Sea Breeze

Joined

• started 283 topics
• posted 3,596 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Sea Breeze

• 
  173

  Roe vs Wade Overturned by US Supreme Court!

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  i know there was a leak a few weeks back, but this really does seem to have come out of the blue.. the anomaly was the original decision.

  it clearly had no basis in law or the constitution, and was a flimsy, ridiculous ruling.

  plus the whole thing was based on a fraudulent case in the first place.. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61928898.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Sea Breeze

  Instead of using chemical castration drugs on our teenagers, how about a 3 strikes you are out law? Get three women pregnant you are not married to and you get automatically chemically castrated.
  
  Here's an interesting video that asks a simple question: What is a woman?. I'd like to see a similar one titled What is a man? It is time America shakes off all the liberal indoctrination that we have been subjected to and start revisiting basic questions of our existence.
  
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42ivIRd9N8E&ab_channel=MattWalsh
  
• 
  173

  Roe vs Wade Overturned by US Supreme Court!

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  i know there was a leak a few weeks back, but this really does seem to have come out of the blue.. the anomaly was the original decision.

  it clearly had no basis in law or the constitution, and was a flimsy, ridiculous ruling.

  plus the whole thing was based on a fraudulent case in the first place.. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61928898.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Sea Breeze

  In three years:

  Planned Parenthood Received $1.6 Billion of Our Tax Dollars to Promote Its Abortion Agenda

  Now that PP offices are closing, I wonder what will happen to this money?
• 
  173

  Roe vs Wade Overturned by US Supreme Court!

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  i know there was a leak a few weeks back, but this really does seem to have come out of the blue.. the anomaly was the original decision.

  it clearly had no basis in law or the constitution, and was a flimsy, ridiculous ruling.

  plus the whole thing was based on a fraudulent case in the first place.. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61928898.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Sea Breeze

  I know I am not going to go out and help unwanted children.

  You or I may not have the personality, temperament or opportunity. But, lots of other people do. My construction company supported an orphan kids ministry in Ukraine for years. It was very fulfilling writing those checks. Sometimes it was nice just to sit and imagine how some kid benefitted. They did send a few pics over the years though.
  
  I recently seem to be burdened to somehow channel funds to be used for kids that were born-in JW's. Would like to hear ideas if anyone else has ever thought about this.
• 
  173

  Roe vs Wade Overturned by US Supreme Court!

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  i know there was a leak a few weeks back, but this really does seem to have come out of the blue.. the anomaly was the original decision.

  it clearly had no basis in law or the constitution, and was a flimsy, ridiculous ruling.

  plus the whole thing was based on a fraudulent case in the first place.. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61928898.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Sea Breeze

  Sea breeze As sloppyjoe said, if you don't believe in termination at any point that's fine. That's your opinion. But stating that terminations are wrong because we were all once 2 wks from conception or 12 weeks from conception is nonsensical.

  @Diogenesister

  I never said what you say I did. Sloppyjoe2 invited a critique of his reasoning on "viability" here:

  This isn’t directed at anyone specifically. I put out there already I don’t have a problem with abortion before viability. I am interested to hear anyones views on why they do have a problem with that.

  The viability argument is flawed as I pointed out with several examples because for all of us, our viability is dependent on environment. It has nothing to do with age.

  Without creating a double standard, (one for you personally and a different standard for a baby) Could you please clarify why you believe killing a baby at 12 weeks of age as you intimated, is OK in your opinion?

  Here's an ultrasoud of someone at just 12 weeks for perspective.
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 
  173

  Roe vs Wade Overturned by US Supreme Court!

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  i know there was a leak a few weeks back, but this really does seem to have come out of the blue.. the anomaly was the original decision.

  it clearly had no basis in law or the constitution, and was a flimsy, ridiculous ruling.

  plus the whole thing was based on a fraudulent case in the first place.. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61928898.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Sea Breeze

  @sloppyJoe

  Viability before 22 weeks is zero. There is no dependability. The body cannot depend on anything and still survive at that stage.

  Really? You don't need me to refute your reasoning. Just walk to the bathroom and look in the mirror. You will be looking at living proof that a 22 week old baby can survive in the right environment. You were once a 22 week old baby.
  
  We all are dependent on the "right environment". We are all viable or non viable depending on environment at any point in our lives since conception. Our age has NOTHING to do it. How long would you survive in space without a spacesuit? Are we supposed to write you off reasoning, poor 'ole Sloppyjoe, he just wasn't viable? Or, should we investigate the events leading up to you ending up outside the spaceship without a suit?
  
  
  
  
• 
  173

  Roe vs Wade Overturned by US Supreme Court!

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  i know there was a leak a few weeks back, but this really does seem to have come out of the blue.. the anomaly was the original decision.

  it clearly had no basis in law or the constitution, and was a flimsy, ridiculous ruling.

  plus the whole thing was based on a fraudulent case in the first place.. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61928898.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Sea Breeze

  I imagine the argument would have to be some sort of "soul" is created at conception or Seabreeze's "lots of potential cute little babies" that he/she isn't responsible for.

  @GabAthouse,

  So do you think the Holocaust was wrong? How many Jewish kids have you adopted? Against slavery? How many slaves have you adopted?

  This is poor reasoning.

  I would say make the cutoff 21 weeks

  @SloppyJoe - "Viability" is a measure of a child's dependency. But, we are all dependent on other people and things in various ways. Many of us, for example, depend on parents or caregivers. Some people depend on respirators or pacemakers, and premature infants cannot survive without the help of an incubator.
  
  Philosopher Francis J. Beckwith writes, we are all "nonviable" relative to our environment. Just as a 15-week-old baby would die if removed from her natural environment (the womb), an adult man would die if removed from his natural environment and placed in outer space.
  
  Dependency, in short, has nothing to do with someone's value. This is also poor reasoning.

  Not much has been said about men in this discussion. What about all the men who lost their "rights" to use women as disposable sex objects and just pay a few hundred dollars to walk away?
  
  We need to go after the men. We need to legislate their responsibility as well. Got a girl pregnant? Start forking out $1,000.00 per month to start. More based on your net worth. It's called responsibility. And it flies right in the face of the entitlement crowd. That's why they don't like it.
  
  We need to tackle this problem as a group of concerned citizens of a shared community. It is not a "woman's issue".
• 
  173

  Roe vs Wade Overturned by US Supreme Court!

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  i know there was a leak a few weeks back, but this really does seem to have come out of the blue.. the anomaly was the original decision.

  it clearly had no basis in law or the constitution, and was a flimsy, ridiculous ruling.

  plus the whole thing was based on a fraudulent case in the first place.. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61928898.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Sea Breeze

  The fact that people from different positions are even having a relatively rational conversation on this topic is a miracle. It was a long time coming. It is refreshing.

  And yes, lots of cute little babies (tax-payers) will now be born that otherwise wouldn't be.

  I see a lot of possible benefits here in the future:

  1. People may start to reject the Hollywood concept of sex as being little more that a gymnastic exercise with a happy ending. People may be more apt to look before they leap. And, that's a good thing.

  2. I think women will be more highly regarded in general, and less as objects of mere sexual desire.

  3. Fathers should be made to pay for the financial responsibilities associated with child birth. Instead of chatting a woman up for some potential temporary physical relief, conversations may be more meaningful; like is this someone I want to possibly share a child with. Or, is she such a nut I need to run the other way...regardless of how good she looks.
  
  As the price for sleeping around goes up, responsible relationships and marriages may go up as well.

  The "viability" line of demarcation is a poor argument. It brings up more questions than answers. For instance, a one-year-old child still requires daily care. If parents went on vacation for a month and left their 12 month old baby at home in a crib, how long could he live? Does the child's death mean he wasn't viable?

  How long must a child be able to survive outside the womb to be labelled "viable".
• 
  20

  NWT Revisions

  by Jeffro in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  there is mention on a wikipedia article that there was a 2006 revision of the nwt.

  is this true?

  what differences are there?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Sea Breeze

  As an example:

  Phil. 1: 9 used to read like this so that the reader would know that the WT inserted the word "other" into the text.

  For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every [other] name - NWT
  
  In the 2013 revision of the NWT it reads:

  For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name - NWT

  The brackets were eliminated.

  When I was at the doors and someone would point out this scripture. I would say, "Sure, Jesus has the highest name in the universe other than Jehovah.

  But the scripture clearly says that the name of Jesus is higher than every name.....and that includes the name of Jehovah. Quite a problem for JW theology.

  Still, Ephesians makes it clear that Jesus name is the highest, even higher than Jehovah.

  Eph. 1: 21 far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name that is named (NWT)

  Jesus said, "come to ME and I will give you rest". So, what do JW's do, they go to Jehovah instead.
  
  JW's have a problem following simple instructions.
  
  
• 
  173

  Roe vs Wade Overturned by US Supreme Court!

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  i know there was a leak a few weeks back, but this really does seem to have come out of the blue.. the anomaly was the original decision.

  it clearly had no basis in law or the constitution, and was a flimsy, ridiculous ruling.

  plus the whole thing was based on a fraudulent case in the first place.. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61928898.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Sea Breeze

  It should be up to each individual woman to decide what she wants to do re abortions, with her own body.

  
  
• 
  173

  Roe vs Wade Overturned by US Supreme Court!

  by Simon in

  1. social
  2. current

  i know there was a leak a few weeks back, but this really does seem to have come out of the blue.. the anomaly was the original decision.

  it clearly had no basis in law or the constitution, and was a flimsy, ridiculous ruling.

  plus the whole thing was based on a fraudulent case in the first place.. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61928898.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Sea Breeze

  The USA Constitution has a bias against majority popular vote rule at the federal level

  And that is because we are and have always been a REPUBLIC. A pure democracy results in tyranny of the masses. Greek history 101.

  By contrast, the ancient Romans formed one of the most famous republics in history, which the Founding Fathers of the United States, such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, took a great deal of inspiration from.

  The Roman republic was considered a major upgrade to what had existed earlier: monarchy or kings’ rule.

  Roman citizens, rich and poor alike, were involved in how their government worked by voting for representatives, who would rule on their behalf.

  But this abortion issue has nothing to do with our form of government. The Supreme court simply returned power to the states and over turned a morally repugnant position that made murdering babies a constitutional right. Essentially they said that if you want to do it, then go through the legislatures..... the normal way of deciding if something is legal or not. The federal judicial branch is not going to make this a "constitutional right" since there is nothing about this issue in the US Constitution.
  
  And that is the right decision.