I believe that Government is not to blame for this wholesale slaughter of the innocent. Moral decisions come from Bible-Torah literacy, (Psalm 139), not from legislation. Roe v. Wade aside, we have not been forced to kill our babies. Abortion statistics are staggering because we (yes, I mean Judeo-Christians) have chosen to murder our unborn.
I believe that liberals have used the abortion debate to divide and conquer. We need to stop this naive militancy. In Deuteronomy 11, God tells us clearly how to raise moral people.
“And you shall teach them (God’s statutes and ordinances… V1) to your sons, talking of them when you sit in your house and when you walk along the road and when you lie down and when you rise up.” V19.
Though separation of church and state cannot be found in the Constitution, the following might be a better way to view the concept… Morality is personal and none of the Government’s business. Anything otherwise is kin to dictating religion.
I believe that the Government is a business and should be run as a business. We should elect a fiscally conservative leader. We should elect a military leader. We should elect a Godly leader. Moreover, we should be informed and not easily swayed by an anti-American agenda disguised as “concern”. It is nothing but pathetic, alarmist rhetoric. Abortion and terrorism are both wars against humanity. But the battleground for the unborn should be waged from the home (church), not the Supreme Court!
Sorry, but McCain is a tool and an enabler of the Left.
I’ll vote for the jerk, but I’ll need a dose of Ipecac and a bath afterwards.
Not generally in this country, but most definitely the case in China.
In this country, it is kind of borderline when an organization such as Planned Parenthood, which receives government i.e. taxpayer money, encourages and facilitates a teenage mother's abortion without her parent's knowledge.
That is a strange position. What is law, except legislated morality.
Given your argument, murder in all forms would be legal.
I totally agree... on principle that is.
In America we have a Christian standard that was the original intent of the founders. They saw we would fall without that moral code.
Now if the legislature and judicial branch of government rule that killing babies is alright, we need to kick them out and start over with people who believe more in our original focus... a God-centered nation.
On the other hand, I don’t expect the government to teach my children not to have abortions any more than I believe it is the governments responsibility to raise and educate my children. We are responsible for ourselves and anyone else we bring into this world.
If our children are deceived it’s because they either took advantage of free will, or that we failed in training them up in the way they should go.
You have spoken mighty well.
Outstanding post.
Our government (U.S.) was initially designed as an implement (tool) by which to help govern a society of free, sovereign peoples who happened to live in America. By no means was it set up to "conduct business" as you mistakenly assume. The sole purpose of government is to protect members of society from outside forces and from time to time each other, when certain members of society stray outside of the agreed-to contract with each other. Governments established by and operated by imperfect men and women, are prone to, and inherently evil, although a necessarily so.
I do not worship at the alter of government, and neither should anyone else. Instead, government should be looked upon with a suspicious eye, and constant vigilance against tyranny and corruption. After all, and I paraphrase a great Frenchman, "America did not become great because of its government, it became, and remained great because its people were good" (DeTocqueville).
If only the government (in the form of the graduates of the Blackburn Supreme Court Med School class of 1973) hadn’t unconditionally licensed the murderers and protect them from even the slightest limits.
No matter how well we teach our children, they’re exposed to the creeping changes in expectations - sex-plus, comprehensive sex ed, “take care of it,” all piled on top of the old double standard that is worse than ever.
Pray for our nation and our babies of all ages.
You nailed it.
American republican governance turned on its head.
"We have chosen?" Since I believe in the death penalty, I should probably execute myself, right?
THEY have chosen, and we have done a poor job of persuasion.
I humbly disagree- Judeo-Christians don't murder their babies, Democrats murder their babies.
How interesting and insightful you bring up the point that our nation was founded and organized into law under the Judeo Christian value system. These days it’s bad if you mention the word Jesus but it is good if you talk about the Gay Rights parade and legalized status of Gay marriage. That is what our national leaders are focused on?!?
Not me. I blame feminism and a few murdering doctors.
Feminism has killed more worldwide thru abortion than Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Pol Pot coulda dreamed of.
sorta ruins that kinder gentler myth
When the courts forbid the states from protecting human life, we should indeed agitate against that decision.
As for our legal arguments, have you read Mark Levin's Men in Black? I highly recommend it.
“I believe that Government is not to blame for this wholesale slaughter of the innocent.”
What happened is that FDR appointed a bunch of radical justices. And prior to that, the colleges were infiltrated with leftist constitutional law professors [Coulter’s ‘Treason’ sheds some light on Marxist infiltration]. If you study the shift in our legal system, the drastic changes first occurred from the FDR court. The ABA to this day is incredibly leftist. That's why Bush had a hard time with his nominees— he refused to listen to the ABA’s brazen partisanship.
“Moral decisions come from Bible-Torah literacy, (Psalm 139), not from legislation.”
Our law is founded on national tradition and heritage. Black's Book on Law— if memory serves— is a good source to find what genuinely settled law is. A single dissent, so far as I'm concerned, is not settled law. There were strong dissents in Roe v. Wade. Also note that our ‘esteemed’ justices later ruled against the Constitution in their Kelo decision. So it goes beyond abortion. That was a warning bell.
We also were two supreme court justices away from losing our rights to treaties— that recent Supreme Court decision regarding the right of Texas to execute illegal aliens who murder.
“Roe v. Wade aside, we have not been forced to kill our babies. Abortion statistics are staggering because we (yes, I mean Judeo-Christians) have chosen to murder our unborn.”
That is thought provoking, but we could also legalize everything — stealing, murder by anyone's definition— you name it. We would not be forced to do those things, but obviously, the government would be negligent to allow it.
“I believe that liberals have used the abortion debate to divide and conquer. We need to stop this naive militancy.”
We need to educate those who fail to understand originalism in the courts. And frankly, we need to let people know they can pressure congress to impeach rogue justices. We do have that power in the Constitution, although constitutional law professors try to convince themselves that we don't.
Deuteronomy 11:
“And you shall teach them (God’s statutes and ordinances… V1) to your sons, talking of them when you sit in your house and when you walk along the road and when you lie down and when you rise up.” V19.
The law is actually supposed to help preserve our national traditions. The legal term is ‘natural law’. The more we break away from it, the more our society breaks down.
“Though separation of church and state cannot be found in the Constitution, the following might be a better way to view the concept… Morality is personal and none of the Government’s business. Anything otherwise is kin to dictating religion.”
The original intent of the Founders was to prevent a government run religion. We do not even have the constitutional right to worship Satan or multiple gods. We have the right to “ ... worship God ... “ as we so choose. Monotheism, agnosticism— and arguably atheism— are the only religious rights we have.
“Abortion and terrorism are both wars against humanity. But the battleground for the unborn should be waged from the home (church), not the Supreme Court!”
The original definition of life beginning was officially established long before Roe. Life begins when the child first stirs in the womb. [If anything, modern technology shows that we should err toward life beginning even sooner.] If a murderer intends to kill an unborn child, many people [and some states] have the sense to see that villainy for what it is. The Supreme Court overreached by imposing its will over the states.
“ — not a single state had such unrestricted abortion before the Supreme Court decreed it to be national policy in 1973” — Ronald Reagan
The ‘right’ to abortion is based on a dissent which led to a fictitious privacy right. That's right. Roe v. Wade is based on privacy rights— not from law, but from a dissent. Talk about absurd. That ‘privacy right’ that the dissent conjured was never discovered in the Constitution until 1961. That's how weak Roe v. Wade is.
“The modern right to privacy began in 1961 in Justice John Marshall Harlan's dissent in Poe vs. Ullman.” — Mark Levin's ‘Men in Black’, page 55.
One should not lightly ignore the dissents in Roe v. Wade. And you might be surprised to hear what some of the justices were like. For example: Thurgood Marshall [a man who admitted that watching soap operas helped him decide cases] Blackmun [who was influenced by fan mail and hate mail], and William O. Douglas [riddled with scandal]. Overpopulation was mentioned more than once by the justices who ‘won the vote’ in Roe v. Wade. Should that have even been on their minds? The Supreme Court's job isn't to legislate. Thoughts of overpopulation are something for legislators to ponder and perhaps to amend the Constitution if there's a need.
I hope to one day write about this in more detail.
You are emphasizing the oft-neglected bottom-up front of the culture wars, while many focus on the top-down. All too often we are quick to slough off our morality as mere external positions that don't have as profound an effect on our personal lives as they might. Thus, it is easy merely to label ourselves "pro-life" and work for top-down legislation, while neglecting the other front.
I would contend that both are needed, and the the relationship between the quality of its leaders and the mores embraced by a society at large is a symbiotic one: we get the leaders we deserve. We all know that President Clinton's despicable actions in the Oval Office gained wider acceptability amongst our youth, who look to the actions of the leaders we elect as a weather vane of acceptability. Likewise, the character flaws - namely, minimizing or trivializing the value of human life as worthy of protection under the law - inherent in one who takes a pro-choice-on-abortion position disqualify him from office for the same reasons as one who is pro-choice-on-slavery.
Thoughts?