Applying God's Word to Politics

[Yissachar]

A1 - Z26

barack hussein obama = 163

make america great again = 163

one hundred sixty three = 261

the united states of america = 261

Verse 261 = 9 | Genesis 10:26 = 35 _ (45) 9

And Joktan begat Almodad=50, and Sheleph, and Hazarmaveth, and Jerah, = 470 - 10x47

Forty Five = 126

Donald = 50

 

[Yissachar]

typo

2+6+1 = 9 | 10+26 = 36 _ (45) 9

9+36

 

[rewriter]

And SCOTUS ruled that the previous decision made by the supreme Court in Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) were egregiously wrong and had to be overturned. So they ruled their own decision was unconstitutional, right? The basis for their decision was that abortion was not a right protected under the U.S. Constitution.

If a pregnant woman lives in a state that bans abortion then why do they flee from the abomination of desolation?

Probably because virtually every U.S. states with total abortion bans or early gestational limits include an exception to save the life of the pregnant person, though the availability of other exceptions varies widely by state.


So am I supposed to start chanting "set Lindsay Clancy free" at this point?

As do anyone who loses a loved one.

Yes, i denounce the taking of human life and I believe that when the fetus opens the matrix they are endowed by their Creator with the right to life at that point.

Once they open the matrix then the living soul cannot be evicted from the womb they occupy in the house of their mothers without an eviction order, and evicting does not mean killing. Late term abortion infer the period of time that the child fully developed.

You spout a lot of theory, but little substance. Oh, there are exceptions in the states that ban abortion, which clearly explains why avoidable deaths from pregnancies are increasing, especially in those states, the exceptions are so clear. Cases where, by date X, one must decide if the fetus is killed or if both the mother and the fetus are killed, and we are keeping the guidelines so vague that few doctors dare make the call, so increased deaths for both mother and fetus courtesy of the state legislature.

And egregiously wrong is an overstatement, the Supreme Court has reversed itself on other occasions when new arguments are brought forth. Many times, when they conducted hearings for new justices, I have wished that a candidate would have honestly answered that they could see the possibility of an argument to overturn the right to abortion without detailing what they thought such an argument would look like, someone finally did that and won. To restore the right to have an abortion, I would personally address it as a religious choice and invoke the clear freedom of religion clause, I am not certain such an approach would work, but it seems a much more solid stance for abortion rights than a right to privacy which was the previous basis. But I am also unwilling to take up the battle, I will leave that to others who wish to impose their will on others. I have enough problems trying to keep myself of the straight and narrow path to God to worry very much about what others are doing to follow that path.

 

[GWH]

You spout a lot of theory, but little substance. Oh, there are exceptions in the states that ban abortion, which clearly explains why avoidable deaths from pregnancies are increasing, especially in those states, the exceptions are so clear. Cases where, by date X, one must decide if the fetus is killed or if both the mother and the fetus are killed, and we are keeping the guidelines so vague that few doctors dare make the call, so increased deaths for both mother and fetus courtesy of the state legislature.

And egregiously wrong is an overstatement, the Supreme Court has reversed itself on other occasions when new arguments are brought forth. Many times, when they conducted hearings for new justices, I have wished that a candidate would have honestly answered that they could see the possibility of an argument to overturn the right to abortion without detailing what they thought such an argument would look like, someone finally did that and won. To restore the right to have an abortion, I would personally address it as a religious choice and invoke the clear freedom of religion clause, I am not certain such an approach would work, but it seems a much more solid stance for abortion rights than a right to privacy which was the previous basis. But I am also unwilling to take up the battle, I will leave that to others who wish to impose their will on others. I have enough problems trying to keep myself of the straight and narrow path to God to worry very much about what others are doing to follow that path.

Why do you keep talking about "abortion" instead of sentience?!
I thought you agreed that abortion is wrong and should be illegal after sentience?
If so, then take up sharing that insight/suggestion for a solution.
Address it as a logical choice at the point of before and after sentience!

 

[UnoiAmarah]

Does everyone agree?

You raise an interesting point.

We might call this stage “sentience”, when the fetus has brain life of the type detectable in a person deemed to be alive and to have the civil right to life. Thus, everyone should agree that the fetus becomes sentient and a legal person at least by that stage of development.

Brain waves are found to begin around the sixth week of gestation; yet the medulla oblongata doesn't become functionable until much later during gestation. The medulla oblongata produces the electrical impulses that causes the involuntary contraction of the diaphragm to breathe and the heart to beat. So until that t point you don't even have a physical body capable of self animation.

So I will stay with the opening of the matrix.

You spout a lot of theory, but little substance.

"(1) The nature of the Court’s error. Like the infamous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, Roe was also egregiously wrong and on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided. " DOBBS, STATE HEALTH OFFICER OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION ET AL. 597 U.S. 215, (2022).

"Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences." Opinion of the Court by Justice Alito.

And egregiously wrong is an overstatement, the Supreme Court has reversed itself on other occasions when new arguments are brought forth

Just communicating what they said. To be honest I can't tell what your position on the issue is.

I have wished that a candidate would have honestly answered that they could see the possibility of an argument to overturn the right to abortion without detailing what they thought such an argument would look like, someone finally did that and won.

To restore the right to have an abortion, I would personally address it as a religious choice and invoke the clear freedom of religion clause, I am not certain such an approach would work, but it seems a much more solid stance for abortion rights than a right to privacy which was the previous basis.

The decision didn't banned abortions, it merely said that the States the authority over the reproductive rights of their citizens.

 

[GWH]

You raise an interesting point.

Brain waves are found to begin around the sixth week of gestation; yet the medulla oblongata doesn't become functionable until much later during gestation. The medulla oblongata produces the electrical impulses that causes the involuntary contraction of the diaphragm to breathe and the heart to beat. So until that t point you don't even have a physical body capable of self animation.

So I will stay with the opening of the matrix.



"(1) The nature of the Court’s error. Like the infamous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, Roe was also egregiously wrong and on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided. " DOBBS, STATE HEALTH OFFICER OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION ET AL. 597 U.S. 215, (2022).

"Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences." Opinion of the Court by Justice Alito.

Just communicating what they said. To be honest I can't tell what your position on the issue is.


The decision didn't banned abortions, it merely said that the States the authority over the reproductive rights of their citizens.

At the end of life, the heart and breathing can be kept going via machines, but not the brain,
which is why a person is deemed to be dead when the cognitive/cortical (?) brain wave goes flat.

Not sure what the "matrix" has to do with death/life issue/logic.

 

[rewriter]

At the end of life, the heart and breathing can be kept going via machines, but not the brain,
which is why a person is deemed to be dead when the cognitive/cortical (?) brain wave goes flat.

Not sure what the "matrix" has to do with death/life issue/logic.

Not to mention that at 6 weeks there is no heart, so the suggestion that there is a heartbeat is pure folly. It is just a regular electrical signal.

Why do you keep talking about "abortion" instead of sentience?!
I thought you agreed that abortion is wrong and should be illegal after sentience?
If so, then take up sharing that insight/suggestion for a solution.
Address it as a logical choice at the point of before and after sentience!

I would not totally ban abortion after sentience, but I would require judicial permission for a specific cause, such as a fatal birth defect or a specific danger to the mother, both of which are unusual.

 

[rewriter]

Just communicating what they said. To be honest I can't tell what your position on the issue is.


The decision didn't banned abortions, it merely said that the States the authority over the reproductive rights of their citizens.

I never intended to give my position on the matter. That is between me and God.

And states are fumbling the issue. We need national guidelines, preferably defining when life begins and in a way that can withstand court challenges.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

At the end of life, the heart and breathing can be kept going via machines, but not the brain,
which is why a person is deemed to be dead when the cognitive/cortical (?) brain wave goes flat.

As I said you make an interesting point, but a brain wave does not equate to consciousness nor a living soul. Just as vocal folds do not equate to the ability to speak. Maybe you didn't read the post regarding the untimely birth.

But I would simply say that there is no reason to think that those of the faith would arbitrarily abort their own children.

Not sure what the "matrix" has to do with death/life issue/logic.

Opening the matrix and opening the womb are intrinsically intertwined yet have separate implication. Not sure how one can know the meaning of Matthew 1:18 without understanding the difference between the two.

And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn that openeth the matrix among the children of Israel: Num 3:12

That thou shalt set apart unto the LORD all that openeth the matrix, and every firstling that cometh of a beast which thou hast; the males shall be the LORD's. Ex 13:12

For they are wholly given unto me from among the children of Israel; instead of such as open every womb, even instead of the firstborn of all the children of Israel, have I taken them unto me. Num. 8:16

 

[UnoiAmarah]

I would require judicial permission for a specific cause,

From what a Reproduction Court?

 

[GWH]

As I said you make an interesting point, but a brain wave does not equate to consciousness nor a living soul. Just as vocal folds do not equate to the ability to speak. Maybe you didn't read the post regarding the untimely birth.

But I would simply say that there is no reason to think that those of the faith would arbitrarily abort their own children.


Opening the matrix and opening the womb are intrinsically intertwined yet have separate implication. Not sure how one can know the meaning of Matthew 1:18 without understanding the difference between the two.

And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn that openeth the matrix among the children of Israel: Num 3:12

That thou shalt set apart unto the LORD all that openeth the matrix, and every firstling that cometh of a beast which thou hast; the males shall be the LORD's. Ex 13:12

For they are wholly given unto me from among the children of Israel; instead of such as open every womb, even instead of the firstborn of all the children of Israel, have I taken them unto me. Num. 8:16

Well, I might add to my point by noting that Adam and Eve were created conscious = living souls,
and scientific sentience is as non-arbitrary as we can currently get, which is why it applies to all faiths.
I also might add that fornication is no excuse for abortion, so it must not be a birth-control method.

I do not see that you explained the difference between "matrix" and "womb",
nor do you state the appropriate punishment for those who commit pre-sentient abortion/murder,
which is another good point to contemplate.

In the meantime, while we discuss this, abortion continues apace per laws of the states,
but many Christians prefer to abet post-sentient murder instead of implementing the solution I propose,
which would at least prevent those (point #3 :^).

 

[rewriter]

From what a Reproduction Court?

Oh, we could create one just for you. For most people, judges are quite capable of making reasonable decision, sometimes involving life or death, but for you ww can make a special one.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

I do not see that you explained the difference between "matrix" and "womb",

I thought I did by saying " how one can know the meaning of Matthew 1:18 without understanding the difference between the two."

Before they came together she was found with a child of the Holy Ghost. I would break it down for you but I think you can put together yourself.

Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live: And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the LORD. Ezek 37:5-6

 

[GWH]

I thought I did by saying " how one can know the meaning of Matthew 1:18 without understanding the difference between the two."

Before they came together she was found with a child of the Holy Ghost. I would break it down for you but I think you can put together yourself.

Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live: And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the LORD. Ezek 37:5-6

Sorry, but I need an explanation.
My NIV has womb for matrix.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

Oh, we could create one just for you. For most people, judges are quite capable of making reasonable decision, sometimes involving life or death, but for you ww can make a special one.

Would you? that would be so nice and the judge of the court will be "my people" , because "my people" are at liberty to make their own decisions.

See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
Deut 30:5; 9

To restore the right to have an abortion, I would personally address it as a religious choice and invoke the clear freedom of religion clause, I am not certain such an approach would work, but it seems a much more solid stance for abortion rights than a right to privacy which was the previous basis.

The right to reproduce falls under the purview of the 9th Amendment, which holds that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In such, the right to reproduce includes the right not to reproduce, including by the untimely birth of the unborn child if not done in a cruel or inhuman way.

If the separation of the unborn from the mother is alive then let it live, if not then let it be.

I never intended to give my position on the matter. That is between me and God.

You certainly are entitled to your privacy.

Sorry, but I need an explanation.
My NIV has womb for matrix.

That is because the authors of the NIV had to make material changes in the writings of the KJV in order to get their copyright because they couldn't copy it word for word.

The changed Holy Ghost to Holy Spirit, heaven to heavens in some passages. So maybe they were right to change the words. There is one verse that said all fowls that creeps going upon all four shall be an abomination to eat. Fowls have feathers, they also have wings and feet but have you ever seen a fowl creept upon the ground using both their wings and the feet for locomotion?

So seeing that there is apparently no proof to believe that there are fowls that creep upon the ground going upon all four then, then why would it make any difference if I explained the difference between opening the matrix as to opening the womb. .

nor do you state the appropriate punishment for those who commit pre-sentient abortion/murder,which is another good point to contemplate.

If your pre-sentient abortion is murder, then what is your point?

 

[GWH]

Would you? that would be so nice and the judge of the court will be "my people" , because "my people" are at liberty to make their own decisions.

See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
Deut 30:5; 9


The right to reproduce falls under the purview of the 9th Amendment, which holds that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In such, the right to reproduce includes the right not to reproduce, including by the untimely birth of the unborn child if not done in a cruel or inhuman way.

If the separation of the unborn from the mother is alive then let it live, if not then let it be.


You certainly are entitled to your privacy.


That is because the authors of the NIV had to make material changes in the writings of the KJV in order to get their copyright because they couldn't copy it word for word.

The changed Holy Ghost to Holy Spirit, heaven to heavens in some passages. So maybe they were right to change the words. There is one verse that said all fowls that creeps going upon all four shall be an abomination to eat. Fowls have feathers, they also have wings and feet but have you ever seen a fowl creept upon the ground using both their wings and the feet for locomotion?

So seeing that there is apparently no proof to believe that there are fowls that creep upon the ground going upon all four then, then why would it make any difference if I explained the difference between opening the matrix as to opening the womb. .


If your pre-sentient abortion is murder, then what is your point?

Oh, that explains it--not.
My post-sentience abortion is murder, and my point is that it cannot be punished capitally
until society is educated about fetal development so the Overton window is moved.

What worked for me as a 30 year old pro choice person who was ignorant about fetal development was viewing two photos:
one of a healthy prematurely born baby outside the womb and another of a baby the same age inside the womb. Obviously, the difference in geography does not justify homicide, so my Overton window shifted to sentience as a key stage of fetal development beyond which abortion is murder, just as killing the premature baby would be murder.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

Oh, that explains it--not.
My post-sentience abortion is murder, and my point is that it cannot be punished capitally
until society is educated about fetal development so the Overton window is moved.

nor do you state the appropriate punishment for those who commit pre-sentient abortion/murder,
which is another good point to contemplate.

Which one is it, pre-sentient abortion/murder or post-sentient abortion/murder?

 

[GWH]

Which one is it, pre-sentient abortion/murder or post-sentient abortion/murder?

Post is murder logically and prolife people should support educating society until it passes laws defining life as beginning at least by that stage of fetal development. I recommend publicizing pictures such as those that prompted my understanding to improve.

 

[rewriter]

Post is murder logically and prolife people should support educating society until it passes laws defining life as beginning at least by that stage of fetal development. I recommend publicizing pictures such as those that prompted my understanding to improve.

But with regards to calling all abortions after that point to be murder I would remind you that killing another person in war or executing someone under a court order is not considered to be murder. That is why I would leave the RARE option of post sentience abortion as an option in cases where there is a plausible cause, such as the fetus is not expected to survive until birth, and if it does it life expectancy is hours, and a maximum life span to date is less than a very expensive week and the parents just want to end the agony (not all parents would make this choice but some will ), or where the mother's life is clearly in danger if the pregnancy is not terminated and for some reason an early birth is likewise not a viable medical option. Both cases can occur, but also both are highly unlikely.

 

[UnoiAmarah]

Post is murder logically and prolife people should support educating society until it passes laws defining life as beginning at least by that stage of fetal development.

Can you be a little more specific, if the untimely birth post sentient is logically murder then are you going charge the mother in cases of miscarriages or stillbirths, whether antepartum intrapartum that occur post sentient?

I recommend publicizing pictures such as those that prompted my understanding to improve.

That kinda contradicts the whole walking by faith and not by sight concept doesn't it?