I Have Been Saying

[fredtoast]

(12-11-2016, 07:14 PM)GMDino Wrote: Actually I do not find it unfair.  I am anti-abortion but do not get to make the choice for any woman.

I was just agreeing with you and making it clear that the man also agrees to certain risks...he just can't control the woman's choice.

I see now.

[*bfine32*]

(12-11-2016, 02:10 PM)GMDino Wrote: So then the man is taking the risk that he might get the woman pregnant and have no say in what happens to the fetus AND might be held financially responsible for the next 18 years.

That's the risk HE takes.

But he is only forced to take the risk because of our laws. She assumes the risk because of Nature.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-12-2016, 03:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But he is only forced to take the risk because of our laws. She assumes the risk because of Nature.

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."


Romans 13:1-2

[GMDino]

(12-12-2016, 03:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But he is only forced to take the risk because of our laws. She assumes the risk because of Nature.

He goes in knowing the law and still takes the risk that she might get pregnant.

[*bfine32*]

(12-12-2016, 03:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: He goes in knowing the law and still takes the risk that she might get pregnant.

Sure does. I've never argued if it is a law; simply if it is a law, in which, everyone is treated equally.

[*bfine32*]

(12-12-2016, 03:38 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."


Romans 13:1-2

Has someone suggested that laws should be broken?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-12-2016, 03:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Has someone suggested that laws should be broken?

(12-12-2016, 03:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But he is only forced to take the risk because of our laws. She assumes the risk because of Nature.

The laws of man and "Nature" are a part of God's plan. If God wanted it any other way the law would be different. 

[*bfine32*]

(12-12-2016, 04:04 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The laws of man and "Nature" are a part of God's plan. If God wanted it any other way the law would be different. 

Guess we get two different meanings in the message. God is infinite and is telling his children through Peter to follow the laws of the Gentiles, not because they say so, but because I say so. I didn't pick up on the part that said her would change it is he didn't want it.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-12-2016, 04:26 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Guess we get two different meanings in the message. God is infinite and is telling his children through Peter to follow the laws of the Gentiles, not because they say so, but because I say so. I didn't pick up on the part that said her would change it is he didn't want it.

Exactly. 

[fredtoast]

(12-12-2016, 03:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure does. I've never argued if it is a law; simply if it is a law, in which, everyone is treated equally.

Everyone is treated equally when everyone gets control over their own body.

[fredtoast]

(12-12-2016, 03:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But he is only forced to take the risk because of our laws. She assumes the risk because of Nature.

No.  He is forced to take that risk because he can not carry a child himself.  That is because of nature.  

There is no law against a man getting pregnant.  

And there is nothing in nature that forces a woman to be financially responsible for her child.  She is only responsible because of a law.

[*bfine32*]

(12-13-2016, 10:02 AM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  He is forced to take that risk because he can not carry a child himself.  That is because of nature.  

When you just gotta say No; even though you are saying exactly what you are saying No about.

[*bfine32*]

(12-13-2016, 09:59 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Everyone is treated equally when everyone gets control over their own body.

...and that of their offspring.

[Griever]

(12-13-2016, 02:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ...and that of their offspring.

so should zygotes be covered and afforded health insurance?

[*bfine32*]

(12-14-2016, 12:05 PM)Griever Wrote: so should zygotes be covered and afforded health insurance?

Perhaps just afforded the chance to live.

I'm really not sure what that has to do with a parent having a say in his offspring's well-being; however, I'm sure you had a point in your head. 

[Griever]

(12-14-2016, 01:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Perhaps just afforded the chance to live.

I'm really not sure what that has to do with a parent having a say in his offspring's well-being; however, I'm sure you had a point in your head. 

if people are arguing that unborn babies are actually babies, then they should be afforded healthcare right?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(12-14-2016, 01:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Perhaps just afforded the chance to live.

I'm really not sure what that has to do with a parent having a say in his offspring's well-being; however, I'm sure you had a point in your head. 

(12-10-2016, 02:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We are living too long.

[*bfine32*]

(12-14-2016, 03:20 PM)Griever Wrote: if people are arguing that unborn babies are actually babies, then they should be afforded healthcare right?

IDK, perhaps you should talk to them. I just found it strange that you would use it as a reply to a post that suggested nothing of the sort. Unless. of course, you were just reading your T-Shirt. 

[fredtoast]

(12-14-2016, 04:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: IDK, perhaps you should talk to them. I just found it strange that you would use it as a reply to a post that suggested nothing of the sort. Unless. of course, you were just reading your T-Shirt. 

I think you must be a little confused.  


It appeared to me, (and apparently to others) that you were claiming unborn offspring are the same as born offspring.

[*bfine32*]

(12-14-2016, 09:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I think you must be a little confused.  


It appeared to me, (and apparently to others) that you were claiming unborn offspring are the same as born offspring.

What gave you and/or anyone else that idea and how does that equal me being confused?