╌>

Congratulations, Candace Owens!!!

  
Via:  XXJefferson51  •  4 years ago  •  148 comments

By:   Miriam Weaver

Congratulations, Candace Owens!!!
But I was mostly astonished that all those years ago in high school, I was lied to. I was brainwashed into believing that it was my body, and therefore, simply, my choice. Today it’s become fashionable for narcissistic celebrities, to perpetuate such brainwash amongst their fans. Like Miley Cyrus, posing half-naked with her tongue out over a cake that reads “abortion”. Like Jameela Jamil, tweeting to scores of vulnerable young girls about how “proud” she is of an earlier abortion from her...

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People

Just wow!  What a beautiful message!  There is nothing as fulfilling as life.  The creation and beginning of a human life.  Not a clump of cells, a zygote, something to be discarded to the trash if it’s selfishly inconvenient.  A beautiful human life.  


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Look at this exciting news! So happy for her!  
ANNOUNCEMENT:

I remember the first time I learned about abortion in school.
“It’s a clump of cells until after 3 months” said my obtuse gym teacher turned health instructor.

Fast forward to more than a decade later to my 10 week scan, and I will never forget the feelings I experienced.

I was amazed that our baby already had arms and legs, hands and feet and was dancing around inside me. I was overcome by an inexorable sense of love followed by the powerful realization that I would do anything and everything to protect my unborn child.

But I was mostly astonished that all those years ago in high school, I was lied to. I was brainwashed into believing that it was my body, and therefore, simply, my choice.

Today it’s become fashionable for narcissistic celebrities, to perpetuate such brainwash amongst their fans. Like Miley Cyrus, posing half-naked with her tongue out over a cake that reads “abortion”.
Like Jameela Jamil, tweeting to scores of vulnerable young girls about how “proud” she is of an earlier abortion from her teen years.
Years ago, I would have thought these women were heroic feminists. Today I know that they are anything but.

And so as I move into this next chapter of my life I want to say this: To all of the young girls who have vocally supported abortion— you are allowed to change your mind. To all the young women who made uninformed decisions to go through with abortions: you are not “murderers” and you are not automatically disqualified from being pro-life. You too can have a change of heart. Education followed by transformation is one of life’s greatest offerings.

These past 5 1/2 months have been a whirlwind. A viral video with over 200 million views, comedians threatening to physically assault me, adult men degrading me because they disagree with my viewpoints on George Floyd, while others have accused me of not “showing up”, not being invited, or not caring enough to jump into the perpetual protest scene.

It is such a relief to finally share the truth.  
Life is a miracle. 
Life is sacred. 
And when women carry life, we get to become keepers of some of the Universe’s greatest secrets: beginnings.  


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1  seeder  XXJefferson51    4 years ago

I remember the first time I learned about abortion in school.
“It’s a clump of cells until after 3 months” said my obtuse gym teacher turned health instructor.

Fast forward to more than a decade later to my 10 week scan, and I will never forget the feelings I experienced.

I was amazed that our baby already had arms and legs, hands and feet and was dancing around inside me. I was overcome by an inexorable sense of love followed by the powerful realization that I would do anything and everything to protect my unborn child.

But I was mostly astonished that all those years ago in high school, I was lied to. I was brainwashed into believing that it was my body, and therefore, simply, my choice.

https://thenewstalkers.com/vic-eldred/group_discuss/9833/congratulations-candace-owens

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.1  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1    4 years ago
I was lied to. I was brainwashed into believing that it was my body, and therefore, simply, my choice.

That's not a lie. That's a simple fact.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1    4 years ago

It is a bald faced lie told with evil and malicious intent as there is another body, another Human life involved that’s been given no say in his or her own survival.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.1    4 years ago
It is a bald faced lie told with evil and malicious intent as there is another body, another Human life involved that’s been given no say in his or her own survival.  

More emotionally driven nonsense. And also factually and legally wrong!

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.3  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.2    4 years ago

No.  I’m right about every point I made.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.1.4  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.3    4 years ago
No.  I’m right about every point I made.  

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. But you're fooling no one! 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.1.6  Gordy327  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.5    4 years ago
Are you saying there is no other human life?

Are you saying a clump of cells is equivalent to a human? An individual person?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.1.8  Gordy327  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.7    4 years ago
Yes, unless you can tell me how you have a 'human" without it. 

A clump of cells is not yet human. They're just cells. Not an individual person. Big difference!

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.9  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.8    4 years ago

We are always a living human being from the moment of conception to the moment of death.  We are never something else or other than human life.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.1.10  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.9    4 years ago

A cell is living. So what? A cell or clump of them still doesn't make us inindividuals or human yet. Equating a cell to a developed human is just an emotionally driven absurdity.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.11  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.10    4 years ago

https://www.instagram.com/p/CEsf5QhBUvu/?igshid=cn12ld4xtjog

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.1.12  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.11    4 years ago

You'll have to do better than some Instagram nonsense if you want to make a compelling or rational argument.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.1.13  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.12    4 years ago

What was said there is rational and compelling.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.1.14  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.1.13    4 years ago

An opinion or story on Instagram is hardly rational or compelling. It's just emotionally driven tripe. Much like most arguments against abortion.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.1.16  Gordy327  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.15    4 years ago

I did answer your question. You just don't like the answer.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1    4 years ago
I remember the first time I learned about abortion in school.

So do I. It was something that some teenage girls did when they got pregnant.  Little did I ever suspect that one day it would be something that a mature woman with all the modern options of bc contraceptives would contemplate. What scum!

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.2.1  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2    4 years ago

(deleted)

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.1    4 years ago

Oh how murderous!

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.2.3  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.2    4 years ago

Abortion isn't murder.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.3    4 years ago

That depends on one's point of view, doesn't it?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.2.5  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.4    4 years ago

No, that depends on the law. And the law does not define or regard abortion as murder. So any "point of view" equating abortion to murder is demonstrably wrong.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.5    4 years ago
So any "point of view" equating abortion to murder is demonstrably wrong.

Many beg to differ.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.2.7  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.6    4 years ago

They're still wrong, no matter how much they differ or believe otherwise. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.2.8  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.6    4 years ago

https://www.instagram.com/p/CEkv5OjBzZu/?igshid=1dhczovahvbnm

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.2.9  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.7    4 years ago

Because Gordy said so!  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.2.10  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.2.9    4 years ago

Because the law says so. Or more specifically, what it doesn't say.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.11  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.10    4 years ago

Because the SCOTUS wrongly decided something the people should have decided. We've had this very same discussion numerous times. Ginsberg was right - you will never hear the end of this because of how it was done.

BTW having the last word doesn't make you right.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.2.12  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.11    4 years ago

I never said having the last word makes me right. I said the law makes me right. And SCOTUS decisions are as good as law. And it decided correctly actually. But regardless of how one feels about the SCOTUS decision, abortion has been brought before the SCOUTS numerous times, and each time has been affirmed and/or expanded upon. Neither has there been any serious challenge to abortion in the courts, much less any rational argument made against abortion. As such, abortion is a right, it is not murder, and any viewpoint to the contrary, while being one's prerogative, is wrong. And as its been said, don't like abortion, then don't have one, plain and simple.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.13  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.12    4 years ago

You need to learn that a nation's laws and societies values are two different things. You may have stolen a decision, but you won't change what decent people think. 

As for the Court, it has become entirely political now. The party in control simply appoints their judges on ideological grounds. I suppose that's an improvement over all those Harvard/Yale appointees veering left.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.2.14  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.13    4 years ago

It's the laws that are applicable. Values vary and are subjective. If you'll notice, I've been discussing this from the legal perspective. And how can I "steal" a decision. That's an asinine statement. If you don't like it, take it up with the courts. But it doesn't change the fact that your position is wrong. And I don't see what's decent about wanting individual rights revoked or otherwise severely limited. Perhaps you shouldn't approach the issue from an emotional standpoint!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.15  Vic Eldred  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.14    4 years ago
Values vary and are subjective.

The university has provided us with an alternative set of "values," hasn't it?



But it doesn't change the fact that your position is wrong.

No, Gordy, you don't get to tell anyone what's right and wrong or when life begins.


And I don't see what's decent about wanting individual rights revoked or otherwise severely limited.

In your opinion a woman has a right to terminate life, just like you trashed the Bible recently. Not everyone thinks like you, Gordy.


Perhaps you shouldn't approach the issue from an emotional standpoint!

Perhaps you shouldn't have allowed yourself to be brainwashed by an inhuman ideology!


 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.2.16  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.15    4 years ago
The university has provided us with an alternative set of "values," hasn't it?

That makes no sense.

No, Gordy, you don't get to tell anyone what's right and wrong or when life begins.

Neither do you. Perhaps you weren't paying attention, but I didn't say when life begins. However, when you're wrong, I will say so. And any assertion that abortion is murder is plain wrong! I already proved that with the law!

In your opinion a woman has a right to terminate life,

Not opinion, but actual fact! Although, it's not about "life." 

just like you trashed the Bible recently.

Red Herring. And how did I trash the bible exactly? 

Not everyone thinks like you, Gordy.

More's the pity I suppose.

Perhaps you shouldn't have allowed yourself to be brainwashed by an inhuman ideology!

No, I look at things rationally. You really seem all over the place here Vic. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.2.17  Gordy327  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.15    4 years ago
Just like you trashed the Bible recently.

That reminds me, Part 6 of my Fallacy of Biblical Stories will be coming out soon. This part will focus on Jacob and the sun standing still.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.2.18  Gordy327  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.17    4 years ago

Correction: I meant to say Joshua, not Jacob. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.2.19  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.18    4 years ago

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3PF_i9t0b8A

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.2.20  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.15    4 years ago

Well said.  Some secularists think they know it all.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
1.2.21  sandy-2021492  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.2.19    4 years ago

IOW, scientists confirmed that it didn't stand still at all.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.22  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.2.19    4 years ago

As usual, the Bible expresses the perspectives of ancient men trying to interpret their environment.   If it were divine, we would not see 'sun stood still' but rather an enlightened description of an eclipse.

Confirmation bias = seeing only what one wishes to see and, in so doing, missing the truth

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.2.23  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.2.20    4 years ago

Funny how neither he nor you actually addressed the points made, much less refuted them, but rather deflected or engaged in non sequiturs.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.2.24  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.22    4 years ago

I'll probably get to all that when I post the article. Hopefully sometime tomorrow. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.2.25  Gordy327  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.17    4 years ago

Part 6 of my Fallacy of Biblical Stories is now available. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.2.26  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.25    4 years ago

Go advertise your crappy seeds somewhere else.  My seeds are not a platform for your religion bashing passion.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.2.27  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.23    4 years ago

Oh whatever!  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.2.28  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.2.27    4 years ago
Oh whatever!

Thanks for explicitly proving my point and post!

My seeds are not a platform for your religion bashing passion.  

If you're going to make an accusation of me "bashing religion," then back it up with something concrete! Otherwise, an accusation is as good as a lie!

Go advertise your crappy seeds somewhere else.

You're the one who introduced the story in your post 1.2.19 above. So my "advertisement" is essentially a response to your post. You're welcome!

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.2.29  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.3    4 years ago

Yes, it is, always has been, always will be.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.2.30  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.28    4 years ago

That last part of your written post is a flat out lie.  You introduced it yourself in your fist bible bashing advertisement in postS 1.2.17 and 1.2.18 and you have the Sheer nerve to say I introduced the subject?  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.2.31  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.2.30    4 years ago
That last part of your written post is a flat out lie.  You introduced it yourself in your fist bible bashing advertisement in postS 1.2.17 and 1.2.18 and you have the Sheer nerve to say I introduced the subject?  

I mentioned I was coming out with it. You took it to the next level and introduced the topic in your following post. So now I'm expanding on that with an actual link to the topic. It's also funny you claim I have "sheer nerve" when that's exactly what it is when you accuse someone and then fail to support the accusation!

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.2.32  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.2.29    4 years ago
Yes, it is, always has been, always will be.  

And that is factually and legally wrong! Abortion is not defined or recognized as murder and legal precedent backs me up on that. Not to mention law books do not equate abortion with murder. And you (nor Vic) have offered anything in the slightest to refute that fact other than something along the lines of "because you say so."

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
1.2.33  sandy-2021492  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.2.26    4 years ago

Others are now treating you as you have treated them.  Don't like it?  Don't do it.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.2.34  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @1.2.7    4 years ago

Some used to say the same thing about slavery and how the law didn’t view them as quite human either.  Those who engage in or support abortion are morally just as wicked as those who engaged in or supported human slavery.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.2.35  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.2.34    4 years ago

Funny how your bible or God never actually condemns or prohibits slavery or abortion. But morality is subjective anyway. Regardless, slavery prohibited individual rights. So eliminating slavery expanded rights. Abortion is already a right. So prohibiting abortion removes rights and is akin to slavery in that regard. So a woman basically becomes a slave to a fetus. Yeah, I'd say taking away a woman's rights is morally reprehensible, as are those who think that would be a good thing. But that's just me.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.2.36  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.2.33    4 years ago

Oh whatever.  Really rich coming from you!  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
1.2.37  sandy-2021492  replied to  XXJefferson51 @1.2.36    4 years ago

You routinely try to recruit traffic for your articles on others' articles, and now the same is happening to you.  I seldom publish, and don't try to recruit traffic from others' articles to my own, so not really sure how that's "really rich" coming from me.  Only one of us here is trying to enforce a double standard, and it's not me.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
1.2.38  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.2.37    4 years ago

The  political secular progressives philosophy and ideology is the very definition of double standards

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  JohnRussell    4 years ago

She's married to a white guy? what a shock. 

Candace Owens is a grifter who saw a chance to make money puffing up Trumpsters. 

It is what it is. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.2  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  JohnRussell @2    4 years ago

Really?  A clear sign of racial progress where a white man marries a black woman and you respond by mocking the black woman?  

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
2.3  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @2    4 years ago
She's married to a white guy? what a shock.

You find that significant of something?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
2.3.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tacos! @2.3    4 years ago

Maybe he was trying to change the issue from pro life to anti interracial marriage?  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
2.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @2    4 years ago

deleted

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  JohnRussell    4 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  JohnRussell @3    4 years ago

This thread was deleted as personal and no value.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4  devangelical    4 years ago

don't like abortion? simple, don't have one. otherwise, [Deleted,] mind your own fucking business, and realize that a lot of americans don't have or need imaginary friends that hold dominion over every aspect of their personal lives or  individual right to freedom of choice. BTW, worshiping the most prolific abortionist in the universe hurts your cause.

attempting to impose exclusive religious dogma on the unwilling in a secular nation will only lead to constitutionally justifiable acts of retaliation against the perpetrators. face reality, this nation will sooner become a thumper killing ground before it ever turns into jesusland, and preserving individual liberty will be the reason why. get a clue.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.1  Gordy327  replied to  devangelical @4    4 years ago
don't like abortion? simple, don't have one. otherwise, stfu, mind your own fucking business,

Exactly! Regardless how one feels about abortion, it is still an individual choice and right and only the individual faced with that choice can make it.

attempting to impose exclusive religious dogma on the unwilling in a secular nation will only lead to constitutionally justifiable acts of retaliation against the perpetrators. face reality, this nation will sooner become a thumper killing ground before it ever turns into jesusland, and preserving individual liberty will be the reason why.

That will fuel the religious persecution complex some seem to have.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1    4 years ago

luckily we've had 20 years of practice killing religious terrorists on the other side of the planet. a single document both allows religious nuts to spew their unconstitutional and unamerican bullshit and yet prevents others from turning them into yard art, cat food, and kindling when they engage in that same religious based hate speech here.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.1.2  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1    4 years ago

Science is the friend of the pro life movement as we see how human a preborn boy or girl is and how soon they have a heart beat, feel pain, and appear as the human baby that we all once were in our lives.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.1.2    4 years ago
Science is the friend of the pro life movement as we see how human a preborn boy or girl is and how soon they have a heart beat, feel pain, and appear as the human baby that we all once were in our lives.  

Clearly you do not understand the science, (especially embryology) and instead inject emotional rhetoric into the argument. But  your post doesn't actually address what I said in my post. So I'm not sure what your point is.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.1.4  Gordy327  replied to  devangelical @4.1.1    4 years ago
luckily we've had 20 years of practice killing religious terrorists

To be fair, religious terrorist have been trying to kill us and others too. In this country, they're trying more to strip away individual rights like abortion. It's just a different kind of terrorism, but still terrorism.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.1.5  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.1.2    4 years ago
Science is the friend of the pro life movement

Is that why science has been used to not only support the Roe decision, but also uphold and affirm it in subsequent abortion case decisions? Science is science, and it certainly doesn't support your position. As a side note, it's funny how you try to use science to support your views, but reject it as "pseudoscience and a conspiracy" when it doesn't. Such bias and intellectual dishonesty is quite apparent.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.1.7  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.4    4 years ago

So you think it’s terrorism to promote the pro life viewpoint and oppose the killing fields of the most innocent among us?  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.1.8  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.1.7    4 years ago
So you think it’s terrorism to promote the pro life viewpoint and oppose the killing fields of the most innocent among us?  

Read what I said more carefully! I said it's terrorism to try and strip people of their individual rights! I said nothing about promoting any viewpoint.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.1.9  Gordy327  replied to    4 years ago
You equate cutting heads off with trying to stop or curtail the killing of unborn humans now that is a science all of its own.I'm not for banning abortion but there should be far less in the 21 century after all we know how babies are made.

I said they were different forms of terrorism. I didn't necessarily equate them. As for the number of abortions performed, if women choose to not have an abortion, then the abortion rate will go down. But that's irrelevant to the right of abortion itself. Unfortunately, there are those who are for banning abortion, even to an extreme. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.1.10  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.8    4 years ago

So it’s terrorism to stop individuals from gathering together indoors or outside to worship God with their peaceable assembly and free exercise rights?  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.1.11  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.1.10    4 years ago

Is that what you took away from my post? Seriously? Did you even bother to read (not to mention comprehend) it?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.12  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.11    4 years ago

It is easier to invent a strawman.   When unable to directly address your point, pretend you made a different (and stupid) point and rebut that instead.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.1.13  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.12    4 years ago
When unable to directly address your point, pretend you made a different (and stupid) point and rebut that instead.

Which is intentionally deceptive and misleading and is as good as lying.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.14  devangelical  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.1.10    4 years ago

keep religious mass hysteria on church property, otherwise get a fucking permit like all other planned gatherings. that book they keep slapping only carries weight among those that think it has any relevance in a secular america. it doesn't. the constitution makes thumpers equal, not special.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.1.15  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.11    4 years ago

(deleted)

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.1.16  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.1.15    4 years ago

You're free to express whatever you want. You're not free to try to deny or revoke another's rights, including the right to an abortion. 

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.1.17  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.16    4 years ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.1.18  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1.16    4 years ago

Then no one should revoke our right to go to church or to sing or chant there...

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.1.19  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.1.18    4 years ago
Then no one should revoke our right to go to church or to sing or chant there..

No one is. Neither should anyone attempt or advocate revocation of the right to an abortion.

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
4.1.20  lady in black  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.1.18    4 years ago

 But yet you want to take away a woman's right to choose what to do with her body.  That's rich coming from someone who doesn't want their "church" rights taken away. Can we say hypocrite, yes we can...why are your rights more important than a woman's?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.1.22  Gordy327  replied to    4 years ago

That's funny. With the way some theists go on about religious liberty, they seem to think religious rights trumps all else. So, if all rights are equal, then why do some advocate taking away a woman's right to choose?

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
4.1.23  lady in black  replied to    4 years ago

Didn't say they were, I'm not the one trying to take away someone else's rights.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.24  TᵢG  replied to    4 years ago
Why are women's rights more important than religious rights

You cannot deem your objection to abortion to be a religious right.   The USA protects your ability to believe what you wish, but it does not grant your beliefs to be truth or even to be correct.   And certainly, your beliefs are not rights.

If religious beliefs were rights then genital mutilation, honor killings, general bigotry, etc. would be a right.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
4.1.25  charger 383  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.24    4 years ago

If abortion is a sin and then if there is a judgement day that is when it should be dealt with

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Professor Guide
4.1.26  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.1.18    4 years ago
Then no one should revoke our right to go to church or to sing or chant there...

Chant?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.29  TᵢG  replied to    4 years ago
I’m not religious nor believe abortion should be illegal.

Okay.   This does not change the essence of my answer, but your positions are noted.

Here is the question you asked:

MUVA @4.1.21 ☞ Why are women's rights more important than religious rights

So let's be clear in consideration of your declaration of personal position:

  • Do you consider abortion to be a religious right?    If yes, then that is what I took from your comments.
  • Do you consider abortion to be a woman's right?   If yes, then that is also what I took from your comments.

Thus, with that established, you asked why a women's right to choose an abortion is more important than a religious right to prevent that choice.

So, again, I will answer your question.   Since you are not religious, I will substitute 'you' with 'one':

One cannot deem one's objection to abortion to be a religious right.   The USA protects one's ability to believe what one wishes, but it does not grant one's beliefs to be truth or even to be correct.   And certainly, one's beliefs are not rights.

If religious beliefs were rights then genital mutilation, honor killings, general bigotry, etc. would be a right.


In short, there is no religious right to prevent a women from exercising her right to an abortion.   Since there is no religious right, the question of it's importance over a woman's right is moot.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.31  TᵢG  replied to    4 years ago

Deflection.   If you have a point, make it.   I have responded to what you have written.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  devangelical @4    4 years ago

There is plenty of science to prove that a preborn baby is a human life and is so since conception.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.2    4 years ago

A human cell is alive so we need something more specific than human + alive.   A zygote would be a good candidate since it is a human organism; not just a cell.   But the political question in perpetual debate is not human organism but rather personhood.

It is not a scientific question (although one can use scientific findings in support of arguments).   It is entirely sociological (and religious).

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.2  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.2    4 years ago

Nope. The science says conception just produces a single, undifferentiated cell. A cell does not a human make.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.3  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.2    4 years ago

Really?  What does it make instead?  How long are we a one celled person before we become more? Was there a possibility that after conception that the first cell that comes out of the process would be anything other than a human being based on the genetic material of both parents? 

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.4  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.2.3    4 years ago
Really?  What does it make instead?  

Another cell. Seriously, this is basic biology here. Are you suggesting a cell is equivalent to an actual human?

How long are we a one celled person before we become more?

A philosophical and sociological question. It also depends on how you define "more."

Was there a possibility that after conception that the first cell that comes out of the process would be anything other than a human being based on the genetic material of both parents? 

It's still just cells. So are you arguing for embryological development, or personhood? Big difference.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.5  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.4    4 years ago

We are what we are and have been what we are biologically since our parents conceived us.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.6  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.4    4 years ago

“I was amazed that our baby already had arms and legs, hands and feet and was dancing around inside me. I was overcome by an inexorable sense of love followed by the powerful realization that I would do anything and everything to protect my unborn child.”

Is Candace wrong about her description of her baby?  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.7  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.2.6    4 years ago
Is Candace wrong about her description of her baby?  

She sounds more emotional. 

We are what we are and have been what we are biologically since our parents conceived us.  

All we were at conception was a cell. That alone doesn't a human make. You also dodged my question. I wonder why?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.8  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.7    4 years ago
I wonder why?

I don't.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.9  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2.7    4 years ago

She was simply describing what she saw in her ultrasound imaging.  It was either there as she described or it wasn’t.  We are human from the moment of conception.  All the needed ingredients are present then that are needed for human life.  Nothing is added later.  Time for our development through the earliest stages of our lives is all that is needed.  All mammal reproduction save the platypus is like that.   From conception onward it is a life of the species that created it.  

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.10  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.8    4 years ago

I don’t care what either of you think about any given issue.  The sheer condescending arrogance Toward others that hold different views that flows out in the name of  supposed “logic” and “reason” is astounding.   

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.11  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.2.10    4 years ago
I don’t care what either of you think about any given issue.

Don't make it personal.   Especially when you are just casting aspersions.

You dodged Gordy's question and it is obvious why.   Instead of going personal, combat Gordy with a sound rebuttal.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
4.2.12  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.11    4 years ago

You and Gordy already made it personal  before I responded above so there no high road here for you.  I’m done with your and his gang bang here.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.13  TᵢG  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.2.12    4 years ago
You and Gordy already made it personal

The comments prove that the discussion was about zygotes and abortion, not about you.   Another false allegation.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
4.2.14  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.2    4 years ago

DNA human and personhood are two different things. The DNA of those cells says human, but that does not make it a living (potentially) breathing human.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.15  Gordy327  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.2.9    4 years ago
She was simply describing what she saw in her ultrasound imaging.  

So? I didn't ask what she saw. I asked you a question, which you dodged-again!

 We are human from the moment of conception.

We are just a cell at conception. That's it. Once again, a single cell does not make us human. So again I will ask: are you arguing for embryological development, or personhood? 

From conception onward it is a life of the species that created it.  

Every cell in our bodies is "life." So arguing "life" is ambiguous at best and otherwise irrelevant. Are you trying to argue life or personhood? Again, big difference!

The sheer condescending arrogance Toward others that hold different views that flows out in the name of  supposed “logic” and “reason” is astounding

Some seem to prefer irrationality and emotion over logic and reasoning. 

 I’m done with your and his gang bang here.  

In other words, you have no valid argument or rebuttal to make. Instead, you just make it personal and ramp up the emotional based rhetoric! Duly noted!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.16  Tessylo  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.2.6    4 years ago

What's so amazing about it?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.2.17  Tessylo  replied to  XXJefferson51 @4.2.10    4 years ago

You seem to not have any acquaintance with logic and reason.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.18  Gordy327  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.17    4 years ago

Bingo! jrSmiley_79_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5  Tessylo    4 years ago

"Congratulations, Candace Owens!!!"

For what?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Tessylo @5    4 years ago

Her pregnancy....

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1    4 years ago

You know, I read that somewhere.

Oh, yeah, it was right here on this article!

LMAO!

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
5.1.2  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.1    4 years ago

You read the seeded article?  What a novel concept for some here  it seems!  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  XXJefferson51 @5.1    4 years ago
"Her pregnancy...."

So she got knocked up.  BFD

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
6  Split Personality    4 years ago

Congratulations, Candice and Douglas.

Candace stepped down as the communications director of Turning Points USA after comparative NAZI remarks in 05/19.

The chair of Turning Points UK in early 2019, George Farmer, son of Tory/Conservative Lord Michael Farmer, a former commodities trader, (cough), Douglas also stepped down from Turning Points UK.

They announced their wedding at some point in "early" 2019 to be held at Trump Vineyards on August 31.2019.

Now shes' already 10 weeks along and married well. 

Candice joins over 3 trillion other women on their planet to become pregnant this year.

Congratulations Candice and Douglas.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Split Personality @6    4 years ago

You realize that they total earth population is around 8 billion?  So, tomorrow is their 1st wedding anniversary.  More congrats are in order.  

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
6.1.1  Split Personality  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1    4 years ago
You realize that they total earth population is around 8 billion?

7.8 billion, what is your point?

More congrats are in order.  

Absolutely.  An eloquent women who identifies as Caribbean American has married one of the descendants of the British ruling class who were her British Caribbean slaver overseers, all the while avoiding the embarrassing American entrapment of  racism while making a career out of accusing other Americans of racism.

Remarkable.

Now just another mother...

/s

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
6.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  Split Personality @6.1.1    4 years ago
7.8 billion, what is your point?

It seems we are rather overpopulated.

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1.3  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Split Personality @6.1.1    4 years ago

I’m not the one who said there were three trillion women trying to get pregnant now.  

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
6.1.4  charger 383  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.2    4 years ago

That is for sure

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
6.1.5  Split Personality  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.3    4 years ago

Neither did I.

Do you have a point?

 
 
 
XXJefferson51
Senior Guide
6.1.6  seeder  XXJefferson51  replied to  Split Personality @6.1.5    4 years ago

See the end of your post 6.  

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
6.1.7  Split Personality  replied to  XXJefferson51 @6.1.6    4 years ago
Candice joins over 3 trillion other women on their planet to become pregnant this year.

Do you literally need the words explained to you?

Your 6.1.3 is a misrepresentation of what I wrote and in either case not offensive.

All living things strive to reproduce. Most accept their fate.

Only humans act like an everyday occurrence across the spectrum of all living things is some how a religious celebration.

But it sounds like she wanted this and the congratulations are sincere.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Junior Guide
7  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)    4 years ago

Awesome for her!

Holy crab-cakes Batman!!!

I don't feel abortion should automatically be the "go to" for women. I've never had one; even though my mother offered to take me to the clinic (I was 28) when I found out I was pregnant with my son... SHE thought it would be best because I had just filed for divorce and SHE didn't want to look after a child... well, guess what? My son is 12 and my mother has RARELY had to help me out. My mother watched my daughter and loved it because my daughter was the princess she always wanted and never got from me... 

... anyways, I believe there are instances in which abortion may be prudent and sometimes even necessary. It should be left up to the woman to make that decision based on her personal situation. It should NOT be illegal, because that means desperate girls and women will end up doing back-alley abortions again and that means a whole lot of other issues overall.

And no offense to the "men" here, but you have no idea what it's like being a woman and carrying a child; you don't know how we feel or what hormones do to us during and after. You really shouldn't have much of a say. Therefore, men fighting over this subject is simply silly.

I've seen women carry a child and give birth to that child and never love that child, but because someone told her it was wrong to abort, she had that child and she not only screwed up that child mentally [and often physically], but changed her body and mind forever too. For you religious folks, would you rather have an unborn FETUS [non-viable outside a woman's body; technically a parasite] meet God with open arms or have a child suffer because he / she is unloved and often blamed for the downfall of the parents despite the fact that it's probably not true?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
8  Tessylo    4 years ago

Abortion is not the automatic go to for women.  It's their choice regardless of what anyone thinks to the contrary.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
8.1  Gordy327  replied to  Tessylo @8    4 years ago

Indeed. But clearly some don't think a woman should have a choice. That kind of mentality is what one would find in some backwards nation where women are viewed ad secondary citizens. Some even try to shame or insult women if they exercise their choice. 

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Junior Guide
9  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)    4 years ago

That wasn't the main point of that message. I agree it's their choice. Apparently we're in violent agreement. 

 
 
 
Veronica
Professor Guide
10  Veronica    4 years ago

No one owns my body but me.  Whatever she believes for her is great FOR HER.  What I believe is good FOR ME.  She stays on her side of the road & I stay on mine - we will both be happy.  I don't appreciate anyone telling me what to do with something I own and pay for.   Would anyone like to be forced to donate a kidney, part of a pancreas because it will save a life?  Or is it YOUR body?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
11  Greg Jones    4 years ago

Should abortion be restricted or regulated in any way, e.g. - stage of pregnancy or age of female?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
11.1  Texan1211  replied to  Greg Jones @11    4 years ago

Some will say that age and stages of pregnancy should never matter, because it is solely a woman's choice.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
11.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @11.1    4 years ago

If it's not the woman's choice, then whose choice is it?

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Junior Guide
11.2  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Greg Jones @11    4 years ago

What I personally believe and what I would choose to or not to do is just that; I don't believe in ordering people to do anything and I certainly wouldn't want anyone to do that to me. Let's put it this way, if my 17 year old told me she was pregnant, we would discuss the options... actually we've already discussed such things because a friend of hers just had a baby at 18. So, I already know what she would decide and it's not abortion. However... she has condoms and tells me when she's only got a few left. She's also on birth control, but more for regulation of cycle because she knows that STDs happen and condoms are a must. Lastly, she's very aware that she's not ready for babies.

 
 

Who is online


JohnRussell
jw


65 visitors