Posted on 12/08/2021 5:49:57 AM PST by daniel1212
Comments: garymichael 12/08/21 - 12:07AM If a woman wants/needs to abort a pregnancy she should be able to do it safely and quickly and without nosy neighbors trying to collect a bounty. If the Supreme Court allows an atrocity like the Texas Law then they will diminish the reputation and authority of the Supreme Court because people will ignore the Texans and just go to another state and have an abortion if it's needed. Or as this article points out, they will take an abortion pill. Doing that those same people will be thumbing their noses at the law and it will be the fault of Texans and the Supreme Court that people will be forced to disrespect authority. Of course, the Texas law will hurt the poorest people hardest and it will bring back dangerous methods of aborting an unwanted pregnancy and that's another reason the law should be disrespected. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- peacebyjesus.com 12/08/21 - 8:41AM If people want to terminate the life of an innocent person, than they should be able to do it safely and quickly and without nosy neighbors trying to collect a bounty. If the Supreme Court allows an atrocity like the Texas Law then they will diminish the reputation and authority of the Supreme Court because people will ignore the Texans and just go to another state and have execute innocent persons if such is needed, usually essentially for convenience reasons.
Or as this article could point out, they will do the same via the mifepristone pill to end the life of the baby by cutting off off blood supply and nutrients essential to life.
Doing that those same people will be thumbing their noses at the law allowing terminating innocent lives and it will be the fault of Texans and the Supreme Court that people will be forced to disrespect authority, like as those who protected the lives of older persons decades ago, in defiance of (German) authority.
Of course, the Texas law will hurt the poorest people hardest - especially the unborn - and bring back dangerous methods of killing unwanted babies, and that's another reason the law respecting innocent life should be disrespected.
Sincerely.
peacebyjesus.com 12/08/21 - 7:37AM Actually it is not imposing assent to a theological belief in God , but is a battle of moral ideologies, both being positions which flow from beliefs - as does the Constitution itself and the Bill of Rights - and that only one is allowed since it is not necessarily based upon belief in a deity is bigotry.
Moral civil laws flowed from religion, and in this country reflected the beliefs of the Founders - none of whom were atheists and even deists overall quoted the Bible for support - as well as those of the people who elected leaders. And which were not possessed with the mindset of an antiseptic separation of church and state as meaning no laws which could be traced to religious morality were in violation of the Constitution
May the Lord preserve us from the ignorance of that plagues so many.
“separation of church and state as meaning no laws which could be traced to religious morality were in violation of the Constitution”
People don’t teach anything about the constitution much less where that phrase came from. I wonder if they made that up whole cloth or if they heard it from someone with authority in their lives. It definitely hits me as something you would hear from a liberal arts teacher with blue and green died hair.
“Moral civil laws flowed from religion, and in this country reflected the beliefs of the Founders “
I think the standards of behavior that were the best for a functioning society became the laws of Christianity. The other religions, many of which did not espouse laws, edicts or forms of behavior that led to a functioning society did not survive contact with Christians because adherents of failed societies “converted” to live in peace and prosperity. THEN, we got the laws formalized and codified by Monks and others who could read and write and pass on a model for how members of a functioning society should act towards one another.
There. I have removed God from the picture so that people who don’t want to believe can at least be on the same side as those who do believe. Because some people believe that our laws came from belief in God, they are not applicable to those who don’t believe. Following that logic how can we say that looters and rapists are bad? Afterall, all beliefs and cultures must be respected, irrespective of the damage they do to the rest of us.
This is merely and exercise in how to bring a non-believer to support what a believer wants so everyone can live in peace and we can then have the moral right to kill looters and rapists.
Murder of the innocent unborn should not be easy...
“Just say NO to drugs.”
"“separation of church and state as meaning no laws which could be traced to religious morality were in violation of the Constitution”"
Actually this was supposed to be "any laws which could be traced to religious morality were in violation of the Constitution," or as, "no laws which could be traced to religious morality were Constitutional." Two expressions of the same thought got confused. Hopefully readers will understand the argument.
It’s clear the Left is always about allowing “pregnant people” to murder their babies even until natural birth, and after in certain academic circles. The sperm donors have no legal say in the matter but must bare the physiological trauma of being helpless while sons or daughters are killed. In many cases the “pregnant person” demands the sperm donor fund the act. Since these are unilateral decisions in their finality the financial consequences should be the burden of the “pregnant person” alone. If it’s your body & your choice, it should be your money. Pretty simple.
The Left works hard to dehumanize babies to protect “pregnant people” from accepting the consequences of their termination choices. “Women” have worked hard to avoid the responsibility of killing millions of babies a year. They always run and hide behind rape and incest but those are the vast minority of cases. Most abortions are lifestyle choices like choosing a new pair of shoes or new handbag. Maybe there’s an entrepreneurial opportunity there.
“They want to force their religious beliefs on everyone, in violation of the Constitution. -”
If they are so hung up on separation of Church and State, take away federal funding for Planned Patricide. Their tune quickly changes.
Yes, morality apart from God and a sure supreme moral standard results in ever-morphing immorality, and in this country it was the Bible that was at least implicitly looked to as that sure supreme moral standard. But what liberals need to at least acknowledge is that moral laws cannot be separate from beliefs, and the source of them. Believing that gender can be based upon how one feels is a unproven belief, and that this can become law since that belief does not flow from religion is bigotry. Once it is accepted that moral laws (versus requiring assent theological assent of belief in God) which flow from religious texts are not in violation of the Constitution, then their argument that such laws as outlaw abortion are unconstitutional can be dismissed.
You don’t have to be religious to know that killing babies is wrong.
Murder is already against the law. Why are babies exempt?
Not necessarily, no, (Romans 2:14) however, without an established sure, substantive supreme definitive moral standard, then what is right or wrong is simply defined by what every individual thinks, at least at the time. While what an a established moral standard teaches can be subject to some degree of interpretation in limited aspects - as is the case with the Constitution - yet the basic precepts and principals provide the basis for such interpretation, while without appeal to such you have the liberal support for abortion at every stage and in every case.
In Scripture we see from the outside that men and women are to marry and procreate (not avoid all it all) and that purposeful unjust killing a capital crime. (Genesis 1:27,28; 2:24; 9:6; Exodus 21:12-14) Thus capital punishment is prolife since its places such a value on unjust killing that the life of the murderer is required of him. And that personhood begins in the womb, and thus the termination of such is manslaughter which demanded compensation, "And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. (Exodus 21:23)
That is far more substantive and authoritative than morality being based upon which each person thinks.
Because of either the embryo not being granted the status of personhood, and or the value placed upon it which is afforded to the eggs of most birds in most cases.
Most bird nests are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). This law says: “No person may take (kill), possess, import, export, transport, sell, purchase, barter, or offer for sale, any migratory bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such bird except as may be permitted under the terms of a valid permit...” Under the MBTA it is illegal to destroy a nest that has eggs or chicks in it or if there are young birds that are still dependent on the nest for survival. It is also illegal for anyone to keep a nest they take out of a tree or find on the ground unless they have a permit issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). - https://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/education/educational-activities/BirdNestsR8.pdf
An article at LifeSiteNews.com said after taking an abortion pill, 22% of women end up in ERs. I websearched for that info, and got 0 results, which means the info may still be there.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/study-shows-abortion-pill-er-visits-are-skyrocketing-as-fda-mulls-relaxing-regulations/
The study from the pro-life Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI) published on November 9 found that emergency room visits following the ingestion of the abortion-inducing drugs mifepristone and misoprostol have skyrocketed over 500 percent between 2002 and 2015. Doctors now warn the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the drugs’ dangers ahead of a December 16 meeting where the agency will consider permanently loosening the safety regulations surrounding the infanticide pills.
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.