Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
OldBrownsFan

What Does The Bible Say About False Accusers And #BelieveWomen?

Recommended Posts

here is science u cannot deny, when that baby is in the womb it is part of the mother. It isnt seperate, it could not live without the mother. If something goes awry with the pregnancy the mother very often suffers severe complications and in generations past....she most often died when complications arose.

end of debate on that front. Its part of HER body. End of discussion. Now, u are still free to be distasteful of abortion....im not the buggest fan of women who get reg abortions as a form of birth control. But they arent the norm.

The norm is women who are in the wrong place andvthe wrong time and have been left high and dry by a man. So they would gave to care almost exclusively fir the child which means working....something c9bservatives are ceaselessly contemptuous of. 

u just cant win with Retarded conservatives that on the one hand bemoan female equality in the workplace,  bemoan social netting etc,etc.....then effirtlessly hop on the pro life wagon as if women arent taking all those social and economic circumstances into their decision.

And listen, im not even bringing up circumstances of rape and incest. Ill be cery clear if the supreme court even thinks about hearing a case which would essentially sanction men passing their genes on by force. Im ALL for civil war. All for it. The U.S can dissolve. We're essentially then going back to europe in the dark ages, a place people git in rafts to cross a huge body of water to get away from.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Clevfan4life said:

here is science u cannot deny, when that baby is in the womb it is part of the mother. It isnt seperate, it could not live without the mother. If something goes awry with the pregnancy the mother very often suffers severe complications and in generations past....she most often died when complications arose.

end of debate on that front. Its part of HER body. End of discussion. Now, u are still free to be distasteful of abortion....im not the buggest fan of women who get reg abortions as a form of birth control. But they arent the norm.

The norm is women who are in the wrong place andvthe wrong time and have been left high and dry by a man. So they would gave to care almost exclusively fir the child which means working....something c9bservatives are ceaselessly contemptuous of. 

u just cant win with Retarded conservatives that on the one hand bemoan female equality in the workplace,  bemoan social netting etc,etc.....then effirtlessly hop on the pro life wagon as if women arent taking all those social and economic circumstances into their decision.

And listen, im not even bringing up circumstances of rape and incest. Ill be cery clear if the supreme court even thinks about hearing a case which would essentially sanction men passing their genes on by force. Im ALL for civil war. All for it. The U.S can dissolve. We're essentially then going back to europe in the dark ages, a place people git in rafts to cross a huge body of water to get away from.

 

And something you cannot ignore or hide is that pro choice is just a sanitized word for killing a baby in the womb. And that baby is a separate human being...period end of story. Saying the baby is dependent on the mother doesn't change that fact. Most abortions are done out of convenience..another unhappy fact. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of this depends a lot of how you define things OBF. And I have a feeling your definitions don't match the norm for modern medicine. 

I'd also argue "baby murder" is the sensationalized wording...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

That was some classic typical Steve

 

"While I think it is wrong to assume all accusers are right and for the defendant to be guilty until proven innocent, I don't think the Bible is the best reason for this"

 

"You think the Bible doesn't count?!??? You must think all women should be assumed to be right all of the time then!!??"

 

"...."

Actually the two points that are specifically valid are that because you and Cleve are idiots you automatically stand against any guideline mentioned just because they might possibly be in the Bible. II point which is perfectly clear is that you and cleve are cnts of the first order.

🐸

WSS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

All of this depends a lot of how you define things OBF. And I have a feeling your definitions don't match the norm for modern medicine. 

I'd also argue "baby murder" is the sensationalized wording...

Abortionists agree: abortion is killing

https://www.liveaction.org/news/abortionists-agree-abortion-is-killing/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Westside Steve said:

. II point which is perfectly clear is that you and cleve are cnts of the first order

 

just spell it with a K dhipshit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, OldBrownsFan said:

it may very well be but it diesnt change the fact that the very first prime right TO ALL OF LIFE is that we get to dictate what happens with our own bodies. If its wrong for a woman to have an abortion than its between her and god. Not you. Not me. Not dhipsht el typicales. Nobody!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, OldBrownsFan said:

And something you cannot ignore or hide is that pro choice is just a sanitized word for killing a baby in the womb. And that baby is a separate human being...period end of story. Saying the baby is dependent on the mother doesn't change that fact. Most abortions are done out of convenience..another unhappy fact. 

Stuart

You can also mention to Cleve that the baby cannot survive outside the womb either. It cannot survive alone. It is dependent on the mother whether inside or outside the womb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MLD Woody said:

All of this depends a lot of how you define things OBF. And I have a feeling your definitions don't match the norm for modern medicine. 

I'd also argue "baby murder" is the sensationalized wording...

Stuart

The "sensationalized " wording is  factual.  More factual than hiding behind the word "choice" rather than calling it what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Clevfan4life said:

it may very well be but it diesnt change the fact that the very furst prime right TO ALL OF LIFE is that we fet to dictate what happens with our own bodies. If its wrong for a woman to have an abortion than its between her and god. Not you. Not me. Not dhipsht el typicales. Nobody!

Stuart

If?

How does anyone with good conscience see no wrong whatsoever in tearing a fetus apart piece by piece? You're a lib, what happened to your feelings and compassion?

I would respect your opinion had you conceeded that although abortion is wrong, we should not interfere by legislating against it., that this act is between her and God. 

Secondly, you don't believe in God, yet you used Him to help your case because it was convenient. How typical.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Clevfan4life said:

just spell it with a K dhipshit

Stuart

It was clearly understood.

Maybe if you correctly spelled half the words you get wrong in your posts, you would only sound half as stupid as you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Clevfan4life said:

it may very well be but it diesnt change the fact that the very first prime right TO ALL OF LIFE is that we get to dictate what happens with our own bodies. If its wrong for a woman to have an abortion than its between her and god. Not you. Not me. Not dhipsht el typicales. Nobody!

Probably for everyone on this board there's a point at which a fetus becomes a human being and even the most vitriolic left-wing jag off would agree that aborting would be Criminal. I don't think I have to even bother with a hypothetical.

WSS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Westside Steve said:

Actually the two points that are specifically valid are that because you and Cleve are idiots you automatically stand against any guideline mentioned just because they might possibly be in the Bible. II point which is perfectly clear is that you and cleve are cnts of the first order.

🐸

WSS

No Steve. That's your typical black or white cowpoop. It's very clear. I'll leave it at that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OBF, when does a person die? When are they considered dead?

 

(Also, any point you want to make would be better made NOT coming from a clearly biased pro life site or religious site).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

No Steve. That's your typical black or white cowpoop. It's very clear. I'll leave it at that. 

I agree that certainly my second hypothesis is very clear.

👬

WSS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

No Steve. That's your typical black or white cowpoop. It's very clear. I'll leave it at that. 

tenor.gif?itemid=3526986

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

OBF, when does a person die? When are they considered dead?

 

(Also, any point you want to make would be better made NOT coming from a clearly biased pro life site or religious site).

tenor.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

All of this depends a lot of how you define things OBF. And I have a feeling your definitions don't match the norm for modern medicine. 

I'd also argue "baby murder" is the sensationalized wording...

tenor.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

OBF, when does a person die? When are they considered dead?

 

(Also, any point you want to make would be better made NOT coming from a clearly biased pro life site or religious site).

(Also, any point you want to make would be better made NOT coming from a clearly biased pro life site or religious site).

Or else??? Seriously I complain about biases in the media but most of the time it is not they are telling lies it is what they leave out of stories and the liberal narratives and slant they put on stories. A pro life site may be biased in favor of life but that does not mean what they are saying is wrong or a lie it just means they are no different than much of what passes for journalism today. The left's gold standard for journalism the NY Times I consider no more than an extension of the democrat party and they are clearly clearly biased. If you want the full story you should get a variety of news sources and I force myself to listen to some of the MSM as well just to hear the other side even if it is many times nonsensical. 

I think I can figure out where you are coming at with your question when do I believe a person is dead? Once I say no heart beat or brain waves etc than you will say a baby in the womb who has neither would be dead? Am I right? I believe a new human life starts at conception. Let's start at where life begins at go from there. Life begins without a heartbeat or brain waves. I would consider death of baby in the womb is the stopping of the life process that has already been started.

When Human Life Begins

https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/life-issues/when-human-life-begins

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that's where I'm going. Life is Life and death is death. How can you define the starting point for life differently than the ending point?

 

 

I can almost guarantee that if I dig into claims and citations (if there are any) from a heavily pro life or religious site they'll be found out to not be 100% true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, MLD Woody said:

Yes, that's where I'm going. Life is Life and death is death. How can you define the starting point for life differently than the ending point?

 

 

I can almost guarantee that if I dig into claims and citations (if there are any) from a heavily pro life or religious site they'll be found out to not be 100% true. 

The link I gave stating life begins at conception was from the American College of Pediatricians. I could list many many other sites with a quick google search also stating life begins at conception. In checking they are pro life but where are they wrong?

https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/life-issues/when-human-life-begins

"Yes, that's where I'm going. Life is Life and death is death. How can you define the starting point for life differently than the ending point?"

The simple answer for me is when cells start growing and when cells stop growing. A fertilized egg is in the process of growing new cells and living human beings are growing new cells constantly to replace dying ones. At death there are no new cells growing. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter if life begins at conception. It doesn't. I honestly don't care to parse that out. If it begins at conception or at 5 weeks, 6 weeks, 6 months...it's irrelevant. It's in the womans body, it can kill her...so the two are inseperable. Period end of discussion. It's between a woman and god. Religious people are free to disassociate with women who get abortions. I perfectly understand that. If a woman is found out to have had an abortion, kick her out of the church. Deny her communion. That's the price she has to pay if she wants to call herself a Christian....she ain't allowed to anymore. But im not Christian nor give one solitary fuk about the bible...even tho there's things I believe in that I guess are shared with Christians...I come from a "completely" different perspective. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Clevfan4life said:

It doesn't matter if life begins at conception. It doesn't. I honestly don't care to parse that out. If it begins at conception or at 5 weeks, 6 weeks, 6 months...it's irrelevant. It's in the womans body, it can kill her...so the two are inseperable. Period end of discussion. It's between a woman and god. Religious people are free to disassociate with women who get abortions. I perfectly understand that. If a woman is found out to have had an abortion, kick her out of the church. Deny her communion. That's the price she has to pay if she wants to call herself a Christian....she ain't allowed to anymore. But im not Christian nor give one solitary fuk about the bible...even tho there's things I believe in that I guess are shared with Christians...I come from a "completely" different perspective. 

Actually we have some women in our church who did have abortions. Even though they repented and God has forgiven them they have a very difficult time forgiving themselves. Today they are active in trying to keep other women from making their mistake and are trying to prevent abortions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, OldBrownsFan said:

Actually we have some women in our church who did have abortions. Even though they repented and God has forgiven them they have a very difficult time forgiving themselves. Today they are active in trying to keep other women from making their mistake and are trying to prevent abortions.

good for them, that's how you reduce abortions. Not through the legal system. This is what annoys me to no end about pro lifers...they think pro choice people want women to have abortions. Which essentially is like raising one's hand and saying im so stupid that I can't rationally conceptualize the term "pro choice". Pro choice people give no fuks if there were zero abortions next year so long as that was the womens "choice". If the pregnancy wasn't forced on them and they made the "choice", there's that crafty word again, then pro "choice" people have to abide by those womens "decisions". Notice these words in quotation OBF? Just digest them for a moment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OldBrownsFan said:

 

The link I gave stating life begins at conception was from the American College of Pediatricians. I could list many many other sites with a quick google search also stating life begins at conception. In checking they are pro life but where are they wrong?

 

The American College of Pediatricians is a conservative advocacy group, anti LGBT, etc.. Just FYI. 

It's another example of conservative groups adapting legitimate sounding names to seem like a better source

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Clevfan4life said:

good for them, that's how you reduce abortions. Not through the legal system. This is what annoys me to no end about pro lifers...they think pro choice people want women to have abortions. Which essentially is like raising one's hand and saying im so stupid that I can't rationally conceptualize the term "pro choice". Pro choice people give no fuks if there were zero abortions next year so long as that was the womens "choice". If the pregnancy wasn't forced on them and they made the "choice", there's that crafty word again, then pro "choice" people have to abide by those womens "decisions". Notice these words in quotation OBF? Just digest them for a moment. 

I am all for choice except when the choice is the right to kill a baby in the womb. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, OldBrownsFan said:

I am all for choice except when the choice is the right to kill a baby in the womb. 

its not ur body its growing inside so its not ur call. 2000 years ago women had to understand they were baby chattel and nothing more. Societies "won" by having the most people, ie more soldiers to throw at the other cave people. He who had the largest herd won. That is the basis of ur religion. They codified that concept of over population through cool bible stories that never happened.

The people who controlled every religion, they wanted ofc to expand thrir control cause they were shitkunts. So they needed their people to have as many children as possible. Sex was purely for procreation for "the motherland" blah blah blah. Its amazing that religious leaders didnt think eventually people would catch on to this. Its just another nuance of the class warfare thats been going on since time began

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Clevfan4life said:

its not ur body its growing inside so its not ur call. 2000 years ago women had to understand they were baby chattel and nothing more. Societies "won" by having the most people, ie more soldiers to throw at the other cave people. He who had the largest herd won. That is the basis of ur religion. They codified that concept of over population through cool bible stories that never happened.

The people who controlled every religion, they wanted ofc to expand thrir control cause they were shitkunts. So they needed their people to have as many children as possible. Sex was purely for procreation for "the motherland" blah blah blah. Its amazing that religious leaders didnt think eventually people would catch on to this. Its just another nuance of the class warfare thats been going on since time began

Stuart

This is as bad as when you guys play the 'Crusades' card Cleve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×