My Choice. Politicians and intellectual consistency are strangers.
Message Board Archives
Vaccines: My Body My Choice - Abortion: Your Body
2022-06-27 11:29:44
2022-06-27 11:48:41
In reply to Walco
THIS
2022-06-27 13:32:30
In reply to Walco
Um...can't the same be said of you?
Vaccines: take one for the team. Abortion: snuff out another's life because it is inconvenient for you?
Listen this issue is not a great concern to me. Either way me and mine go by higher laws, but it is just interesting how you all reason on others without looking at yourselves.
2022-06-27 13:39:55
Or vaccines: we need a law forcing people to do the right thing, even though they may have alternatives they prefer.
Abortion: please, make no law to force people to think of the life of a human being that has no alternative way of surviving.
2022-06-27 14:55:28
In reply to Ayenmol
what i have a problem with is what gives anyone the right to force their religious doctrine on any one
2022-06-27 16:45:33
In reply to Ayenmol
please, make no law to force people to think of the life of a human being
Abortion up to day 40 of the pregnancy is not taking a life as the fetus is not a life and this is borne out in scientific fact. In addition, GOD permits abortion past day 40 when it is required to save the life of the mother or for situation such as pregnancy by incest or rape.
Now, I am telling you my religious view based on Islamic jurisprudence, and you should reject it as I should not be able to force my religious view on you. And this is all the other folks are saying: when abortion is banned it is exactly forcing radical Christian view on everybody, and this radical Christian view has no basis in scientific fact and I will also argue it is man-made law, not the law of the Christian GOD.
BTW, these same radical Christians have no problem with the death penalty even when there is some doubt of the guilt of the person and even when Jesus taught forgiveness and redemption- how do you consolidate this?
2022-06-27 17:23:02
Mr. Velo Zealots and rigid idealogues regardless of education and training arrive to those positions because the are STUPID.
If life begins at conception why do many women not know they ar pregnant for weeks?
In ectopic pregnancies, rapes, incest and other cases which one of the lives should you really be saving, which is the right thing to do?
A gun has one major use to maim and kill, yes it is also to defend and protect. So, why these guys are so ready to ensure people can walk
around with hidden guns but the same right on potentially deciding life or death for themselves (women) is restricted? Same people will rush
their pregnant pet dogs and cats to the vet at the 1st sign of any complications. HYPOCRITES!
2022-06-27 17:52:33
In reply to Brerzerk
Radical right-wing religious zealots. That's what these people are.
2022-06-27 21:41:34
In reply to velo
Listen, we can have a real discussion on this if we want, but that will never happen. So I will ask you....what about sparing lives is Religious doctrine?
Is it not the right of the majority to make the laws?
What right do you have to insist your non religious doctrine should be the law of the land?
Religious doctrine says do not murder....So should that be wiped off the books?
Who sets the standard for what is Religious and what is not? Why them?
We can go on and on. As I said. I take no side in this, but I abide by the laws of the land and it is interesting the line of reasoning you all take when you want something and when you dont.
2022-06-27 21:42:29
In reply to Emir
THAT is your Religious doctrine. Am not gonna argue with you.
Am not arguing for or against. Am saying as I did, that there are multiple ways to look at it from the angle of the initial post.
It was just fin3 for me before this ruling and it is just fine for me now.
2022-06-27 22:14:46
In reply to Emir
I had to come back and say this...I do not understand how a Religious man can state that an inseminated egg is not a life.
Where in scripture do you find that?
If you believe and serve a deity you call God, how can you decide to determine when a process he has set in place becomes what he intended it to be?
So if you have a plot of land and I came and sowed seeds in it....a hundred seeds, would it be OK to leave it in the ground because it is just seeds?
Unless you remove that seed from the ground, what will be the outcome?
Or if you plant seeds and I come root it out, but you never realized it, and the day for the plants to begin growing comes and nothing.....would you take me to court just for the seeds? Or do you think a claim could be made for the actual lost crop?
2022-06-27 22:34:18
In reply to Ayenmol
I do not understand how a Religious man can state that an inseminated egg is not a life.
Because it is not, and that Quranic fact was proven by science. Your religious belief about when life start has no basis in any Abrahamic religious text, it is man-made, so you elevate man to God by taking this flawed belief and claiming it's from GOD
2022-06-27 22:44:53
In reply to Emir
Really? So what about This?
Is that Science?
This Science?
2022-06-27 23:08:23
In reply to Emir
This is why I do not even bother with people like you....you obviously never looked into this but just took it for granted that what your religious said agrees with science.
Just like all that stuff about Jesus and all that.
You try to act like your knowledge is broad when in fact you have no idea what you are talking about and all your views are are based on what your religion teaches.
Jesus was executed. Do you realize that? He was put to death!
So was John the Baptiste!
The Jews and the scriptures that you claim to be of divin3 inspiration makes it clear and required the death penalty....and actually makes someone who spares someone who should be put to death, liable of death.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
You are a babe when it comes to even basic knowledge of scripture....
2022-06-27 23:12:09
Abortion is, and this is supported by Science, the termination of a life.
It is up to the Government to decide if that is legal or not in the land they oversee.
Simple as that.
Same as they sanction the taking of life in War.
I participate in neither.
2022-06-27 23:57:50
In reply to Emir
Abortion up to day 40 of the pregnancy is not taking a life as the fetus is not a life and this is borne out in scientific fact
Are you sure about that?
2022-06-28 00:16:37
In reply to Emir
Oh and btw...doh think I did not see how you slipped in the 'radical' Christian denotion.
I have never heard you mention radical Muslims, you know, the ones who take life wantonly in the name of their god.
But you call Christians radical for stating that the places where they are majority should not take the lives on unborn children legally.
I just have to shake my head.....and I think those people are hypocrites, but still your agenda is obvious.
As I have said before, all you do is attack other people's religion.
And now you have shown without a doubt that you have no idea the true relationship that exist between your religious doctrine and science.
But you want to correct me...I assure you, I know how every one of my beliefs coincide with the Bible, science and just about every differing view.
2022-06-28 00:49:01
What yall business what a woman does with her body...btw, virus affects not only the individual, but the public at large...thus the need for mandating vaccines
2022-06-28 00:49:38
In reply to Walco
you don't make sense comparing the 2
2022-06-28 03:43:53
If you plant a grain of corn in your backyard and just after germination it got destroyed what got destroyed?
2022-06-28 03:50:45
In reply to ray
If i murder my wife, does it affect the Public at large?
2022-06-28 03:51:57
In reply to Brerzerk
You cannot be serious. Or are you that devoid of reasoning ability?
2022-06-28 04:04:29
2022-06-28 04:13:13
Norma McCorvey
Norma McCorvey would later claim that, during the 1970s although some years after Roe, she had a nightmare concerning "little babies lying around with daggers in their hearts". This was the first of a series of recurring nightmares which kept her awake at night.[221] She became worried and wondered, "What really, had I done?"[222] and "Well, how do they kill a baby inside a mother's stomach anyway?" McCorvey later reflected:[223]
I couldn't get the thought out of my mind. I realize it sounds very naïve, especially for a woman who had already conceived and delivered three children. Though I had seen and experienced more than my share of the world, there were some things about which I still didn't have a clue—and this was one of them. Ironically enough, Jane Roe may have known less about abortion than anyone else.
During the years after Roe, although not immediately, McCorvey joined with and accompanied others in the abortion rights movement. During this time, McCorvey stated that she had publicly lied about being raped and apologized for making the false rape claim.[224][225] Norma McCorvey became part of the movement against abortion from 1995 until shortly before her death in 2017.[226] In 1998, she testified to Congress:
It was my pseudonym, Jane Roe, which had been used to create the "right" to abortion out of legal thin air. But Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee never told me that what I was signing would allow women to come up to me 15, 20 years later and say, "Thank you for allowing me to have my five or six abortions. Without you, it wouldn't have been possible." Sarah never mentioned women using abortions as a form of birth control. We talked about truly desperate and needy women, not women already wearing maternity clothes.[227]
Judge Edith Jones
In 2002, along with Sandra Cano (Mary Doe) from Doe v. Bolton and Bernard Nathanson, a co-founder of NARAL Pro-Choice America, McCorvey appeared in a television advertisement intended to get the Bush administration to nominate members to the Supreme Court who would oppose abortion.[228]
As a party to the original litigation, she sought to reopen the case in U.S. District Court in Texas to have Roe v. Wade overturned. However, the Fifth Circuit decided that her case was moot, in McCorvey v. Hill.[229] In a concurring opinion, Judge Edith Jones agreed that McCorvey was raising legitimate questions about emotional and other harm suffered by women who have had abortions, about increased resources available for the care of unwanted children, and about new scientific understanding of fetal development. However, Jones said she was compelled to agree that the case was moot.[230][231] On February 22, 2005, the Supreme Court refused to grant a writ of certiorari, and McCorvey's appeal ended.[232]
In an interview shortly before her death, McCorvey stated that she had taken an pro-life position because she had been paid to do so and that her campaign against abortion had been an act. She also stated that it did not matter to her if women wanted to have an abortion and they should be free to choose.[233][234] Rob Schenck, a Methodist pastor and activist who once had pro-life views stated that he and others helped entice McCorvey to claim she changed sides and also stated that what they had done with her was "highly unethical" and he had "profound regret" over the matter.[235]
Frank Pavone, a priest with whom McCorvey talked to after the interview, reflected after her death that "There was no indication whatsoever, at the end of her life" that she had given up her pro-life positions. Pavone stated that following the interview, McCorvey talked positively with him about a message she wanted him to convey at the next March for Life. The message concerned encouraging young people to oppose abortion.
Norma McCorvey would later claim that, during the 1970s although some years after Roe, she had a nightmare concerning "little babies lying around with daggers in their hearts". This was the first of a series of recurring nightmares which kept her awake at night.[221] She became worried and wondered, "What really, had I done?"[222] and "Well, how do they kill a baby inside a mother's stomach anyway?" McCorvey later reflected:[223]
I couldn't get the thought out of my mind. I realize it sounds very naïve, especially for a woman who had already conceived and delivered three children. Though I had seen and experienced more than my share of the world, there were some things about which I still didn't have a clue—and this was one of them. Ironically enough, Jane Roe may have known less about abortion than anyone else.
During the years after Roe, although not immediately, McCorvey joined with and accompanied others in the abortion rights movement. During this time, McCorvey stated that she had publicly lied about being raped and apologized for making the false rape claim.[224][225] Norma McCorvey became part of the movement against abortion from 1995 until shortly before her death in 2017.[226] In 1998, she testified to Congress:
It was my pseudonym, Jane Roe, which had been used to create the "right" to abortion out of legal thin air. But Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee never told me that what I was signing would allow women to come up to me 15, 20 years later and say, "Thank you for allowing me to have my five or six abortions. Without you, it wouldn't have been possible." Sarah never mentioned women using abortions as a form of birth control. We talked about truly desperate and needy women, not women already wearing maternity clothes.[227]
Judge Edith Jones
In 2002, along with Sandra Cano (Mary Doe) from Doe v. Bolton and Bernard Nathanson, a co-founder of NARAL Pro-Choice America, McCorvey appeared in a television advertisement intended to get the Bush administration to nominate members to the Supreme Court who would oppose abortion.[228]
As a party to the original litigation, she sought to reopen the case in U.S. District Court in Texas to have Roe v. Wade overturned. However, the Fifth Circuit decided that her case was moot, in McCorvey v. Hill.[229] In a concurring opinion, Judge Edith Jones agreed that McCorvey was raising legitimate questions about emotional and other harm suffered by women who have had abortions, about increased resources available for the care of unwanted children, and about new scientific understanding of fetal development. However, Jones said she was compelled to agree that the case was moot.[230][231] On February 22, 2005, the Supreme Court refused to grant a writ of certiorari, and McCorvey's appeal ended.[232]
In an interview shortly before her death, McCorvey stated that she had taken an pro-life position because she had been paid to do so and that her campaign against abortion had been an act. She also stated that it did not matter to her if women wanted to have an abortion and they should be free to choose.[233][234] Rob Schenck, a Methodist pastor and activist who once had pro-life views stated that he and others helped entice McCorvey to claim she changed sides and also stated that what they had done with her was "highly unethical" and he had "profound regret" over the matter.[235]
Frank Pavone, a priest with whom McCorvey talked to after the interview, reflected after her death that "There was no indication whatsoever, at the end of her life" that she had given up her pro-life positions. Pavone stated that following the interview, McCorvey talked positively with him about a message she wanted him to convey at the next March for Life. The message concerned encouraging young people to oppose abortion.
More of what is never told.
Tell me that's not heartbreaking!
2022-06-28 05:10:28
In reply to Ayenmol
Jackass are you VELO? GET THE HENCE and for the following reasons.
Wnen I first joined I decided that due to your hypochrisy, your lying, your assumed self-importance you deserved to be lobbed. I did just that and you ran with your tail between your legs. Only recently you timidly returned Your Religious Zeal has created a wilfully stupid JACKASS and my Mom's advice still rings. Argue with a Jackass and at some point there'll be two. Your religion teaches "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Yet, you come here distorting the gospels for your own disturbingly insane gratification.
Do NOT TREAT WITH ME! I do not want to be tainted with your Maama-man curse. Please go and read the Beatitudes and try to bring you infinitely flawed self to within five YEAR periods practice one at a time. You are a miserable quarrelsome curmudgeon who avoid answers to hard questions, lies, seek quarrels and follows a woman around for the sole purpose of picking fights. GET THEE HENCE!
2022-06-28 05:26:28
In reply to Brerzerk
lol....lol...lol....what on Earth are you talking about? You seem triggered. You?
Lol...man quit trying to assume things that are not known....lobbed? Did i not undress you on the subject of abortion?
Can you show me from whence you got the idea that i was quiet because of you?
Lol...self importance? You think i chose to be quiet for a while because of you and AM self important?
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Man you have no idea what my life is.
2022-06-28 05:30:59
btw you just outed yoursself....that you created this persona just for me.
Am self important? I have ytou all starting pseudonyms for my sake and taking credit for something that has NOHING to do with you...and am the selfimportant one?
You must be that toad JahJah....or the creep Cheeks.....cheeks, you formed a whole new persona to interact with me.
Hahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Woi lawdy.
Thanks for the laugh.bye!
2022-06-29 06:12:51
In reply to Ayenmol
Um...can't the same be said of you?
No
Vaccines: take one for the team. Abortion: snuff out another's life because it is inconvenient for you?
There is a huge difference between vaccine mandates (no criminal penalties attached to the decision not to get vaccinated) and laws that criminalize abortion. But you knew that already.
Either way me and mine go by higher laws, ...
Isn't this the point though? My body my choice ... my higher laws my choice ...
2022-06-29 06:20:02
In reply to ray
you don't make sense comparing the 2
I made the comparison to make a simple point about hypocrisy. Perhaps you can explain why the comparison does not make sense.
2022-06-29 11:01:51
In reply to Ayenmol
All you quoted was man made writing- you still cannot quote a single source that comes from divine revelation to Jesus. What you quoted is from the European writers, creators and molders of Christianity, not scripture from the new testament or the old testament.
Secondly, America isn't a Christian country- it is an immigrant country where 99.7 percent of the population came from other lands and our constitution has a separation of Church and State.
Thirdly, your opinion on Abortion which is shaped by your radical church has no scientific basis that life starts the moment the egg is fertilized.
That radical evangelical christians can force a person to carry a pregnancy that was due to rape or incest or one that result in her death is the thinking of the devil. The Anti Christ will be proud.
2022-06-29 13:31:05
In reply to Walco
There is a huge difference between vaccine mandates (no criminal penalties attached to the decision not to get vaccinated) and laws that criminalize abortion. But you knew that already.
Am not going to get into all that...Am not an activist for either side.
I have my conscience that tells me what to do. What the Nations do is not my business.
But it is interesting the line of reasoning you take... You all here villify those who choose not to take a vaccine and who rail against the mandate, claiming they do not care about life.
Though there is no reason to state that my taking the vccine will stop the spread, because i can still get and pass the virus.
My taking the vaccine spares MY life! So really MY choice is appropo.
Yes, there is a strain on Health Care if i and others end up in Hospital. But that means money. The Chinese put up makeshift hospitals in a blink of an eye!
With abortion, there is no but, middle ground etc. You are making a unilateral decision to end a life.
Do you really in your heart believe this is not something that people need to be keenly aware of?
Something that does not need some "ADULT supervision", so to speak?
2022-06-29 13:34:02
In reply to Emir
WHen you show me the scriptures that were given to you that states that a child's life begins at 40 weeks, then we can start to talk. BTW, each division of Islam has a different take on how long going up to well over a hundred days....but you want to talk human laws?
You the one who said your belief agrees with Science, when i show you the Science, now that is Human laws? Humans are who created Science?
2022-06-29 13:35:24
In reply to Ayenmol
should there be any consideration in the abortion argument for exemptions for rape or where the life of the mother is threatened?
2022-06-29 13:41:34
In reply to Ayenmol
Or vaccines: we need a law forcing people to do the right thing, even though they may have alternatives they prefer
.
The problem with that argument is that a person who choose to go unvaccinated, puts others at risk. Vaccines are a proven way to stop or lessen the affects of viruses.
2022-06-29 13:42:00
In reply to sudden
I am not trying to influence this....I really have no intention of affecting how this is viewed. I have my scriptural views. It is mine and those others like me who also CHOSE to accept that view.
What is decided by the courts and the Government is their perogative.
Not my business how it is rendered.
I just chimed in to point out the seeming inability of some to see the juxtaposition of their finger pointing.
2022-06-29 13:43:31
In reply to black
So an abortion does not put anyone at risk?
And can you state how a non vaccinated person puts a vaccinated person more at risk than a mother who ends the life of her child?
2022-06-29 13:56:41
In reply to Ayenmol
got you
personally speaking an abortion is a personal issue between a woman, her husband or boyfriend if there is one and he is involved in the process, and the doctor. it should not be a political decision.
that way you will be guided by what personal beliefs you have. it will be different for everyone.
if there are no exceptions the law may end up actually killing women as much as it purports to save the lives of babies.
i spare a thought for a woman who is raped and has to give birth as a result or the doctor who must make a decision between the life of a baby or the mother
2022-06-29 14:06:59
In reply to Ayenmol
So an abortion does not put anyone at risk?
This is a personal choice a woman is making about what is going on in her body. The person making that choice (and only her) should have to deal with the ramifications of such choice.
And can you state how a non vaccinated person puts a vaccinated person more at risk than a mother who ends the life of her child?
Covid had shown us that this is indeed the case in many situations.
2022-06-29 14:09:19
In reply to sudden
I don't know sudden. It is the Government's job to ensure that all are treated fairly.....what happen to human rights?
I can't have a child and not school it....that is what the Government says.
So how can you state unequivocally that the Government should not have a say in the ending of life?
2022-06-29 14:14:06
In reply to black
This is a personal choice a woman is making about what is going on in her body.
So a vaccine does no go in your body?
Man you just argue in circles and make points that are applicable in both arguments without thought, and quite frankly have greater import to what you are arguing against.
It is not just what is going on in her body, it is a life!
otherwise i can say no one has a right to judge what i do in my home if it does not affect them.
2022-06-29 14:18:10
In reply to Ayenmol
So a vaccine does no go in your body?
What is your point? You're not make sense.
2022-06-29 14:20:53
In reply to black
ditto.
2022-06-29 14:37:39
In reply to Ayenmol
By the way, you do know that banning abortions do not stop abortions, right?
2022-06-29 15:05:18
In reply to Ayenmol
So how can you state unequivocally that the Government should not have a say in the ending of life?
that is my opinion on the abortion issue. i can argue that it is the woman's body and she can decide but i doubt that would put the matter to rest.
do you have an opinion on the bit i asked about exceptions for rape and life of the mother.
these are difficult issues
2022-06-29 16:40:22
In reply to sudden
It is...and i rather not go into that....am pretty sure my view is based on my belief.
Listen man. Ths idea of people wanting to do this to soothe their christian conscience is not my or our thing. We know what the Bible says and we live our life according to that.
So it does not matter to me what the Government decides....falsus en uno... and all that. That is precisely how our Creator views it. People think that they can create a Christian statge by insisting on cetain things when the Bible makes it clear that the whole World lies in the power of the wicked one and they are all going to be judged.
My point is you cannot tell me that it is not a life. Therefore you cannot tell me that it is beyond reason that some would see a need to curtail it.
2022-06-29 16:45:11
In reply to black
I think you know my reasoning is not so banal....doh insult me.
2022-06-30 02:40:53
In reply to Ayenmol
You all here vilify those who choose not to take a vaccine and who rail against the mandate, claiming they do not care about life.
Vilify is a strong word boss. Kindly identify someone I vilified for choosing not to take the vaccine. I challenged junk science and people who repeatedly showed a lack of appreciation of the difference between correlation and causation. And along the way I poked fun at some of this MBs anti-vaxxers, but it is not my style to vilify anyone.
With abortion, there is no but, middle ground etc. You are making a unilateral decision to end a life. Do you really in your heart believe this is not something that people need to be keenly aware of? Something that does not need some "ADULT supervision", so to speak?
There has always been adult supervision. The "government" has always said no abortions after the fetus can be "viable" outside the womb. We apparently have different views of when life begins though. You seem to think that life begins at the point of fertilization. So I ask you this question. If a gunman kills a woman who is 6 weeks pregnant, should the gunman be charged with 2 counts of murder?
2022-06-30 10:38:04
In reply to Brerzerk
hypochrisy, your lying, your assumed self-importance you
Nailed it!!!
You are a miserable quarrelsome curmudgeon who avoid answers to hard questions, lies, seek quarrels and follows a woman around for the sole purpose of picking fights.
...and again. Hammer meet nail.
Search
Live Scores
- no matches