@alasjajo You do realize that a fetus cannot exist without its mother, right? Also, one does not "believe" in evolution. The term "believe" implys a leap of faith. It takes no faith to understand the mechanics behind genetic mutation and natural selection. Do you even know what evolution is?
@alasjajo You do realize that there is a difference between life and personhood, right? You do realize that the only thing that seperates us from other mammals is our level of cognition, intelligence, problem solving skills and so on, right?
@alasjajo Abortion is not a contradiction in evolution. The species will benefit from not having to use up resources to feed the baby and not having to spend time taking care it. Of course, this is a choice the group must make because the baby can grow to benefit the group quite a bit. Almost repay them, if you will. The grown baby can take care of the elders and raise more generations.
@cahkontherahks ...I disagree...to believe in evolution you have a belief in what's called a prokayrotic cell, said to be one of the, if not the 1st living thing on earth. An embryo at the moment of conception exhibits the same characteristics, thus, would be a living thing. If they don't have rights, why should we? An embryo is further developed at conception even...any thoughts...
@cahkontherahks...the reason I disagree with that is, the first life forms being simple single celled organisms divided. Well, at the moment of conception the zygote exhibits that characteristic, along with others that determine life; like being stimulated, and responsive...
So, an abortion, reguardless of stage, would be killing a living thing. Is it not murder because that living thing is not considered a human? and then, what makes a human? WOW! definitions really are a major part in this...
The embryo has no LEGAL rights, they are the ones that count. Ask any embryo how they feel about abortion, what they think about it. They couldn't care less, because the can't think or feel anything! Let the women decide what is best, for them.
@jesusisbling ...along those lines we should ask a three year old if they want to live or someone with mental retardation...if they say no, should we destroy them too?
@christopherse2 I don't think she's stating that fetuses are not humans rather granting them full human standing impedes on the mother's rights in her decisions during pregnancy. Moreover, I don't believe it to be the case that because "the fetus is not human" it is therefore "worthy of killing" because the right to life is granted to all. However, in siding against abortion, we are stripping the mother of her rights, and thereby prioritizing the still developing fetus over the individual woman
this is pathetic, really pathetic, what is her agrument? That depriving women the right to kill the children is wrong? Depriving someone to kill someone is wrong? Yes, if abortion is illegel there are going to be laws that are going to be inconvient. Which happens with all law. The question should be, Is abortion wrong? wrong in the sense that is it comparable to murder. If it is, it should be illegal
@stcolreplover says: The question should be, Is abortion wrong? wrong in the sense that is it comparable to murder.
~~~~~~~~ That question was answered hundreds of yrs ago. A fetus has NEVER been a human being or a person which would make its choosen death illegal OR murder.
@Sueezee1 Iit has a human being factually it has the genetic structure which makes it so, being a human being is decided by your genetic structure!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@freewilllover says: being a human being is decided by your genetic structure!!!!!!!
~~~~~~~~
LOLOl, God, I love dumb people. Sorry sweetie, human BEING is ONLY a legal term NOT a scientific one. Youre confusing the word human and human being, but youre uneducated, so its understandable. Youre also tooo ignorant to know that if a fetus was a human being abortion would be illegal. Why dont you get smarter & find out why thats so? LOLOL
@Sueezee1 Wait a human being is a scientific term learn some facs troll you insult me when you don`t efven know factsm, and gfuess what people sometimes legalise murder like the holocaust!!!!!!!!!!
@freewilllover says: being a human being is decided by your genetic
~~~~~~~~~ hahahah Blacks law dictionary: "person/ human being" as: An entity that is recognized by law as having the rights and duties of born & legal individuals , also specifically found as a meaning of the word "person". Fetuses dont have rights, nitwit. Stay stupid, prochoice thanks you!! LMFAO
@Sueezee1 Wait you are now stating that things are what the laws sais it is, no it scientific fact, the law used to state black peopkle weren`t hman I guess slavery was oke!!!!!!!!!!
@Sueezee1 Yes and fetuses are living organisms so hyuman beings and human is synanomous, thos 2 words mean the same thing I already told you so!!!!!!!!!!
@Sueezee1 Hope you realise you insult people with a different view and say that was is legal is good justisfying savery and genocide and murder and rape, and that one human being can own another, that thew weak in this case the dependent have no rights, and that we should give into a childabuse by allowing murder an that living in iorphionage where you have good support is worse then death!!!!!!!!
@Sueezee1 i'm not really sure what you just said there. It's chosen not "choosen" and you're saying the fetus not being human makes it illegal. And answers hundreds of years ago doesn't neccessary mean a position is right. Slavery, the inferiority of women, the earth is flat, are all older answers that were wrong mostly because he have the sciencitifical knowledge to prove otherwise.
@stcolreplover says: 'm not really sure what you just said there.... you're saying the fetus not being human makes it illegal Youre damned right you dont know what I said. Take a reading comp class and get back with me.
@stcolreplover says: answers hundreds of years ago doesn't neccessary mean a position is right. Slavery, the inferiority of women, the earth is flat,
~~~~~~~~~~~~ Youre comparing the earths shape, which we PROVED wasnt flat, to an opinion that slavery was wrong? ( slavery WAS and IS "right" to many!!) Youre not smart enough to talk to me.
wow these people suck at their jobs, when i watch a video where a lady who is pro abortion is talking it she sounds like a complete nut job and when i watch a video where a lady who is anti abortion is talking she sounds like a complete nut job, get back in the kitchen.
@Mr420Lifer 70% of women in america having abortions are already mothers and 40% of american mothers live below the poverty line. These women are trying to protect the children they do have and accidents do happen. Asside from that how is it fair to condemn a child to that kind of life? And don't spout that adoption crap at me there are thousands of children up for adoption. That kind of ignorant crap you are spouting is why this discussion never gets anywhere.
~~~~~~~ Suure, that why there are STILL 250,000 up for adoption in the US, and some 400 new babies living in NY hospitals because of no adopters, let alone the number in other cities. Not to mention the millions of street kids living in other countries with NO ONE! take a little pride in yourself & the things you say. liar.
@freewilllover Most BABIES get adopted (provided they are white and healthy). Not children. Maternal urges are very strong and the majority of women are not able to give up their newborn so they keep the child until they realise they can't cope, the damage has been done and the child is no longer cute and little enough for everyone to fall in love and want to adopt it on sight. I think saving those already suffering is more important than creating more to suffer.
IGNORANT WHITE WOMAN- CHECK OUT BIRTH CONTROL PLANTS OF NATIVE INDIAN WOMEN-IROQUOIS WOMEN-CHIPPEWA, POMO ETC- STOP RACIST CENSORING OF NATIVE MATRIARCHY SOLUTIONS
1:28 Did she just say that the humanization of fetuses is a way of dehumanizing women? Why cant we treat women AND fetuses as human? Who says we have to choose?
We must not dehumanize one in order to humanize another. Lets work together in ways that protect the humanity of BOTH women and fetuses.
And what about the civil rights of the baby inside the womb. Are you kidding me? What this woman is saying is a complete contradiction. If a woman is pregnant with a baby girl than the baby GIRL is deprived of her civil rights from the get go if her mother aborts her.
As long as women stand divided against each other with no understanding of the inequalities that hang over our heads we will remain to be dehumanized and our rights to choose what we do with our bodies will be in jeopardy. Whether it be rape or an unwanted pregnancy. Not every person is fit to be a parent, and since the responsibility usually falls on a woman. It is essential that she is ready to be responsible for another life before she brings one into the world.
According to the Bible and History in general, Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, God is the same God of the old testament as He is today!...the difference is we are under GRACE!!!! mmm. u better thank God for that Grace cause u would be a pile of ashes by now with all your disrespect and hateful comments!
@sweetassuzy Matthew says he was born in bethlehem and then tells the story of the masacre of the innocents by Herod. The masacre never happened. Matthew is the only person who mentions the supposed event. Surely it would be mentioned by Luke, Mark and John or at least the historian Josephus who loved to recount Herods great atrocities. Luke says he was born there too but he says they traveled there for the census which happened when jesus was about 10 acording to your timeline of herods death..
@funkaliciousify The earliest mention is in the Saturnalia by Macrobius, a 4th century Roman philosopher, where all 2-year-old boys in the whole of Syria, including the king’s own son, are killed off. A Syrian text counts 64,000 Innocents, the current Byzantine liturgy 14,000. But Bethlehem being a small town, the number of victims was no higher than 20. Perhaps this is why sources more contemporary with Matthew didn’t find the event worth mentioning. - from suite101.com
@serrocXIII The earliest mention of the massacre is over 400 years AD huh? So the whole of Syria had their toddlers massacred but nobody thought to mention it in 400 years? The syrian text says "innocents" not infants and was also written well after the alleged event, open to interpretation and heavily embellished. The general consensus on the "massacre" is that it didnt happen and even if it had it is debatable whether or not jesus was even born there.
@funkaliciousify But it’s really not debatable. The genuine, accurate, and historical account about the life of Jesus as recorded in Matthew was unchallenged by the early church (see Eusebius {265-339 AD} quoting Origen {185-254 AD} - Ecclesiastical History, 6:25). And as far as a general consensus goes; a consensus of intelligent men once declared that Africans were non-persons and could be sold as property, but I dont think you believe that that's true. Consensus doesn’t equal truth.
@serrocXIII Are you actually suggesting in one post that Matthew was written specifically for the pourposes of convincing people that jesus was the messiah (ie full of bias) and then telling me it is historical, accurate and undebatable in the next? No consensus does not always equal truth but the vast majority of historians with no ulteriour motives decalring that the EVIDENCE suggests an event never happened is a very different situation to men wanting to line their pockets via the slave trade
@funkaliciousify Are you suggesting that historians who don’t believe the Bible is the inspired word of God have no bias against it? As far ulterior motives, you don’t think an atheist historian has anything ridding on disproving the Bible? If the Bible is true, that means Jesus is God and all that he said about the sinful nature of man and Gods coming judgment on that sin is true as well. Historian or not, that’s something that just doesn’t sit well with human pride.
@serrocXIII I am saying that while they may not believe every word that is written in the bible no self respecting historian (or any professional for that matter) would allow their opinion to taint their work. History is about evidence of events not personal belief or "human pride" so yes i am suggesting that a historians work is based on evidence not bias. The bible cannot be completley true, otherwise there wouldn't be two versions of genisis.
@funkaliciousify You can’t deny an event took place based on LACK of evidence: You can’t confirm a negative. You say that the “massacre” never happened because certain people said NOTHING about it. Well, that’s not evidence. You take what evidence you have (i.e., thousands of manuscripts of Matthew’s historic record) and weigh it against any historic contradictions, of which there are none.
@serrocXIII Of course I can. Were it to swear that I was beaten up and yet none of the dozens of people in the room, both friends and enemies, recalled the event despite the professed savagery of the attack then it would be taken as proof that the event did not occur. Matthew was written for a specific audience, for a specific purpose (of converting Jews) many years after Jesus' death. There are many contradictions of Matthew the most obvious and damning of which would be Luke...
@funkaliciousify Sorry friend, but your completely wrong. Mathew wasn’t written to convert Jews, it was written to Jews who were already Christians. Just because the other gospels don’t mention one particular event, however dramatic it was, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. If you want to follow that logic then you would have to say that John didn’t believe in the Nativity, since there is no mention of it in his account. That’s just faulty logic.
@serrocXIII Matthew contains a geneology of Jesus leading back to King David & several other prophesy fulfilling events in order to confirm to Jews that he was the Messiah. I am fairly certian the slaughter of infants would be mentioned somewhere than a single gospel but not only is the slaughter absent from the other gospels it is absent from all other historical texts. A glaring ommission considering the nature of the crime.
@funk The Apostles teachings were well known long before they were written down(Luke1:2, 1 John 1:3). Over and over you have them affirming each other’s testimonies(Galatians 2:9, 2 Peter 3:15). All through the New Testament you have Apostles like Paul and Peter specifically denouncing false teaching, errors and contradictions that we’re creeping into the church. This was the very reason the accounts were written down. Matthew would have been included somewhere among these errors.
@serrocXIII I am not sure I understand the point of this statement. Are you saying that the gospels were written down because the chinese whispers were creating inconsistent teachings or that the written gospels contain the errors of the chinese whispers?
@funkaliciousify The errors were not in the writings, the errors were being verbally taught to the churches by false teachers who came in after the Apostles left. The testimonies of the Apostles were written down and distributed among the churches to correct these errors.
@funkaliciousify As a tax collector for the Romans, Matthew would have been despised by the Jews. So if he made up the killings to put Herod in a bad light and gain credibility with the Jews, then why go on for 28 chapters and depict them as the ones who reject Christ as their king and demand his death? There’s no logical reason to make such a thing up, especially if most of the people you're trying to deceive were alive when it supposedly happened and could have easily disproved it.
@serrocXIII Mathew equated the slaughter of the innocents with fulfillment of old testament prophecy, a reference to Jeramiah i believe, and so the slaughter possbley served more purpose for convincing Jews that Jesus was the messiah than demonising Herod who was already unpopular. Personally I believe depicting Jews as the rejectors of christ was possibley more of an incentive for Jews to convert to christianity than anything else, after all it told them their god was the right one.
@funkaliciousify All of your assumptions seem to be based on the presupposition that the Bible cannot be completely true and therefore isn’t the inspired word of God. What areas to you think it falters on; morality, science? You keep referring to contradictions in Genesis and Luke but what do you mean? If your referring to the supposed “two Creation accounts” then that can be easily explained.
@serrocXIII Personally yes I do believe it falters on both counts. The ten commandments are held as the pillars of morality and yet do not mention rape, child abuse, torture, neglect, mysogeny, fraud, slavery or the many other things I would consider rather important. As for science the sacrificing of birds in order to cure leprosy, rabbits chewing their cud and bats being birds indicates the bible is less than reliable in this respect. How exactly are the two creation accounts explained?
@funkaliciousify Geneis 1 is an overview of the Creation in chronological order. But Gen. 2 is a more detailed account of day 6 (creation of Man). This kind of repetition is common in Hebrew narratives and is repeated in Gen. 5:1 (an overview of Adam’s lineage following the details of Ch. 4) and in 10:1 which is an overview of the division of nations and languages after the Flood, followed by a detailed account of how it happened in chapter 11:1 ( i.e., the Tower of Babel).
@serrocXIII Really? the last time i read the two versions of genisis they appeared to be very different texts indeed with one version claiming that Adam was created after the animals and another claiming Adam was around before the animals. This is not repitition but a contradiction.
@funkaliciousify Gen. 2:19 says that God formed the animals from the dust and brought them to Adam to name(seeming to imply that the animals were created after Adam and contradicting the order of creation given in Gen.1). But the Hebrew verb for formed can be translated as a pluperfect, meaning that it should be rendered in the past tense as “had formed”, which it is in many modern translations like the NIV. God brought to Adam the animals which he had ALREADY formed, previous to forming Adam.
@serrocXIII I am afraid I diasgree. The books do not even have the same name for God how could they possibly be describing the same event? Yes one may consider the word formed as pluperfect however one does so only to reconcile the two texts not due to any other indications within Gen 2 that this was the case. Translation is all about context and within the context of Gen 2 there is nothing to indicate that the verb was meant to be taken as a pluperfect one.
@funkaliciousify You’re ignoring the fact that the whole context of Genesis 2 is that it is a detailed recollection of Man’s creation, whereas chapter 1 is a general overview of universal Creation. Every Jewish and Biblical scholar knows this. This fact is clear from the opening line in 2:4 “These are the generations…”, meaning the following is an review of the previously established narrative. This same phrase is repeated again in chapters 5:1, 6:9, 10:1, 11:10 and 11:27.
@serrocXIII The context of Gen2 is fairly arbitrary but clearly contradicts the creation order with adam created 1st and eve last in Gen2 and adam and eve created on the same day in Gen1. The two do not have the same name for god and i believe there is at least seven primary names throughout the bible. Most historians believe there were 4 different writers (Jahwist, Elohist, Priest & Deuteronomy) responsible for the text attributed to moses & the writings were later combined by various editors.
@funkaliciousify You can deny the context if you want but the fact is that Gen2 is simply an in-depth account of Gen1. Yes, Gen1 says Adam and Eve were created on the same day (Day 6), but Gen2 doesn’t contradict this, it merely gives the order in which they were created. You can easily confirmed this, if you really wanted to know the truth, by researching any number of credible Jewish and/or Biblical scholars who actually know what their talking about, or simply reading a Bible commentary.
@funkaliciousify I don’t think your problem is with supposed contradictions in the Bible, because there are numerous resources that give perfectly reasonable answers to the claims you have. I think your issue is the same that pretty much all atheist/agnostic have: if the Bible is true, then it’s the word of God. That means that you’re not the master of your own destiny and you will someday be held accountable for your actions and sins to a moral God whose laws you don’t particularly agree with.
@serrocXIII There is no fact about it as far as I am concerned so perhaps we are going to have to agree to disagree. My disbelief that the bible is not the word of god is not solely due to the contradictions within it, of which there are numerous examples such as the gospels, but also a great deal of its teachings & my knowledge of the world around me. If there was a god the chance that it is yours among the many thousands that have been followed over the years is fairly slim.
@funkaliciousify not slim at all. its clear from the world around us that there is a God. the universe had a beginning; it lept into existance out of nothing. that is something even atheist cannot deny. so there must be a Creator who brought it into existance. otherwise you would have to believe that the universe somehow created itself. ant that is not only physically imposible, its logically imposible.
@serrocXIII One chance out of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) is fairly slim as far as I am concerned. No it is not "clear" that there is a god (let alone that it is your god) as we are able to explain a great deal of the world around us by completley natural means and the current exponential expansion of human knowledge via scientific and theoretical experimentation and is fast closing any gaps that currently exist and explaining the physically and logically "impossible".
@serrocXIII There are several theories as to the origin of the universe which are far superior to others and able to explain physics and chemistry of this event quite well. Your god theory does not explain anything as you cannot explain the origin of god and simply saying that a invisible, omnipotent, omniscient supernatural being has always existed is not logical nor an appropriate alternative to the current scientific theories as you have no science behind it.
@funkaliciousify You’re wrong. You can’t claim that everything in the universe can be explained by natural means because we know that the universe had a beginning; a point at which all time, space, matter, energy, and chemicals came into existence out of nothing, usually referred to as the “Big Bang”.
@serrocXIII Yes the universe had an origin and is thought to have developed as proposed in the big bang theory however I do not follow how you determine that this makes the origin of the universe unnatural. By "natural" I mean "not supernatural or artificial". The theories proposing the self creation of the universe are supported by physics and astronomy and are highly logical when compared to the omnipotent, omniscient, eternal being you propose (with no supporting evidence I might add).
@funkaliciousify Therefore, the origin of the universe cannot be explained by natural means since everything that is natural came into existence at that point. In other words, to say that the Beginning of the universe can be explained naturally, you would have to believe that the universe created itself---and that is a highly illogical theory. So how do you figure that such an illogical view is somehow superior? Do you really believe the universe created itself?
@serrocXIII It is explained by physics. The universe has zero total energy therefore may have arrisen simply via quantum fluctuation. Quantum fluctuation happen and are observed all the time. Its happening right now in the light bulb above your head. This is not illogical it is just science. Yes I do believe it as there is actually evidence for it and, with the right machinery, I can see it happening. While we may not completly understand it it is a better explanation than "a wizard did it".
@funkaliciousify Zero energy? Even if that were true, you still have to answer to fundamental question of the universe’s origin: where did it all come from in the first place? In order for something to “arise” something else has to already exist.
@serrocXIII Again: quantum fluctuation. There does not have to be "something" because the laws of physics do not require it. Not only that but matter popping into & out of existance from nothing is an observed & extablished phenomenon. Nothing has to already exist. Watch "a universe from nothing" by Lawrence Krauss and about 20 mins in he shows a clip of the matter popping into and out of existance in the space between quarks in a proton. This is an undeniable fact. Sorry if you don't like it.
@funkaliciousify In fact, 5:1 also recounts the creation of mankind by God, both male and female. So according to your assertions about chapter 2, this would be a 3rd creation account! But this clearly isn’t the case and is merely a recollection of Adams lineage, just as chapter 2 is a recollection of his creation.
@funkaliciousify one last thing - God is called by many names throughout the Bible, so I dont see any conflict there. But Genesis is one book, written by Moses; there are no chapter breaks in the original text. I just think It’s absurd to suggest that Moses would have forgotten what he wrote about the creation and contradict himself just a few short verses later and that he never went over his work and rectified the fatal flaw, and that no one else would have in the last 4000 years either.
@funk You cant produce a single, credible account that denies that the massacre took place because there are none. Think about it: you don’t throw out the testimony of a murder witness because no one else reported it. You establish the credibility of the witness, than you make a judgment on the truthfulness of their testimony based on their credibility. Why would Matthew make it up, especially when such a lie could be so easily disproven by every Jew in Israel? It just doesn’t make sense.
@funk... Each of the gospels was written to different audiences with a different purpose in mind. Matt’s audience was Jewish, with a purpose of showing Jesus was the long-awaited King and Messiah of Israel. But another major theme was the rejection of Jesus as their king. The massacre is prominent in Matthew because he was showing that Christ had been violently rejected as king from his birth until his death on the cross: the wise men came seeking “the KING of the Jews”.
@sweetassuzy If the angel appeard to both mary and joseph why do the gospels not say so? you would think mark and john would consider this evidence of his divinity important enought to mention & that he was born in the prophesied location (instead they say he was born in Nazareth hence "jesus of nazareth" and no fulfillment of prophesy). Eyewitness? Elisha did not write kings so how could it possibly be eyewitness? and accurate? where do the "prophets" say a chariot of fire & wirlwinds?
@sweetassuzy why do kings 1 & 2, in their parallel recountings of Jehoshaphats reign not mention this prophesy? you would think it would be extroadanary enough to recount. Why is there is no extrabiblical accounts of the time to confirm that such a confrontation as this ever occurred between King Jehoshaphat and his enemies? and last but not least since when was infighting supernatural? where are you getting these probabilities from? they dont sound all that reliable, justifiable or logial.
he main concern of the "Pro-Choicers" is not the guarded protection of the life in the womb. Instead, the main concern is the "rights" of the mother over and against the rights of the child growing in her. The child, who cannot exercise its own will, is killed. And, in order to make the killing more palatable, the baby is called a "fetus", or "non-viable", or "not yet human", etc. This eases the conscience.
society has become to selfish, where are the good men and women??? all these pro murderes are a dime a dozen!!!! u know the old saying ...(FOR EVIL TO FLOURISH, GOOD MEN AND WOMEN HAVE TO KEEP QUIET)....well I WONT!!!!... ABORTION IS MURDER!
please AMERICA , where are the MEN OF YOUR NATION THAT WILL FIGHT FOR THE UNBORN, THAT ARE BEING SLAUGHTERED BY THE MILLIONS!!! forget IRAQ come home and save the BABIES!!! YOUR NEXT GENERATION IS BEING SLAUGHTERED AS WE SPEAK!!!! GET SOME BALLS AND BACKBONE!!!!
The unborn are human, I agree, but their right to be born is in the woman's lap (literally). If she knows she shouldn't have a child right now, for any reason, then it's NOT gonna happen. Trust the pregnant women to do the right thing in each and every case. This is not a philosophical problem with a blanket answer. It's a deeply personal decision for every pregnant woman. Your opinion doesn't matter to the women whose lives will be affected for the next 20 years of their lives.
@sweetassuzy Screaming it doesn't make it so. And "love" was mere sarcasm. It was to further my opinion, nothing to do with you. Why would it if I am not that way inclined?
@baseballking11000 And what makes you think that your opinion is more valid? Because you are straight? I think it's because you are fearful that you have responded, albeit in a round about way. Perhaps some latent homosexual tendencies are making themselves known and you don't know how to react? (Before anyone attacks me for 'insulting' this guy, look at what he has written about me)
@baseballking11000 Too scared I will beat you down to actually reply to my statements? Hmm, I detect some fear here. And you're 25? That is hardly believeable, considering the horrible level of grammar and spelling you employ. What, still in primary school? You might want to go back there, it will help you with those nasty things called commas and fullstops.
Of course to the Right wingers in this country. Once the baby is born its not important. They could careless if mother is denied food stamps to feed a child she wanted to keep. And these are the same people that say they are for less government. But yet they want to deny that woman's civil rights. OR get into peoples bedrooms and be the moral correctness party. LET GOD be the judge not the judge in a black rob. GOD hates sins not the sinner.
ABORTION IS NOT JUST MURDER? IT IS ROBBING AN ENTRIE GENERATION OF GREATNESS!!!! .....WHO KNOWS WHAT BABIES ARE BEING DESTROYED ...THAT HAD THEY HAD THE CHANCE TO GROW UP AND BECOME ADULTS, COULD HAVE HAD THE CURE TO AIDS, OR CANCER OR SOME OTHER GREAT DISCOVERY....ABORTION IS A THIEF IN THE HIGHEST DEGREE
“The product, abortion, is skillfully marketed and sold to the woman at the crisis time in her life. She buys the product, finds it defective and wants to return it for a refund. But, it's too late.”
LOL, Only weak, whimpy women with NO self assuredness in their decision making(all prolifers) want to "return it". Its a shame they self induce their negative feelings on the abortion that THEY chose to have. Dumbasses!!
@Sueezee1 cause u seem to have a LOT OF GUILT HAPPENING! with all your angry outbursts! it wouldnt surprise me by all this tough talk...just a bunch of BULLSHIT! to cover up your hurt heart!!!
@sweetassuzy I agree with you, but the fact of the matter is that other people disagree with us. Simply yelling ever louder has its place, but what we want to do is change minds, not alienate people. You have to remember, pro-choice persons don't see a fetus as a person, so moral indictments hold no sway over them. Our job is to make the intellectual price tag for being pro-choice so high that it becomes absurd to disagree with us. And how do you do this? Logical, reasoned, argumentation.
@Nyarl3 says: Our job is to make the intellectual price tag for being pro-choice so high that it becomes absurd to disagree with us.
~~~~~~~~~ When can it be "Absurd to disagree" to people who are irrational, illogical, uneducated, dishonest people, who dont think they are irrationl, illogical, uneducated or dishonest? "Our intellectual price tag" dosent exsist to them. We are the morons....
@Sueezee1 You've got it wrong. Now, it's true, a great many people are like that, but has it never occurred to you that pro-life persons hold the views they do because they just genuinely care about lives they feel are being wantonly destroyed? And your ad hominem attacks do you no credit.
@Sueezee1 call me all the names u want...just proves your mental deficiencies! and it doesnt change the facts that ABORTION IS MURDER! rant and rave all u like!
Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves; ensure justice for those who are about to perish!!!!!! Proverbs 31.8... ABORTION IS A MASS GENOCIDE OF THE UNBORN!!!!!!
@sweetassuzy says: Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves
~~~~~~~~~~ Bull shit... youre speaking for YOURSELF and what YOU want women to do to make YOU happy! To speak for " others" you;d also have to realize if some fetuses wanted to live, others wouldnt. So, how do you know that they want? Stop the childish games and get something valid!
@sweetassuzy says: a baby is a human being/ its murder
~~~~~~~~~~~~ Of course it is, dipshit,....but, a fetus isnt! LOL. Watch your words..they get dumb prolifers in trouble everytime they open their mouths because you are all uneducated on this subject. And of course abortion is murder, that why all 50 million women who had one are in prison for the crime...LMGDFAO!!! I love dumbasses.
@Sueezee1 well of course u love dumbasses! u wouldnt be hating yourself now would u? please leave us to do the critical evaluation of the likes of u....cause putting yourself down is not good for ones self esteem!
@Sueezee1 . . At the moment of conception, a life starts. And this life has its own unique set of DNA, which contains a blueprint for the whole genetic makeup. The sex is determined. We know there's a life because it's growing and changing."There is a big difference between the choice to have a child and the choice to kill a child. Because abortion kills a child who already exists, it is in no way a “right.”
@Sueezee1 are u one of those 50 million? ...just because a government says its ok.....DOESNT MAKE IT RIGHT?....sort of like Hitler exterminating all the Jews in world was 2 ....they just went about their business! ......NO DIFFERENCE! ITS MURDER...
@sweetassuzy says: ...just because a government says its ok.....DOESNT MAKE IT RIGHT?...
~~~~~~~~~~~ Dosent make it right to WHO, bitch? YOU? LOLOL... sorry sweetie, your not the judge of whats right and or wrong for the people of the world. Stop being a control freak like Hitler and demanding women have babies for you...anit gonna happen!! hahahah!
@Sueezee1 Do you think legal uniformity is a good thing? Do you want to live in a country with internally consistent laws? If you do, in what direction would you make personhood status uniform, positively or negatively?
@Sueezee1 If you're not really going to engage in the discussion, but just insult people, then why don't you, and sweetassuzy for that matter, take your intolerance somewhere else. The stakes are too high here for people who aren't really committed to reaching solutions to clog up the dialogue. You've said that you're for having an internally consistent law code, as long as they are good laws (duh). In what direction would you make abortion laws consistent? Positively or negatively? Answer.
@sweetassuzy You are ignorant. Murder is killing another reasonable creature in being. A fetus is not a reasonable creature in being. Thus it does not conform to the definition of murder.
@DawnSeraph Once we recognize that human development is a process that does not cease at the time of birth, then...
...to insist that the unborn at six weeks look like the newborn infant is no more reasonable than to expect the newborn to look like a teenager. If we acknowledge as 'human' a succession of outward forms after birth, there is no reason not to extend that courtesy to the unborn, since human life is a continuum from conception to natural death....U ARE THE IGNORANT EVIL ONE!
@sweetassuzy Yet I fail to recognise that as a truth. Just because you believe it is a truth doesn't make it so. The reality differs from your belief, love. Deal with it.
@DawnSeraph And, in order to make the killing more palatable, the baby is called a "fetus", or "non-viable", or "not yet human", etc. This eases YOUR conscience. and u say the baby isn't 'viable', have you ever seen a sonogram of an abortion? You can see the 'non-viable fetus' retracting from the instruments of death and seeking self preservation. It wants to live. Some would respond by saying that even a rodent wants to live. But what is in the womb of the mother is A HUMAN BEING!
@sweetassuzy And parasites would react similarly. I do not make the killing more "palatable" (word choice?) by calling the fetus a fetus. Because it is the scientific term. And the fetus is not a baby as it isn't born. Distinguished enough for you?
This disregards the fact that the nature of the life is human. It has human DNA and is alive. How can its nature not be human if it is alive and has human DNA?
This asserts a false premise that someone is not human until he/she is fully developed.
What constitutes full development? One hour before birth or one hour after? Is there really a difference?
Then when did the natures change? When did the non-human nature develop into a human nature?
Feel bad for the mom who had a stillborn baby and went to court for that.
Sweetheartpandalove 1 week ago
Wonders if there is anyone that does not cry when they see a baby being violently destroyed in an abortion??????Seriously.
setatliberty 2 weeks ago
@alasjajo You do realize that a fetus cannot exist without its mother, right? Also, one does not "believe" in evolution. The term "believe" implys a leap of faith. It takes no faith to understand the mechanics behind genetic mutation and natural selection. Do you even know what evolution is?
cahkontherahks 2 weeks ago
@alasjajo You do realize that there is a difference between life and personhood, right? You do realize that the only thing that seperates us from other mammals is our level of cognition, intelligence, problem solving skills and so on, right?
cahkontherahks 2 weeks ago
just wondering, can an evolutionist be okay with abortions?? That would be a contradiction.
alasjajo 1 month ago
@alasjajo Abortion is not a contradiction in evolution. The species will benefit from not having to use up resources to feed the baby and not having to spend time taking care it. Of course, this is a choice the group must make because the baby can grow to benefit the group quite a bit. Almost repay them, if you will. The grown baby can take care of the elders and raise more generations.
cahkontherahks 1 month ago
@cahkontherahks ...I disagree...to believe in evolution you have a belief in what's called a prokayrotic cell, said to be one of the, if not the 1st living thing on earth. An embryo at the moment of conception exhibits the same characteristics, thus, would be a living thing. If they don't have rights, why should we? An embryo is further developed at conception even...any thoughts...
alasjajo 1 month ago
@cahkontherahks...the reason I disagree with that is, the first life forms being simple single celled organisms divided. Well, at the moment of conception the zygote exhibits that characteristic, along with others that determine life; like being stimulated, and responsive...
So, an abortion, reguardless of stage, would be killing a living thing. Is it not murder because that living thing is not considered a human? and then, what makes a human? WOW! definitions really are a major part in this...
alasjajo 2 weeks ago
The embryo has no LEGAL rights, they are the ones that count. Ask any embryo how they feel about abortion, what they think about it. They couldn't care less, because the can't think or feel anything! Let the women decide what is best, for them.
jesusisbling 2 months ago
@jesusisbling ...along those lines we should ask a three year old if they want to live or someone with mental retardation...if they say no, should we destroy them too?
alasjajo 1 month ago
So, does this mean a fetus is not human, and therefore worthy of killing?
christopherse2 2 months ago
Comment removed
pbusta21 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@christopherse2 I don't think she's stating that fetuses are not humans rather granting them full human standing impedes on the mother's rights in her decisions during pregnancy. Moreover, I don't believe it to be the case that because "the fetus is not human" it is therefore "worthy of killing" because the right to life is granted to all. However, in siding against abortion, we are stripping the mother of her rights, and thereby prioritizing the still developing fetus over the individual woman
pbusta21 2 months ago
I live in Utah and I'm Mormon and I just can't agree with giving fetuses the same legal rights, it's ridiculous.
Athenation2010 2 months ago
@Athenation2010 Why?? All humans have the same rights!!!!!
freewilllover 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@freewilllover says: All humans have the same rights!!!
~~~~~~~~~~ LIAR... all human BEINGS have the same rights. Fetuses arent human beings.. learn the law!!
Sueezee1 2 months ago
this is pathetic, really pathetic, what is her agrument? That depriving women the right to kill the children is wrong? Depriving someone to kill someone is wrong? Yes, if abortion is illegel there are going to be laws that are going to be inconvient. Which happens with all law. The question should be, Is abortion wrong? wrong in the sense that is it comparable to murder. If it is, it should be illegal
stcolreplover 3 months ago
@stcolreplover says: The question should be, Is abortion wrong? wrong in the sense that is it comparable to murder.
~~~~~~~~ That question was answered hundreds of yrs ago. A fetus has NEVER been a human being or a person which would make its choosen death illegal OR murder.
Sueezee1 2 months ago
@Sueezee1 Iit has a human being factually it has the genetic structure which makes it so, being a human being is decided by your genetic structure!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
freewilllover 2 months ago
@freewilllover says: being a human being is decided by your genetic structure!!!!!!!
~~~~~~~~
LOLOl, God, I love dumb people. Sorry sweetie, human BEING is ONLY a legal term NOT a scientific one. Youre confusing the word human and human being, but youre uneducated, so its understandable. Youre also tooo ignorant to know that if a fetus was a human being abortion would be illegal. Why dont you get smarter & find out why thats so? LOLOL
Sueezee1 2 months ago
@Sueezee1 Wait a human being is a scientific term learn some facs troll you insult me when you don`t efven know factsm, and gfuess what people sometimes legalise murder like the holocaust!!!!!!!!!!
freewilllover 2 months ago
@freewilllover ...so the holocaust was okay, cuz, well, it WAS legal!! :)
alasjajo 1 month ago
@freewilllover says: being a human being is decided by your genetic
~~~~~~~~~ hahahah Blacks law dictionary: "person/ human being" as: An entity that is recognized by law as having the rights and duties of born & legal individuals , also specifically found as a meaning of the word "person". Fetuses dont have rights, nitwit. Stay stupid, prochoice thanks you!! LMFAO
Sueezee1 2 months ago
@Sueezee1 Wait you are now stating that things are what the laws sais it is, no it scientific fact, the law used to state black peopkle weren`t hman I guess slavery was oke!!!!!!!!!!
freewilllover 2 months ago
@freewilllover says: human being factually it has the genetic structure which makes it so,
~~~~~~~~~ genetic makes HUMANS...not human beings. hahaha, God bless the village idiots.
Sueezee1 2 months ago
@Sueezee1 Yes and fetuses are living organisms so hyuman beings and human is synanomous, thos 2 words mean the same thing I already told you so!!!!!!!!!!
freewilllover 2 months ago
@Sueezee1 Hope you realise you insult people with a different view and say that was is legal is good justisfying savery and genocide and murder and rape, and that one human being can own another, that thew weak in this case the dependent have no rights, and that we should give into a childabuse by allowing murder an that living in iorphionage where you have good support is worse then death!!!!!!!!
freewilllover 2 months ago
@freewilllover says: that one human being can own another,
~~~~~~~~~ A fetus int a human being!!! Dumb, dumb, dumb!!
Sueezee1 2 months ago
@Sueezee1 It is a lifeform with the genetic structure, troll it is a human being!!!!!!!
freewilllover 2 months ago
@Sueezee1 i'm not really sure what you just said there. It's chosen not "choosen" and you're saying the fetus not being human makes it illegal. And answers hundreds of years ago doesn't neccessary mean a position is right. Slavery, the inferiority of women, the earth is flat, are all older answers that were wrong mostly because he have the sciencitifical knowledge to prove otherwise.
stcolreplover 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stcolreplover says: 'm not really sure what you just said there.... you're saying the fetus not being human makes it illegal Youre damned right you dont know what I said. Take a reading comp class and get back with me.
Sueezee1 2 months ago
@stcolreplover says: answers hundreds of years ago doesn't neccessary mean a position is right. Slavery, the inferiority of women, the earth is flat,
~~~~~~~~~~~~ Youre comparing the earths shape, which we PROVED wasnt flat, to an opinion that slavery was wrong? ( slavery WAS and IS "right" to many!!) Youre not smart enough to talk to me.
Sueezee1 2 months ago
@Sueezee1 So slavery is oke??? great!!!!!
freewilllover 2 months ago
wow these people suck at their jobs, when i watch a video where a lady who is pro abortion is talking it she sounds like a complete nut job and when i watch a video where a lady who is anti abortion is talking she sounds like a complete nut job, get back in the kitchen.
UUreviews 3 months ago
@Mr420Lifer 70% of women in america having abortions are already mothers and 40% of american mothers live below the poverty line. These women are trying to protect the children they do have and accidents do happen. Asside from that how is it fair to condemn a child to that kind of life? And don't spout that adoption crap at me there are thousands of children up for adoption. That kind of ignorant crap you are spouting is why this discussion never gets anywhere.
funkaliciousify 4 months ago
@funkaliciousify Most children do get adopted and we don`t kill some to save others all have equal rights!!!!!!
freewilllover 2 months ago
@freewilllover says: Most children do get adopted
~~~~~~~ Suure, that why there are STILL 250,000 up for adoption in the US, and some 400 new babies living in NY hospitals because of no adopters, let alone the number in other cities. Not to mention the millions of street kids living in other countries with NO ONE! take a little pride in yourself & the things you say. liar.
Sueezee1 2 months ago
@Sueezee1 Those children are waiting to be adopted!!!!!!
freewilllover 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@freewilllover says: Those children are waiting to be adopted!!!!!!
~~~~~~~~~ So will the 80 million that wouldnt be aborted if abortion stopped. (IDIOT)
Sueezee1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@freewilllover says: we don`t kill some to save others all have equal rights!!!!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~ fetus have NO rights. Stop LYING or get smarter.
Sueezee1 2 months ago
@freewilllover Most BABIES get adopted (provided they are white and healthy). Not children. Maternal urges are very strong and the majority of women are not able to give up their newborn so they keep the child until they realise they can't cope, the damage has been done and the child is no longer cute and little enough for everyone to fall in love and want to adopt it on sight. I think saving those already suffering is more important than creating more to suffer.
funkaliciousify 2 months ago
@funkaliciousify Actually children get adopted also people are wiling to adopt everything!!!!!!!!
freewilllover 2 months ago
@freewilllover says: Actually children get adopted also people are wiling to adopt everything!!!!!!!!
~~~~~~~~~
LOLOL, what an amazingly intelligent comment
Sueezee1 2 months ago
@Sueezee1 It is true most people are willing to adopt any child!!!!!!!!!
freewilllover 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To all the pro-life and pro-choice, watch this award winning documentary and see where you stand at the end.
Look up 180 movie on youtube or 180movie.com
standingontruth1 4 months ago
dumb fucking bitch
wetwillyoffilly 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BAN ABORTION NOW 100abortionpictures. om/Aborted_Baby_Pictures_Abortion_Photos/index .cfm
fannythegranny1 8 months ago
wow, people can be arrested for what naturally goes wrong with their child, yet people can deny a living one soon to be dead medical care :/
sailornaruto39 8 months ago
So does my mother still have the right to end my life?
KevinBrault 9 months ago
IGNORANT WHITE WOMAN- CHECK OUT BIRTH CONTROL PLANTS OF NATIVE INDIAN WOMEN-IROQUOIS WOMEN-CHIPPEWA, POMO ETC- STOP RACIST CENSORING OF NATIVE MATRIARCHY SOLUTIONS
lmollot 10 months ago
1:28 Did she just say that the humanization of fetuses is a way of dehumanizing women? Why cant we treat women AND fetuses as human? Who says we have to choose?
We must not dehumanize one in order to humanize another. Lets work together in ways that protect the humanity of BOTH women and fetuses.
REHUMANIZEcollection 11 months ago
And what about the civil rights of the baby inside the womb. Are you kidding me? What this woman is saying is a complete contradiction. If a woman is pregnant with a baby girl than the baby GIRL is deprived of her civil rights from the get go if her mother aborts her.
serrocXIII 11 months ago
As long as women stand divided against each other with no understanding of the inequalities that hang over our heads we will remain to be dehumanized and our rights to choose what we do with our bodies will be in jeopardy. Whether it be rape or an unwanted pregnancy. Not every person is fit to be a parent, and since the responsibility usually falls on a woman. It is essential that she is ready to be responsible for another life before she brings one into the world.
DMariexoxo 1 year ago
According to the Bible and History in general, Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, God is the same God of the old testament as He is today!...the difference is we are under GRACE!!!! mmm. u better thank God for that Grace cause u would be a pile of ashes by now with all your disrespect and hateful comments!
sweetassuzy 1 year ago
@sweetassuzy Matthew says he was born in bethlehem and then tells the story of the masacre of the innocents by Herod. The masacre never happened. Matthew is the only person who mentions the supposed event. Surely it would be mentioned by Luke, Mark and John or at least the historian Josephus who loved to recount Herods great atrocities. Luke says he was born there too but he says they traveled there for the census which happened when jesus was about 10 acording to your timeline of herods death..
funkaliciousify 1 year ago
@funkaliciousify The earliest mention is in the Saturnalia by Macrobius, a 4th century Roman philosopher, where all 2-year-old boys in the whole of Syria, including the king’s own son, are killed off. A Syrian text counts 64,000 Innocents, the current Byzantine liturgy 14,000. But Bethlehem being a small town, the number of victims was no higher than 20. Perhaps this is why sources more contemporary with Matthew didn’t find the event worth mentioning. - from suite101.com
serrocXIII 11 months ago
@serrocXIII The earliest mention of the massacre is over 400 years AD huh? So the whole of Syria had their toddlers massacred but nobody thought to mention it in 400 years? The syrian text says "innocents" not infants and was also written well after the alleged event, open to interpretation and heavily embellished. The general consensus on the "massacre" is that it didnt happen and even if it had it is debatable whether or not jesus was even born there.
funkaliciousify 11 months ago
@funkaliciousify But it’s really not debatable. The genuine, accurate, and historical account about the life of Jesus as recorded in Matthew was unchallenged by the early church (see Eusebius {265-339 AD} quoting Origen {185-254 AD} - Ecclesiastical History, 6:25). And as far as a general consensus goes; a consensus of intelligent men once declared that Africans were non-persons and could be sold as property, but I dont think you believe that that's true. Consensus doesn’t equal truth.
serrocXIII 11 months ago
@serrocXIII Are you actually suggesting in one post that Matthew was written specifically for the pourposes of convincing people that jesus was the messiah (ie full of bias) and then telling me it is historical, accurate and undebatable in the next? No consensus does not always equal truth but the vast majority of historians with no ulteriour motives decalring that the EVIDENCE suggests an event never happened is a very different situation to men wanting to line their pockets via the slave trade
funkaliciousify 11 months ago
@funkaliciousify Are you suggesting that historians who don’t believe the Bible is the inspired word of God have no bias against it? As far ulterior motives, you don’t think an atheist historian has anything ridding on disproving the Bible? If the Bible is true, that means Jesus is God and all that he said about the sinful nature of man and Gods coming judgment on that sin is true as well. Historian or not, that’s something that just doesn’t sit well with human pride.
serrocXIII 10 months ago
@serrocXIII I am saying that while they may not believe every word that is written in the bible no self respecting historian (or any professional for that matter) would allow their opinion to taint their work. History is about evidence of events not personal belief or "human pride" so yes i am suggesting that a historians work is based on evidence not bias. The bible cannot be completley true, otherwise there wouldn't be two versions of genisis.
funkaliciousify 10 months ago
@funkaliciousify You can’t deny an event took place based on LACK of evidence: You can’t confirm a negative. You say that the “massacre” never happened because certain people said NOTHING about it. Well, that’s not evidence. You take what evidence you have (i.e., thousands of manuscripts of Matthew’s historic record) and weigh it against any historic contradictions, of which there are none.
serrocXIII 10 months ago
@serrocXIII Of course I can. Were it to swear that I was beaten up and yet none of the dozens of people in the room, both friends and enemies, recalled the event despite the professed savagery of the attack then it would be taken as proof that the event did not occur. Matthew was written for a specific audience, for a specific purpose (of converting Jews) many years after Jesus' death. There are many contradictions of Matthew the most obvious and damning of which would be Luke...
funkaliciousify 10 months ago
@funkaliciousify Sorry friend, but your completely wrong. Mathew wasn’t written to convert Jews, it was written to Jews who were already Christians. Just because the other gospels don’t mention one particular event, however dramatic it was, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. If you want to follow that logic then you would have to say that John didn’t believe in the Nativity, since there is no mention of it in his account. That’s just faulty logic.
serrocXIII 10 months ago
@serrocXIII Matthew contains a geneology of Jesus leading back to King David & several other prophesy fulfilling events in order to confirm to Jews that he was the Messiah. I am fairly certian the slaughter of infants would be mentioned somewhere than a single gospel but not only is the slaughter absent from the other gospels it is absent from all other historical texts. A glaring ommission considering the nature of the crime.
funkaliciousify 10 months ago
@funk The Apostles teachings were well known long before they were written down(Luke1:2, 1 John 1:3). Over and over you have them affirming each other’s testimonies(Galatians 2:9, 2 Peter 3:15). All through the New Testament you have Apostles like Paul and Peter specifically denouncing false teaching, errors and contradictions that we’re creeping into the church. This was the very reason the accounts were written down. Matthew would have been included somewhere among these errors.
serrocXIII 10 months ago
@serrocXIII I am not sure I understand the point of this statement. Are you saying that the gospels were written down because the chinese whispers were creating inconsistent teachings or that the written gospels contain the errors of the chinese whispers?
funkaliciousify 10 months ago
@funkaliciousify The errors were not in the writings, the errors were being verbally taught to the churches by false teachers who came in after the Apostles left. The testimonies of the Apostles were written down and distributed among the churches to correct these errors.
serrocXIII 10 months ago
@funkaliciousify As a tax collector for the Romans, Matthew would have been despised by the Jews. So if he made up the killings to put Herod in a bad light and gain credibility with the Jews, then why go on for 28 chapters and depict them as the ones who reject Christ as their king and demand his death? There’s no logical reason to make such a thing up, especially if most of the people you're trying to deceive were alive when it supposedly happened and could have easily disproved it.
serrocXIII 10 months ago
@serrocXIII Mathew equated the slaughter of the innocents with fulfillment of old testament prophecy, a reference to Jeramiah i believe, and so the slaughter possbley served more purpose for convincing Jews that Jesus was the messiah than demonising Herod who was already unpopular. Personally I believe depicting Jews as the rejectors of christ was possibley more of an incentive for Jews to convert to christianity than anything else, after all it told them their god was the right one.
funkaliciousify 10 months ago
@funkaliciousify All of your assumptions seem to be based on the presupposition that the Bible cannot be completely true and therefore isn’t the inspired word of God. What areas to you think it falters on; morality, science? You keep referring to contradictions in Genesis and Luke but what do you mean? If your referring to the supposed “two Creation accounts” then that can be easily explained.
serrocXIII 10 months ago
@serrocXIII Personally yes I do believe it falters on both counts. The ten commandments are held as the pillars of morality and yet do not mention rape, child abuse, torture, neglect, mysogeny, fraud, slavery or the many other things I would consider rather important. As for science the sacrificing of birds in order to cure leprosy, rabbits chewing their cud and bats being birds indicates the bible is less than reliable in this respect. How exactly are the two creation accounts explained?
funkaliciousify 10 months ago
@funkaliciousify Geneis 1 is an overview of the Creation in chronological order. But Gen. 2 is a more detailed account of day 6 (creation of Man). This kind of repetition is common in Hebrew narratives and is repeated in Gen. 5:1 (an overview of Adam’s lineage following the details of Ch. 4) and in 10:1 which is an overview of the division of nations and languages after the Flood, followed by a detailed account of how it happened in chapter 11:1 ( i.e., the Tower of Babel).
serrocXIII 10 months ago
@serrocXIII Really? the last time i read the two versions of genisis they appeared to be very different texts indeed with one version claiming that Adam was created after the animals and another claiming Adam was around before the animals. This is not repitition but a contradiction.
funkaliciousify 10 months ago
@funkaliciousify Gen. 2:19 says that God formed the animals from the dust and brought them to Adam to name(seeming to imply that the animals were created after Adam and contradicting the order of creation given in Gen.1). But the Hebrew verb for formed can be translated as a pluperfect, meaning that it should be rendered in the past tense as “had formed”, which it is in many modern translations like the NIV. God brought to Adam the animals which he had ALREADY formed, previous to forming Adam.
serrocXIII 10 months ago
@serrocXIII I am afraid I diasgree. The books do not even have the same name for God how could they possibly be describing the same event? Yes one may consider the word formed as pluperfect however one does so only to reconcile the two texts not due to any other indications within Gen 2 that this was the case. Translation is all about context and within the context of Gen 2 there is nothing to indicate that the verb was meant to be taken as a pluperfect one.
funkaliciousify 10 months ago
@funkaliciousify You’re ignoring the fact that the whole context of Genesis 2 is that it is a detailed recollection of Man’s creation, whereas chapter 1 is a general overview of universal Creation. Every Jewish and Biblical scholar knows this. This fact is clear from the opening line in 2:4 “These are the generations…”, meaning the following is an review of the previously established narrative. This same phrase is repeated again in chapters 5:1, 6:9, 10:1, 11:10 and 11:27.
serrocXIII 9 months ago
@serrocXIII The context of Gen2 is fairly arbitrary but clearly contradicts the creation order with adam created 1st and eve last in Gen2 and adam and eve created on the same day in Gen1. The two do not have the same name for god and i believe there is at least seven primary names throughout the bible. Most historians believe there were 4 different writers (Jahwist, Elohist, Priest & Deuteronomy) responsible for the text attributed to moses & the writings were later combined by various editors.
funkaliciousify 9 months ago
@funkaliciousify You can deny the context if you want but the fact is that Gen2 is simply an in-depth account of Gen1. Yes, Gen1 says Adam and Eve were created on the same day (Day 6), but Gen2 doesn’t contradict this, it merely gives the order in which they were created. You can easily confirmed this, if you really wanted to know the truth, by researching any number of credible Jewish and/or Biblical scholars who actually know what their talking about, or simply reading a Bible commentary.
serrocXIII 9 months ago
@funkaliciousify I don’t think your problem is with supposed contradictions in the Bible, because there are numerous resources that give perfectly reasonable answers to the claims you have. I think your issue is the same that pretty much all atheist/agnostic have: if the Bible is true, then it’s the word of God. That means that you’re not the master of your own destiny and you will someday be held accountable for your actions and sins to a moral God whose laws you don’t particularly agree with.
serrocXIII 9 months ago
@serrocXIII There is no fact about it as far as I am concerned so perhaps we are going to have to agree to disagree. My disbelief that the bible is not the word of god is not solely due to the contradictions within it, of which there are numerous examples such as the gospels, but also a great deal of its teachings & my knowledge of the world around me. If there was a god the chance that it is yours among the many thousands that have been followed over the years is fairly slim.
funkaliciousify 9 months ago
@funkaliciousify not slim at all. its clear from the world around us that there is a God. the universe had a beginning; it lept into existance out of nothing. that is something even atheist cannot deny. so there must be a Creator who brought it into existance. otherwise you would have to believe that the universe somehow created itself. ant that is not only physically imposible, its logically imposible.
serrocXIII 8 months ago
@serrocXIII One chance out of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) is fairly slim as far as I am concerned. No it is not "clear" that there is a god (let alone that it is your god) as we are able to explain a great deal of the world around us by completley natural means and the current exponential expansion of human knowledge via scientific and theoretical experimentation and is fast closing any gaps that currently exist and explaining the physically and logically "impossible".
funkaliciousify 8 months ago
@serrocXIII There are several theories as to the origin of the universe which are far superior to others and able to explain physics and chemistry of this event quite well. Your god theory does not explain anything as you cannot explain the origin of god and simply saying that a invisible, omnipotent, omniscient supernatural being has always existed is not logical nor an appropriate alternative to the current scientific theories as you have no science behind it.
funkaliciousify 8 months ago
@funkaliciousify You’re wrong. You can’t claim that everything in the universe can be explained by natural means because we know that the universe had a beginning; a point at which all time, space, matter, energy, and chemicals came into existence out of nothing, usually referred to as the “Big Bang”.
serrocXIII 8 months ago
@serrocXIII Yes the universe had an origin and is thought to have developed as proposed in the big bang theory however I do not follow how you determine that this makes the origin of the universe unnatural. By "natural" I mean "not supernatural or artificial". The theories proposing the self creation of the universe are supported by physics and astronomy and are highly logical when compared to the omnipotent, omniscient, eternal being you propose (with no supporting evidence I might add).
funkaliciousify 8 months ago
@funkaliciousify Therefore, the origin of the universe cannot be explained by natural means since everything that is natural came into existence at that point. In other words, to say that the Beginning of the universe can be explained naturally, you would have to believe that the universe created itself---and that is a highly illogical theory. So how do you figure that such an illogical view is somehow superior? Do you really believe the universe created itself?
serrocXIII 8 months ago
@serrocXIII It is explained by physics. The universe has zero total energy therefore may have arrisen simply via quantum fluctuation. Quantum fluctuation happen and are observed all the time. Its happening right now in the light bulb above your head. This is not illogical it is just science. Yes I do believe it as there is actually evidence for it and, with the right machinery, I can see it happening. While we may not completly understand it it is a better explanation than "a wizard did it".
funkaliciousify 5 months ago
@funkaliciousify Zero energy? Even if that were true, you still have to answer to fundamental question of the universe’s origin: where did it all come from in the first place? In order for something to “arise” something else has to already exist.
serrocXIII 4 months ago
@serrocXIII Again: quantum fluctuation. There does not have to be "something" because the laws of physics do not require it. Not only that but matter popping into & out of existance from nothing is an observed & extablished phenomenon. Nothing has to already exist. Watch "a universe from nothing" by Lawrence Krauss and about 20 mins in he shows a clip of the matter popping into and out of existance in the space between quarks in a proton. This is an undeniable fact. Sorry if you don't like it.
funkaliciousify 4 months ago
@funkaliciousify In fact, 5:1 also recounts the creation of mankind by God, both male and female. So according to your assertions about chapter 2, this would be a 3rd creation account! But this clearly isn’t the case and is merely a recollection of Adams lineage, just as chapter 2 is a recollection of his creation.
serrocXIII 9 months ago
@funkaliciousify one last thing - God is called by many names throughout the Bible, so I dont see any conflict there. But Genesis is one book, written by Moses; there are no chapter breaks in the original text. I just think It’s absurd to suggest that Moses would have forgotten what he wrote about the creation and contradict himself just a few short verses later and that he never went over his work and rectified the fatal flaw, and that no one else would have in the last 4000 years either.
serrocXIII 9 months ago
@funk You cant produce a single, credible account that denies that the massacre took place because there are none. Think about it: you don’t throw out the testimony of a murder witness because no one else reported it. You establish the credibility of the witness, than you make a judgment on the truthfulness of their testimony based on their credibility. Why would Matthew make it up, especially when such a lie could be so easily disproven by every Jew in Israel? It just doesn’t make sense.
serrocXIII 10 months ago
@funk... Each of the gospels was written to different audiences with a different purpose in mind. Matt’s audience was Jewish, with a purpose of showing Jesus was the long-awaited King and Messiah of Israel. But another major theme was the rejection of Jesus as their king. The massacre is prominent in Matthew because he was showing that Christ had been violently rejected as king from his birth until his death on the cross: the wise men came seeking “the KING of the Jews”.
serrocXIII 11 months ago
@sweetassuzy If the angel appeard to both mary and joseph why do the gospels not say so? you would think mark and john would consider this evidence of his divinity important enought to mention & that he was born in the prophesied location (instead they say he was born in Nazareth hence "jesus of nazareth" and no fulfillment of prophesy). Eyewitness? Elisha did not write kings so how could it possibly be eyewitness? and accurate? where do the "prophets" say a chariot of fire & wirlwinds?
funkaliciousify 1 year ago
@sweetassuzy why do kings 1 & 2, in their parallel recountings of Jehoshaphats reign not mention this prophesy? you would think it would be extroadanary enough to recount. Why is there is no extrabiblical accounts of the time to confirm that such a confrontation as this ever occurred between King Jehoshaphat and his enemies? and last but not least since when was infighting supernatural? where are you getting these probabilities from? they dont sound all that reliable, justifiable or logial.
funkaliciousify 1 year ago
Comment removed
sweetassuzy 1 year ago
this is a feminist who want to use pregnancy to divide men and women. she wants to depopulate americans with americans.
mykole84 1 year ago
he main concern of the "Pro-Choicers" is not the guarded protection of the life in the womb. Instead, the main concern is the "rights" of the mother over and against the rights of the child growing in her. The child, who cannot exercise its own will, is killed. And, in order to make the killing more palatable, the baby is called a "fetus", or "non-viable", or "not yet human", etc. This eases the conscience.
sweetassuzy 1 year ago
society has become to selfish, where are the good men and women??? all these pro murderes are a dime a dozen!!!! u know the old saying ...(FOR EVIL TO FLOURISH, GOOD MEN AND WOMEN HAVE TO KEEP QUIET)....well I WONT!!!!... ABORTION IS MURDER!
sweetassuzy 1 year ago
please AMERICA , where are the MEN OF YOUR NATION THAT WILL FIGHT FOR THE UNBORN, THAT ARE BEING SLAUGHTERED BY THE MILLIONS!!! forget IRAQ come home and save the BABIES!!! YOUR NEXT GENERATION IS BEING SLAUGHTERED AS WE SPEAK!!!! GET SOME BALLS AND BACKBONE!!!!
sweetassuzy 1 year ago
The unborn are human, I agree, but their right to be born is in the woman's lap (literally). If she knows she shouldn't have a child right now, for any reason, then it's NOT gonna happen. Trust the pregnant women to do the right thing in each and every case. This is not a philosophical problem with a blanket answer. It's a deeply personal decision for every pregnant woman. Your opinion doesn't matter to the women whose lives will be affected for the next 20 years of their lives.
jesusisbling 1 year ago
@jesusisbling Sorry but since it has rights the women`t can decide all humans have rights!!!!!!!!
freewilllover 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ABORTION IS MURDER! might be legal! but its MURDER ..hitler killed the Jews in world war 2,... and america is killing its next generation!
sweetassuzy 1 year ago
@sweetassuzy Can't be murder. Sorry love, I think I have you beat here.
DawnSeraph 1 year ago
@DawnSeraph abortion is MURDER!!! and dont call me love u creep
sweetassuzy 1 year ago
@sweetassuzy Screaming it doesn't make it so. And "love" was mere sarcasm. It was to further my opinion, nothing to do with you. Why would it if I am not that way inclined?
DawnSeraph 1 year ago
thats your opinon Dawnseraph so shut up and be gay.
baseballking11000 1 year ago
@baseballking11000 And what makes you think that your opinion is more valid? Because you are straight? I think it's because you are fearful that you have responded, albeit in a round about way. Perhaps some latent homosexual tendencies are making themselves known and you don't know how to react? (Before anyone attacks me for 'insulting' this guy, look at what he has written about me)
DawnSeraph 1 year ago
shutup Dawnseraph you like men fag.
baseballking11000 1 year ago
@baseballking11000 Too scared I will beat you down to actually reply to my statements? Hmm, I detect some fear here. And you're 25? That is hardly believeable, considering the horrible level of grammar and spelling you employ. What, still in primary school? You might want to go back there, it will help you with those nasty things called commas and fullstops.
DawnSeraph 1 year ago
When it comes to the preservation of human life, no one has any rights.
ArsefaceTheHairy 1 year ago
This woman is NUTS and knows NOTHING about law!
tpfastback 1 year ago
@tpfastback Oh, and you do? Please explain it.
DawnSeraph 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ANTI-CHOICE = SLAVERY
PRO-CHOICE = FREEDOM
FACT OF LIFE: EVERYBODY LOVES FREEDOM
IT IS BETTER TO HAVE FREEDOM OF CHOICE AND NOT NEED IT THEN TO NEED FREEDOM OF CHOICE AND NOT HAVE IT!
FOR WOMENS FUTURE AND FOR FUTURE WOMEN KEEP AMERICA PRO-CHOICE!
PALOMITA694 1 year ago
Of course to the Right wingers in this country. Once the baby is born its not important. They could careless if mother is denied food stamps to feed a child she wanted to keep. And these are the same people that say they are for less government. But yet they want to deny that woman's civil rights. OR get into peoples bedrooms and be the moral correctness party. LET GOD be the judge not the judge in a black rob. GOD hates sins not the sinner.
MegaELECTRICEYE 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is so SICK SICK SICK and SICK!
Nobody has right to murder unborn or born HUMAN BEINGS.
How an earth it is so difficult for you all child-murderers to understand that there is no difference between unborn and born child?!!!
Children has right to live - unborn and born.
sweetassuzy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ABORTION IS NOT JUST MURDER? IT IS ROBBING AN ENTRIE GENERATION OF GREATNESS!!!! .....WHO KNOWS WHAT BABIES ARE BEING DESTROYED ...THAT HAD THEY HAD THE CHANCE TO GROW UP AND BECOME ADULTS, COULD HAVE HAD THE CURE TO AIDS, OR CANCER OR SOME OTHER GREAT DISCOVERY....ABORTION IS A THIEF IN THE HIGHEST DEGREE
sweetassuzy 1 year ago
“The product, abortion, is skillfully marketed and sold to the woman at the crisis time in her life. She buys the product, finds it defective and wants to return it for a refund. But, it's too late.”
sweetassuzy 1 year ago
@sweetassuzy says: wants to return it
~~~~~~~~~~~~
LOL, Only weak, whimpy women with NO self assuredness in their decision making(all prolifers) want to "return it". Its a shame they self induce their negative feelings on the abortion that THEY chose to have. Dumbasses!!
Sueezee1 1 year ago
ABORTION IS MURDER! IN THE HIGHEST DEGREE!
sweetassuzy 1 year ago
@sweetassuzy By the way, dont respond to my comments..they will be deleted and NOT read. I dont let ignorant opeople talk to me. LOL
Sueezee1 1 year ago
@Sueezee1 wow who cares u are rude, ugly and on top of that a BABY KILLER!!!!
sweetassuzy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sweetassuzy says: u are rude, ugly and on top of that a BABY KILLER
~~~~~~~~~
LMFAO, ya what are you going to do about itm bitch? LOLOL
Sueezee1 1 year ago
@Sueezee1 i wonder how many BABIES U HAVE KILLED?????
sweetassuzy 1 year ago
@Sueezee1 cause u seem to have a LOT OF GUILT HAPPENING! with all your angry outbursts! it wouldnt surprise me by all this tough talk...just a bunch of BULLSHIT! to cover up your hurt heart!!!
sweetassuzy 1 year ago
no arguments abortion is MURDER!
sweetassuzy 1 year ago
@sweetassuzy I agree with you, but the fact of the matter is that other people disagree with us. Simply yelling ever louder has its place, but what we want to do is change minds, not alienate people. You have to remember, pro-choice persons don't see a fetus as a person, so moral indictments hold no sway over them. Our job is to make the intellectual price tag for being pro-choice so high that it becomes absurd to disagree with us. And how do you do this? Logical, reasoned, argumentation.
Nyarl3 1 year ago
@Nyarl3 says: Our job is to make the intellectual price tag for being pro-choice so high that it becomes absurd to disagree with us.
~~~~~~~~~ When can it be "Absurd to disagree" to people who are irrational, illogical, uneducated, dishonest people, who dont think they are irrationl, illogical, uneducated or dishonest? "Our intellectual price tag" dosent exsist to them. We are the morons....
Sueezee1 1 year ago
@Sueezee1 You've got it wrong. Now, it's true, a great many people are like that, but has it never occurred to you that pro-life persons hold the views they do because they just genuinely care about lives they feel are being wantonly destroyed? And your ad hominem attacks do you no credit.
Nyarl3 1 year ago
@sweetassuzy says abortion is murder
~~~~~~~~~~~~ Stay stupid darling...the better for pro choice. We have NOTHING to fear from dumbasses.
Sueezee1 1 year ago
@Sueezee1 call me all the names u want...just proves your mental deficiencies! and it doesnt change the facts that ABORTION IS MURDER! rant and rave all u like!
sweetassuzy 1 year ago
Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves; ensure justice for those who are about to perish!!!!!! Proverbs 31.8... ABORTION IS A MASS GENOCIDE OF THE UNBORN!!!!!!
sweetassuzy 1 year ago
@sweetassuzy says: Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves
~~~~~~~~~~ Bull shit... youre speaking for YOURSELF and what YOU want women to do to make YOU happy! To speak for " others" you;d also have to realize if some fetuses wanted to live, others wouldnt. So, how do you know that they want? Stop the childish games and get something valid!
Sueezee1 1 year ago
@sweetassuzy says: ABORTION IS A MASS GENOCIDE
~~~~~~~~~ PROLIFE LIAR WHO HAS NOTHING HONEST!! Genocide is t he killing of human beings. Why do you LIE??
Sueezee1 1 year ago
@Sueezee1 Wow your one sick evil person! A BABY IS A HUMAN BEING U FREAK!!! does calling it a fetus make u feel better? cause its still MURDER!
sweetassuzy 1 year ago
@sweetassuzy says: a baby is a human being/ its murder
~~~~~~~~~~~~ Of course it is, dipshit,....but, a fetus isnt! LOL. Watch your words..they get dumb prolifers in trouble everytime they open their mouths because you are all uneducated on this subject. And of course abortion is murder, that why all 50 million women who had one are in prison for the crime...LMGDFAO!!! I love dumbasses.
Sueezee1 1 year ago
@Sueezee1 well of course u love dumbasses! u wouldnt be hating yourself now would u? please leave us to do the critical evaluation of the likes of u....cause putting yourself down is not good for ones self esteem!
sweetassuzy 1 year ago
@Sueezee1 . . At the moment of conception, a life starts. And this life has its own unique set of DNA, which contains a blueprint for the whole genetic makeup. The sex is determined. We know there's a life because it's growing and changing."There is a big difference between the choice to have a child and the choice to kill a child. Because abortion kills a child who already exists, it is in no way a “right.”
sweetassuzy 1 year ago
@Sueezee1 are u one of those 50 million? ...just because a government says its ok.....DOESNT MAKE IT RIGHT?....sort of like Hitler exterminating all the Jews in world was 2 ....they just went about their business! ......NO DIFFERENCE! ITS MURDER...
sweetassuzy 1 year ago
@sweetassuzy says: ...just because a government says its ok.....DOESNT MAKE IT RIGHT?...
~~~~~~~~~~~ Dosent make it right to WHO, bitch? YOU? LOLOL... sorry sweetie, your not the judge of whats right and or wrong for the people of the world. Stop being a control freak like Hitler and demanding women have babies for you...anit gonna happen!! hahahah!
Sueezee1 1 year ago
@Sueezee1 Do you think legal uniformity is a good thing? Do you want to live in a country with internally consistent laws? If you do, in what direction would you make personhood status uniform, positively or negatively?
Nyarl3 1 year ago
@Nyarl3 says: Do you want to live in a country with internally consistent laws?
~~~~~~~~~~ ONly if they are good ones! LOL
Sueezee1 1 year ago
Comment removed
Nyarl3 1 year ago
@Sueezee1 If you're not really going to engage in the discussion, but just insult people, then why don't you, and sweetassuzy for that matter, take your intolerance somewhere else. The stakes are too high here for people who aren't really committed to reaching solutions to clog up the dialogue. You've said that you're for having an internally consistent law code, as long as they are good laws (duh). In what direction would you make abortion laws consistent? Positively or negatively? Answer.
Nyarl3 1 year ago
@Nyarl3 says The stakes are too high here for people who aren't really committed to reaching solutions to clog up the dialogue
~~~~~~~~~~~ Stakes? We're on frickin YT, for gods sake!! AND, the subject has been resolved yrs ago...abortion is legal.
Sueezee1 1 year ago
@Sueezee1 ABORTION IS MURDER! might be legal! but its MURDER ..hitler killed the Jews in world war 2,... and america is killing its next generation!
sweetassuzy 1 year ago
@sweetassuzy You are ignorant. Murder is killing another reasonable creature in being. A fetus is not a reasonable creature in being. Thus it does not conform to the definition of murder.
DawnSeraph 1 year ago
@DawnSeraph Once we recognize that human development is a process that does not cease at the time of birth, then...
...to insist that the unborn at six weeks look like the newborn infant is no more reasonable than to expect the newborn to look like a teenager. If we acknowledge as 'human' a succession of outward forms after birth, there is no reason not to extend that courtesy to the unborn, since human life is a continuum from conception to natural death....U ARE THE IGNORANT EVIL ONE!
sweetassuzy 1 year ago
@sweetassuzy No, it's not. Life begins at birth. That is the way the law sees it. Therefore, your argument is devoid of any persuasiveness.
DawnSeraph 1 year ago
Comment removed
sweetassuzy 1 year ago
@DawnSeraph life begins at conception, but u wont understand that, cause your a BABY KILLER!!!! truth hurts sometimes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
sweetassuzy 1 year ago
@sweetassuzy Yet I fail to recognise that as a truth. Just because you believe it is a truth doesn't make it so. The reality differs from your belief, love. Deal with it.
DawnSeraph 1 year ago
@DawnSeraph And, in order to make the killing more palatable, the baby is called a "fetus", or "non-viable", or "not yet human", etc. This eases YOUR conscience. and u say the baby isn't 'viable', have you ever seen a sonogram of an abortion? You can see the 'non-viable fetus' retracting from the instruments of death and seeking self preservation. It wants to live. Some would respond by saying that even a rodent wants to live. But what is in the womb of the mother is A HUMAN BEING!
sweetassuzy 1 year ago
@sweetassuzy And parasites would react similarly. I do not make the killing more "palatable" (word choice?) by calling the fetus a fetus. Because it is the scientific term. And the fetus is not a baby as it isn't born. Distinguished enough for you?
DawnSeraph 1 year ago
@DawnSeraph the only PARASITE on here is u!
sweetassuzy 1 year ago
@sweetassuzy Oh, great counter argument. That's me defeated. (Note the sarcasm.) You moron.
DawnSeraph 1 year ago
@DawnSeraph oh name calling??????? ha ha your so pathetic
sweetassuzy 1 year ago
@sweetassuzy Says you, the one that started the whole irrational debate. Hypocrite.
DawnSeraph 1 year ago
@DawnSeraph glad u admitted one of your many ugly points (SARCASM) man i bet your one ugly person inside and out!
sweetassuzy 1 year ago
@sweetassuzy I don't think you are in a position to judge on that. Considering what you have been saying. Also, I can see that you are.
DawnSeraph 1 year ago
@DawnSeraph u say the fetus is not human????????
This disregards the fact that the nature of the life is human. It has human DNA and is alive. How can its nature not be human if it is alive and has human DNA?
This asserts a false premise that someone is not human until he/she is fully developed.
What constitutes full development? One hour before birth or one hour after? Is there really a difference?
Then when did the natures change? When did the non-human nature develop into a human nature?
sweetassuzy 1 year ago