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

[Sean Renaud]

Don't you guys have Sheol? The absence of God? I mean strictly speaking according to Christian doctrine Hell is empty until Revelations kicks off.

 

[PaxNurgle]

This was originally directed to you.

You're better of having this conversation with fellow conservatives, people who identify with your core values. Right now you have a pack of hyenas chasing your ass all over the PB. You're outnumbered 10 to 1 and you're wasting your time. They have secular belief and you ain't going to change their minds. PB leans far left and yes they will persecute you, call you names and have zero respect for your opposing opinions.

They don't believe in the mystery of human life, they don't believe that human life begins at conception.

Here is the problem, Harpy.

The reason you are "outnumbered 10 to 1" is simple: your "Core Values" are garbage.

You openly promote racism and intolerance. You openly promote oppression, and the idea of women being little more than breeding stock. You openly promote totalitarian government and unchecked, corrupt power, while denigrating tolerance and compassion as being "Marxist."

It's not because "PB Leans Far Left."
Basically, your core values are warped, and thankfully very few people share them. And this is coming from someone who believes in the divinity of Jesus and who once called himself a Republican (until extremists like you hijacked them.)

And it is precisely BECAUSE you are outnumbered 10 to 1, that you pretend to be several different people. Trying to even the odds, I guess, right, Mr. Wizzard?

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Don't you guys have Sheol? The absence of God? I mean strictly speaking according to Christian doctrine Hell is empty until Revelations kicks off.

Sheol is just “the place where the dead go”. Some Jews may have personal beliefs about the afterlife, but the standard rabbinical answer is “stop worrying about what happens after you’re dead, concentrate on living a good life!”

 

[YDB95]

I have mentioned this earlier, but the most vocal and open pro-life people, those who most openly and vocally oppose abortion are women.

Not in my experience, and I've been on the front lines of that particular war, doing clinic defense in DC before I moved overseas. There were some women on the other side of the sidewalk, but "the most vocal and open" ones? Not really.

I will say I think it's a mistake to look at the issue as a battle of the sexes, as there are plenty of pro-choice men and anti-choice women out there. But that's rather different from what you are (in my opinion baselessly) claiming here.

And many of them women who have had abortions and know what it did to them,

That trope is very popular among anti-choicers, but the truth is most women do not regret their decisions, and those who do often do so only because people like you throw out so much propaganda saying they should. And even if you were right about this, guess what? They lived to have the option of regretting their choice, and they were able to get pregnant again if they wanted. If you had your way, they may very well have died or ended up sterilized in a botched back-alley abortion. That used to happen a lot more often than you want to think, and until we re-establish a woman's right to choose nationwide, it's going to happen again.

or women who have been the practitioners and doctors doing the abortions.

Which means they know what they're saying now is nonsense. But it's nonsense that the likes of you love to hear.

Some things are simply vile and wrong.

You don't know how right you are.

But the biggest leaders in the pro-life movement are women and pregnancy crisis centers led by women.

It just ain't so. Maybe the biggest figureheads.

 

[dmallord]

Nope. My words are blunt, direct, accurate, and factual. 'fractamonious.'

Fixed your rhetoric. You're welcome.

 

[Lazaran]

Not in my experience, and I've been on the front lines of that particular war, doing clinic defense in DC before I moved overseas. There were some women on the other side of the sidewalk, but "the most vocal and open" ones? Not really.

I will say I think it's a mistake to look at the issue as a battle of the sexes, as there are plenty of pro-choice men and anti-choice women out there. But that's rather different from what you are (in my opinion baselessly) claiming here.


That trope is very popular among anti-choicers, but the truth is most women do not regret their decisions, and those who do often do so only because people like you throw out so much propaganda saying they should. And even if you were right about this, guess what? They lived to have the option of regretting their choice, and they were able to get pregnant again if they wanted. If you had your way, they may very well have died or ended up sterilized in a botched back-alley abortion. That used to happen a lot more often than you want to think, and until we re-establish a woman's right to choose nationwide, it's going to happen again.



Which means they know what they're saying now is nonsense. But it's nonsense that the likes of you love to hear.

You don't know how right you are.

It just ain't so. Maybe the biggest figureheads.

ALL of that ^ needed to be said, and yet it ALL will fall on the deaf ears and closed mind of the psychotic religious zealot you are responding to.

A bit of a waste…



I appreciated that perfectly expressed comprehensive rebuttal, though - and I’m sure others will as well.

 

[dmallord]

Abortion is the purview of a woman. That is what should be codified at the federal level.

It is not the place for the government, state, or federal government to determine how she deals with what is solely her decision.

If that decision is for medical or personal reasons, it remains hers to determine. Not a judge, jury, or medical personnel.

In the case of marriage, I would allow the partner to have some say in the matter, with the ultimate decision falling back to the woman.

Set aside religion, set aside politics. None of those should have control over her decisions in the matter.

 

[JaySecrets]

Yep. Just ignore that there is another very important person in the equation: the unborn baby. That's very convenient. Means a person can sleep around, do whatever they please, then just murder the offspring that comes as consequence. And if you change the language and redefine words, that person doesn't need to feel guilty about committing infanticide. All very convenient to drown out the truth. Yet the baby's blood cries out for justice, and there is One who is Just. You are fools to mack Him and ignore His Authorship of every life. The Author of Life deals harshly with the crime of taking life from those conceived, crafted, and made in His image. You start messing with the sacredness of the gift of life in image bearers, you incur the judgement of the One whose image they bear. The blood is on your hands.

 

[YDB95]

ALL of that ^ needed to be said, and yet it ALL will fall on the deaf ears and closed mind of the psychotic religious zealot you are responding to.

A bit of a waste…



I appreciated that perfectly expressed comprehensive rebuttal, though - and I’m sure others will as well.

1) Thank you.
2) As is the case with all my responses to right-wing propagandists online, my end was not to persuade the one I was responding to. I know that's a lost cause. It was to rebut the propaganda lest anyone else come away believing it's true. Everything from "Al Gore said he invented the internet" to "But her emails!" grew legs in the first place because they were allowed to fester until some otherwise-reasonable people believed them (and there are many other examples of that). The one about women feeling guilty about getting an abortion is not only widespread already, but in some cases it actually happens because (and only because) the JaySecrets of the world have been saying so for decades. But we can put a stop to that, at least in this little corner of the web.

Yep. Just ignore that there is another very important person in the equation: the unborn baby. That's very convenient. Means a person can sleep around, do whatever they please,

Men have been able to do that throughout human history. I fully expect you to say you don't approve of that either, but for all your bloviating about abortion, you've never once condemned the male promiscuity that so often leads to an unwanted pregnancy, or the slut-stud double standard either.

and there is One who is Just. You are fools to mack Him and ignore His Authorship of every life.

Christ never said one word about abortion. Not a single word. (And yes, it existed then.)

The Author of Life deals harshly with the crime of taking life from those conceived, crafted, and made in His image. You start messing with the sacredness of the gift of life in image bearers, you incur the judgement of the One whose image they bear. The blood is on your hands.

If that's how you feel, don't have an abortion. Problem solved.

 

[icanhelp1]

Not in my experience, and I've been on the front lines of that particular war, doing clinic defense in DC before I moved overseas. There were some women on the other side of the sidewalk, but "the most vocal and open" ones? Not really.

I will say I think it's a mistake to look at the issue as a battle of the sexes, as there are plenty of pro-choice men and anti-choice women out there. But that's rather different from what you are (in my opinion baselessly) claiming here.


That trope is very popular among anti-choicers, but the truth is most women do not regret their decisions, and those who do often do so only because people like you throw out so much propaganda saying they should. And even if you were right about this, guess what? They lived to have the option of regretting their choice, and they were able to get pregnant again if they wanted. If you had your way, they may very well have died or ended up sterilized in a botched back-alley abortion. That used to happen a lot more often than you want to think, and until we re-establish a woman's right to choose nationwide, it's going to happen again.



Which means they know what they're saying now is nonsense. But it's nonsense that the likes of you love to hear.

You don't know how right you are.

It just ain't so. Maybe the biggest figureheads.

Nice try with the *anti-choice* description LOL. They have a choice, it’s called *pro-life*! They believe in the sanctity of life and that a human life begins at conception.

 

[LoneMilf]

Yep. Just ignore that there is another very important person in the equation: the unborn baby. That's very convenient. Means a person can sleep around, do whatever they please, then just murder the offspring that comes as consequence. And if you change the language and redefine words, that person doesn't need to feel guilty about committing infanticide. All very convenient to drown out the truth. Yet the baby's blood cries out for justice, and there is One who is Just. You are fools to mack Him and ignore His Authorship of every life. The Author of Life deals harshly with the crime of taking life from those conceived, crafted, and made in His image. You start messing with the sacredness of the gift of life in image bearers, you incur the judgement of the One whose image they bear. The blood is on your hands.

I'm not religious, so to me your views seem quite extreme. However, they are consistent and you clearly feel strongly for your point of view. I respect that.

I'm curious what your take is on a scenario:
Let's say a woman is raped and gets pregnant from that action.

Does she have a moral/religious obligation to carry that child to term and give birth regardless of any and all risk to her own life and well-being?
If yes, should that obligation also be a legal one?
Should she be punished as a murderer if she chooses to have an abortion?

 

[JaySecrets]

I'm not religious, so to me your views seem quite extreme. However, they are consistent and you clearly feel strongly for your point of view. I respect that.

I'm curious what your view is on a scenario:
Let's say a woman is raped and gets pregnant from that action.

Does she have a moral/religious obligation to carry that child to term and give birth regardless of any and all risk to her own life and well-being?
If yes, should that obligation also be a legal one?
Should she be punished as a murderer if she chooses to have an abortion?

Let me, as unkosher as it may seem, answer the question with a question.

Same scenario, but now the child has been born. But she is in dire financial straits because of that baby. On top of that, she is homeless. And her mental and physical health is at risk

On top of all this, every time she looks at that baby, she sees her rapist.

Should she be bound by morals to not murder that baby? Should the law prevent her from killing the child? And if she did kill the baby, should she be tried as a murderer?

 

[LoneMilf]

Let me, as unkosher as it may seem, answer the question with a question.

Same scenario, but now the child has been born. But she is in dire financial straits because of that baby. On top of that, she is homeless. And her mental and physical health is at risk

On top of all this, every time she looks at that baby, she sees her rapist.

Should she be bound by morals to not murder that baby? Should the law prevent her from killing the child? And if she did kill the baby, should she be tried as a murderer?

Sure, I'll go first.

I do not believe she should be allowed to murder the baby in the scenario you describe, no.
And yes, I believe she should be tried as a murderer if she did so.

Now, would you mind answering my questions too?

 

[Sean Renaud]

Sheol is just “the place where the dead go”. Some Jews may have personal beliefs about the afterlife, but the standard rabbinical answer is “stop worrying about what happens after you’re dead, concentrate on living a good life!”

Apologies. I must have gotten some bad information on some of this. That wasn't my understanding. Mine was closer that this was like being away from your family. Though as things stand I can think of worse things than being away from family. Like being stuck with them. I also don't speak Hebrew? I feel like there is some better term but look give me your cardboard crackers, honey and apples, take your day off work so hard the schools make it an official holiday and lets be friends.

On a side not which is entirely not meant as an insult but I'm old enough to remember when Jews did just that to my schools. Between teachers and students so much so many people took. . .I don't honestly remember if it Roshashona or Yomkippur but one of them so many people were "sick" for that we just met in the gym and watched Charlotte's Web. I can still here Templeton singing about carnival food and its been thirty fucking years. Do you think the world would lose there fucking minds is Muslims started not only being "dominant" (I lack a better word) in both teaching and students that "This is a fucking holiday, deal with it cus we ain't coming" or if Juneteenth ever catches on in a larger way that black people just saying "Have fun but This day is gonna be a complete waste of your time" would be justice?

I think it would but I try to second guess my opinions.

 

[JaySecrets]

1) Thank you.
2) As is the case with all my responses to right-wing propagandists online, my end was not to persuade the one I was responding to. I know that's a lost cause. It was to rebut the propaganda lest anyone else come away believing it's true. Everything from "Al Gore said he invented the internet" to "But her emails!" grew legs in the first place because they were allowed to fester until some otherwise-reasonable people believed them (and there are many other examples of that). The one about women feeling guilty about getting an abortion is not only widespread already, but in some cases it actually happens because (and only because) the JaySecrets of the world have been saying so for decades. But we can put a stop to that, at least in this little corner of the web.



Men have been able to do that throughout human history. I fully expect you to say you don't approve of that either, but for all your bloviating about abortion, you've never once condemned the male promiscuity that so often leads to an unwanted pregnancy, or the slut-stud double standard either.

Christ never said one word about abortion. Not a single word. (And yes, it existed then.)


If that's how you feel, don't have an abortion. Problem solved.

One, Christ did speak on the value of human life, and particularly that of a child. And, as for what that means, he confirmed the authority of the OT as the standard of moral principle. That OT he affirmed says that God crafts the child in the womb, calls and ordains from conception, says God is the Author of each life conceived, and says that He made mankind, it his or her very conception, in His image. The problem is that you pit the God of the OT against the Jesus of the NT. It's one and the same God. Jesus declared that when he attributed to Himself the Title of I Am, one of the most sacred Titles of God, and when He claimed Authority over nature, over sin, and over death. So he had much to say on the subject.

As for promiscuity, you assume I was only speaking of female behavior. I never implied that. It takes two to create a pregnancy. Of course a man id just as guilty as the woman in such behavior. And no matter what men have gotten by with throughout history, it doesn't justify it. But none of this justifies the murder of innocent children in the womb.

 

[icanhelp1]

Here is the problem, Harpy.

The reason you are "outnumbered 10 to 1" is simple: your "Core Values" are garbage.

You openly promote racism and intolerance. You openly promote oppression, and the idea of women being little more than breeding stock. You openly promote totalitarian government and unchecked, corrupt power, while denigrating tolerance and compassion as being "Marxist."

It's not because "PB Leans Far Left."
Basically, your core values are warped, and thankfully very few people share them. And this is coming from someone who believes in the divinity of Jesus and who once called himself a Republican (until extremists like you hijacked them.)

And it is precisely BECAUSE you are outnumbered 10 to 1, that you pretend to be several different people. Trying to even the odds, I guess, right, Mr. Wizzard?

Perhaps you should direct your tripe towards Harpy.

 

[JaySecrets]

Sure, I'll go first.

I do not believe she should be allowed to murder the baby in the scenario you describe, no.
And yes, I believe she should be tried as a murderer if she did so.

Now, would you mind answering my questions too?

You just answered the question yourself. The baby in the womb is no less a human life, that life no less sacred for how it was conceived than the baby already born or the 30 year old man or woman who finds they were an offspring of rape.

In today's world there are other ways to approach this. A child can be removed safely very early on, even during stages when abortion is unfortunately legal, and be placed in an incubator where it is very likely to survive and grow to be a healthy grown child. There is the option of adoption, an option that Planned Parenthood does not even bring up by policy. Many women cannot have a child and would love to adopt children.

Legally, what needs to happen is to make it easier, not harder for good people to adopt kids.

The point is, she doesn't have to kill the baby to not keep the baby. Punish the rapist to the fullest extent of the law. But don't add murder to the list of crimes committed.

Once the child is conceived, that child should have the same legal protection on its life as any born baby does. I realize there are costs here. So defund abortion mills like Planned Parenthood and send that funding to the many pregnancy crisis centers that are actually doing the work of caring for women like that and their babies during and after pregnancy. That baby's life is sacred, precious, and infinitely valuable, no matter how that baby was conceived.

Last, and this is the hard answer, but murder is murder. Yes abortion should be illegal. Period. Which means to take a baby's life, any baby's life, in or out of the womb, must be illegal and treated as murder. There is a moral responsibility as a society to protect the most vulnerable and innocent, and it doesn't get much more vulnerable and innocent than a baby in the womb.

Would I instruct the jury to consider the circumstances if they have a say in the sentence? Of course. Would I judge her actions in a court of law on the same scale as a person who was just sleeping around, got pregnant, and murdered the baby because he or she was an inconvenience? Of course not. But murder is murder no matter the excuse given. The only reason we don't treat it that way here is because we softened and changed the language to make it sound okay. It never was.

 

[LoneMilf]

You just answered the question yourself. The baby in the womb is no less a human life, that life no less sacred for how it was conceived than the baby already born or the 30 year old man or woman who finds they were an offspring of rape.

In today's world there are other ways to approach this. A child can be removed safely very early on, even during stages when abortion is unfortunately legal, and be placed in an incubator where it is very likely to survive and grow to be a healthy grown child. There is the option of adoption, an option that Planned Parenthood does not even bring up by policy. Many women cannot have a child and would love to adopt children.

Legally, what needs to happen is to make it easier, not harder for good people to adopt kids.

The point is, she doesn't have to kill the baby to not keep the baby. Punish the rapist to the fullest extent of the law. But don't add murder to the list of crimes committed.

Once the child is conceived, that child should have the same legal protection on its life as any born baby does. I realize there are costs here. So defund abortion mills like Planned Parenthood and send that funding to the many pregnancy crisis centers that are actually doing the work of caring for women like that and their babies during and after pregnancy. That baby's life is sacred, precious, and infinitely valuable, no matter how that baby was conceived.

Last, and this is the hard answer, but murder is murder. Yes abortion should be illegal. Period. Which means to take a baby's life, any baby's life, in or out of the womb, must be illegal and treated as murder. There is a moral responsibility as a society to protect the most vulnerable and innocent, and it doesn't get much more vulnerable and innocent than a baby in the womb.

Would I instruct the jury to consider the circumstances if they have a say in the sentence? Of course. Would I judge her actions in a court of law on the same scale as a person who was just sleeping around, got pregnant, and murdered the baby because he or she was an inconvenience? Of course not. But murder is murder no matter the excuse given. The only reason we don't treat it that way here is because we softened and changed the language to make it sound okay. It never was.

So if I understand you correctly, you believe the woman in that scenario should be obligated to carry the child to a stage where it can survive outside the womb (probably no less than 28 weeks), then have a caesarean delivery. The child should then be taken care of by social services (assuming that the woman doesn't want it).

Personally, I don't believe this is a good solution for anyone involved - not the woman, the child or society as a whole. But we will never agree on that, and that's ok.

Thank you for answering.

 

[Lazaran]

Sure, I'll go first.

I do not believe she should be allowed to murder the baby in the scenario you describe, no.
And yes, I believe she should be tried as a murderer if she did so.

Now, would you mind answering my questions too?

I see what you’re doing here, but don’t expect a straight answer.

 

[JaySecrets]

 

[JaySecrets]

 

[JaySecrets]

 

[JaySecrets]

 

[JaySecrets]

These are the voices of those who went through it. Maybe listen to what they have to say instead of just spouting your own opinions.

 

[JaySecrets]

Oh, and men, don't you dare mansplain and disagree with these women's positions. You set the rules, now live with them. For you to say a word against what they say is you trying to oppress women and impose your misogynistic views on them.