Comments by "@level Joe" (@leveljoe) on "Texas Supreme Court Temporarily Blocks Woman From Receiving Abortion" video.

  1. ...medical proof that it is not her body.
    18
  2.  @sovelissskirata8105  It has its own DNA and it is living. That is life.
    8
  3. ​@intrusive-th0t Chromosomes are not genes. Genes are segments of DNA. Chromosomes carry DNA, and they are not the same thing.
    7
  4. ​@Tapfoot I don't know if I would charge the parents. If they didn't want the inherent risk thar comes from pregnancy, they should have made better choices. Asking the court to fix that is ridiculous.
    7
  5.  @TheDarkLord_94  That's Obama care...
    6
  6.  @EricCartman915  Healthcare did. Obama care made it more expensive.
    6
  7.  @rebeccalankford9810  So would a healthy newborn.
    5
  8.  @sovelissskirata8105  Don't try to use the Bible, it won't help you here if you had bothered to read it.
    5
  9. @@A-Concerned-Citizen As if you haven't had a biology class???
    5
  10. ​ @PallasAthenian  DNA shows that it's not your body.
    5
  11.  @TimeToBreathe-ntmf  Everyone has suffering, who are you to decide when it's too much? There is no guarantee that the child will die as soon as you are making it sound.
    5
  12. @@A-Concerned-Citizen Removing tumors from what exactly? Did you think tumors produced children?
    3
  13.  @sovelissskirata8105  ...and yet you gave no quotes...
    3
  14.  @sovelissskirata8105  Exodus 21 23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Tell me what you think that means? Remember, this is what you chose to use to support your position. As far as "not reading", it's not my job here to guess what parts you think are helping make your point. All I need to prove you wrong is the one verse above and you gave it to me....
    3
  15. @sovelissskirata8105  Nowhere did it say miscarriage. Not once. Nice try though. I didn't skip anything, I asked you what you thought that part meant. Read it again if you don't believe me.
    3
  16. @sovelissskirata8105  "so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow" The baby comes out and is not harmed. If someone strikes you, you are to turn the other cheek. You turned your cheek (and you may have forgiven them), but that doesn't mean that striking you was not wrong. Just like abortion.
    3
  17. @sovelissskirata8105  Look how hard you try to pervert this... Where did it say miscarriage? "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine." Once again, nowhere does it say anything about a miscarriage. Nowhere did it say the fruit departing is death. The fruit departing the mother is birth. An early (premature) birth. Mischief is the death of the child. Even if your ridiculous translation (that you pulled out of thin air) was accurate, it's clearly up to the father to decide the punishment because (according to you) it was a wrongful death. It says nothing about the woman destroying the child up in her belly. If it was the death of the mother as you think, it would have been murder. That would also be wrong. Also, "he will pay as the judges determine" indicates that the premature birth (or death according to you) of the child was a wrongful act that needs to result in punishment by the state, and that punishment is in addition to what the father does. Either way, the death of the child (in my view or yours) leads to repercussions for the person that caused it. You're losing this argument 20 ways to Sunday. It's funny. Your fixation on this one passage is all you have, and you have it all backward. You then went on to say this passage was to be ignored because it could lead to "an eye for an eye." So which is it? Do we use it or ignore it? God knows the child before it is born. If the child was a blank slate, what would there be to know? Mehhh, you'll ignore this part because there is no room for you to twist it to your liking. I eagerly await your response. lol
    3
  18. @sovelissskirata8105  Hold your horses. Your opinion CAN'T be based on this passage. The passage is clearly in direct opposition to what want it to say. Look, kid, it's obvious you're making most of this up. Your older version is a Bible app??? WTF If you're using an "older version" of the Bible, which version is it? If you're going to prove you're not making it up as you go along, it needs to contain the word miscarriage in this passage, as you said it does. It's funny that you expect me to believe that your version is older but uses modern vernacular. "Premature pregnancy..." What is a premature pregnancy? Talk about word salad! You're right about one thing, premature birth usually (but not always) resulted in death in those times, and that's why the punishment was dependant on the result of the premature birth (life or death). Haha If it was a miscarriage as you claim, what more "mischief" could occur if the child is already dead? If "mischief " is the death of the mother, they would have simply said the strife killed a pregnant woman. You're making absolutely no sense. lol You are still ignoring that the act resulting in the loss of the child is a punishable act, and it's not the mother's choice. How inconvenient for you. You then go on about, "...is a fine,not an eye for an eye." then your next statement says it's, "...a life for life in this case." That makes zero sense. Is it life for life or a fine? You really don't know... Where did I say anything about the separation of church and state? Are you high???
    3
  19.  @amandablythe6515  It's the law of the land.
    3
  20.  @sovelissskirata8105  Psalms 139:13-16 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them
    2
  21. @EricCartman915  If it dies, a D and C is performed. "If"
    2
  22. ​@catgoatman They don't want this one.
    2
  23.  @AmyReindl  ...and you base that on what? Intuition? Please...
    2
  24.  @MandyAltamirano  Driving? Insurance? WTF
    2
  25. ​ @TavynAvyn  Look at you admitting it's a kid!
    1
  26. ​ @jeremybackup5758 it's the law of the land.
    1
  27. ​ @charliebrown5611  It's the law of the land, did you know that?
    1
  28. @@A-Concerned-Citizen Removing tumors from what exactly? Did you think tumors produced children?
    1
  29.  @EricCartman915  That's not what has happened here, is it?
    1
  30.  @sovelissskirata8105  Still no book, chapter, and verse. Are you done playing?
    1
  31. @FirstNameLastName-wt5to  She isn't happy with this child and wants a re-do. Isn't it strange when the left fights for the right to abort, it is always an extremely rare exception to the norm that they use to prop open the door, but once the door is opened, it's anything goes. Any time, on demand, at the taxpayers' expense, up to birth. She is being propped up and used by the left
    1
  32.  @sovelissskirata8105  You didn't say which version because it doesn't exist.
    1
  33.  @sovelissskirata8105  If the woman died it would be murder, not mischief. The Bible is clear on that.
    1
  34.  @sovelissskirata8105  How many times do I need to post a quote? I did the first time you asked. I actually didn't need another quote because your quote fits the bill better than I could ask for, but it's still there if you had bothered to look.
    1
  35.  @sovelissskirata8105  lol Who is cherry picking? We have been discussing the entirety of what you posted. So if I am "cherry picking" it's because you did first. Sort of like where you ignore that causing the loss of the child is punishable even in your example.
    1
  36.  @sovelissskirata8105  scroll up Your passage described her as a "pregnant woman". Why? If a pregnant woman is only a woman, there would be no recourse from the father due to her losing a baby. For that matter, if a pregnant woman is only a woman, why does your passage describe or even mention that she is pregnant? Even you said "the father" So if there is no "baby" ( because a pregnant woman is only a woman), what is he a father of? You are lost in web of lies.
    1
  37.  @sovelissskirata8105  Your cherry picking. What version of the Bible are you using? lol What's so hard?
    1
  38.  @sovelissskirata8105  Just so you're good, I'll switch to the oldest version of the King James Bible. The 1611 version. It uses "smiteth" for kill, as in verse 12 and 15. There is NOTHING in 22-25 about a miscarriage. No smiteth of babies, so no, no miscarriage. You're not being honest. What's more, in verse 26 it says, "...smite out the eye of his seruant (servant)." and in verse 27 it says, "...smite out the man seruants tooth." Clearly when parts of the body are lost and/or destroyed, the word "smite" is used to describe the loss. Why not "smite the woman's fruit" for an injured or dead baby? Because that ISN'T what the oldest and best version (according to you) is saying. It is obviously a description of a premature birth (not pregnancy). Looks like you were cherry picking, doesn't it. Since you need a red herring, I'll help you find my quote the same way you initially help me find yours. It's in Psalms 139, I'm sure you won't be "pretty lazy and bad faith arguing" and you'll find the exact verse yourself. Don't cherry pick now!
    1
  39.  @sovelissskirata8105  Now that we've established that the "life for life" is the life of the baby and the life of those that killed the baby, and that the baby has a right to life because there is punishment(s) for ending that baby's life, we can now move on. Unless you don't want to?!
    1
  40.  @sovelissskirata8105  You want me to quote it?! That's pretty lazy and bad faith arguing according to you. I wouldn't want to offend you by doing that heavy lifting. As for the baby not surviving a preterm birth, well yeah, that's why it clearly delineates what the form of punishment is for thst loss of life. You didn't understand smiteth?! Why not, it's the oldest and best version of the King James Bible. Sorry that it doesn't have the modern vernacular that your... interpretation had (as if a version older than the one I was using would, but you did claim it would). ...just more lies by you. As for Psalms, are you using the 1611 version? It sure doesn't sound like it?! Most of the words you are asking about are not even in the passage, not to mention you cherry picked a part of it. That means it's out of context (according to you). Remember, you set the bar... Pretty lazy! Are you seriously still suggesting that the baby is not alive in the womb?! That has been determined in your exodus passage that it is. ...I guess if your not in agreement we shouldn't move on to Psalms. That could be a red herring if we moved on. I know how strict you are.
    1
  41.  @sovelissskirata8105  Insults??? I used no comparison of you that you didn't use of me first. It's amazing that you failed to recognize your own words. The Bible uses smiteth for the killing of an adult. If the woman died it would state so by the use of smiteth. No use of smiteth = no death of the woman. Life for life follows mischief. Mischief is the posdible death of the baby. And no, a miscarriage and a premature birth are not the same thing in anyone's world, then or now. In a miscarriage the child is dead at birth. In a premature birth the child is alive.
    1
  42. @sovelissskirata8105  It is fruit departed as in the living fruit has left her body. Not as in her fruit has passed on. You really shouldn't try to give a modern meaning to an old concept. The meaning of words change. If the baby was born dead it would follow the wording of the rest of the verse and say smite or it would follow the wording of exodus 23 26 and say "cast her young." The people at that time were not foolish animals . They followed patterns of speach and had names for miscarriages/ "cast their young" and names for premature birth/ "fruit depart" or the child has come out living. In Hebrew the passage is, “w?yase û ye ladêhâ” And the literal translation is " the child comes forth". The noun is "yeled" which means child or youth and it comes from the root word "yalad" which means to bear or beget and the Bible uses it multiple times to indicate "gave birth". The verb is "yasa" which means " to go or come out" and the Bible uses it hundreds and hundreds of times to describe the emergence of something living. How's your hebrew?! Apparently not very good. " miscarriage is a premature" A woman can have miscarriage on her due date, they are absolutely not the same thing. This is very basic.
    1
  43.  @sovelissskirata8105  ...but in Hebrew they don't use departed, so try again.
    1
  44.  @sovelissskirata8105  ...but in Hebrew, they don't use smite, try again.
    1
  45. @sovelissskirata8105  We are not using NIV per your earlier complaint. You can't pick and choose, pulling what you like and leaving what you don't. You made an issue with me using the standard kjv because it wasn't as old as your King James version, and now you don't want to use any king James at all?! That's ludicrous! You're moving the goalpost again. It's a sure sign that you know you're on the wrong side of this. This isn't new, though. You wanted to use the Bible when you thought it would help you, and you rejected it when it worked against you. I did warn you from the start that the Bible would not help you. I called your bluff.
    1
  46.  @sovelissskirata8105  The child is absolutely living when the original Hebrew is used. "Yasa" is used over a thousand times to indicate the emergence of a living thing. When interpretation is removed ( just like you wanted), it is premature birth and only premature birth. You poor fella...
    1
  47. @sovelissskirata8105  Why are you owed civility when you have failed to extend it to anyone here?
    1
  48.  @sovelissskirata8105  I asked you what a specific verse meant to you, and you called that cherry picking. That made it clear you didn't wish to speak with civility. It was and still is, projection. You behaved as if I would not discuss any of the rest of that chapter when I was the one to include more of it. You've made a joke of the Bible by picking and choosing what parts you will accept (the true definition of cherry picking), and I owe you nothing. That one verse is at the center of this whole discussion and without knowing what you thought it was telling you, there was no way to move forward. I ignored it, and I eventually received an answer. You couldn't even post the passage, so I did. You NEVER said which version you were using, ever, but you made it clear that "older" was better so I used the oldest (the 1611 King James), which thoroughly confused you. You continued to ignore the most obvious and most widely accepted meaning based on the terminology used in that entire chapter. Why? Because I used what you used, an interpretation. Ok, I removed the "interpretation" and went to the original language. Apparently the most exact language (the original Hebrew) was " moving the goalposts" because it demonstrates you are wrong. lol Who was it that wanted an older version of the King James and then refused to use it? You If you have questions. You need to type them out so I can read them. I'm not psychic. To answer your new question... Why does the husband demand punishment... Because the harm done to his wife was enough to interupt the gestation. It jeopardized the life and health and long term viability of his offspring. The act could have caused life long consequences for the woman, husband, and child. I can only guess that you're asking that question because you're unable to extrapolate those consequences I've listed ( or others) from your own life experiences. That is yet another sign of inexperience. What age range are you? I'm guessing 17-25. You are bull headed enough, but lack the subtly and temperance of a full adult. Am I right? I'm asking because it would explain a great deal of your stubbornness while faced with overwhelming evidence. You were also crying and threatening to quit posting. Like I care... I'm guessing that you'll now disparage my age, oh well...
    1
  49.  @sovelissskirata8105  Where did I say the child was fine?
    1
  50.  @sovelissskirata8105  "I don't think..." I can't argue against that.
    1
  51.  @sovelissskirata8105  What's a cherry pick-up?
    1
  52.  @sovelissskirata8105  Who are you arguing with? None of that happened. It's all still there, so you'll need to back up your claims with some quotes. I guess that ranting last post is all you've got left.
    1
  53.  @sovelissskirata8105  "I copy pasted straight from the Bible app. It's an older version of the King James Bible." So a bible app is older than the King James Bible? Suuuure...
    1
  54.  @sovelissskirata8105  "should be cherry pick- yup you did. Fixed." What kind of word salad is that?
    1
  55.  @sovelissskirata8105  So, is it "husband" now? You were using "father". I see you had to edit your posts. Why are you covering your tracks?
    1
  56. ​@nathanfrench952 Everone has pain. We don't kill people because of it.
    1
  57.  @amandablythe6515  Shouldn't have gotten pregnant. We know what causes pregnancy. ...or are you a science denier?
    1
  58.  @codycarney2311  I hope you work on forming complete sentences in the future because that reply was gibberish.
    1
  59. ​ @Miranda3730  It's the law of the land.
    1
  60.  @TimeToBreathe-ntmf  The state is protecting the child. The parents are trying to kill it.
    1
  61.  @meg5823  What are you, 8?
    1
  62.  @MandyAltamirano  I'm a person with logic, reason, and a vote. Thanks for asking.
    1
  63.  @TimeToBreathe-ntmf  Life is 100% fatal. And?
    1
  64.  @TimeToBreathe-ntmf  Depends on the vaccine, but we are not talking about that, are we.
    1
  65.  @TimeToBreathe-ntmf  You must be a science denier...
    1
  66.  @andiamador7156  Yes, laws change. Is that what you told yourself when it went from illegal to legal? Ya know if the left had just stopped at "legal and rare" we wouldn't be here. They had to push the envelope untill it backfired. Even RBG said Roe v Wade was a bad decision. It's the law of the land. Enjoy!
    1
  67.  @TimeToBreathe-ntmf  Oh? Please tell me what objective feelings I have used to defend this decision.
    1
  68.  @mkb7013  That was such a vague statement that there was no substance in it for me to be able to respond. Keep trying.
    1