But who puts that murderer to death?
The executioner better not strike him with an iron object, else:
Better not use an iron object in self defense either.
Neither the Torah nor the Bible was originally written in English, there are plenty of translations which state the sixth commandment as "thou shall not kill" including the version of the Bible I was taught as a youth. IMO substitution of "murder" for "kill" is to permit state sponsored killing.
Correct. If just a small amount of critical thinking is used, people would understand that. After God gave the Torah to the people, He told them to go and kill the inhabitants of an area and take possession of it.
Out of context alert!!!
ALERT! The poster is being stupid on purpose and posting something out of context to lie about its meaning!
Out of context alert!!!
Unless you feel it is justifiable to execute a human for the crimes committed by that human's father, you have to agree with me. So the question comes back to you, do you feel it is justifiable to execute a human for the crimes of that human's father?
Clever work on replacing "person" with "human", as it will be somewhat harder for people to argue that a clump of cells do not constitute a human, as opposed to a person - since, technically, that clump of cells do represent a human in the strictest biological sense.
Not so clever is the way you try to make it sound like the act of abortion after a rape is a sort of punishment for the fetus when, in fact, it has nothing to do with punishment or vengeance, but simply with not force a woman to go to the trauma and deep personal humiliation of delivering a baby conceived by her rapist against her own will.
No, wait ... on second thought, the first part isn't that clever either.
You have to understand that these assholes are worthless because of God's will. If scientists can invent a form of cancer, like the alien, that could feed off the bodies of pro life men and consume them, and women were given guns to so rape them, it would be no time at all before they called for the murder of these women and the cancers they cause. It's nothing but vicious filth that would enslave women because they do not believe as these demented assholes believe. These aren't people of God, they are people who worship their assholes.
Out of context alert!!!
ALERT! The poster is being stupid on purpose and posting something out of context to lie about its meaning!
Out of context alert!!!
"Vicious filth" describes that paragraph pretty damned well.
You guys are idiots seriously. He did not say anything condoning or changing the definition of rape, his stance is solely based on his position of abortion. If you think anything more of it than that, you are a fucking tool. Simple as fuck. He thinks rape is wrong, but he also thinks abortion is wrong regardless of how the baby got there. How does he come to that conclusion? Because to him, as defined to him by his "religion", all life is sacred. IMO he's an idiot and doesn't consider at all the womans rights and her right to life etc, so I disagree with him, but to attack him like he was marginalizing rape etc is patently false and a misrepresentation of his position.
I do not like this man, nor do I support him or his political party. It should be clear that I simply do not support this kind of character assassination simply because someone said something "harsh" and outside the "norm". PS this "norm" is only presented to us in the media, you go talk to a LOT of people and you'll see many people are just as confused when it comes to abortion. The average person has no clue what their position is because they don't really think about it.
Now now, I know you're trying to be fair, but think a bit. If it's God's will that a child of rape be born then it has to be that the rape was God's will too. If you are a believer that thinks God knows and causes everything, there is no way out. As I said, the absolutists sets his trap when he says that life is absolutely sacred. If you are a relativist then you know that man can become a monster but if you are an absolutist you make God the monster. This is what happens to the mind that thinks lineally. You wind up in a box. Only a mind in loving modesty can navigate this mess.
You guys are idiots seriously. He did not say anything condoning or changing the definition of rape, his stance is solely based on his position of abortion. If you think anything more of it than that, you are a fucking tool. Simple as fuck. He thinks rape is wrong, but he also thinks abortion is wrong regardless of how the baby got there. How does he come to that conclusion? Because to him, as defined to him by his "religion", all life is sacred. IMO he's an idiot and doesn't consider at all the womans rights and her right to life etc, so I disagree with him, but to attack him like he was marginalizing rape etc is patently false and a misrepresentation of his position.
I do not like this man, nor do I support him or his political party. It should be clear that I simply do not support this kind of character assassination simply because someone said something "harsh" and outside the "norm". PS this "norm" is only presented to us in the media, you go talk to a LOT of people and you'll see many people are just as confused when it comes to abortion. The average person has no clue what their position is because they don't really think about it.
It should be mandatory to have an abortion in the case of rape.
Please. Just because one side is totally insane doesn't mean you have to go full bore crazy the other way. Can't you see there may be women who could love a child no matter who the father is? You would just become another kind of monster if you took that away. This is totally an issue of the mother's choice and maintaining options either way.
People with such views should be belittled and shamed for as long as they hold any public office or intend to run for one. His statements show a clear and unmistakable devotion to ideals which would prove a detriment to basic societal decency and he apparently would apply them with reckless abandon. If you play out a situation where his type of thinking would apply, this is dangerous stuff. This is not a hypothetical discussion of extraordinary circumstances....
What we have here are legislators attempting to force their religious beliefs into law and therby compel the rest of the public to abide.
Sounds Sharia-like
Please. Just because one side is totally insane doesn't mean you have to go full bore crazy the other way. Can't you see there may be women who could love a child no matter who the father is? You would just become another kind of monster if you took that away. This is totally an issue of the mother's choice and maintaining options either way.
Why do liberals always act so shocked that Republicans would pass laws compelling people to act in a way consistent with their ideology.
How is it any different than what liberals do? *cough* ACA *cough*