Abortion in Arizona set to be illegal in nearly all circumstances, state high court rules

[friend of]

In any case, the point remains that for someone who hates human sacrifice it seems odd base a religion on an it. Either in part through a last second reprieve or in whole through a sacrifice of his son.

How should God have reconciled the world to Himself if not through His Son?

In your view. Just curious.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

How should God have reconciled the world to Himself if not through His Son?

In your view. Just curious.

How about just do it and not need shed blood? If your deity is actually all powerful, it seems awfully pathetic they be handcuffed to needing a barbaric practice of a virgin sacrifice in order to accomplish their goal.

Even better, why need reconciliation. If your deity wants everyone in heaven, just take everyone to heaven. After all, they are all powerful aren’t they? They shouldn’t need to be inhibited by any ridiculous requirements.

 

[Belk]

How should God have reconciled the world to Himself if not through His Son?

In your view. Just curious.

Please understand this is all hypothetical to me since I lack belief in Gods.

With that said if God is all powerful why not just forgive everyone with no need for a sacrifice? It strikes me as an odd thing to do. Most especially if such sacrifice is an abomination as claimed.

 

[friend of]

The problem that I notice with both of you is that, in both cases, your religion has no weight to it. That which costs nothing is worth nothing.

Take that or reject it as you will. It's just an observation.

 

[Slibhin]

That is my understanding, yes. However, he did call on Abraham to perform a sacrifice of Issac did he not?

HaShem stayed his hand. We believe it was ordered to demonstrate Abraham's faith in G-d, and he knew G-d would intervine. We also believe this was done in order to clearly show he did not want human sacrifice which was practiced widely at the time.

I wouldn't know.

Very honest of you. I'm glad to fill you in.

Then you believe your God commanded his follower to commit abominations in his name and only stopped it at the last second?

Read the above.

The Christians, of course, believe he performed a human sacrifice of his only son.

This is one of the reasons Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah.

In any case, the point remains that for someone who hates human sacrifice it seems odd base a religion on an it. Either in part through a last second reprieve or in whole through a sacrifice of his son.

Your characterization of Issac is incorrect, and the latter I can't speak about other then from a jewish perspective.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Belk]

HaShem stayed his hand. We believe it was ordered to demonstrate Abraham's faith in G-d, and he knew G-d would intervine. We also believe this was done in order to clearly show he did not want human sacrifice which was practiced widely at the time.


Very honest of you. I'm glad to fill you in.



Read the above.



This is one of the reasons Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah.



Your characterization of Issac is incorrect, and the latter I can't speak about other then from a jewish perspective.

OK. Thank you for the clarification. I have heard from others that they felt Abraham had to be ready to go through with the sacrifice in order to show his willingness to bow to God. Ordering a human sacrifice to show you don't want human sacrifice seems odd to me but I am a mere mortal.

 

[Belk]

The problem that I notice with both of you is that, in both cases, your religion has no weight to it. That which costs nothing is worth nothing.

Take that or reject it as you will. It's just an observation.

An interesting perspective. I will note many Christians claim Christianity is a free gift. Just food for thought.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

The problem that I notice with both of you is that, in both cases, your religion has no weight to it. That which costs nothing is worth nothing.

Take that or reject it as you will. It's just an observation.

Costs nothing is worth nothing?

Under that logic, Jesus’s virgin sacrifice is worth nothing because it did cost nothing. Under the belief that Jesus is eternal his death and sacrifice is essentially nothing at all.

The Bible claims he doesn’t stay dead. Death’s sting comes from its permanence but Jesus allegedly walks out on that part of the deal. If he were to actually suffer eternal death in our place, he should still be dead. Living forever makes him losing one weekend for our sins meaningless because he has infinite weekends. What did he actually give up? A bad weekend for our sins, I know that doesn’t compel people to empty their wallets in the offering plate but that is the reality of the situation when you take a step back and look at what the Bible claims went down.

I’d argue that Jorge Luis Borges was correct when he posits in “Tres versioned de Judas” that Judas suffers much more than Jesus does. One afternoon on the cross versus shame and revulsion for the rest of history.

 

[RileyG]

Except for pregnant women apparently.

I believe pregnant woman should be protected. I never said otherwise.

 

[RileyG]

A not-yet existing “person” has rights?

Nice to see that you’re anti-capital-punishment.

From my perspective, as soon as someone is conceived, they should be protected.

Yes, I’m against the death penalty, actually.

 

[friend of]

Under that logic, Jesus’s virgin sacrifice is worth nothing because it did cost nothing. Under the belief that Jesus is eternal his death and sacrifice is essentially nothing at all.

It cost His life.

 

[friend of]

Costs nothing is worth nothing?

Under that logic, Jesus’s virgin sacrifice is worth nothing because it did cost nothing. Under the belief that Jesus is eternal his death and sacrifice is essentially nothing at all.

The Bible claims he doesn’t stay dead. Death’s sting comes from its permanence but Jesus allegedly walks out on that part of the deal. If he were to actually suffer eternal death in our place, he should still be dead. Living forever makes him losing one weekend for our sins meaningless because he has infinite weekends. What did he actually give up? A bad weekend for our sins, I know that doesn’t compel people to empty their wallets in the offering plate but that is the reality of the situation when you take a step back and look at what the Bible claims went down.

I’d argue that Jorge Luis Borges was correct when he posits in “Tres versioned de Judas” that Judas suffers much more than Jesus does. One afternoon on the cross versus shame and revulsion for the rest of history.

Yes, one can see why you are not Christian.

 

[comana]

It cost His life.

Temporarily.

 

[discombobulated1]

Democrats supported Roe, which was not "legal at all stages".

That is NOT true.

When Roe was around, it was legal to the 9th month in some states, if you could find a doctor willing to do it. Most doctors did not/do not. Doctors tend to lean pro life.

A lot of people thought there were restrictions w/ Roe but there were not. It's just that most states did not have a doctor to do them at that late stage.

 

[discombobulated1]

Just for the record

I am fine

with

Arizona's law

It's the best there is in this country

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

It cost His life.

According to the Bible Jesus is alive today so allegedly, Jesus did not lose his life since he currently has it.

 

[wing2000]

Just for the record

I am fine

with

Arizona's law

It's the best there is in this country

The 1864 law or the law that will prohibit abortions after 16 weeks?

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

Yes, one can see why you are not Christian.

Of course. I’m not impressed by a sacrifice that I would be more than willing to make myself. Think about it, your life for everyone including your loved ones to have eternal happiness. Absolutely. Then to sweeten the deal you only have to stay dead for a couple of days not forever like death actually is. I’d march happily to that death, not beg to get out of it like Jesus did. I have to sincerely question the moral fiber of anyone who would hesitate to take that deal

 

[A2SG]

That is NOT true.

When Roe was around, it was legal to the 9th month in some states, if you could find a doctor willing to do it. Most doctors did not/do not. Doctors tend to lean pro life.

A lot of people thought there were restrictions w/ Roe but there were not. It's just that most states did not have a doctor to do them at that late stage.

You are wrong.

The Roe decision did not create any laws, as the SCOTUS is not a legislative body, but it did specify how states could limit abortion:

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a 'compelling' point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163-164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163-164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164—165.​

Abortion could be limited by law during the second trimester, if the mother's life or health is at risk. And it could be regulated, or even proscribed, after fetal viability, roughly the third trimester.

I'm unaware of any states, prior to Roe's reversal, that allowed for unfettered legal access to third trimester abortions. If you know of any, feel free to document that.

-- A2SG, in any event, I still believe that doctors are better qualified to make medical diagnoses for pregnant women than politicians are.....

 

[Slibhin]

I believe pregnant woman should be protected. I never said otherwise.

Repeating yourself over and over while ignoring what the other person is saying is indicative the conversation is a waste of time. You advocate for policies that kill women, end of story.