Posted on 09/27/2009 5:04:44 AM PDT by J. Neil Schulman
Abortion isn’t murder? OK, imagine taking an hour-old baby swinging him by his heels and crushing his head against a tree? Is that murder? What would be the difference between that and killing it in the womb i.e. an abortion 61-minutes earlier?
I didn’t give the article an in depth reading. Why? Because after surfing through it, I didn’t see my initial thought upon reading the article’s title; Ronald Reagan, and the left’s outrageous campaign against him. You know, Ronald Reagan will take your grandparents’ Social Security away from them and force them to eat dog food; Ronald Reagan will start WWIII; etc.
Libertarians R us!
One of the Founders' primary stated purposes for the existence of our Constitution is "to secure the Blessings of Liberty to our POSTERITY."
Your ideology guts the Constitution, destroys the foundations of our form of government and the premises of liberty, while politically empowering the continuing daily slaughter of thousands of innocent and helpless children.
You're a holocaust enabler.
I guess I agree with more than half your points though. Kudos for being outspoken.
Except that the LORD personally proclaims this in Jeremiah 1:5. This is Jewish doctrine, which was then inherited into Christianity.
It is sad, really, the author and poster make good points, but by contradicting an irrefutable Jewish and Christian law regarding murder, he elevates the legitimacy of the other myths that he tries to debunk.
You are welcome to your opinion. I disagree.
I see very little difference between a child partway down the birth canal and the same child after takings its first breath. If the second one has a soul, then so does the first.
The very idea of a soul is religious, BTW. From a scientific standpoint the development of the new life is continuous from conception to birth and adulthood. Deciding that any point on that continuum constitutes "personhood" is inherently arbitrary.
How do you know?
Do you think you're God?
FACT: The human PERSON comes into physical existence at the moment of biological inception, when a human egg is fertilized and the first division of cells occurs. A unique individual with unique DNA.
The United States Constitution
"No PERSON shall be...deprived of life...without due process of law."
You are incorrect.
Few Christians believe in the pre-existence of human souls.
You have every right to believe this is (or should be) Christian doctrine, if you wish, but the vast majority of Christians disagree.
The Scripture you quote can be at least as appropriately read as referring to God’s foreknowledge.
“Human organism” is a scientific concept. It starts at birth.
“Human personality under the law” is a cultural and legal concept. It cannot be determined using scientific methods.
For the vast majority of history most live adult human beings were not “persons” with rights under the law. FTM, until not that long ago a married woman in this country ceased to be a “person” legally during her husband’s life. The two on marriage became legally one person, with the legal actions of that person controlled by the husband.
Well...Schulman has a valid point.
Christians may not always be a majority. The health, safety, and freedom to practice Christianity depends upon the principles upon which our nation is built.
As some may know, I hammer hard on the government schools. Why? Because they are an offense against every principle found in the First Amendment. They violate free speech, press, assembly, free practice of religion, and can never be religiously neutral.
So...How do government schools serve to illustrate J. Neil Schulman’s point #8?
In the mid-1800’s to the early 1900 virulent anti-Catholic sentiment fueled the creation and expansion of government schools. The government schools created taught all subjects within the framework of a generic Protestant religious worldview.
Ah!...But these foolish, foolish, foolish 19th and early 20th century government school proponents failed to realize the following:
Any government powerful enough to force generic Protestantism on the nation's children ( and make taxpayers pay for it) is powerful enough to have atheistic, Secular Humanist, Marxism forced on their children.
The same principle applies to Schulman’s #8. Christians must fight to preserve the principles of rule of law, limited government power, and freedom that have allowed this great nation to prosper. It is those principles that will protect us, as Christians, if we ever become a minority.
Name me one person in the history of humanity whose existence started at birth. In other words, one person who was not conceived and then nurtured in a human womb.
Nope. If you are arguing about Christian belief, then the Bible is a perfectly legitimate, and heck, probably the only source you can cite to back up a claim about what Jesus or God says is correct.
Few Christians believe in the pre-existence of human souls.
Those who don't may call themselves Christians, but in the eyes of God, they are not, as their belief refutes what is said by God. As Jesus said in James 2:20, claiming faith without living it is BS.
... but the vast majority of Christians disagree.
Contrary to recent events, the fact remains that Christian doctrine is not decided by a popular vote. As believers, we all ignore certain parts of scripture from time to time, it doesn't mean that it is any less wrong to do so simply because a majority of us do it.
About all I can say for J. Neil Schulman is that he has had at least a couple of misconceptions about what is true and what is myth for at least 53 years.
Did I accidently subscribe to the large print edition of FR?
I disagree with you concerning abortion.
And...There is a special place in hell for those who practice the dark art of shoving scissors into the skulls of viable pre-born babies, scrambling their brains, and sucking the gelatinous mass into a surgical suction jar.
I hold equal contempt for those who would allow a viable infant, who has survived an abortion, to shiver and die from exposure in a cold stainless steel sink in a hospital utility room. If an adult was placed on a cold slab and allowed to die from exposure it would be called torture...but..under Obamacare that, too, is coming.
Are you intentionally misunderstanding?
The concept of “person” with legal rights is just not a scientific concept. We can use science to inform us on who we should choose to grant such rights to, but science cannot make the choice for us.
“Person” is a legally and culturally determined concept. Science is no help. Science gives us information about the world. It does not help us choose between good and evil ways of using that knowledge.
FWIW, I agree that personhood begins at conception. I just cannot use science to convince someone else of this fact. Science has nothing to say on the issue.
BTW, under the Nazis “science” was used to show that Jews and Slavs were sub-humans. In our country the Dred Scott decision used “science” to determine that blacks had no rights which white men need respect.
Science is a wonderful tool. Moral and legal issues it cannot solve for us.
Agreed. However, when you hold a decidedly minority view, a modest person would say something like, "I believe such and such to be Christian doctrine."
He would not state his personal opinion as being representative of the generality.
Science, history, law, the Constitutition, morality, religion. They all support the protection of the lives of all innocent persons from conception until natural death.
Quit clouding the issue and helping to confuse people. It’s killing human beings and destroying our free republic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.