For those who assume supporting a Trump presidency over a Biden one means being a MAGA Trumper....

[JaySecrets]

It's an argument that is supported by belief, not by facts. You should figure out how to actually use the quote button when quoting.

You can believe that your conceited belief is fact, but it is not.

No... These are those WITH a belief, SUPPORTING that belief through accurate citing of irrefutable history. Kind of like you cite sources biased towards the murder of babies so that you can live however you like then just murder the baby without consequence to your conscience.... Only in this case they cite actual historical facts.

 

[ll74]

No... These are those WITH a belief, SUPPORTING that belief through accurate citing of irrefutable history.

You are conceited and you cherry pick data and sources to support your position. You also refuse to accept that other people's position is valid.

Kind of like you cite sources biased towards the murder of babies so that you can live however you like then just murder the baby without consequence to your conscience.... Only in this case they cite actual historical facts.

I provide definitions of words from the dictionary. You refuse to accept actual definitions of words. I haven't actually cited anything else because my position doesn't require anything else.

 

[JaySecrets]

You are conceited and you cherry pick data and sources to support your position. You also refuse to accept that other people's position is valid.


I provide definitions of words from the dictionary. You refuse to accept actual definitions of words. I haven't actually cited anything else because my position doesn't require anything else.

I have provided ample evidence of every position before disputing your chosen definitions of words. You refuse facts and evidence because you don't want accountability. I could walk you up to a pregnant woman, and if that baby in her womb could say, Hiya, dude!, loud enough to be heard, you would still deny its identity as a baby and demand the right to murder it. Because it isn't about facts for you. It is about not wanting there to be a God you are held accountable to. I could take you up to God Himself and you would deny His existence. I could arrange an interview with Boyle, Newton, and every other great Christian founding scientist, and you would find a reason to disagree with them. Because it's not about truth at all for you. It is about belief. And you have made up your heart NOT to believe. SO I am done with this conversation aside from telling you that one day, whether you believe or not, you will face your Maker. And you won't be able to say you didn't know. You will stand without excuse. I hope, for your sake, your heart changes before that day.

 

[ll74]

I have provided ample evidence of every position before disputing your chosen definitions of words. You refuse facts and evidence because you don't want accountability. I could walk you up to a pregnant woman, and if that baby in her womb could say, Hiya, dude!, loud enough to be heard, you would still deny its identity as a baby and demand the right to murder it.

The definition of a baby does not involve pregnancy. So there is no such thing as a baby in the womb.

I don't demand anything but support the choice of a woman to terminate her pregnancy as she wishes to do so. I lobby for this policy. You are the one demanding that a woman not have a choice regarding her pregnancy not to mention demanding that others accept your redefinition of words and subjugation to your god.

Because it isn't about facts for you. It is about not wanting there to be a God you are held accountable to. I could take you up to God Himself and you would deny His existence. I could arrange an interview with Boyle, Newton, and every other great Christian founding scientist, and you would find a reason to disagree with them. Because it's not about truth at all for you. It is about belief.

You believe in a god. I don't. That is the truth. I am not responsible to your god any more than you are responsible to my lack of god.

And you have made up your heart NOT to believe. SO I am done with this conversation aside from telling you that one day, whether you believe or not, you will face your Maker. And you won't be able to say you didn't know. You will stand without excuse. I hope, for your sake, your heart changes before that day.

Yes, you are conceited in your belief that I am required to support your beliefs and you are not required to support mine.

I have given you definitions of words, you have provided me with videos and diatribes and religious verses and you continue to disregard actual definitions of words.

That is what this entire discussion comes down to - your belief is the only one you will accept. And you cannot support anyone else having a position that opposes it.

Meanwhile, I have continued to support your ability to lobby for the policies that address your beliefs and you refuse to do the same to anyone else.

I support your freedom and you require my capitulation.

 

[InThe312]

Whether you care or not, the topic was raised and misquoted badly. Whether you feel like they should have a choice to kill the BABY or not, it is still murder. And right now I am far more focused on answering a direct challenge on here that has to do with the life of innocent children in the womb and the validity of faith in science that is relevant to that part of the conversation. But your adding post after post buries an answer to a serious challenge so that others won't go back and read it and a serious lie stands.... So you will excuse me for ignoring your answers at this point, at least for a while?

I think maybe they're just providing evidence of your lack of any actual knowledge that you didn't find with Google and YouTube.

Or maybe they're just trying to fuck with you. It is pretty entertaining when you get worked up into a real tizzy.

 

[InThe312]

I could walk you up to a pregnant woman, and if that baby in her womb could say, Hiya, dude!, loud enough to be heard, you would still deny its identity as a baby and demand the right to murder it. Because it isn't about facts for you.

But, but, but you can't because even fucking babies can't talk, let alone a fetus. Even you have to know that.

 

[InThe312]

I have provided ample evidence of every position before disputing your chosen definitions of words. You refuse facts and evidence because you don't want accountability. I could walk you up to a pregnant woman, and if that baby in her womb could say, Hiya, dude!, loud enough to be heard, you would still deny its identity as a baby and demand the right to murder it. Because it isn't about facts for you. It is about not wanting there to be a God you are held accountable to. I could take you up to God Himself and you would deny His existence. I could arrange an interview with Boyle, Newton, and every other great Christian founding scientist, and you would find a reason to disagree with them. Because it's not about truth at all for you. It is about belief. And you have made up your heart NOT to believe. SO I am done with this conversation aside from telling you that one day, whether you believe or not, you will face your Maker. And you won't be able to say you didn't know. You will stand without excuse. I hope, for your sake, your heart changes before that day.

et al, sorry I didn't realize I'd need to multi-quote in the few minutes I was away. My bad on the multiple posts.

You cite evidence from other believers. Because they believe what you believe doesn't make any of it a fact. You dismissed actual scholars on the subjects because they were "tainted by people who believe differently" than you. You dismiss accepted, legitimate sources because they're leftist (you know, those professors and PhD types at universities). You dismissed 3000 years+ of civilization before your christianity showed up to explain physics, biology, the universe, morals, and all the other bull shit that had already been figured out long before. And worst of all, you cite yourself as some sort of legitimate source. You reading a book and your interpretation of the text does not make it fact nor does it make you an expert on the subject, no more than I would never claim to be an expert in astrophysics because I read NDT's Astrophysics for Those In a Hurry.

But alas, you'll show up to discredit yourself again.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

As Morse later commented, the message ‘baptized the American Telegraphy with the name of its author’

It baptised the American telegraph with the name of its Author.
Comment on the choice of a biblical text as the inaugural message.

— Samuel F. B. Morse

Cited in Emma Miller Bolenius, Advanced Lessons in Everyday English (1921), quoting from Francis M. Perry, Four American Inventors.

So is it known as Morse code, or Gods code?

 

[HisArpy]

et al, sorry I didn't realize I'd need to multi-quote in the few minutes I was away. My bad on the multiple posts.

You cite evidence from other believers. Because they believe what you believe doesn't make any of it a fact. You dismissed actual scholars on the subjects because they were "tainted by people who believe differently" than you. You dismiss accepted, legitimate sources because they're leftist (you know, those professors and PhD types at universities). You dismissed 3000 years+ of civilization before your christianity showed up to explain physics, biology, the universe, morals, and all the other bull shit that had already been figured out long before. And worst of all, you cite yourself as some sort of legitimate source. You reading a book and your interpretation of the text does not make it fact nor does it make you an expert on the subject, no more than I would never claim to be an expert in astrophysics because I read NDT's Astrophysics for Those In a Hurry.

But alas, you'll show up to discredit yourself again.

Dam, there's a lot of college grads who are going to be disappointed.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Already disproven, in spite of your love for killing babies

It hasn’t and in no way is murder.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Dam, there's a lot of college grads who are going to be disappointed.

Why? Did they invest a lot of cash in Truth Social Stocks like you did? It's improved from that $23.00 a share value, but it's still a far cry from the almost $70.00 dollars when I suspect you bought in....

 

[JadeKnight]

And things pretty much went as I expected. I did mess up on the quoting of a passage. I'm not sure which translation of the bible you are using...mostly a version earlier than the New International Version, but no matter. I figured it was probably an earlier one. Anyways....

I did screw up on the passage for the rite of abortion. It's actually Numbers 5:11-31, a step-by-step instruction on how a priest is supposed to perform the abortion on a woman who had gotten pregnant by a man other than her husband, which can all be done purely on the whim and jealousy of the husband. The husband isn't to be punished, but the woman is.

Exodus 21 doesn't specify if it alludes to the baby since it going on in a fight. It does refer to the the woman giving premature birth, so nothing to do with abortion. So thus baby does not equal fetus, as even the bible references it as a fetus in the beginning. The only reason fetus and baby were switched around later in the books was to provoke emotional responses. Less clinical ya know. I will admit my bad on how I tried to work with this angle.

As far as Leviticus, it basically gives no value of worth to newborns or fetuses in the womb.If a newborn or fetus has no value, how is that re-enforcement on the value of new life? It just shows life wasn't valued until after one month, as far as labor goes. Anyways, besides the point.

Yes, it is part of a curse. However, it is a very twisted and vile curse that makes the whole flood pale in comparison on cruelty. This just goes on to show how evil God is supposed to be, forgetting his own promise to never bring another flood upon the earth. Poor judgement if you ask me. Like I said, very pro-life of the bible.

Now here's where things begin to go off the rails as the cherry-picking begins. Yes, single passages can be picked out for lessons, but not all passages are designed like that. Plus, here's where you began to go in a total direction with things Jay.

Jeremiah 1:4-5 is actually only a snippet of the whole story that is being told. Yes, it is the story of Jeremiah being appointed and chosen to be God's prophet. I'm not really seeing what it has to do with abortion or anything else you mentioned earlier.

Psalm 139:11-16 Yes, it is a well written Psalm about the viewpoint of someone within their mother's womb. That's really all there is to it. I'm not really sure what this really has to do with the discussion of abortion. Unless you are truly to use this passage as some sort of propping point to make people change their mind on abortion.

Job 10:11-13 Yes, I agree with you that's what is written in the passages. God is consider to be the one to have created life. That is a universal standard throughout the bible, but for some reason has to be repeated and beaten into the ground like a dead horse over and over again. However, that is a topic for a different discussion. What does this have to do with abortion?

Isaiah 64:8 Just another passage to reaffirm God as the creator. Nothing to do with abortion.

Psalm 127:3-5 The main passages that kicked off the Quiverful Movement for different sects to have as many children as possible. Again, nothing to do with abortion.

Isaiah 49:1-5 The creation and call of a newly appointed prophet to start bringing people to Israel. Again, nothing to do with abortion per se.

Yes, the bible constantly shows that the creation of new life is something to be celebrated, but there is no monetary value to life. Intrinsic value, yes. However, the underlining issue remains that life can be taken away just as easily as it is given. Yes, the value of fetus is shown, but at the same time, what is the reason for Numbers 5 existing to allow the husband to have his wife's fetus aborted by the priest?

Matthew 5:17-22 Basically it's Jesus saying that the old rules are still in effect even though he took charge of things. The whole 'You shall not murder' was continuing with the whole line of not killing any living, outside-the-womb human being. Nothing was mentioned about abortion or killing of fetuses.

Luke 1:39-45 This is more of a mini medical portrayal of the situation being presented. It's well known that babies will react to outside stimuli in the womb, such as kicking, shifting around, or even showing signs they heard a sound from inside by kicking or shifting inside at that moment.


So please, tell me why there is an abortion procedure in the bible that allows the husband to decide to make his wife have an abortion from one of God's priest? And why such an act is not condemned? Is it more along the lines of the whole moving away from following the multitude of other rules that are still in effect, but ignored? Like stoning adulterers to death?

 

[ll74]

And things pretty much went as I expected. I did mess up on the quoting of a passage. I'm not sure which translation of the bible you are using...mostly a version earlier than the New International Version, but no matter. I figured it was probably an earlier one. Anyways....

I did screw up on the passage for the rite of abortion. It's actually Numbers 5:11-31, a step-by-step instruction on how a priest is supposed to perform the abortion on a woman who had gotten pregnant by a man other than her husband, which can all be done purely on the whim and jealousy of the husband. The husband isn't to be punished, but the woman is.

Exodus 21 doesn't specify if it alludes to the baby since it going on in a fight. It does refer to the the woman giving premature birth, so nothing to do with abortion. So thus baby does not equal fetus, as even the bible references it as a fetus in the beginning. The only reason fetus and baby were switched around later in the books was to provoke emotional responses. Less clinical ya know. I will admit my bad on how I tried to work with this angle.

As far as Leviticus, it basically gives no value of worth to newborns or fetuses in the womb.If a newborn or fetus has no value, how is that re-enforcement on the value of new life? It just shows life wasn't valued until after one month, as far as labor goes. Anyways, besides the point.

Yes, it is part of a curse. However, it is a very twisted and vile curse that makes the whole flood pale in comparison on cruelty. This just goes on to show how evil God is supposed to be, forgetting his own promise to never bring another flood upon the earth. Poor judgement if you ask me. Like I said, very pro-life of the bible.

Now here's where things begin to go off the rails as the cherry-picking begins. Yes, single passages can be picked out for lessons, but not all passages are designed like that. Plus, here's where you began to go in a total direction with things Jay.

Jeremiah 1:4-5 is actually only a snippet of the whole story that is being told. Yes, it is the story of Jeremiah being appointed and chosen to be God's prophet. I'm not really seeing what it has to do with abortion or anything else you mentioned earlier.

Psalm 139:11-16 Yes, it is a well written Psalm about the viewpoint of someone within their mother's womb. That's really all there is to it. I'm not really sure what this really has to do with the discussion of abortion. Unless you are truly to use this passage as some sort of propping point to make people change their mind on abortion.

Job 10:11-13 Yes, I agree with you that's what is written in the passages. God is consider to be the one to have created life. That is a universal standard throughout the bible, but for some reason has to be repeated and beaten into the ground like a dead horse over and over again. However, that is a topic for a different discussion. What does this have to do with abortion?

Isaiah 64:8 Just another passage to reaffirm God as the creator. Nothing to do with abortion.

Psalm 127:3-5 The main passages that kicked off the Quiverful Movement for different sects to have as many children as possible. Again, nothing to do with abortion.

Isaiah 49:1-5 The creation and call of a newly appointed prophet to start bringing people to Israel. Again, nothing to do with abortion per se.

Yes, the bible constantly shows that the creation of new life is something to be celebrated, but there is no monetary value to life. Intrinsic value, yes. However, the underlining issue remains that life can be taken away just as easily as it is given. Yes, the value of fetus is shown, but at the same time, what is the reason for Numbers 5 existing to allow the husband to have his wife's fetus aborted by the priest?

Matthew 5:17-22 Basically it's Jesus saying that the old rules are still in effect even though he took charge of things. The whole 'You shall not murder' was continuing with the whole line of not killing any living, outside-the-womb human being. Nothing was mentioned about abortion or killing of fetuses.

Luke 1:39-45 This is more of a mini medical portrayal of the situation being presented. It's well known that babies will react to outside stimuli in the womb, such as kicking, shifting around, or even showing signs they heard a sound from inside by kicking or shifting inside at that moment.


So please, tell me why there is an abortion procedure in the bible that allows the husband to decide to make his wife have an abortion from one of God's priest? And why such an act is not condemned? Is it more along the lines of the whole moving away from following the multitude of other rules that are still in effect, but ignored? Like stoning adulterers to death?

As Jay has demonstrated....he just says that the things he doesn't like aren't real things and inserts his own position as fact. He does that with the dictionary and I'm sure he'll do the same with any Bible passage that he doesn't like as well

 

[Lazaran]

Dam, there's a lot of college grads who are going to be disappointed.

^
Another Derpy “reading comprehension FAIL”



Derpy

.

 

[ll74]

I have provided ample evidence of every position before disputing your chosen definitions of words. You refuse facts and evidence because you don't want accountability. I could walk you up to a pregnant woman, and if that baby in her womb could say, Hiya, dude!, loud enough to be heard, you would still deny its identity as a baby and demand the right to murder it. Because it isn't about facts for you. It is about not wanting there to be a God you are held accountable to. I could take you up to God Himself and you would deny His existence. I could arrange an interview with Boyle, Newton, and every other great Christian founding scientist, and you would find a reason to disagree with them. Because it's not about truth at all for you. It is about belief. And you have made up your heart NOT to believe. SO I am done with this conversation aside from telling you that one day, whether you believe or not, you will face your Maker. And you won't be able to say you didn't know. You will stand without excuse. I hope, for your sake, your heart changes before that day.

Let's just summarize and clarify Jay and I's position on abortion policy without all the religious or emotional overtones or redefinition of words in order to demonize or delegitamize opposition:

My position: A woman has a choice to terminate her pregnancy at any time during that pregnancy and her health takes priority over that of the life inside her womb, at least up until viability when such priority can be determined on a case by case basis . I prefer that Roe be codified as it is a compromise with a lot of political agreement. (Viability)

Jay's position: At conception, the life created takes priority over the woman and any termination of that pregnancy, at any time, is murder and must be prosecuted. Adding, (as I understand this) anyone involved in an abortion should also be charged in association with murder.

Feel free to correct my understanding.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Let's just summarize and clarify Jay and I's position on abortion policy without all the religious or emotional overtones or redefinition of words in order to demonize or delegitamize opposition:

My position: A woman has a choice to terminate her pregnancy at any time during that pregnancy and her health takes priority over that of the life inside her womb, at least up until viability when such priority can be determined on a case by case basis . I prefer that Roe be codified as it is a compromise with a lot of political agreement. (Viability)

Jay's position: At conception, the life created takes priority over the woman and any termination of that pregnancy, at any time, is murder and must be prosecuted. Adding, (as I understand this) anyone involved in an abortion should also be charged in association with murder.

Feel free to correct my understanding.

You pretty much nailed it!

 

[jomar]

Dang, y’all must be in a mood or killing time to be this engaged with the entity who calls itself JaySecrets

 

[Bn2f]

JaySecrets, I personally found your day long symposium captivating. You kept me on the edge of my seat displaying a Mozart like genius on the topic. Well done! May I humbly offer though a small critique…

 

[JaySecrets]

And things pretty much went as I expected. I did mess up on the quoting of a passage. I'm not sure which translation of the bible you are using...mostly a version earlier than the New International Version, but no matter. I figured it was probably an earlier one. Anyways....

I did screw up on the passage for the rite of abortion. It's actually Numbers 5:11-31, a step-by-step instruction on how a priest is supposed to perform the abortion on a woman who had gotten pregnant by a man other than her husband, which can all be done purely on the whim and jealousy of the husband. The husband isn't to be punished, but the woman is.

Exodus 21 doesn't specify if it alludes to the baby since it going on in a fight. It does refer to the the woman giving premature birth, so nothing to do with abortion. So thus baby does not equal fetus, as even the bible references it as a fetus in the beginning. The only reason fetus and baby were switched around later in the books was to provoke emotional responses. Less clinical ya know. I will admit my bad on how I tried to work with this angle.

As far as Leviticus, it basically gives no value of worth to newborns or fetuses in the womb.If a newborn or fetus has no value, how is that re-enforcement on the value of new life? It just shows life wasn't valued until after one month, as far as labor goes. Anyways, besides the point.

Yes, it is part of a curse. However, it is a very twisted and vile curse that makes the whole flood pale in comparison on cruelty. This just goes on to show how evil God is supposed to be, forgetting his own promise to never bring another flood upon the earth. Poor judgement if you ask me. Like I said, very pro-life of the bible.

Now here's where things begin to go off the rails as the cherry-picking begins. Yes, single passages can be picked out for lessons, but not all passages are designed like that. Plus, here's where you began to go in a total direction with things Jay.

Jeremiah 1:4-5 is actually only a snippet of the whole story that is being told. Yes, it is the story of Jeremiah being appointed and chosen to be God's prophet. I'm not really seeing what it has to do with abortion or anything else you mentioned earlier.

Psalm 139:11-16 Yes, it is a well written Psalm about the viewpoint of someone within their mother's womb. That's really all there is to it. I'm not really sure what this really has to do with the discussion of abortion. Unless you are truly to use this passage as some sort of propping point to make people change their mind on abortion.

Job 10:11-13 Yes, I agree with you that's what is written in the passages. God is consider to be the one to have created life. That is a universal standard throughout the bible, but for some reason has to be repeated and beaten into the ground like a dead horse over and over again. However, that is a topic for a different discussion. What does this have to do with abortion?

Isaiah 64:8 Just another passage to reaffirm God as the creator. Nothing to do with abortion.

Psalm 127:3-5 The main passages that kicked off the Quiverful Movement for different sects to have as many children as possible. Again, nothing to do with abortion.

Isaiah 49:1-5 The creation and call of a newly appointed prophet to start bringing people to Israel. Again, nothing to do with abortion per se.

Yes, the bible constantly shows that the creation of new life is something to be celebrated, but there is no monetary value to life. Intrinsic value, yes. However, the underlining issue remains that life can be taken away just as easily as it is given. Yes, the value of fetus is shown, but at the same time, what is the reason for Numbers 5 existing to allow the husband to have his wife's fetus aborted by the priest?

Matthew 5:17-22 Basically it's Jesus saying that the old rules are still in effect even though he took charge of things. The whole 'You shall not murder' was continuing with the whole line of not killing any living, outside-the-womb human being. Nothing was mentioned about abortion or killing of fetuses.

Luke 1:39-45 This is more of a mini medical portrayal of the situation being presented. It's well known that babies will react to outside stimuli in the womb, such as kicking, shifting around, or even showing signs they heard a sound from inside by kicking or shifting inside at that moment.


So please, tell me why there is an abortion procedure in the bible that allows the husband to decide to make his wife have an abortion from one of God's priest? And why such an act is not condemned? Is it more along the lines of the whole moving away from following the multitude of other rules that are still in effect, but ignored? Like stoning adulterers to death?

At this point, because you are the only person actually making an argument worth responding to, I will answer this at length. And I really am not interested in what anyone else will comment to this. Amuse yourselves over the murder of innocent lives all you want. In the end, you have to answer to the Author of that life, not to me. But He has already given the verdict beforehand. So I will answer this. It will take me a bit because it deserves the attention to the answer. Some of what you said here requires getting into the weeds a bit on translation issues. While I generally avoid getting into those weeds on these threads, mainly because most on here are incapable of thought beyond what their party and Planned Parenthood tells them to believe, I will do my best to respond in a digestible way.

Oh, and because of word limits on posts, I will simply @JadeKnight the post instead of quoting yours. But I will be responding point by point to what you said and asked. Hopefully that is satisfactory.

 

[InThe312]

At this point, because you are the only person actually making an argument worth responding to, I will answer this at length. And I really am not interested in what anyone else will comment to this. Amuse yourselves over the murder of innocent lives all you want. In the end, you have to answer to the Author of that life, not to me. But He has already given the verdict beforehand. So I will answer this. It will take me a bit because it deserves the attention to the answer. Some of what you said here requires getting into the weeds a bit on translation issues. While I generally avoid getting into those weeds on these threads, mainly because most on here are incapable of thought beyond what their party and Planned Parenthood tells them to believe, I will do my best to respond in a digestible way.

Oh, and because of word limits on posts, I will simply @JadeKnight the post instead of quoting yours. But I will be responding point by point to what you said and asked. Hopefully that is satisfactory.

Wow, so we're going to get your translations of the Greek texts? Maybe you really are a genius.

 

[JaySecrets]

JaySecrets, I personally found your day long symposium captivating. You kept me on the edge of my seat displaying a Mozart like genius on the topic. Well done! May I humbly offer though a small critique…

Given that "sire" ended up being very wrong, and Mozart proved to be right, and far more accurate in his thinking of music than they were with their biases, I'll take that as a complement. You are so caught up in your bias and zeal for killing babies that you can't process all the proof that it is murder. It's just "too many notes" for your brain to handle. (You see what I did there? Handel? Handle? Never mind.) Your dilemma is noted. You just are incapable of thought outside what you know.

Okay. NOW I am done responding to everyone but JadeKnight. That was just too easy not to take it.

 

[Bn2f]

Given that "sire" ended up being very wrong, and Mozart proved to be right, and far more accurate in his thinking of music than they were with their biases, I'll take that as a complement. You are so caught up in your bias and zeal for killing babies that you can't process all the proof that it is murder. It's just "too many notes" for your brain to handle. (You see what I did there? Handel? Handle? Never mind.) Your dilemma is noted. You just are incapable of thought outside what you know.

Okay. NOW I am done responding to everyone but JadeKnight. That was just too easy not to take it.

I love puns! I thought I gave a sincere compliment. Honestly, though, I found the summary given by 1174 quite succinct. You could do many here viewing a bit of good by affirming or disputing. Maybe in 100 words or less, please. I have the attention span of a goldfish.

Let's just summarize and clarify Jay and I's position on abortion policy without all the religious or emotional overtones or redefinition of words in order to demonize or delegitamize opposition:

My position: A woman has a choice to terminate her pregnancy at any time during that pregnancy and her health takes priority over that of the life inside her womb, at least up until viability when such priority can be determined on a case by case basis . I prefer that Roe be codified as it is a compromise with a lot of political agreement. (Viability)

Jay's position: At conception, the life created takes priority over the woman and any termination of that pregnancy, at any time, is murder and must be prosecuted. Adding, (as I understand this) anyone involved in an abortion should also be charged in association with murder.

Feel free to correct my understanding.

 

[ll74]

Lmao...of course.

 

[RoryN]

I haven't checked in awhile - how is the MAGA Trumper who started this thread? Is he doing okay?

 

[Bn2f]

I haven't checked in awhile - how is the MAGA Trumper who started this thread? Is he doing okay?

JS? Now, NOW, you can accuse me of mockery and being a bad person because what tickles me so much about this thread that YOU started are the very first words you posted: I am pretty exhausted…

Obviously, you are not.