have to overcome what reality has dealt you and put your life in order, or stay stuck by what has happened. As you have said everybody struggles. (Some more than others, and I guess it's easy to dismiss the struggles of others-My words.)

---

Like I said, that's the philosophy of the man whose wife or daughter was not raped. But one way or the other, to look at hundreds of thousands of deaths a year and just shrug your shoulders and say, "Hey. It's just not a perfect world, so live with it," is not enough for me. The slave owners could have said basically the same thing.

Quote:

---

My logic is let people make their own decisions and live with the consequences, or the blessings.

---

No, your logic is to let people make their own decisions and then force taxpayers to pay for the consequences.

Quote:

---

My suggestion to females, and males, is make decisions based on facts and NO I will not join you promoting your child bearing only when married meme, or abstinence as a mandatory obligation until marriage.

---

Liberal orthodoxy strikes again. And I wish you would stop repeating your intentional lie that I am suggesting abstinence as a mandatory obligation. I've never said that and you know it.

To repeat, I am glad I don't live in a world where I can look at the pic I posted above and say, "Oh well. No big deal." I just can't fathom that kind of thinking.

Quote:

---

Sure you did. The reference was your position of those that died in Benghazi, and my rebuttal was those that have died on the Dufus's watch. You can go back and check if you like.

---

Nope. Never suggested that killing non-combatants is fine and dandy. Besides, the people killed in the attack on the consulate were male terrorists. What women and children are you talking about???

JL said recently in this thread, "Infants have no sin."
That's very incorrect. Among other verses, Ps. 51:5 refutes that with, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me." Beginning at the moment of birth, babies are total id, total wanting, demanding, selfishness, me, me, me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Just depends, from your point of view, on how you want to kill a human being. My recommendation is either abstinence or the rigorous use of effective birth control, and above all to honor life.

---

We agree. How to make others honor life may take some doing though.

Quote:

---

Like I said, that's the philosophy of the man whose wife or daughter was not raped. But one way or the other, to look at hundreds of thousands of deaths a year and just shrug your shoulders and say, "Hey. It's just not a perfect world, so live with it," is not enough for me. The slave owners could have said basically the same thing.

---

Not sure I understand you, but neither of can control anyone else's actions. Nor do I see your point of slavery since it's historic facts that slavery was legal and owners could do whatever they wanted with them. A war changed that and that struggle continues.

Quote:

---

No, your logic is to let people make their own decisions and then force taxpayers to pay for the consequences.

---

Again a matter of LAW and obviously again you are outvoted.

Quote:

---

Liberal orthodoxy strikes again. And I wish you would stop repeating your intentional lie that I am suggesting abstinence as a mandatory obligation. I've never said that and you know it.

---

Call it what you want, I ain't jumping on that bandwagon whatever your intentions, or my misreading of it.

Quote:

---

To repeat, I am glad I don't live in a world where I can look at the pic I posted above and say, "Oh well. No big deal." I just can't fathom that kind of thinking.

---

It is a big deal. I'm not for abortion. It's not the only thing I am not for, but I just don't rant and rave as you do about what I'm not for. I guess we both are powerless to make others do the right thing as we see it.

Quote:

---

Nope. Never suggested that killing non-combatants is fine and dandy. Besides, the people killed in the attack on the consulate were male terrorists. What women and children are you talking about???

---

Never said you did, but you raised a stink about our losses in Benghazi, 3 of whom were armed and trained for battle. No its not fine that collateral damages occur but foolish to think that there will never be none. Other engagements in these armed conflicts have resulted in those deaths of women and children and MEN non combatants and it's hypocrisy to think you can pick just one of many tragic outcomes.

In many conflicts they use women and kids as suicide bombers or shields. How do you tell them apart? There has always been and will always be collateral damage in armed conflicts and we may not like it, but it's just sad reality.

Quote:

---

It is a big deal. I'm not for abortion. It's not the only thing I am not for, but I just don't rant and rave as you do about what I'm not for. I guess we both are powerless to make others do the right thing as we see it.

---

I fully understand. It is a busy world with many problems to solve. When I look at the pictures I posted above, it just moves abortion to the front of the line. I don't know what it is going to take to stop it. I can't say I'm hopeful, but I am not hopeless either.

Quote:

---

In many conflicts they use women and kids as suicide bombers or shields. How do you tell them apart? There has always been and will always be collateral damage in armed conflicts and we may not like it, but it's just sad reality.

---

Very true. We should thank God every day that we are not in that situation in the United States.

Quote:

---

That's very incorrect. Among other verses, Ps. 51:5 refutes that with, "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me." Beginning at the moment of birth, babies are total id, total wanting, demanding, selfishness, me, me, me.

---

Good point. The scripture above is usually thought to mean that we are all born with a propensity towards sin, but not an awareness of sin or of wrongdoing, so the sin is not intentional. Now when does a child become accountable for intentional disobedience of God? Good question. I don't know that there is an exact age, but it certainly would not be at infancy.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/30/u...ller-barr.html

Quote:

---

The letter adds to the growing evidence of a rift between them and is another sign of

the anger among the special counsel’s investigators

about Mr. Barr’s characterization of their findings, which allowed Mr. Trump to wrongly claim he had been vindicated.

---

Now we know why Barr REALLY doesn't want to testify before comgress tomorrow.

Human death is the result of sin. Unborn babies can die. Therefore they are sinful and infected with sin, even if not personally sinners.

Well that explains everything except why you religious types keep jacking a politics thread. Enough of this you got anything to say about our lying cheating government or NOT?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Well that explains everything except why you religious types keep jacking a politics thread. Enough of this you got anything to say about our lying cheating government or NOT?

---

Difficult when people don't want to talk about what you want to talk about. It is all about which argument they can't get satisfaction about. What did the words of the song say " I can't get no satisfaction". I think we all know Trump is a blight upon the nation for those who aren't in government, and the thought of mister blown in the wind Biden in the seat, well I pity you. Bolshevik Bernie might be a real change. But the reality is you really should stop killing people, whether it is the unborn, the victims of your wars, or the victims of your gun culture. Other nations can do it, why can't you. You cannot say yours is no nation for old men. Do you have any younger capable people or is it they just don't have any money?

Quote:

---

Human death is the result of sin. Unborn babies can die. Therefore they are sinful and infected with sin, even if not personally sinners.

---

Prone to sin, yes. Held responsible is another matter.

Should Barr and the dufus be held responsible for their LIES to the American people or does the religious types ignore the current status of affairs? The obviously COLLUDED and CONSPIRED to deceive the public.

Quote:

---

Should Barr and the dufus be held responsible for their LIES to the American people or does the religious types ignore the current status of affairs? The obviously COLLUDED and CONSPIRED to deceive the public.

---

I thought he colluded with the Russkies? Now they colluded and conspired to deceive the public? When did that become a crime? And if it is, then no one is more guilty that Mr. Obama. So should he be held responsible as well?

That's your excuse for letting the dufus and his sycophants stink up the government? Of course he colluded with the Russians, and now he is colluding with Barr to cover his butt. Just because it's not a crime doesn't make it right. If HC and Obama done wrong does that relieve you of admitting wrong is being done NOW? We have known repubs are totally incompetent to bring wrong doing to an account, I hope the dems do better.

Just a gripe that never ends. Trump is about the most naïve candidate to ever be elected or so you would think.

Quote:

---

The obviously COLLUDED and CONSPIRED to deceive the public.

---

What Politician doesn't practice deception?

Quote:

---

Deceiving others. That is what the world calls a Romance.

---

(Oscar Wilde)

Such is the world, Brother.

GET TRUMP!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Good question. The issue revolves around the guilt of sin. We need a Savior to absolve us of our sin guilt before God. Unborn children have no sin. Infants have no sin. Now when do children reach the age where their awareness of sin would make them accountable before God is a good question. So far as I know, the Bible never directly addresses it, but there are several scriptures that, at least indirectly, refer to it. Dt. 1:39 says, "And as for your little ones, who you said would become a prey, and your children, who today have no knowledge of good or evil, they shall go in there. And to them I will give it, and they shall possess it." Here are many other texts should you care to look at them. But one way or the other, we are not changing the subject here. The question, for your benefit, is this. What is the moral difference between killing an unborn child and killing a child that has been born?

https://www.openbible.info/topics/age_of_accountability

---

Sorry I hijacked this thread. I didn't read the whole thing before posting.

To continue, I will start a new thread and call it - Abortion, Guilt, Sin and Hell, etc., ethttps://www.askmehelpdesk.com/clear.gifc., etc.

Quote:

---

Of course he colluded with the Russians,

---

Your dem friend Mueller concluded otherwise.

Mueller found no evidence of CRIMINAL conspiracy or coordination as outlined in his summation of volume I. He stated because he found none it doesn't mean there was none He never addressed collusion, because as stated in said volume, there is no term in law that defines such a term. He concluded though that both the campaign and the Russians both expected to benefit from the Russian actions during the election campaign. He lays out the events and actors that occurred which is more that 100 cases of contacts between the campaign and the Russians, so in fact the NO COLLUSION meme by Barr and the dufus is patently false.

I have already quoted the reasons Mueller gave for not bringing charges against the dufus because DOJ policy expressly prohibits it. I am sure more facts will come to light as the congress does it's job despite obstructions, stalling, and challenges from the WH and his minions.

Quote:

---

Mueller found no evidence of CRIMINAL conspiracy or coordination

I have already quoted the reasons Mueller gave for not bringing charges against the dufus because DOJ policy expressly prohibits it.

---

So which way is it? Did he not bring charges because of no evidence of criminal activity, or because of DOJ policy?

BOTH, they are not mutually exclusive and he sites and documents specific incidence that were inconclusive because of witness failure to recall, or facts deleted due to an app that doesn't retain specific communications. Lets be clear, there is NO exoneration of collusion, or obstruction. The first section outlines very clearly and specifically relates the actions of dufus campaign members and officials. You should read it yourself.

I'm watching Barr's senate hearing now and must point out that Chairman's Grahams opening statement was not about the report, but about HC, while co chair Feinstein ran down the list of the report summary. I also should point out the outstanding investigations farmed out to several jurisdictions for further criminal and civil actions.

Quote:

---

they are not mutually exclusive

---

They are not mutually exclusive? OK. Explain to me how there can be no evidence of criminial activity, and yet you say there are no charges brought because of DOJ policies. How can you bring charges when there is no evidence of criminal activity?

That's the DOJ policy, he didn't say there was no evidence, just not enough that rises to the level of criminal conspiracy definitively with the Russians. Disregard Barr's assertion that there was no collusion, no obstruction and read the report. Inconclusive was the word I used to describe Mueller's conspiracy "evidence". I think Mueller is bending over backwards to be fair to the president.

Please forgive me my friend, I have been distracted by the events in Venezuela, as it's being reported that 25, 000 Cuban troops have been sent there and Russia and China are raising heck over our interference in a foreign country, and thanks for being gracefully enough to stick with the original subject.

Much appreciated.

Quote:

---

just not enough that rises to the level of criminal conspiracy definitively with the Russians.

---

So are you saying that charges can be brought when the evidence of criminal, in this case conspiracy, is not sufficient?

NO, they cannot be brought against a sitting president according to DOJ policy.

Quote:

---

NO, they cannot be brought against a sitting president according to DOJ policy.

---

In this case, charges were not filed, according to your analysis, because of a lack of evidence. If that is the case, then DOJ policies are irrelevant in this instance.

How so, I don't follow you.

No charges were filed because, you said, there was not sufficient evidence. That is the reason. It doesn't matter what DOJ policies are if there is not enough evidence, and that, you said, was the case, so the issue is closed from a criminal point of view BECAUSE OF LACK OF EVIDENCE.

No criminal charges as far as conspiracy, but the obstruction remains an open question. You can still have abuse of power and other high crimes and misdemeanors as lesser charges besides conspiracy. You never know where an investigation leads. Collusion may yet still be on the table. The Barr testimony today before the senate was shocking in that he testified he never even read the underlying findings before he exonerated the dufus of collusion and obstruction so I'm trying figure out HOW that is even possible. Even with no charges he went so far as to say the prez was wrongly accused in the first place with so much documented probable cause laid out, and signed off by Rosenstein, and documented by Mueller's report.

Baffling, but just focus on the actual congressional testimony is my suggestion as Barr appears before the House tomorrow. .

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

No charges were filed because, you said, there was not sufficient evidence. That is the reason. It doesn't matter what DOJ policies are if there is not enough evidence, and that, you said, was the case, so the issue is closed from a criminal point of view BECAUSE OF LACK OF EVIDENCE.

---

THERE WAS PLENTY OF EVIDENCE. In fact, Mueller cited ten instances of obstruction of justice. He did not file charges because Trump would not be able to defend himself. However, Trump is not protected from impeachment. So Mueller has given the House enough ammunition to impeach Trump.

Pelosi is against impeachment because the Senate is unlikely to convict. Many other Democrats, however, support impeachment because it is their duty and because the American public will then know what a sleaze Trump is and because a Senate trial will force Republicans to explain to their constituents why they voted against convicting such a crook.

Quote:

---

the obstruction remains an open question.

---

I would agree with that, as the whole issue behind the FISA warrant remains an open question.

Quote:

---

THERE WAS PLENTY OF EVIDENCE.

---

I was going on what Tal had said. You would have to read the whole discussion.

The real criminal activity is very likely to be what the FBI and the Obama admin did with the FISA warrant. Stay tuned.

Barr us refusing to appear before the House tomorrow and face questioning by the house counsel. Can't blame him since he wouldn't be able to run out the 5 minute clock with nonsense legalese and would be open to follow up questions. Will the senate interview Mueller?

I'd be careful about wanting those FISA warrants, you may get a lot more than you bargained for. Carter Page was cleared AGAIN because they found him an unwitting fool AGAIN.