Banned For "Intentional Blasphemy ?

[patrick jane]

21 million chickens are slaughtered each and every day in this country as part of our food chain. We send drones to murder people in Islamic countries. The death penalty is used by some states. These are all choices. Which do you support?

these numbers will rise with the populations :rapture:

more chicken, more drones, more death penalties.

 

[Eeset]

I don't subscribe to the tactics you're using. My argument was simply about when life begins biologically. Not more, not less. I leave the interpretation of the facts I stated up to you, but obviously I hit a nerve.

You hit no nerve. You implied that you are pro-life. I doubt that you mean all life even though you seemed to include all life.

Where do you draw the line? Is the life of a chicken important? The life of an enemy combatant? What about a serial killer? Perhaps you just want to protect a developing human body which has not yet received a soul? But is that life precious to you after it does receive a soul and later kills some other person?

 

[intojoy]

Not chicken life

 

[patrick jane]

You hit no nerve. You implied that you are pro-life. I doubt that you mean all life even though you seemed to include all life.

Where do you draw the line? Is the life of a chicken important? The life of an enemy combatant? What about a serial killer? Perhaps you just want to protect a developing human body which has not yet received a soul? But is that life precious to you after it does receive a soul and later kills some other person?

Instant Karma Gonna getcha

 

[Lon]

21 million chickens are slaughtered each and every day in this country as part of our food chain. We send drones to murder people in Islamic countries. The death penalty is used by some states. These are all choices. Which do you support?

Well, it 'looks' like your pro-choice is showing and that you are illogically scrambling for its justification, thus that it cannot work.

Eating chickens is nowhere disapproved by God and is not murder, they are killed. Nobody but PETA says that is murder and it is because of childhood misplaced love for animals across board that they never grew out of.
Drones do not 'murder.' They kill.
Police do not 'murder' they kill.
The death penalty does not murder, it kills.

Abortion murders.

Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another [in an exercise of selfishness and self-interest].
This IS the definition of pro-choice abortion all the way. "Unlawful" doesn't mean it isn't, just because 12 oddball judges say it isn't so. They do not and did not speak for me. God has called us to higher standards of selfless love. He gets to decide, not 12 men sitting on US thrones.

 

[gcthomas]

Drones do not 'murder.' They kill.
Police do not 'murder' they kill.
The death penalty does not murder, it kills.

Abortion murders.

Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another

If the drone or police killings are illegal, then they are murder, are they not? unless you assume police and the CIA always are lawful by definition.

And if you don't assume cell-bundle embryos are human beings, then killing them is not murder.

It seems your conclusions are assumption laden.

 

[chrysostom]

God has called us to higher standards of selfless love. He gets to decide, not 12 men sitting on US thrones.

it is nine men and women on the court who decide for us
and
that is why we vote republican
we need conservative judges

 

[gcthomas]

it is nine men and women on the court who decide for us
and
that is why we vote republican
we need conservative judges

What you really need are politically independent judges, for proper separation of powers, and more clearly written laws from Congress.

 

[chrysostom]

What you really need are politically independent judges, for proper separation of powers, and more clearly written laws from Congress.

wouldn't that be nice
but
it is a real world we live in
so
vote republican because it is not okay to kill babies

 

[gcthomas]

wouldn't that be nice
but
it is a real world we live in
so
vote republican because it is not okay to kill babies

If the laws were clearly written with abortion in mind, then there would be no room for political judges to produce unwanted interpretations.

 

[chrysostom]

If the laws were clearly written with abortion in mind, then there would be no room for political judges to produce unwanted interpretations.

that is nonsense

did you ever try to read these stupid laws?

did you ever try to read a court ruling?

which came first?:???

 

[gcthomas]

that is nonsense

did you ever try to read these stupid laws?

did you ever try to read a court ruling?

which came first?:???

Are you saying that if a constitutional provision said "no abortions ever under any circumstances whatsoever", that it would be interpreted to mean something different by a majority of the judges on SCOTUS?

I'd be very surprised if even the political appointees you have now would be able to do that.

 

[ok doser]

If the laws were clearly written with abortion in mind, then there would be no room for political judges to produce unwanted interpretations.

nonsense

they can declare them unconstitutional and overturn them

 

[gcthomas]

nonsense

they can declare them unconstitutional and overturn them

The Constitution IS a set of laws, :duh: so it can be amended by the lawmakers, unless the constitutional rules for amending itself are 'nonsense', as you suggest.

 

[Lon]

If the drone or police killings are illegal, then they are murder, are they not? unless you assume police and the CIA always are lawful by definition.

So you DO recognize that just because bad-law may protect something, doesn't mean it is, by any necessity, right! :up:
(the law doesn't protect illegal killing by the way, except in the case of abortion )

And if you don't assume cell-bundle embryos are human beings, then killing them is not murder.

There's that horrible 'assume' word which gives license where none should be quartered. Assumption is either based off personal selfishness or greater good. I'll always side with the assumed greater good. Always. Let me give you a scenario that happened in the book of Esther: The king passed a law that it was lawful to kill Jews. Jews didn't like it and 'assumed' killing their mother,father,siblings and neighbors was both illegal though not on paper, immoral, and they had every right to defend themselves and any helpless. They 'assumed' God was against it too.

There is the scenario, were they right?

The reality is, they weren't 'assuming' anything, they were protecting themselves and their neighbors against genocide.

It seems your conclusions are assumption laden.

Because God calls the shots. In Texas, if you kill somebody, they reserve the right to kill you back. That's how the story of Esther ended. You don't have a right, even as a mother to murder one of my fellow American citizens, even if you have a paper that says you can. That paper is wrong. Flat out.

 

[gcthomas]

Because God calls the shots.

So you assume and hope.

You don't have a right, even as a mother to murder one of my fellow American citizens, even if you have a paper that says you can. That paper is wrong. Flat out.

Does the US recognise blastocysts and embryos as full citizens now?

 

[Lon]

So you assume and hope.

Fact. Whether you recognize it or not. You can't even breath without Him.

Does the US recognise blastocysts and embryos as full citizens now?

Both this and the former are glib. I said "I" recognized them as such, regardless of that illegal paper, remember?

12
9 justices that were supposed to be serving 'me' as well as others, didn't.

They have been serving ONLY the minority now, for a very long time

 

[ok doser]

The Constitution IS a set of laws, :duh: so it can be amended by the lawmakers

only by an amendment

is that what you were talking about?



constitutional amendments are very different from the "written laws" you were talking about before

 

[Jonahdog]

12 justices that were supposed to be serving 'me' as well as others, didn't.

They have been serving ONLY the minority now, for a very long time

They not "serving" anyone. But if they were, they should be serving me as well and our views differ.

Ah, the majority argument. The court wascertainly serving the minority in Brown v Bd of Education. Bad decision or are you still a fan of "separate but equal"? Citizens United---are corporations people ala Mitt?
What majority was being served in Hobby Lobby?

 

[Lon]

They not "serving" anyone. But if they were, they should be serving me as well and our views differ.

Ah, the majority argument. The court wascertainly serving the minority in Brown v Bd of Education. Bad decision or are you still a fan of "separate but equal"? Citizens United---are corporations people ala Mitt?
What majority was being served in Hobby Lobby?

Did you perchance miss 'only' in that sentence? Justices are only 12 9 men and should not wield such power over the majority of a nation. It becomes dictatorship and autocratic at that point.