Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Oregon approves measure requiring insurers to cover abortion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by ke7ejx View Post
    Hehe, more or less. John Adams did an executive order marathon the night before Thomas Jefferson took over. Ahh, the joys of watching people doing the same stuff over and over and expecting a different outcome.
    That gave us judicial review in the US, so I'm not going to complain too much.
    I'm not here anymore.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      I'm really hacked at the Republicans in congress - all too worried about keeping their own butts in office, rather than doing the right things!

      I'm wondering if the new health care law (if there ever IS one) can prohibit undue burdens on insurance companies --- like forcing them to reimburse people for murder.
      While they were campaigning they made promises. As usual most have forgotten all about those promises. Far too many Republicans are liberals.
      Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        "regardless of... gender identity"?
        I take it this is the modern way of saying 'whoever has a functional womb and has gotten pregnant, regardless of what gender they identify as'. Should be called 'a mother', but that's apparently not PC, though... that's what a mother is, someone who is pregnant with a child.
        Last edited by Leonhard; 07-07-2017, 03:48 AM.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
          I wouldn't count on it. I'm not terribly impressed with their ability to accomplish anything at the moment. Trump seems to get bored and move on, which doesn't help.
          I REALLY wish I had a legitimate argument against what you said, C. I really do.
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
            It does seem like that, but I haven't been here long enough to know what's normal. A lot of it strikes me as "inb4 republicans" stuff.
            And no, this is a very new phenomenon for Oregon's legislature. Brown is going to shoot herself in the foot if this keeps up.
            I am Punkinhead.

            "I have missed you, Oh Grand High Priestess of the Order of the Stirring Pot"

            ~ Cow Poke aka CP aka Creacher aka ke7ejx's apprentice....

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Carrikature View Post
              That gave us judicial review in the US, so I'm not going to complain too much.
              I thought that was Marbury v Madison.
              "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

              "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

              My Personal Blog

              My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

              Quill Sword

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                I thought that was Marbury v Madison.
                John Adams doing his "executive order marathon the night before Thomas Jefferson took over"--or perhaps more accurately, Thomas Jefferson's attempt to thwart said executive order marathon--was what caused Marbury v. Madison.

                Quick version: John Adams put through a ton of appointments, but not all of the commissions got delivered before the end of his term. Thomas Jefferson, after taking office, tried to prevent any remaining commissions from being delivered with the expectation this would make them void and thwart the appointments that John Adams put into effect. James Marbury (who was appointed justice of the peace in D.C.) was one of the ones that fell victim to this, and sued to have it given to him, which set up Marbury v. Madison.

                EDIT: Slight error: It was William Marbury, not James Marbury. I think I got his name mixed up with James Madison (i.e. the "Madison" part of Marbury v. Madison, because James Madison was the secretary of state who, under Jefferson's instruction, was refusing to deliver the commission).
                Last edited by Terraceth; 07-07-2017, 10:23 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                  John Adams doing his "executive order marathon the night before Thomas Jefferson took over"--or perhaps more accurately, Thomas Jefferson's attempt to thwart said executive order marathon--was what caused Marbury v. Madison.

                  Quick version: John Adams put through a ton of appointments, but not all of the commissions got delivered before the end of his term. Thomas Jefferson, after taking office, tried to prevent any remaining commissions from being delivered with the expectation this would make them void and thwart the appointments that John Adams put into effect. James Marbury (who was appointed justice of the peace in D.C.) was one of the ones that fell victim to this, and sued to have it given to him, which set up Marbury v. Madison.
                  Bravo, sir.
                  I am Punkinhead.

                  "I have missed you, Oh Grand High Priestess of the Order of the Stirring Pot"

                  ~ Cow Poke aka CP aka Creacher aka ke7ejx's apprentice....

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                    John Adams doing his "executive order marathon the night before Thomas Jefferson took over"--or perhaps more accurately, Thomas Jefferson's attempt to thwart said executive order marathon--was what caused Marbury v. Madison.

                    Quick version: John Adams put through a ton of appointments, but not all of the commissions got delivered before the end of his term. Thomas Jefferson, after taking office, tried to prevent any remaining commissions from being delivered with the expectation this would make them void and thwart the appointments that John Adams put into effect. James Marbury (who was appointed justice of the peace in D.C.) was one of the ones that fell victim to this, and sued to have it given to him, which set up Marbury v. Madison.

                    EDIT: Slight error: It was William Marbury, not James Marbury. I think I got his name mixed up with James Madison (i.e. the "Madison" part of Marbury v. Madison, because James Madison was the secretary of state who, under Jefferson's instruction, was refusing to deliver the commission).
                    Ah, okay - it's been ages since i read it.
                    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                    My Personal Blog

                    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                    Quill Sword

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Well done Oregon.

                      “[Next - a discussion of the balancing of the right to life and liberty of woman and fetus, is not complete without a few words about what the Christian God thinks about all of this - after all it is to this higher power many anti-abortion stalwarts turn to justify their attempt to convince the public, and convince women, that the fetus has a right to life and liberty over a woman, conception to birth, no exceptions.

                      God never speaks to elective abortion, neither justifying it nor condemning it. It's very curious that as overriding as anti-abortion extremists make the life of the fetus as compared to the life of the woman, that their own God, who spoke on other critical issues, did not speak in clear terms to elective abortion much less declare it an objective moral wrong.

                      First, while God views the fetus as a human being, and alive as opposed to dead, it becomes clear that for him - A born woman has a right to life and liberty over a fetus, conception to birth - no exceptions.

                      We can conclude that from the following:
                      • God was deliberately silent on elective abortion.
                      • He explicitly designated the moment of birth as being the moment to celebrate the official beginning of human life (Gen. 2:7).
                      • And thirdly: From God's example of how he sees the relationship between the born human being and the unborn human being, or between a woman and her fetus contained in Exodus 21.

                      In Exodus 21: 22-25, reading from the Revised Standard Version, God said: "When men strive together and hurt a woman with a child, so that there is a miscarriage and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her- (speaking of the woman) - shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine." Verse 23 then says, "If any harm follows, then you shall give eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, and life for life."

                      Let me be clear here: These verses did not speak to the justification or condemnation of elective abortion - but they do speak to God's view of the relationship between the born

                      human being, the woman, and the unborn human being, the fetus, and that is critical to understanding why God never spoke of elective abortion let alone condemning it or declaring it an objective moral wrong.

                      First, I will not argue that in these verses the penalty difference for harming the woman vs. the fetus has anything to do with the fetus being less than fully human. In fact, the fetus is a human being.

                      Now Scott himself concedes In a 1995 piece he wrote called "Answering the Theological Case for Abortion Rights, that it might be argued from these verses, that the unborn child had a lesser social status in Hebrew society, BUT I would extend that argument and say that not only did the fetus have a lesser social status in the society, but that God, by choosing the actual moment of birth as the official point of recognition and celebration of the beginning of human life, has judged that a born woman's life would take precedence over that of an unborn fetuses life, even though it's clear here, that God, regards a fetus as a human being in the womb and "alive" as opposed to dead.

                      The verses in Exodus are clear. A woman is hurt when two men are fighting. This woman is pregnant. If she miscarries as a result of this violence, but she does not suffer any other harm or death, those men will be punished by a fine for causing the miscarriage or death of the fetus. However, if any harm to the woman follows, that is if the woman is injured beyond the miscarriage or is killed as a result of this violence, then that deed is to be punished by an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth or a life for a life.]”


                      …there is more on the moral case for abortion here:
                      http://www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.or..._abortion.html
                      “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                      “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                      “not all there” - you know who you are

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                        Well done Oregon.

                        “[Next - a discussion of the balancing of the right to life and liberty of woman and fetus, is not complete without a few words about what the Christian God thinks about all of this - after all it is to this higher power many anti-abortion stalwarts turn to justify their attempt to convince the public, and convince women, that the fetus has a right to life and liberty over a woman, conception to birth, no exceptions.

                        God never speaks to elective abortion, neither justifying it nor condemning it. It's very curious that as overriding as anti-abortion extremists make the life of the fetus as compared to the life of the woman, that their own God, who spoke on other critical issues, did not speak in clear terms to elective abortion much less declare it an objective moral wrong.

                        First, while God views the fetus as a human being, and alive as opposed to dead, it becomes clear that for him - A born woman has a right to life and liberty over a fetus, conception to birth - no exceptions.

                        We can conclude that from the following:
                        • God was deliberately silent on elective abortion.
                        • He explicitly designated the moment of birth as being the moment to celebrate the official beginning of human life (Gen. 2:7).
                        • And thirdly: From God's example of how he sees the relationship between the born human being and the unborn human being, or between a woman and her fetus contained in Exodus 21.

                        In Exodus 21: 22-25, reading from the Revised Standard Version, God said: "When men strive together and hurt a woman with a child, so that there is a miscarriage and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her- (speaking of the woman) - shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine." Verse 23 then says, "If any harm follows, then you shall give eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, and life for life."

                        Let me be clear here: These verses did not speak to the justification or condemnation of elective abortion - but they do speak to God's view of the relationship between the born

                        human being, the woman, and the unborn human being, the fetus, and that is critical to understanding why God never spoke of elective abortion let alone condemning it or declaring it an objective moral wrong.

                        First, I will not argue that in these verses the penalty difference for harming the woman vs. the fetus has anything to do with the fetus being less than fully human. In fact, the fetus is a human being.

                        Now Scott himself concedes In a 1995 piece he wrote called "Answering the Theological Case for Abortion Rights, that it might be argued from these verses, that the unborn child had a lesser social status in Hebrew society, BUT I would extend that argument and say that not only did the fetus have a lesser social status in the society, but that God, by choosing the actual moment of birth as the official point of recognition and celebration of the beginning of human life, has judged that a born woman's life would take precedence over that of an unborn fetuses life, even though it's clear here, that God, regards a fetus as a human being in the womb and "alive" as opposed to dead.

                        The verses in Exodus are clear. A woman is hurt when two men are fighting. This woman is pregnant. If she miscarries as a result of this violence, but she does not suffer any other harm or death, those men will be punished by a fine for causing the miscarriage or death of the fetus. However, if any harm to the woman follows, that is if the woman is injured beyond the miscarriage or is killed as a result of this violence, then that deed is to be punished by an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth or a life for a life.]”


                        …there is more on the moral case for abortion here:
                        http://www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.or..._abortion.html
                        aw53f0df1f.jpg
                        That's what
                        - She

                        Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                        - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                        I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                        - Stephen R. Donaldson

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          The miscarriage referred to is what we call a "premature birth" - that is what is meant by "no harm follows" versus "if harm follows" (e.g. the baby dies)

                          derp.

                          NIV Exodus 21:22 “If two men are fighting and they strike a pregnant woman and her children are born prematurely, but there is no harm, he is certainly to be fined as the husband of the woman demands of him, and he will pay as the court decides.[w] 23 If there is harm, then you are to require[x] life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, and bruise for bruise.

                          The word used is literally "to deliver" or "to come out"

                          yâtsâ'
                          1) to go out, come out, exit, go forth

                          1a) (Qal)

                          1a1) to go or come out or forth, depart

                          1a2) to go forth (to a place)

                          1a3) to go forward, proceed to (to or toward something)

                          1a4) to come or go forth (with purpose or for result)

                          1a5) to come out of

                          1b) (Hiphil)

                          1b1) to cause to go or come out, bring out, lead out

                          1b2) to bring out of

                          1b3) to lead out

                          1b4) to deliver

                          1c) (Hophal) to be brought out or forth

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                            [ATTACH=CONFIG]23295[/ATTACH]
                            ff does not mind twisting things to make them appear what they are not.
                            Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                              Well done Oregon.

                              “[Next - a discussion of the balancing of the right to life and liberty of woman and fetus, is not complete without a few words about what the Christian God thinks about all of this - after all it is to this higher power many anti-abortion stalwarts turn to justify their attempt to convince the public, and convince women, that the fetus has a right to life and liberty over a woman, conception to birth, no exceptions.

                              God never speaks to elective abortion, neither justifying it nor condemning it. It's very curious that as overriding as anti-abortion extremists make the life of the fetus as compared to the life of the woman, that their own God, who spoke on other critical issues, did not speak in clear terms to elective abortion much less declare it an objective moral wrong.

                              First, while God views the fetus as a human being, and alive as opposed to dead, it becomes clear that for him - A born woman has a right to life and liberty over a fetus, conception to birth - no exceptions.

                              We can conclude that from the following:
                              • God was deliberately silent on elective abortion.
                              • He explicitly designated the moment of birth as being the moment to celebrate the official beginning of human life (Gen. 2:7).
                              • And thirdly: From God's example of how he sees the relationship between the born human being and the unborn human being, or between a woman and her fetus contained in Exodus 21.

                              In Exodus 21: 22-25, reading from the Revised Standard Version, God said: "When men strive together and hurt a woman with a child, so that there is a miscarriage and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her- (speaking of the woman) - shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine." Verse 23 then says, "If any harm follows, then you shall give eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, and life for life."

                              Let me be clear here: These verses did not speak to the justification or condemnation of elective abortion - but they do speak to God's view of the relationship between the born

                              human being, the woman, and the unborn human being, the fetus, and that is critical to understanding why God never spoke of elective abortion let alone condemning it or declaring it an objective moral wrong.

                              First, I will not argue that in these verses the penalty difference for harming the woman vs. the fetus has anything to do with the fetus being less than fully human. In fact, the fetus is a human being.

                              Now Scott himself concedes In a 1995 piece he wrote called "Answering the Theological Case for Abortion Rights, that it might be argued from these verses, that the unborn child had a lesser social status in Hebrew society, BUT I would extend that argument and say that not only did the fetus have a lesser social status in the society, but that God, by choosing the actual moment of birth as the official point of recognition and celebration of the beginning of human life, has judged that a born woman's life would take precedence over that of an unborn fetuses life, even though it's clear here, that God, regards a fetus as a human being in the womb and "alive" as opposed to dead.

                              The verses in Exodus are clear. A woman is hurt when two men are fighting. This woman is pregnant. If she miscarries as a result of this violence, but she does not suffer any other harm or death, those men will be punished by a fine for causing the miscarriage or death of the fetus. However, if any harm to the woman follows, that is if the woman is injured beyond the miscarriage or is killed as a result of this violence, then that deed is to be punished by an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth or a life for a life.]”


                              …there is more on the moral case for abortion here:
                              http://www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.or..._abortion.html
                              Thou Shall NOT Murder.


                              I think He made Himself perfectly clear.
                              "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot

                              "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                              My Personal Blog

                              My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                              Quill Sword

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                                “[Next - a discussion of the balancing of the right to life and liberty of woman and fetus, is not complete without a few words about what the Christian God thinks about all of this - after all it is to this higher power many anti-abortion stalwarts turn to justify their attempt to convince the public, and convince women, that the fetus has a right to life and liberty over a woman, conception to birth, no exceptions.



                                In Exodus 21: 22-25, reading from the Revised Standard Version, God said: "When men strive together and hurt a woman with a child, so that there is a miscarriage and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her- (speaking of the woman) - shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine." Verse 23 then says, "If any harm follows, then you shall give eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, and life for life."

                                http://www.lifeandlibertyforwomen.or..._abortion.html
                                This would be one of the more egregious examples of eisegesis that I have seen. I'm surprised that you were capable of it. Still you did have a bit of help from the translators.
                                1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                                .
                                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                                Scripture before Tradition:
                                but that won't prevent others from
                                taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                                of the right to call yourself Christian.

                                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                139 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                365 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                112 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                197 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                364 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X