Planned Parenthood is in Deep Trouble With the Law.

[Liza B.]

How can you make judgements about what is right or wrong, when you think it is right for a human to kill another human with a beating heart, simply because that beating heart is housed inside its mother?

See how easy this is?

As for your other questions, I suspect we should take this to the proper forum; it's likely to get deleted here.

 

[Par5]

God does not commit genocide.

Definition of genocide..... deliberate extermination of a people or nation (Oxford dictionary)

1 Samuel 15:2-3, God commanded Saul and the Israelites, “This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkey

Deuteronomy, chapter 20
16: But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes,
17: but you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Per'izzites, the Hivites and the Jeb'usites, as the LORD your God has commanded;


What nice word do you use for the above?

 

[Liza B.]

Definition of genocide..... deliberate extermination of a people or nation (Oxford dictionary)

1 Samuel 15:2-3, God commanded Saul and the Israelites, “This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkey

Deuteronomy, chapter 20
16: But in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God gives you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes,
17: but you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Per'izzites, the Hivites and the Jeb'usites, as the LORD your God has commanded;


What nice word do you use for the above?

I have news for you: God will one day destroy most of humanity. He did it before when He put Noah on the ark, and He will do it again. Make no mistake about that. None of the above surprises me, by the way; I have read the Bible entire and am this year just finishing reading it again. This includes books and portions I have read over and over and over. For more discussion on this, however, please meet me on the Apologetics forum. I have requested access. I fear this portion of the discussion is far afield of the thread topic.

Back to the topic, though. Since you're so opposed to genocide, how do you justify abortion?

 

[Nithavela]

It never ceases to amuse and amaze me when people from foreign nations tell us what will continue to be lawful in our nation.

I'm not saying that it will continue to be lawfull forever. But for it to become unlawfull, Roe vs Wade has to be revoked by the Supreme Court, and then the states would need to outlaw it as well. Neither seems likely in the (as I said) foreseeable future.

But I'm happy that I have amused you. I wish I were as easily amused.

 

[Nithavela]

I have news for you: God will one day destroy most of humanity.

Not if Ragnarok gets here first.

 

[Liza B.]

I'm not saying that it will continue to be lawfull forever. But for it to become unlawfull, Roe vs Wade has to be revoked by the Supreme Court, and then the states would need to outlaw it as well. Neither seems likely in the (as I said) foreseeable future.

But I'm happy that I have amused you. I wish I were as easily amused.

I could not care less about the inner workings of Germany. But many Germans care very much about the inner workings of America, and seem to be utterly obsessed with Trump. I do find that amusing.

 

[Liza B.]

Not if Ragnarok gets here first.

Uh-huh. And atheists are driven to spend how much time defending against Ragnarok, vs. Jesus Christ?

 

[Nithavela]

Uh-huh. And atheists are driven to spend how much time defending against Ragnarok, vs. Jesus Christ?

About the same ratio as the ratio of Asatru versus Christians, I'd wager.

I could not care less about the inner workings of Germany.

I think this says more about you than about anyone else.

 

[Liza B.]

About the same ratio as the ratio of Asatru versus Christians, I'd wager.

I think this says more about you than about anyone else.

Well let me ask a more pertinent question. Since you're in Germany, how much time do you spend countering the real religious threat in your nation: Islam?

 

[Nithavela]

Well let me ask a more pertinent question. Since you're in Germany, how much time do you spend countering the real religious threat in your nation: Islam?

I don't think there are any religious threats to my nation.

And I try to refrain from any kind of religious discussion and from "countering" religious doctrines and things like that.

Then again, I'm not an atheist, so perhaps you're asking the wrong person.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Back to the topic, though. Since you're so opposed to genocide, how do you justify abortion?

Actually, I posted a question (in post #57) that has yet to be answered by anyone in the pro-life camp. Maybe you'll care to take a stab at it.

For people that claim to abhor abortion, how do they justify voting for policies (either directly or by proxy -via a candidate) that basically guarantee higher rates of unplanned pregnancy, which in turn, lead to higher abortion rates?

- Abstinence-only education
- Gutting social safety nets for low income mothers
- Reductions in sex education in public schools
- Voting to allow employers to deny insurance coverage for contraceptives
- Voting to reduce publicly funded contraceptive options

This combination is basically the recipe that would show up if one were trying to answer the question "what factors cause increases in the abortion rates?"

Yet, the majority of people in the pro-life camp consistently vote for these policies directly, or by proxy when they vote for candidates that publicly support these policies.

As someone who's clearly in the pro-life camp, certainly you must have an explanation...

 

[Liza B.]

I don't think there are any religious threats to my nation.

And I try to refrain from any kind of religious discussion and from "countering" religious doctrines and things like that.

Then again, I'm not an atheist, so perhaps you're asking the wrong person.

You had no problem commenting on it when you cited Rago-whatever. And indeed Islam is a much, much greater threat to your nation than Christianity. If you doubt that, I don't know how much good any further conversation would do. It's like arguing does the grass grow green or red.

 

[Nithavela]

You had no problem commenting on it when you cited Rago-whatever. And indeed Islam is a much, much greater threat to your nation than Christianity. If you doubt that, I don't know how much good any further conversation would do. It's like arguing does the grass grow green or red.

Threat or not, I think that it is off-topic to this thread.

If you wish to discuss other religions, there are other boards for this.

The topic of this thread is planned parenthood.

 

[Liza B.]

Actually, I posted a question (in post #57) that has yet to be answered by anyone in the pro-life camp. Maybe you'll care to take a stab at it.

For people that claim to abhor abortion, how do they justify voting for policies (either directly or by proxy -via a candidate) that basically guarantee higher rates of unplanned pregnancy, which in turn, lead to higher abortion rates?

- Abstinence-only education
- Gutting social safety nets for low income mothers
- Reductions in sex education in public schools
- Voting to allow employers to deny insurance coverage for contraceptives
- Voting to reduce publicly funded contraceptive options

This combination is basically the recipe that would show up if one were trying to answer the question "what factors cause increases in the abortion rates?"

Yet, the majority of people in the pro-life camp consistently vote for these policies directly, or by proxy when they vote for candidates that publicly support these policies.

As someone who's clearly in the pro-life camp, certainly you must have an explanation...

You are making a LOT of assumptions in this post. You are assuming that these things will work in reducing unwanted pregnancies, and that the gov't is absolutely the BEST avenue for mitigating poverty.

Huge, massive, assumptions, are they not?

First, I'm a Protestant, and so therefore not opposed to contraception. It simply cannot be argued that abstinence is the ONLY 100% sure way of avoiding pregnancy. Whether the schools are the best way of delivering any sex ed is up for debate--and I mean that. I would rather have women of any childbearing age on contraception than having abortions, though.

As for the "social safety nets", I would say our war on poverty is an abysmal failure. Let's look at the results rather than what our motivations may be. It just might be that conservatives are not motivated by taking food from starving babies, but feel that the gov't has not really helped the situation.

 

[Liza B.]

Threat or not, I think that it is off-topic to this thread.

If you wish to discuss other religions, there are other boards for this.

The topic of this thread is planned parenthood.

I agree and have invited others to join me on the Apologetics forum. But I would be most interested to know if, and how much time you spend, countering Islam from Germany. Perhaps we could meet to discuss that on the proper forums.

Threat or not, I think that it is off-topic to this thread.

If you wish to discuss other religions, there are other boards for this.

The topic of this thread is planned parenthood.

I created a thread under the "Kitchen Sink", not sure of where else to put it. I hope you will go there and respond.

 

[Nithavela]

I agree and have invited others to join me on the Apologetics forum. But I would be most interested to know if, and how much time you spend, countering Islam from Germany. Perhaps we could meet to discuss that on the proper forums.


I created a thread under the "Kitchen Sink", not sure of where else to put it. I hope you will go there and respond.

No, thank you.

 

[Liza B.]

No, thank you.

Fair enough. But I will note that you are here, talking and debating Christians. This is obvious.

Thank you anyway.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You are making a LOT of assumptions in this post. You are assuming that these things will work in reducing unwanted pregnancies, and that the gov't is absolutely the BEST avenue for mitigating poverty.

Huge, massive, assumptions, are they not?

No, they're not assumptions in this case. We know that contraception and education are both vital in preventing unwanted pregnancies, and that when access to these things is removed, or dramatically reduced, unplanned pregnancies go up.

Theses patterns at the state level aren't a coincidence.

First, I'm a Protestant, and so therefore not opposed to contraception. It simply cannot be argued that abstinence is the ONLY 100% sure way of avoiding pregnancy. Whether the schools are the best way of delivering any sex ed is up for debate--and I mean that. I would rather have women of any childbearing age on contraception than having abortions, though.

I understand that you're not opposed to contraception (most people aren't opposed to the concept, itself), however, what most GOP voters do vote for, is for companies to be able specifically omit contraception coverage in their insurance plans. Which, if you look at the numbers, is really just a pandering tool aimed at the fundamentalists. In terms of cost (for insurance providers, or for publicly funded contraceptive outlets), it's really drop in the bucket. The only appeal to this is for people who A) operate on the assumption that everyone using these services must be involved in some sort of deviant lifestyle, and B) that it's a much bigger cost than what it really is.

As for the "social safety nets", I would say our war on poverty is an abysmal failure. Let's look at the results rather than what our motivations may be. It just might be that conservatives are not motivated by taking food from starving babies, but feel that the gov't has not really helped the situation.

I would agree that the war on poverty, as a whole, has largely been a failure...(not due to it being a bad idea at its core, nothing wrong with wanting programs that assist people in tough situations), but due to partisan meddling and the programs either being sabotaged to the point of being mostly ineffective (so that a particular political faction can say "see, government programs are inefficient, that's why we should get rid of them"), or they've been sacrificed as political bargaining chips.

...but that aside, I'm not talking about the war on poverty as a whole, I'm specifically referring to A) the programs specifically directed at assisting single mothers, and B) the publicly funded outlets for contraception.

 

[tulipbee]

What's the deal with all these reports on sexual harassments and no reports on those that terminate a fetus ? ????

 

[Liza B.]

No, they're not assumptions in this case. We know that contraception and education are both vital in preventing unwanted pregnancies, and that when access to these things is removed, or dramatically reduced, unplanned pregnancies go up.
.

Really? I surely believe that about contraception. I'm not so sure how effective sex ed in public schools is, are you?

I understand that you're not opposed to contraception (most people aren't opposed to the concept, itself), however, what most GOP voters do vote for, is for companies to be able specifically omit contraception coverage in their insurance plans. Which, if you look at the numbers, is really just a pandering tool aimed at the fundamentalists. In terms of cost (for insurance providers, or for publicly funded contraceptive outlets), it's really drop in the bucket. The only appeal to this is for people who A) operate on the assumption that everyone using these services must be involved in some sort of deviant lifestyle, and B) that it's a much bigger cost than what it really is.

Okay well now, we're just going to argue about who should pay for it. So now because I'm opposed to abortion, I should force Catholics who are also morally opposed to BC to pay for their employees BC, just because. No. Also, what else should the gov't pay for just because people need it? Absolutely everything into perpetuity? Has this been a great policy? I'm asking.