Search results

In other words, Roe v Wade used circular reasoning.

Since you can point to nothing in the Constitution or amendments that actually protects abortion, you have no option except to accuse me of ignorance. All you can do is produce a ruling that used amendments that themselves had nothing to do with abortion, and that began with the unfounded...

When you can show me abortion rights specifically in the Constitution or amendments then I’m all ears. Liberty, etc has limits. You need to know what are inalienable rights and what are not.

Your first paragraph is a stunning Red Herring. I found it quite amusing. I suggest you do some research about percentages of abortions due to rape or incest, since the topic is abortion laws.

I don’t see anything about abortion in Constitutional Amendments They took liberty with VERY LOOSE interpretations.

Approximately 99 percent at least.

Yes, because if the Federal Law is not constitutional, it is not supreme. And there is nothing in the constitution about “ rights to kill babies. “. The argument you presented for abortion is clearly a misapplication of the fourth amendment. For example, do you have evidence that the ones who...

99 percent of abortions are result of consexual sex. Google “ percentage of abortions: rape or incest.

Who said I didn’t know about that? It’s irrelevant to my argument.

I believe that determining original intent is fundamental in interpreting and applying any document.

The Supreme Court has superseded the original intent of the constitution and amendments in this matter, imo.

Doesn’t change the fact that the the idea that the fourth amendment was intended to protect abortion is ludicrous. Just another example of undermining the Constitution by perverting the meaning of its words. It’s similar to the way cults twist the words of scripture.

That ruling was just silly. The issue is not whether we should invade a woman’s womb or not. The issue is the practice of abortion. And 99 percent of the time, pregnancy is the result of a consensual act, so primacy of male sperm over female autonomy I’d utter nonsense.

Quite a stretch. Way, way, way, removed from original intent.

Where’s it say in the Constitution a woman has a right to murder her baby? I haven’t seen that one.

Ok, so what did the Holy Spirit mean when he inspired John to write “ the Word was WITH God”? Do you have an answer or no? If you don’t, just say so.

No I haven’t omitted anything. The phrases “ the Word was with God” and “ the Word was God” are fully compatible when you accept the Trinity. Word was in the beginning, the Word was with God, and the Word was God are all true. My question for you is how do you explain the Word being with God...

So in other words, exegeting a preposition in a text is refusing to learn the truth? What did John mean when he said “the Word was WITH God”? Or do you just choose to ignore that part of the text. Which is interesting, because John not only writes those words, he also REPEATS them for...

PS I believe it is the calling that produces regeneration. That might be the clearest way I can state my position.

I agree and rejoice in the pretemporal aspect of election as you do. A. Chosen and predestined in eternity; B. called, Regenerated, justified, Spirit baptized, sanctified, kept…in the realms of time. All of God, All of Grace, All through Christ. Peace.