- Jan 19, 2005
- 7,879
- 4,428
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Have fun playing your game I guess? Changing the name of a procedure or diagnosis does not make them go away.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Have fun playing your game I guess? Changing the name of a procedure or diagnosis does not make them go away.When did I claim that it wasn't?
At least I am aware of the game, its rules and the fact that I am playing.
Why are you being so obtuse?Have fun playing your game I guess? Changing the name of a procedure or diagnosis does not make them go away.
None of that is important to me.Why are you being so obtuse?
Evil spirits want us to normalize the murder of our children.
They want us to associate it with natural occurrences.
The fact that they are both tragedies does not change their tactics or end goals.
There is a reason that false prophets and anti-Christs are always described as having a mastery over the language of the people.
They use words to try and catch the unprepared and unwary.
Knowing the tactics of your enemy helps you to defend yourself competently and appropriately.
And right now, the war is being fought in our culture using our language.
Why do you think they are fighting so hard over pronouns? Trying to make "hate-speech" a thing? Controlling or compelling speech?
Trying to make us believe that intentionally killing our children is equivalent to a miscarriage?
It's just another step in the direction of blurring the lines between reality and delusion. Good and Evil.
Obviously - but that doesn't mean that it is not important or untrue.None of that is important to me.
I do not believe in evil spirits or any spirits for that matter.Obviously - but that doesn't mean that it is not important or untrue.
Then you ignore much. The culture is always redefining words. Evil spirits are always pulling their strings.I do not believe in evil spirits or any spirits for that matter.
The term abortion does not bother me. It is just a medical term. Call it anything you want. The pro life community wants to change medical terminology so that they can claim abortions are never necessary but the same medical procedures will occur no matter the label. That is my whole argument in summary.
pro life made abortion a dirty word so now the medical community needs to change it so women who need one don’t feel bad? Maybe stop vilifying a word.Then you ignore much. The culture is always redefining words. Evil spirits are always pulling their strings.
I don't know about "pro-life" advocates - but I would like for medical terminology to reflect how these words are used today.
Again - you cannot deny the political motivations in the medical community.
They are willing to bend and break for certain words - but why not "abortion"?
That's the exact opposite of what has happened.pro life made abortion a dirty word so now the medical community needs to change it so women who need one don’t feel bad? Maybe stop vilifying a word.
Abortion is hardly new. It's been around for at least thousands of years.That's the exact opposite of what has happened.
"Abortion" was pushed as the new form of birth control by every level of government in conjunction with corporate America and media.
Those who oppose Satan simply noticed it and speak out against it.
No one claimed that it was new.Abortion is hardly new. It's been around for at least thousands of years.
You claimed that it was pushed as a new form of birth control, which isn't likely, considering its history.No one claimed that it was new.
Why do you think anyone claimed that?
Wow. Ok.You claimed that it was pushed as a new form of birth control, which isn't likely, considering its history.
Huh. Must have been before my time. But I'm only in my 60s, so that wouldn't be surprising.My comment was in reference to the REPEATED CLAIMS by pro-abortion advocates FOR DECADES that abortion was NOT considered a new form of birth control.
They said that abortion was the last act of desperation when all other options had failed. Their slogan was, "Safe, Legal and Rare"
I must have missed all this abortion marketing over the last 50 years since it became legal.That's the exact opposite of what has happened.
"Abortion" was pushed as the new form of birth control by every level of government in conjunction with corporate America and media.
Those who oppose Satan simply noticed it and speak out against it.
Huh. Must have been before my time. But I'm only in my 60s, so that wouldn't be surprising.
The arguments I tended to hear for abortion way back when was that it was going to happen anyway, better that it happened in a safe manner in a medical facility rather than in a back alley with a hanger.
I must have missed all this abortion marketing over the last 50 years since it became legal.
The overarching theme in that article is still about reducing the need for abortion through by addressing why women seek them.How the abortion debate moved away from “safe, legal, and rare”
Democratic politicians used to say abortions should be rare. Here’s how that changed.www.vox.com
Yes, "safe, legal, rare" was a phrase that came along Bill Clinton around 1992. It was long after abortion was made legal in the US due to Roe v. Wade. The phrase was part of a goal by Democrats at the time to make abortions less commonplace. Increase sex education, make standard birth control methods more accessible, etc, to reduce unwanted pregnancies in the first place. The phrase wasn't meant to say that abortion wasn't being used as a form of birth control.How the abortion debate moved away from “safe, legal, and rare”
Democratic politicians used to say abortions should be rare. Here’s how that changed.www.vox.com
This logic doesn't make any sense. If I die, and the child cannot live apart from me, the child dies too. I'm sacrificing my life for nothing. And if the child can live apart from me, just induce labor and give birth to the child if it's a health hazard to my existence. Get the child out of my body and try to save both of us.If she was a woman seeking my advice, such as my wife, as much as I love and cherish her, I would encourage her to choose the life of the child over her own. After all, that is the degree of sacrificial love Jesus demonstrated for all of us for every situation. But would certainly fervently pray for the miraculous preservation of both of their lives.
If she chooses to abort, however, I would lead her to accept Jesus' forgiveness as well as offer my own. And pray for both of our healing. As I do for any repentant mother and father who aborts for any reason.
And statistically, the bear is far less likely to harm them.
I really think that these comments underestimate the dangers of bears. Men can be reasoned with and strategized around, while bears will just maul you and kill you. The fact that women will choose certain death over trying to build a relationship with a man really shows how much society has deteriorated.With men, a miscalculation could have us tied up in a basement awaiting something far worse than a bear attack.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?