A Bible question!!

[Berzerker]

Berz,
1) There is much sarcasm in the Bible, and this is a perfect example. Adam and Eve wanted to be equal to God. That's the irony.

No, they wanted the knowledge of good and evil... And this wasn't sarcasm, God blocked their way to the tree of life and kicked them out of the Garden because of what happened. God was worried about what the humans might be capable of now...

2) Don't really get what your point is on free will. But to try to keep it going I'll say that men are not born free, but are slaves because of original sin.

You said the act of murder is an example of free will... If I murder you, what happened to your free will?

3) On Christ and the Law, He doesn't oppose any part of the Law. The problem was that the Isrealites interpreted it for their own purposes because they didit love God and others. For example people were getting divorcez for selfish reasons which was never blessed by God.

According to Jesus, Moses allowed those selfish divorce laws because the hearts of men were hard. Jesus changed that, he rejected Mosaic divorce law. Why he rejected it doesn't matter, its still proof Jesus did not support every law stemming from Moses. Jesus also rejected Mosaic Sabbath laws, Moses had a man stoned to death for gathering firewood on the Sabbath (what a friggin saint) but Jesus changed that too, the Sabbath was made for man.

Berz read the creation story in the context of the Bible as a whole. You've got yourself in an aweful mess there.

whatever

[kentonio]

Ran by the same people who'd been running their own shop for years. You think they didn't take their records over with them?

Look, before legalization there were a small number of doctors who saw that the ban was harmful and damaging to women, who performed safe abortions. These were an extremely small number of people. Then there were large numbers of unscrupulous criminals who saw an easy way to make money, coerce desperate women into sex, and who didn't give a rats ass about the womens safety. These ****ers existed in every town and city in America. If your sick plan to outlaw abortion again came into effect the next generation of those nasty folks are going to be the ones who profit, while generations of women suffer.

So why do you believe that the mother gets a choice, but the child does not?

Do you get to kill your toddler when they are unwanted? Your spouse? How about Grandma? Nobody wants her.

Why is it you can kill the child in your womb just because you don't want her. We don't stop being people if we are unwanted.

Because it's not a child. If it is a child then why aren't you in constant grief and sorrow about the 50% of pregnancies that miscarry?

As for being forced to carry a kiddo for 9 months, you consent to sex. A baby may result. Wow. Don't they teach sex ed anymore these days?

So easy for a man to casually preach about how women should keep their legs crossed.

What about it? Say a gal is raped and gets preggers. Have an abortion and the evidence goes away. How does that help the mother? Helps the rapist.

There are plenty of abortions done to cover up rape. How does it help the child, that is having to pay the penalty for something they are innocent. A child is not responsible for what their father did.

No abortions are done to cover up rape, thats possibly the most retarded thing I've read this year.

Oh and incidentally, unless you were a teenager in the fifties calling women 'gals' is likely to do little more than piss them off, and if definately going to damage any faint chance you had of ever getting laid.

How are women helped by abortion? They suffer the complications. They kill their own child. It helps the men because the men are no longer responsible. It's totally awesome. Have sex, knock up the gal and then stop calling. Abortion to the rescue! Yeah, great deal for women, there btw. Not to mention the fact that there are girls in the womb too that kinda end up screwed.

Your deep knowledge and empathy for the plight of women is remarkable.

Actually I believe that poor women today do not have access to abortion. You are telling me that a gal can just walk in and it's paid for? At least back then they weren't gonna die on the operating table like they do now.

I seriously can't believe you're trying to argue that illegal abortion was safe and modern legal abortion is somehow more dangerous. That's idiotic in ways that I can't even begin to fathom.

So if RJR tells you that cigarettes don't cause cancer you believe them too? Just a teensy weensy conflict of interest there, no.

You equate the medical community talking about medical issues with a tobacco company trying to sell more tobacco? Wow..

Answer the question. What kind of cells are they? People cells aren't the same as cat and dog cells.

Which cells? Shall we start with the single celled zygote? Seriously, what point exactly do you think this suddenly can be classed as a child? Now you answer my question about your views on evolution please, although I think I can already guess the answer.

So why bring him up? You stated that God is the biggest abortionist of all.

Because the people who usually rave about abortion and try and set womens rights back a century are usually doing it in the name of their god of choice. You fall into that category, right?

[Berzerker]

Purgatory. Again, restitution must be made.

By whom and why? If you punch me and I forgive you, does that mean I'm now required to punch you back? An eye for an eye? What did Jesus say about an eye for an eye?

One, because he loves us.

He loved us so he had us tear him to shreds?

Two, because there was no one else who could.

How about the actual sinners, they're the ones with the debt.

Christ is sinless.

So he doesn't owe restitution

If I'm in debt, and everyone is in debt and there are no assets, how can anyone repay God for our sins?

Goodness is an asset... According to Jesus we repay God by forgiving those who trespass against us. Why would he say that if his own sacrifice on the cross was that payment?

It is, if at all possible.

Why? Jesus told his followers to forgive trespassers without mentioning restitution. The people who murdered Jesus were not offering restitution when Jesus asked God to forgive them. The adulteress didn't apologize when Jesus forgave her, he didn't even ask for an apology.

Oh no, I'm not saying that. Biblically it's 7x for theft. Not only do you have to seek forgiveness, but you have to try to fix what damage you caused.

And if you cant, then you wont be forgiven and God wont forgive the person you wronged?

We offer our lives to Him. That is our restitution.

Jesus' crucifixion is the cost that God laid down and the price that was paid. Our sins were paid for and the restitution is to accept Christ.

What did he say to the woman who had 5 husbands? "Go forth and sin no more". That was her restitution.

Wasn't that an adulteress? Restitution is not "don't do it again".

I lived in Vancouver east side. I'm well aware of dealers and their nonsense.

When they sell to children I have a problem with it.

And I'm sure he said that we need to be giving crack out to kids too.

You blamed drug dealers because somebody stole your father's snowblower

Are there gun pushers? Tobacco pushers?

Yes, the tobacco "pushers" are the biggest drug dealers in the world.

Them choosing to do good? So the evil they do doesn't matter?

Of course it matters

[Ben Kenobi]

Look, before legalization there were a small number of doctors

Indeed, and those small numbers ended up running the clinics when it became legal as the most experienced abortionists.

who saw that the ban was harmful and damaging to women,

And not lucrative enough.

who performed safe abortions.

Thank you. Glad you conceded this.

These were an extremely small number of people.

One abortionist can do 10k a year, easy. 10 would be enough for the wholle country.

Then there were large numbers of unscrupulous criminals who saw an easy way to make money,

Since we are naming names here?

coerce desperate women into sex

Like Dr. Richard Tauber. Oh wait, he was arrested in 1982. After legalization so he doesn't count.

If your sick plan to outlaw abortion again came into effect the next generation of those nasty folks are going to be the ones who profit, while generations of women suffer.

As opposed to the current plan which is to subject women to sexual assault, dirty clinics, complications and the bonus of killing 1 million chldren a year. Brilliant!

And it's my plan that's sick.
.

Because it's not a child.

That's the point then. If it isn't a child, then none of this other stuff matters. If it is, all of it does. My argument is that the unborn child is a person, because personhood begins at conception. I believe that our existence begins in the womb, and that our growth and development in the womb is an extension of our growth and development outside of the womb.

If it is a child then why aren't you in constant grief and sorrow about the 50% of pregnancies that miscarry?

So you believe that killing a child is just as bad as the natural death? Yes, it's a tragedy to lose a child. Very much so. To kill one is worse.

So easy for a man to casually preach about how women should keep their legs crossed.

Ooh, sounds like I hit a nerve! Sex makes babies. If you have sex, be prepared to accept the consequences one of which is pregnancy. Just LIKE a man to preach self-control, eh. I said nothing about men or women. That's all you. Men should keep their pants on. Ladies, legs crossed.

No abortions are done to cover up rape, thats possibly the most retarded thing I've read this year.

Like hell they ain't! Plenty are done to cover up rape.

Oh and incidentally, unless you were a teenager in the fifties calling women 'gals' is likely to do little more than piss them off, and if definately going to damage any faint chance you had of ever getting laid.

Ma'am, my apologies. I thought I was dealing with a lady. I see I was mistaken. I'm unsure as to what my sexual proclivities have to do with this discussion. All the boys here will be so disappointed that you've outed me out as liking gals.

Maybe you prefer chicks? broads? lasses? How about that, sugah?

Your deep knowledge and empathy for the plight of women is remarkable.

So you think abortion empowers women, eh? Maybe lets ask what a real gal has to say about that. Feminist darlin' she is. Susan B Anthony. Heard of her?

I beg you to speak of Woman as you do of the Negro, speak of her as a human being, as a citizen of the United States, as a half of the people in whose hands lies the destiny of this Nation.

One of 'em rabble rousin' suffragettes.

No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!"

T'was what she said.

Elizabeth Stanton.

"When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit."

Vicky Woodhull:

"The rights of children as individuals begin while yet they remain the foetus."

Mary Wollenstonecraft

Women becoming, consequently, weaker...than they ought to be...have not sufficient strength to discharge the first duty of a mother; and sacrificing to lasciviousness the parental affection...either destroy the embryo in the womb, or cast if off when born. Nature in every thing demands respect, and those who violate her laws seldom violate them with impunity."

All feminist icons, all opposed to abortion. So tell me, who speaks for women? You or them?

I seriously can't believe you're trying to argue that illegal abortion was safe and modern legal abortion is somehow more dangerous. That's idiotic in ways that I can't even begin to fathom.

When your best argument is, "we simply don't know how many were done, " I'm not sure how you can reach the conclusion that abortions done before legalization were more dangerous. How do you know this?

You equate the medical community talking about medical issues with a tobacco company trying to sell more tobacco? Wow..

I equate abortionists and the abortion lobby with the cigarette makers and the cigarette lobby. Are you asserting that the entire medical community agrees with abortion?

Which cells? Shall we start with the single celled zygote?

Sure.

Seriously, what point exactly do you think this suddenly can be classed as a child?

At the creation of the zygote where the sperm and egg combine and a person's genetic code is formed. This is why, for example, in-vitro fertlization works. The small little zygote divides and grows, divides and grows, divides and grows over months to form an embryo and then a fetus. If this were not so, then in-vitro fertilization would not work.

Now you answer my question about your views on evolution please, although I think I can already guess the answer.

I believe in evolution.

Because the people who usually rave about abortion and try and set womens rights back a century are usually doing it in the name of their god of choice. You fall into that category, right?

I am a Catholic, yes. I believe that God granted us natural rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I believed this before I became a Christian.

I do not believe that our natural rights start at birth, I believe that we can no more deny the unborn their natural right to life than to deny our own.

[kentonio]

I'm not female, if I was then I'd almost certainly be using far stronger language to respond to your sexist, imbecilic ramblings. I'm not sure which is more offensive to be honest, your 1950's view of womens rights or your complete disdain for logical thought. At least 75% of what you have posted in this thread has been stupid and illogical. I strongly advise you to read back over the previous pages, think about how idiotic it sounds and then quarantine your PC until such a time as you can string a coherent thought together.

[Ben Kenobi]

By whom and why? If you punch me and I forgive you, does that mean I'm now required to punch you back? An eye for an eye? What did Jesus say about an eye for an eye?

If you steal from me, you pay me back as restitution.

He loved us so he had us tear him to shreds?

Yes.

How about the actual sinners, they're the ones with the debt.

Remember what I said about debt and assets? How could we pay back what other people owe when we owe God ourselves? Someone without sin had to do that which leaves us Christ.

So he doesn't owe restitution

But he loves us so much that he was willing to pay God back for our sins. Even to death on a cross.

Goodness is an asset

And that's what I was getting at.

You're a golfer. What if par was 18? Would you ever be over par? Would the very best shots that you make be enough to get you to par? Would you even come close?

Jesus gets a hole in one, every time. Some of us patzers are really happy if we're under a hundred. And then you who gets 20 points better. But the gulf between you and Jesus is much wider than me and you.

Why would he say that if his own sacrifice on the cross was that payment?

Because we love those as he has loved us. Fr'nstance I was cross with you. I was an idiot and I was wrong to be cross with you. I was just angry and pissed off and you were the closest target. I had no right to treat you that disrespectfully. I hope you can forgive me for what I said. I am sorry.

The people who murdered Jesus were not offering restitution when Jesus asked God to forgive them. The adulteress didn't apologize when Jesus forgave her, he didn't even ask for an apology.

Forgiveness must be granted first.

And if you cant, then you wont be forgiven and God wont forgive the person you wronged?

You must do your best.

Wasn't that an adulteress? Restitution is not "don't do it again".

It can be. Restitution can be many different things.

You blamed drug dealers because somebody stole your father's snowblower

When we found it in his yard, yes, we did. It had to be replaced.

Yes, the tobacco "pushers" are the biggest drug dealers in the world.

And when they stand on street corners selling cigarettes to children, then I will say the same things about them. The dope pushers have cost me dearly.

[Ben Kenobi]

string a coherent thought together.

Whatever you say sugah. Are you hot? There's not enough hot gals around here.

[kentonio]

Whatever you say sugah. Are you hot? There's not enough hot gals around here.

Aww bless, you edited your post to remove your little homophobia comment. Did you have a rare moment of self awareness?

[Ben Kenobi]

Aww bless, you edited your post to remove your little homophobia comment. Did you have a rare moment of self awareness?

Wow you really must be into me. Let me guess. Are you tall, sugah? Tall gals are awesome.

[kentonio]

Sexist and homophobic. Let me guess, you're not a huge fan of brown people either right?

[Ben Kenobi]

Sexist and homophobic. Let me guess, you're not a huge fan of brown people either right?

Damn straight. I'm an enormous fan. Huge just don't cover it.

[BeBMan]

I was in this hotel room, together with this monster mosquito. GOD'S WORD killed him. True story.

[Kidlicious]

No, they wanted the knowledge of good and evil... And this wasn't sarcasm, God blocked their way to the tree of life and kicked them out of the Garden because of what happened. God was worried about what the humans might be capable of now...



You said the act of murder is an example of free will... If I murder you, what happened to your free will?



According to Jesus, Moses allowed those selfish divorce laws because the hearts of men were hard. Jesus changed that, he rejected Mosaic divorce law. Why he rejected it doesn't matter, its still proof Jesus did not support every law stemming from Moses. Jesus also rejected Mosaic Sabbath laws, Moses had a man stoned to death for gathering firewood on the Sabbath (what a friggin saint) but Jesus changed that too, the Sabbath was made for man.



whatever

No not whatever. We're responsible for the way we interpret God's word. If you're wrong you pay the consequences. What about the many places in the Bible that talk about salvation? Woe unto you.

[grumbler]

Sorry, I posted that in haste while coming off a rather bad "border run" (long story). For a more polite and less grumpy version of my opinion, see the edit I posted a split second before your reply. I actually have read at least the legal summary of Roe v. Wade. As I recall, Byron White made the exact same objection I did--that he felt the court was concocting a right out of thin air. Rehnquist concurred with that dissenting opinion, while adding a long list of objections of his own, such as the separation into trimesters being arbitrary and not relevant.

The dissent of White and Rehnquist was built around the premise that only rights articulated in the Constitution exist. That the Constitution explicitly states otherwise does not convince them that the Constitution states otherwise. I have always been puzzled by the willingness of those two to abandon intellectual rigor in that dissent.

That Americans have a right to privacy is simply beyond question, IMO, whether White and Rehnquist believed it or not.

EDIT: To be perfectly clear, I understand that RvW did not come about independently, but was the result of precedent established in at least one prior SCOTUS case. I'm too lazy to look it up, but it involved a Connecticut law against contraception. The court argued that laws against contraceptives were an unwarranted intrusion on the woman's privacy, and struck it down. I believe there was a dissenting opinion in that case as well--if there wasn't, I certainly think there should have been--that, while the law in question was asinine (I know I think so), the court exceeded its authority in claiming a right to privacy extending to specifics in that way.

The right to privacy existed before Griswold v. Connecticut. In fact, RvW traces it far back in the common law. The right to privacy extends to all decision-making where the state lacks a compelling interest, just like most other rights under a legal system in which government only has the powers given it by the governed. Connecticut could provide no compelling reason why it should ban birth control, and the USSC rightly ruled that, in that case, the right of privacy would prevail.

[Elok]

"The Framers did not intend that the first eight amendments be construed to exhaust the basic and fundamental rights.... I do not mean to imply that the .... Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of rights protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal Government....While the Ninth Amendment - and indeed the entire Bill of Rights - originally concerned restrictions upon federal power, the subsequently enacted Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States as well from abridging fundamental personal liberties. And, the Ninth Amendment, in indicating that not all such liberties are specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments, is surely relevant in showing the existence of other fundamental personal rights, now protected from state, as well as federal, infringement. In sum, the Ninth Amendment simply lends strong support to the view that the "liberty" protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments from infringement by the Federal Government or the States is not restricted to rights specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments. Cf. United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 94-95."

From Griswold, via Wiki. Big problem with this stance: it could be used, with equal validity, to justify almost any personal liberty, depending on the predilections of the court. The complete text of the Ninth reads:

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

That's it. If you can construe that to mean "women can have abortions," you can also construe that to mean "people can start fires without restrictions," "people can get wasted on drugs whenever they like" and "people can dance in the middle of busy traffic intersections." No, I'm not starting a slippery-slope argument--in practice, I'm sure the Ninth/Fourteenth will only ever be used to justify rights which fit in with the SC's present ideological agenda, and said agenda tends to follow some segment of public opinion, in addition to (generally) building on past precedent. But if you're arguing that the SC can pull whatever rabbit it likes out of that tiny hat...I'm sorry, but that's patently absurd, regardless of its common-law pedigree.