Roe v Wade Overturned

That passage doesn't say a word about abortion.

 

But it does about personhood, which is the substance of the entire point we are debating. You are 100% wrong. Repent.

 

anyone who would take the murderous, human sacrificing "god" of the bible as their moral guide is whack from the get go!

I'll pray you find some light.

p.s. have you read the bible?!?

 

How do you know your interpretation is correct? You may be getting it wrong and dooming yourself to hell.

Do you think the Bible should be the basis for our laws? If so, whose interpretation?

 

Which modern Christian nations, if any, do you think have upheld the “Christian sexual ethic?” And in how many of those were women able to vote? Also, how are Christians doing in these respects relative to Muslims, Sikhs, Jews, Hindus, and non believers?

 

It doesn't say anything about personhood either.

 

Vicious pornography and other bad things in there. Should be illegal for minors to read. Definitely banned in schools.

Am I doing this right?

 

Lol. You are going to hide behind that? The word "mother" implies a familial relation with another person. Mary is the mother of "my Lord" in that passage. That is a person in her womb.

 

LOL. We’re going to need a forum for unhinged Christian’s telling us it’s our lot to live in a dystopian Christofascist shit hole along with Biblical interpretations straight out of Dante’s inferno (minus the illustrations). Our moral majority knows better.

 

& what was that person's fate? seems an odd chap to use in an arg against killing one's child.

 

Who hasn't used the word "mother" or "father" when a loved one told them about a pregnancy? The fact that you're having to argue that the "Judge" implied something he didn't explicitly say speaks volumes. It sure sounds like you can't find a single example of the "Judge" talking about abortion. And that's curious. Because abortion existed back when the New Testament was written.

 

In this instance the interpretation is crystal clear. Mother has a very clear meaning, and it implies that another person exists in her womb. There is no getting around that. We don't call people mothers who don't have children. That is the inescapable reality of the words having very clearly defined definitions.

Now, my answer to your second question is this: laws need to be moral in nature. An immoral law is an unjust law. The Bible contains the perfect expression of what is moral. It is the only religion that gets it 100% right. I do believe there exists a common ground between Christianity and other religions regarding morality. So, I believe a nation can exist that has freedom of religion and a common shared moral foundation among those religions. I don't believe history shows the existence of such a nation is likely, but in the intermediate before the return of Christ in this nation it is the best I can hope for in this pluralistic society. I am not optimistic about such an outcome, but part of being salt and light is trying to influence the world for righteousness sake. I would never advocate abolishing the pluralistic aspect of our society absent apocalyptic events that are aimed at overturning the world order and ushering in an eternal Christian theocracy with Jesus as the victor and the King. Eternity will not be pluralistic, and Christ will rule with perfect righteousness over the godly and the ungodly.

 

Romans 1 talks about those who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. People call people father and mother when they hear about a pregnancy because they know that life begins at conception. The truth is staring you right in the face. You know it, and in your pride you are hardening your heart. I wash my hands of this conversation. If you are ever truly converted, I will celebrate your conversion, but I am done with this conversation. There is no further point to this conversation with you. My first inclination was correct.

 

Yet, personhood begins at birth. The truth is staring you right in the face.

 

Interesting question. Islam, Sikhism, Judaism, Hinduism, Mormonism and nonbelievers all have permitted polygamy at one time or another. So, all of them in their rejection of Christianity have also rejected the Christian sexual ethic. Polyamory is surging among the nonreligious showing that an informal type of polygamy is emerging in our post-Christian culture that has yet to be codified legally. The general rule regarding polygamy across several non-Christian cultures is that it was permitted for men but not for women. So, if you want to rail against cultures for making women inferior to men, then go rage at most of the cultures in human history that rejected Christianity.

 

The Bible you read has been translated, multiple times. It is very possible the literal meaning you extract was not the exact meaning of the original texts. This has happened in other places, imperfect translations leading to different meanings.

It is possible that the translation you are reading is not exactly right, and as such you are publicly misquoting God’s will, and may be subject to hellfire and damnation for eternity.

 

Alabama has seen enough. Elect pro choice demoncRAT who ran against the chrstofeascists anti abortion anti women cabal.

Democrat Flips Trump District in Alabama Special Election After Campaigning on Reproductive Rights


By a margin of 67% to 32%, Lands handily defeated Madison City Council member Teddy Powell, who conceded the race. Notably, former President Donald Trumpwon the district, which includes the Huntsville area, by one point in 2020.

“From what I heard from the voters at the polls I was at, [reproductive rights] was a really big factor. And so many women came out. I had a woman with her young daughter wanting her to see history being made,” Lands said in an interview after winning the race.

 

That's the point. It's his (Plank II) translation and there are plenty of religions that disagree with it. Abortion was well known in Biblical times, it would have been very easy to include an abortion ban by name...Thou Shall Not Have an Abortion... instead of quoting all of these ambiguous verses. There are just as many verses treating the fetus as a property right.. There's even a method set forth in the Bible to cause an unfaithful woman to abort.

Take his interpretation for what it is, the most right wing, fanatical interpretation possible and his is the cruelest....forcing a child rape victim to carry to term. That is repugnant beyond words. Thankfully my religion disagrees with him and my religion is objectively superior to his.

 

You forgot to consider the cruelty of abortion in your analysis. You worship murder of the innocent and all of its cruelty towards them as part of your “superior religion.”

 

That district also went Republican in 2022. Lands, the winner this time, lost that election in 2022 to Republican David Cole. Amusingly, the reason for the special election this year is that David Cole was forced to reason as part of his plea deal on a felony voter fraud charge.