Posted on 08/20/2024 5:47:01 PM PDT by OneVike
It's been a little over 2 years since the Supreme Court sent abortion back to the states, and now I'm even more convinced the SC was wrong in their ruling. Yes, after 2 years we see state after state allowing voters to decide if it should be allowed. In every state controlled by Democrats, abortion has been legalized to the extreme, while states controlled by Republicans either tempered it down or outright outlawed the procedure. The states that allow for ballot measures, the citizens have been voting to allow abortion at some level. What have we learned? well, the hearts of Americans have become as evil as the ancients who sacrificed their children to the Canaanite god Moloch.
I feared this would be the case, because men's hearts are forever evil, and whether it be gambling, prostitution, or abortion humans will always chose evil over good. This is why the Supreme Court was wrong in sending abortion to the States. Mark my word, unless the Supreme ruled the surgical procedure of gender realignment, then one day the people will vote for ballot measures legalizing it for children. I guess that is for another day though. Today I want to explain why I believe abortion should have been ruled unconstitutional. That's right, I am not a fan of the way the Supreme Court abdicated their authority on the issue of abortion. Before I get to the nuts and bolts of why I believe the decision was wrong, I will admit that I am pro-life, and have been for well over 50 years.
Long before I became a Christian I have looked at abortion as an act of cold blooded murder, and while the argument for abortion has taken on many forms of excuses by the pro-choice crowd, there is inly one reason an abortion should ever be performed. That case is if the fetus is already dead. Otherwise, not even if the mothers life is in danger should a baby be murdered. Throughout history adults have always understood that their child's life is more important than their own. Any other choice is just a selfish non-sacrificial stance. The only instance I would agree for an abortion is, as I stated, if the child in the womb is already dead.
As for rape or incest, well I am the product of a rape, so I will not even respond to anyone who claims that as a man I have no right to an opinion. See, I have every right to my opinion because if, when I was conceived in 1956, abortion was as legal and prevalent as it is today, I never would have been born. I was the youngest of 8 children who's father was such a loser he went to prison when I was 7, and welfare as we know it did not exist. We were so poor, I remember a black woman coming over to our house offering food and support for my mother who struggled nightly.
Now as for the Supreme Court sending abortion to the States, I would like to know why they so conveniently ignored the Constitution which is very explicit in it's defense of innocent life. After all, if life is not a Constitutional matter, then nothing is. Let me begin by sharing the famous portion from the preamble of the Declaration of Independence. Mind you, this is the Declaration used to challenge King George's authority by claiming we the people have rights given to us by GOD, and no government, not even his Monarchy, has a right to deny us. The key to my belief is highlighted in bold.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Yet even with this statement, we still needed to reiterate what the Founding Fathers already agreed upon, because too many were not allowed to enjoy these freedoms we went to war with King George over. So throughout our history we have amended our constitution to codify those rights, and one was the 14th Amendment. Which I will also use to buttress my stance on abortion as a constitutional matter, because abortion inhibits the ability for the most innocent of life to not only enjoy Life, but also inhibits their right to enjoy Liberty and Happiness they would have had if they were able to be born as you and I were. On July 9, 1886, the 14th Amendment was ratified, and in Section 1 of the Amendment the following statement exists. Again I highlighted in bold my Constitutional defense for the life of the unborn child.
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
So we have the US Constitution defending life, and the Amendment that forces the States to defend life. While the amendment does talk about due process, this has to do with legalities one may have violated which could lead to them losing their right to liberty. Yet, I want someone tell me what Federal or State law has any unborn child ever violated that allows anyone to deny them their right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Thus, for the US Supreme Court to claim abortion is a matter of States rights is absurd! The Court needs to stop abdicating their power and rule on the merit of the Constitutionality of Abortion as in how it pertains to the Constitutions claim that all have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and stop playing word games at the expense of tens of millions of unborn children. An unborn child is a life with a heart beat that needs to be protected, and not treated like toilet tissue.
Before I continue, I must address the argument many pro-choice supporters use while responding to Christians who use the Bible to argue against abortion. Their argument is that even GOD allows abortion because HE called for the killing of children, babies, and even pregnant women at times in the Old Testament. Yet when we go back and read of the times they refer to, we must start when GOD made HIS covenant with Abraham. At that time, GOD told him that his descendants would inherit the land after many years in bondage, and after the iniquity of the lands was complete.
“Then He said to Abram: "Know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years. And also the nation whom they serve I will judge; afterward they shall come out with great possessions. Now as for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried at a good old age. But in the fourth generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete."
(Genesis 15:13-16)
After the iniquity of the Amorites, refereed to the when the people would have become so corrupt that they had to be destroyed. The Canaanite culture and religion at the time had become so polluted, corrupt, and perverted there was no hope of recovery. Their society included bestiality, mass sex orgies, rampant homosexuality to the point that most were physically diseased from their illicit behavior. There simply was no viable solution to their condition except destruction. Even many animals had become so infected with their perversity, that their existence on this Earth had to be terminated. Just like in Noah’s day when God waited 120 years while Noah preached to the people. Yet he was unable to turn even one soul outside his family back to GOD. Matthew Henry explained this passage, as it also explains other times GOD's wrath was felt by evil societies.
"The measure of sin fills gradually. Those that continue impenitent in wicked ways are treasuring up unto themselves wrath. Some people's measure of sin fills slowly. The Sodomites, who were sinners before the Lord exceedingly, soon filled their measure; so did the Jews, who were, in profession, near to GOD. But the iniquity of the Amorites was long in the filling. That this is the reason of the prosperity of wicked people; the measure of their sins is not yet full. The wicked live, become old, and are mighty in power, while GOD is laying up their iniquity for their children,"
(Matthew Henry)
As for the children, whom GOD ordered Joshua to kill while conquering the promised land, you must realize that in reality GOD was saving them from living in the type misery their societies would subject them to. It is better they died when they are too young to know right from wrong, than to wait until their hearts and souls are so corrupted with evil that they too would be condemned to hell like their parents were. Yes, for some children, GOD may decide it is better for them to die at a young age and enter Heaven, than to grow up and be corrupted. When it comes some difficult passages in the Scriptures, one must understand that God is more interested in the eternal existence of our souls than HE is about our physical life in the World.
I understand I will get much feedback, and some questions about things I may have left out. Yet I am prepared to respond to anything anyone wishes to ask me. For many, I will come off very cold when it comes to why I do not even believe in abortion for the life of the mother.
I originally planned to write this commentary on abortion and birth control, but when I realized my take on abortion was already over 1600 words, I decided to just tackle the abortion issue. Keep an eye out though, because I will be working on a commentary for my take on birth control next. Now while I believe abortion should be illegal for anyone, regardless of their faith or lack of in GOD, my take on birth control will be specifically come from a Christian Biblical point of view.
Exactly.
The Declaration of Independence is not the US Constitution.
Quotes of 1856 Texas law:
[page 6]
Of offenses against the persons of individuals
[page 7]
Of abortion:
ARTICLE 531. If any person shall designably administer to a pregnant woman, with her consent, any drug or medicine, or shall use towards her any violence, or any means whatever, externally or internally applied, and shall thereby procure and abortion, he shall be punished, by confinement, in the Penitentary, not less than two, nor more than five years ; if it be done without her consent the punishment shall be doubled.
Art. 532. Any person who furnishes the means for procuring an abortion, knowing the purpose intended, is guilty as an accomplice.
https://lrl.texas.gov/scanned/statutes_and_codes/Penal_Code.pdf#page=112
Quotes of current Texas law:
PENAL CODE
TITLE 5. OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON
CHAPTER 19. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE
Sec. 19.01. TYPES OF CRIMINAL HOMICIDE.
(a) A person commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence causes the death of an individual
....
Sec. 19.06. APPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN CONDUCT. This chapter does not apply to the death of an unborn child if the conduct charged is:
(1) conduct committed by the mother of the unborn child;
(2) a lawful medical procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider with the requisite consent, if the death of the unborn child was the intended result of the procedure;
(3) a lawful medical procedure performed by a physician or other licensed health care provider with the requisite consent as part of an assisted reproduction as defined by Section 160.102, Family Code; or
(4) the dispensation of a drug in accordance with law or administration of a drug prescribed in accordance with law.
https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.19.htm
“No state shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.”
Amendment XIV, Section 1
“The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a “person” within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant’s case, of course, collapses, for the fetus’ right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.”
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
Of course you are right as I invariably believe that line was from the Preamble to the Constitution when in reality it was from the Declaration of Independence.
Indeed it is the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits the states from depriving “any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
There is nothing in the Constitution suggesting the Framers intended to address the issue of abortion. There is nothing in the history of the ratification of any of the amendments being tossed around in this thread suggesting that they were intended to address abortion. Since it is not addressed in the constitution, and since different states had different laws addressing it at the time of the adoption of the constitution, it is an issue impliedly reserved to the states.
Still can’t find where in that pesky constitution thingie that the fed was granted the power to regulate abortion.
Because you refuse to admit a baby in the womb is a living person.
hate to tell you, that points to your heart which is blind to God’s creation of life.
Well, there goes our military then. That will save a lot of money.
That’s an excellent commentary. Thank you. 🙏
Inly because you fail to see the baby in the womb as a live individual who is separate from the mother, and the constitution does address life, specifically the pre-amble and the 14th Amendment.
You just refuse to admit the baby is alive, and thus a life,
The pro-aborts are evil to the core. May God have mercy on us!
Welcome, and thanks for the compliment.
After I posted it I realized some punctuation and spelling errors, which I fixed on my web site. But when I write, I can usually get blinded by minor errors, until I read it or others point them out.
Something I can fixe on my website, but once it gets posted to R]FR, it is in stone.
Dobbs expanded the right to life battle from a single Federal front to 50 fronts; something for which right to life advocates were poorly prepared.
Yes, there will be red states and blue states with “blood borders” between them. But this is what our founding fathers crafted when most powers were reserved to the states.
“Americans are divided on the abortion issue”
No most American women want the ability to have no consequence sex (feminism) and if they have an oopsie they want to be able to sweep that little mistake under the rug till the next time. That is what it all boils down to. These woman were taught well in schools, colleges and by Mother.
But this is not a states issue, it is an issue of life. Only when one refuses to understand a baby is a living human with a separate system from the mother, can one claim abortion is a states issue,
The 14th Amendment clearly points out that life is the issue and a baby in the womb is life.
Wow. Thanks for looking into my soul. It's good there are people around to tell me who I am and what I believe. /sarc
Aside from that, no. I was articulating what happened with the SCOTUS decision. It is left to the States. There are laws already for dealing with this that, if enforced logically, win the argument. However, if we are going to now pass national legislation against abortion, you have to recognize that it will undercut Dobbs. A future Congress and President can go the other direction. As it is now, the people have a say in their localities. Given time, we can win that argument as people aren't dying in back allies in abortion-restricting states while abortion-allowing localities become ever more dystopic.
very true
No mentio of automobiles or airplanes, so FAA is gone, each state handles it, no interstate highways.
Radio, television, cell phones, not mentioned, so each state would have the responsibility for that also.
So many examples.
Abortion has a profit conponent for those who provide the service. It is supposed to be illegal for abortion DNA or the remains from the procedure be sold or bartered for profit.
The whole abortion industry would collaspe if profits were takan away. The clinics wpuld cease to operate without selling baby parts.
Stem cell research was the original abortion battlefield.
DNA databanks and DNA identification of all research matetiel from the fetus and making any use of abortion remains illegal is necessary. Mandatory creamation of remains/DNA/Baby parts from abortion would also end the industry.
As long as profits are being made, the death will continue.
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.