You mean those who support the party of abortion & sexual perversion?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
John Roberts votes left again, on abortion. He is owned.
- Thread starter Wingman68
- Start date
Why do you oppose abortion? For many it is the religious prohibition, for many it is that the value of life is not dependent on anything other than our humanity. Assigning a value to humanity based on anything other than intrinsic and immutable things is a slippery slope.
Which is exactly the point of abortion and euthanasia. The Nazis knew that, and began in 1933 with the careful and seemingly gentle culling of the most vulnerable among them: the weak, the infirm, the congenitally ill, the retarded.
But our humanity does not disappear when we become ill or demented or are too young to survive outside of the womb. The push to euthanize is functionally identical to the Nazis' first steps toward the Final Solution and the Holocaust.
Targeting People With Mental Illness and Dementia for Euthanasia
What about the U.S.? Would we ever follow such a course? As of now, the nine states and the District of Columbia that have legalized assisted suicide limit access to patients who are terminally ill. But that’s more a political expediency than a principled limitation. Indeed, restricting assisted suicide to the dying is philosophically unsustainable.
Think about it. If the point of allowing suicide by doctor is to eliminate suffering — and if eliminating suffering can include eliminating the sufferer — how can facilitated death be forbidden to patients, such as those with dementia and mental illness, who may suffer far more extremely and for a much longer time than the already dying? It makes no sense.
Because it is merely the first steps on the way to unrestricted state control of every aspect of our lives and deaths. it only becomes consistent and logical when control over the death of humans is taken from God and ceded to the state.
The murder of innocents in the womb is the sacrament of the Democrat/Progressive movement in America. But to assume that they respect all other life is naive in the extreme, both logically and from even casual observation of their actions. It does not stop with abortion; it ends in concentration camps.
Melodrama? No. It has happened before, and human nature says that it will happen again. So fighting abortion is not just a religious imperative reserved for the devout, it is the first battle against the worst excesses of the progressive drive for control. But a second front is developing, and we must push back against any hint that the aged and demented are any less human and deserving of society's protection than the hale and hearty and productive.
That hits home with many of us; yes, it is a struggle with our parents, but defending their lives and intrinsic value is moral, and anything short of a full-throated defense of their lives and dignity is a failure on our and society's part.
Tip of the hat to CBD posted today on Ace of Spades. Between abortion & the recent sacrifice of so many elderly which is obvious to any willing to see, to nine states allowing euthanasia, he nails it.
Which is exactly the point of abortion and euthanasia. The Nazis knew that, and began in 1933 with the careful and seemingly gentle culling of the most vulnerable among them: the weak, the infirm, the congenitally ill, the retarded.
But our humanity does not disappear when we become ill or demented or are too young to survive outside of the womb. The push to euthanize is functionally identical to the Nazis' first steps toward the Final Solution and the Holocaust.
Targeting People With Mental Illness and Dementia for Euthanasia
What about the U.S.? Would we ever follow such a course? As of now, the nine states and the District of Columbia that have legalized assisted suicide limit access to patients who are terminally ill. But that’s more a political expediency than a principled limitation. Indeed, restricting assisted suicide to the dying is philosophically unsustainable.
Think about it. If the point of allowing suicide by doctor is to eliminate suffering — and if eliminating suffering can include eliminating the sufferer — how can facilitated death be forbidden to patients, such as those with dementia and mental illness, who may suffer far more extremely and for a much longer time than the already dying? It makes no sense.
Because it is merely the first steps on the way to unrestricted state control of every aspect of our lives and deaths. it only becomes consistent and logical when control over the death of humans is taken from God and ceded to the state.
The murder of innocents in the womb is the sacrament of the Democrat/Progressive movement in America. But to assume that they respect all other life is naive in the extreme, both logically and from even casual observation of their actions. It does not stop with abortion; it ends in concentration camps.
Melodrama? No. It has happened before, and human nature says that it will happen again. So fighting abortion is not just a religious imperative reserved for the devout, it is the first battle against the worst excesses of the progressive drive for control. But a second front is developing, and we must push back against any hint that the aged and demented are any less human and deserving of society's protection than the hale and hearty and productive.
That hits home with many of us; yes, it is a struggle with our parents, but defending their lives and intrinsic value is moral, and anything short of a full-throated defense of their lives and dignity is a failure on our and society's part.
Tip of the hat to CBD posted today on Ace of Spades. Between abortion & the recent sacrifice of so many elderly which is obvious to any willing to see, to nine states allowing euthanasia, he nails it.
Was this question for me? I don’t support abortion. Like I always say, if you want to know something about me then just ask instead of forcing words in my mouth.
Are you joking? The article CLEARLY stated she was ugly on the outside and stated that she has sex with "everyone". CRUDELY stated.
What that had to do with her husband voting pro-choice, I have no idea. It is a sick and perverted website and why a Christian man supports it let alone posts it on a Christian site - I have no idea.
Oh, I just glanced at it. I will doublecheck it.
I don't know if part of the link has been destroyed but I do not see anything like what you write. It presents her as an international lawyer with a who's-who list of clients. I think part of the link is gone.
Last edited:
Your intentions are always good, but your reactions are betraying you. Either that or you didn’t actually read the article. It was not written for a religious board, as I advised. None of what you said was alleged. None of it. Back to the OP.....doesn’t seem that the decision really upset you. No problem with Roberts for you, OK then.
I told you how proud I was and appreciative I was of the Louisiana legislators down here who fight against abortion. I said I was happy that these restrictions lasted as long as they did.
I also said I knew this liberal overturning was coming. Yes, the decision is upsetting. But it was inevitable. The vile left will not allow for abortion restrictions.
Our men and women in office down here will still fight the fight against abortion.
No, I didn't read the article. You said there was bad language and to be warned.
The title, before altered by mods, was bad enough. Sexual impropriety and her being physical ugly is what was stated. When one says that "an ugly woman scr#ws everyone" - I don't know how else one would take that.
Roberts is beyond the pale of logic. He has his wife cashing in on his clout. After 100 years of power, the Bush family has proven to be too moderate to have left much behind. Most Republicans do not want government jobs because of the step down that comes from being in DC.
Roberts shows the corruption that is in American government. His wife's work as a lawyer is a conflict of interest.
Roberts shows the corruption that is in American government. His wife's work as a lawyer is a conflict of interest.
Abortion can be argued from a scientific basis, as since it is clear babies are gully human even in the womb, their constitutional rights to life need to be upheld!
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Language/swearing is not referenced as a sin anywhere in the Bible, with the exception of taking the Lord’s name in vain. To judge someone about language? To question their Christianity with regards to language while giving a pass to real, stated sin, as I’ve witnessed from some here? Plank in eye time. Hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is one of the main reasons that drives people AWAY from Christianity.
Just saying thag one can make a valid case without bring it under a religions view!
The case is easily made that one human is it’s own entity from another by every measure. DNA, bloodtype, & on & on. That baby is simply residing in a womb. It is not a part of the woman’s body. It is a separate & distinct person. Like you said, it doesn’t take religion to figure that out.
You haven’t witnessed anyone giving it a pass because it hasn’t happened. That is a lie. You assume at your own peril. You are so obtuse that you actually think the issue with your post was about language when it was clearly stated by myself and others that it was about slandering someone that has nothing to do with the topic.
You got one thing right. Hypocrisy does drive people away. God knows you are doing your best.
The rights of an individual should have been extended to baby in womb in Roe ve Wade!
That's what Roe did--it held that the baby was not a person but property just as the court held in the Dred Scott case. It is uncanny.
And very bad law! At worst, they should have just ruled that this was a state case, and every state decide what abortions tights, if any, were to be granted!