JacobKStarkey
Well-Known Member
- Jan 3, 2019
- 1,220
- 714
- 64
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Married
NO, they are not. Study Ecclesiastes 12, please.
Upvote
0
This headline strikes again. Do you know that in the Alabama House a woman legislator sponsored the bill? Did you know that at least one other woman co-sponsored the bill? Did you know that six women in the Alabama House voted for the bill, which was twice as many votes as all the men and women who voted against the bill in the House? Did you know that in the Alabama legislature more women voted for the bill in House and Senate combined than voted against the bill?Men cast every vote for Alabama's restrictive abortion law - CBS News
https://www.cbsnews.com/.../alabama-abortion-law-state-criminalized-for-women-ever...
May 16, 2019 - Alabama just criminalized abortions – and every single yes vote ... Twenty-five members of the Alabama State Senate voted to pass the nation's most restrictive abortion bill on ... On Wednesday, the state's Republican female governor, Kay Ivey, ... Priscilla Dunn, did not vote or were not present for the vote.
This headline strikes again. Do you know that in the Alabama House a woman legislator sponsored the bill? Did you know that at least one other woman co-sponsored the bill? Did you know that six women in the Alabama House voted for the bill, which was twice as many votes as all the men and women who voted against the bill? Did you know that in the Alabama legislature more women voted for the bill in House and Senate than voted against the bill?
NO, they are not. Study Ecclesiastes 12, please.
My point is that few objectors to the bill bother with reading more than the headline. I agree that one has to read more than the headline. In this particular case because the headline is misleading. The headline does not say it was the Senate vote. The headline implies that it was the whole legislature. And that's how many people are taking it. So, yes, read the whole thing, which tells a different story than the headline.But, again, you have to read more than the headline. The headline is correct if you read the article, because the article is about the action of the Senate, not the House.
I'm an old newspaper reporter. Only a fool relies on a headline.My point is that few objectors to the bill bother with reading more than the headline. I agree that one has to read more than the headline. In this particular case because the headline is misleading. The headline does not say it was the Senate vote. The headline implies that it was the whole legislature. And that's how many people are taking it. So, yes, read the whole thing, which tells a different story than the headline.
Exactly!I'm an old newspaper reporter. Only a fool relies on a headline.
Exactly!
But many people DO rely on the headline. It's evident.
Of course it is, every bit as much as Jeremiah is not.That chapter is not about when human life begins.
If you can't verify a link, your argument fails.Read in detail the article you yourself linked to. And you can verify votes because they are public record.
Whatever. It was your link. In which the actual contents didn't agree with the words of the title.If you can't verify a link, your argument fails.
But, as I have pointed out, we disagree as to exactly when human life begins. Even among Christians there is not agreement.If my opinion accurately reflects Biblical truth, then yes. In the same way if the law stated that it was permissible for parents to kill their children up until age 3, I would vehemently argue that that is immoral and we shouldn’t allow it.
Wouldn't wisdom then recommend erring on the side of the conservative? This isn't something we really want to be wrong about.But, as I have pointed out, we disagree as to exactly when human life begins. Even among Christians there is not agreement.
Yes. That is why you don’t want to force a rape victim to carry a fetus to term against her will.Wouldn't wisdom then recommend erring on the side of the conservative? This isn't something we really want to be wrong about.
You got it backwards! The conservative approach would be to protect the innocent unborn human from being killed!Yes. That is why you don’t want to force a rape victim to carry a fetus to term against her will.