I no longer consider myself pro-life

[JimL]

The government has made little or no inroads into poverty.

Stop fooling yourself Jed, the government allowed for over 20 million people to get health care that would otherwise have gone without it. This new tax reform, I mean tax cut for the greedy/wealthy, is going to knock 13 million of them back off the rolls. Thats the conservative way. Somehow christians align with that way.

[JimL]

If you enjoy helping others you should not do it eh?

That's not what I said. But that you get joy out of personally helping others isn't why you should be doing it, you ought to be doing it by paying your taxes as well wherein you don't necessarily get that same personal satisfaction.

[Darth Executor]

The Roman Catholic Church has an estimated 1.2 billion members and portrays itself as the one legitimate heir to New Testament Christianity, and the pope as the successor to Peter, the Vicar of Christ and the first bishop of Rome. You mean he's wrong? How do you know?

We're not Catholics idiot, it doesn't matter what Pope Poz says or does.

[lilpixieofterror]

With an majority percentage going into government pockets.

Government programs are quite good at:

-Creating more cushy government jobs.
-lining the pockets of contractors.
-spending loads of money.
-creating more that depend on said government program that vote for whatever party that keeps them going.

Helping those they are supposed to help? Results may vary.

[lilpixieofterror]

Stop fooling yourself Jed, the government allowed for over 20 million people to get health care that would otherwise have gone without it. This new tax reform, I mean tax cut for the greedy/wealthy, is going to knock 13 million of them back off the rolls. Thats the conservative way. Somehow christians align with that way.

Are you saying 20 million people were unable to get healthcare or do you merely assume that? Did you ever assume that some merely choose not to get health insurance?

[JimL]

Are you saying 20 million people were unable to get healthcare or do you merely assume that? Did you ever assume that some merely choose not to get health insurance?

Egad! Nearly 1 million more people signed up this year than last year even though Trump and the republicans are doing everything in their power to undermine it, including ending the mandate and fine for not having insurance. Yeah, they choose to have it, but it has to be affordable.

[Starlight]

blah blah blah

Your quality arguments never cease to convince me.

[lilpixieofterror]

Egad! Nearly 1 million more people signed up this year than last year even though Trump and the republicans are doing everything in their power to undermine it, including ending the mandate and fine for not having insurance. Yeah, they choose to have it, but it has to be affordable.

1 million more is not 20 million and that still doesn’t answer why 20 million didn’t have insurance. Could it be possible that some people had that ability to get health insurance, but decided not to for some other reason? Believe it or not, people not buying something isn’t evidence that the reason they don’t buy it is reason of affordability. I know lots of people that drive nicer cars than we do, we choose not to. Why would we choose not to drive nicer cars?

[kiwimac]

This would mean that the Nazi's killing millions of Jews wasn't murder, because they made it legal.

Nope, genocide cannot be legalised the 1945-46 Nuremberg trials proved this.

[Terraceth]

The Roman Catholic Church has an estimated 1.2 billion members and portrays itself as the one legitimate heir to New Testament Christianity, and the pope as the successor to Peter, the Vicar of Christ and the first bishop of Rome. You mean he's wrong? How do you know?

Even if he is the successor to Peter and the Vicar of Christ, your original argument based on an appeal to something he wrote fails because, as I explained (1) his statements weren't going as far as you claimed they were, and (2) under Catholic teaching, being the Vicar of Christ doesn't mean every statement he makes is accurate ("papal infallibility" is actually quite limited in what it applies to). So whether or not the pope is in fact the Vicar of Christ isn't all that relevant because your argument fails even if he is.

Indeed, your challenge here feels like you're trying to change the subject in order to distract from the weaknesses of your arguments. Particularly because, as an atheist and therefore rejector of Catholicism, it seems like the onus should be on you to answer your own question.

[kiwimac]

Yeah, comes back to "should we obey man, or God".

Do show me any mention of opposition to abortion in the Bible, feel free.

[Darth Executor]

Do show me any mention of opposition to abortion in the Bible, feel free.

Exodus 20:13

[JimL]

1 million more is not 20 million and that still doesn’t answer why 20 million didn’t have insurance. Could it be possible that some people had that ability to get health insurance, but decided not to for some other reason? Believe it or not, people not buying something isn’t evidence that the reason they don’t buy it is reason of affordability. I know lots of people that drive nicer cars than we do, we choose not to. Why would we choose not to drive nicer cars?

People decide not to get insurance mostly because they believe that they can't afford it. When they realize that through the ACA, aka Obamacare, they can afford it, then they are happy to be able to get it. Thats why another 1 million signed up for it this year. And if Trump and republicans like yourself would just get out of the way and stop trying to undermine it, we would all be better off.

[Darth Executor]

can you take the obamacare discussion somewhere else please

[Tassman]

Exodus 20:13

No, that won't do it.

"The Torah does not address the issue directly. The principal biblical source for Jewish law on abortion is a passage in Exodus (Exodus 21:22-23) concerning a case in which two men are fighting and injure a pregnant woman, causing her to miscarry. The verse states that if no other harm is done, the person who caused the damage must pay compensatory damages, but if there is further harm, then he should pay with his life. The common rabbinic interpretation is that if the only harm that comes to the woman is the loss of the fetus, it is treated as a case of property damage — not murder.

The later rabbinic sources address the issue more directly, beginning with the Mishnah referenced above. Elsewhere, the Mishnah says that if a pregnant woman is sentenced to death, the execution can go forward provided she has not yet gone into labor, a further indication that Jewish law does not accord the fetus full human rights prior to birth".

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/art...ewish-thought/