Texas Abortion Law Leaves Planned Parenthood in Tears

In cognitive testing I scored at the 85% level, meaning only 15 out of 100 people assimilated and processed information more completely. So I see associations between dissimilar subjects that most don't see. I try to point those out instead of parroting what's been said by others a thousand times already. But people just don't follow the bouncing ball, they want to stick to repeating the same old thing they've been repeating for who knows how long. I mean, post a thread here that doesn't have to do with Osas, end times, or now covid. It's crickets. To be honest I was here some time ago, and coming back now I can see nothing's changed. No one's moved, no one's advanced. It's the same subjects, and the same arguments, about as vain as a repetition can be. And attempts to take a different approach just crash and burn every time they run up against it. My bad.

THE POINT:

People who are anti-abortion because life is sacred also tend to be people who support gun rights, the death penalty, the uneven accumulation of resources and wealth, and the abandonment of the poor and sick. Life is sacred, until it's born.

Can you quote me the part of the constitution that say you have a right to murder babies in the womb?

That is a rather sweeping statement which is not backed up by evidence unless you can produce some.

In another place, a proabortionist was incensed at the move by the Texas State government. She said it will drive people to use backyard coat hanger abortions.

When you read things like this you realise how desperate the pro death people are and what levels they will sink to to justify what is unjustifiable. In other words they have no rational or medical reason to promote the killing of babies in the womb.

People who are against the death penalty will say that innocent people are convicted of crimes and if you were to execute just one innocent person that is that is a terrible crime (I agree with them so far) and because of that they are against the death penalty. That is where I completely disagree with them, in my case because I don't want one innocent person to be convicted of a crime I am for the death penalty. Nothing has done more to improve forensic science and prove that someone is innocent of a crime than the death penalty. Fingerprints were first used to exonerate a man that would have otherwise been executed. DNA was also first used to solve a murder case and prove that someone who had confessed to the crime was innocent. There is a long list of major advancements that have been found in order to solve a murder case in which the person faced the death penalty. This was not a coincidence, rather it was because of the death penalty that people donate their time and think outside the box.

The Bible says to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If I was convicted of a crime I didn't commit I would request the judge give me the death penalty (it it were an option). Why? You are given much more appeals, and there are organizations dedicated to providing you with free legal help and research. My goal would be to prove my innocence and being on death row would give me the best chance to do it. Also, it can take 25 years for a person given the death penalty to actually be executed.

Others argue that the death penalty is more expensive than life in prison. That is another reason I support it. I don't want a financial incentive to be executing people. Also the reason it is more expensive is because of the appeals. The Death penalty is set up as an opportunity for lawyers and scientists to raise the standard of justice. Back in the 1800s when we first discovered fingerprints they estimated that as many as a third of the people in prison were innocent. Today that number is far below 1%.

We'll take them one by one and see if you can follow the bouncing ball.

1. We agreed, guns don't kill anyone, therefore responsible gun owners don't kill anyone. Do accidents happen? Yes. But that is not the majority of fatalities by gun. So why are you punishing responsible gun owners? Americans wrote the right to bare arms in the Constitution, they felt it was that important. We have a right to protect ourselves and our property. So there is nothing out of line with being pro- life and pro-gun. If you put 1000 restrictions on gun ownership you make the good guy suffer, the bad guy will find a way.


2. The death penalty. This is the one that irks me the most. Several years back a couple men broke into a home. They raped the two daughters and the mother. Then they tied them to the bed and burned the house to the ground. If you don't think that deserves the death penalty, there's something wrong with you. The Bible says you take a like, you lose your right to life. Nothing here is out of line with being pro- life. You take a life, you forfeit yours. Simple. The fact that people would compare an innocent childs life being taken to a criminal has always been a stunningly stupid argument to me.

3. The uneven accumulation of resources and wealth, Socialism, there said it for you. Socialism always leads to communism. And socialism is just communism with the gloves off. Pro- life are you? How many lives has communism taken?? In America you have the chance to build your dream, but you're not promised anything. Time, dedication, hard work, all things that get you closer to your dream. Socialist/Communism is for lazy people that covet what others have worked hard for. The Bible says if you don't work, you don't eat. The safety net is there for people who cannot work. Look at Covid and how many people now living on the gov't won't go back to work. Right!!

4. The abandonment of the poor and sick. No one is more giving to the poor and the sick than conservatives. I'm not at home but I have stats to back that up. I attend a small country church and they give more than most churches twice their size. No one gives more to help those in need than pro- life people. They adopt more, they give more to charity and they even to conservation causes more. All these arguments that you have brought up are old. Every single one I have heard and argued before. So maybe you haven't moved as forward as you think you have.

Wow! I missed that verse, but from now on I'll be very careful about taking any likes. I suppose giving them is OK? And He said this before they even had social media!

When I get annoyed my fingers take off. I couldn't get what you were talking about till I read it a couple times. Duh. Did not sleep well last night. Good thing I don't operate heavy machinery!! Yikes!

Since we're bragging, my husband has been tested several times and has an extremely high IQ. He would disagree with you on the death penalty, socialism, and gun issues.

Also...I once heard there's nothing new under the sun. Sorry we're rehashing old subjects. If it bores your smarty pants mind so much, maybe you can find a brand spankin' new topic for us to debate?

Typos are awesome at bringing levity. 😆

Actually, I could be wrong about cars existing in the time of Jesus. I mean, we're told Jesus drove out the money changers. And the disciples were all together in one accord soooo....

It also says he rode a donkey which is just a polite way of saying Ford Pinto.

Yes, outside of rape there are choices to avoid unwanted pregnancies in this day and age. Why not use contraceptives or abstain?

Well, that does it! No more likes for you.


Why would Leviticus 24:17, the law of God, apply now? When do many Christians will argue against the Sabbath, claiming we're not Jews, and we're not under the law. Now there's an exception?

And how does that Levitical law make sense? Save for in its prosecution insuring perpetual killings?
Because there is no caveat, no exception to the taking a life penalty.

And certainly, invoking that scripture precludes advocating capital punishment.

And lastly, what of those pregnancies that threaten the woman's life? If abortion is never to be allowed, the woman dies because her baby, the pregnancy killed her. As did the law that outlawed abortion no matter what.

Is that pro-life?

That's a hard question but, honestly, I don't think it's right to legalize murdering an innocent child.

If I was in a situation, say an accident, where my life could be saved if my child died I would say no! Why is it different when it's an unborn child? My motherly instinct is to protect my children's lives, no matter their ages.

In a hospital environment were that scenario to be true, the hospital would save the woman's life. As a matter of hospital policy.

If not in that environment, the woman could freely choose to die in the privacy of her home. The fetus would die too of course. But that would be her choice.

Maybe. It's hard to say for certain that both would die.

I read about a woman with cancer who refused treatment because she was pregnant. She put her life at risk to carry her baby to term. Both survived.

Another woman had a weird bleeding issue in her uterus. Doctors said the baby wouldn't make it and if she didn't abort, the area would rupture and she would die. She was only 4 months along but looked as if she were at full term because of the blood. She was a Christian and prayed. One night, she said she felt Yahweh's presence and the blood just --poof!-- disappeared. The bleeding issue stopped. The doctors were baffled. She went on to have a successful (breech) home birth.

There's a Christian magazine, geared toward mothers, called Above Rubies. There are countless stories from real women with stories similar to the ones above.

It's not an absolute that both would die.

My hypothetical pertained to the diagnosis that both would die.

No outsider needs to tell me about our nations Constitution.

Using lower case letters for american and constitution, as you also do when writing the word, god , indicates you don't hold a lot of respect for either.
Which says a lot about yourself.

It's sad when someone takes a course about our Constitution and still fail to understand how our Constitution applied in the Roe v Wade SCOTUS decision.

At least it was a free coarse.