Roe vs. Wade

[SolaSaint]

Did everyone hear Obama's comments on the anniversary of the Supreme Court decision? He basically siad Roe vs. Wade ensured our daughters to fullfill their dreams.

http://www.thefrisky.com/2012-01-23/president-obamas-statement-on-the-anniversary-of-roe-vs-wade/

This is dispicable, we really need to pray the American people see this guy for what he is. God help us.

 

[Walter]

He said abortion is a: “Fundamental constitutional right”? I’d sure like the president to tell me where in the Constitution a woman’s right to have an abortion is guaranteed. and I wonder if he happened to notice that there actually is a fundamental Constituional right to life?

I know as Christians we make mistakes and sometimes we don't understand the responsibilities of being Christians. However, those of us who know that the Democrat Party is the party of death need to take responsibility to talk to mistaken Christians about their faith and the moral issues involved in voting for a Democrat in the next election.

 

[Oldtimer]

Ever wonder how many older pro abortion folks would be here if their mothers could have obtained a "legal" abortion?

 

[glfredrick]

50 MILLION and counting...


:tear: :flower: :flower: :tear:

 

[HankD]

He said abortion is a: “Fundamental constitutional right”? I’d sure like the president to tell me where in the Constitution a woman’s right to have an abortion is guaranteed. and I wonder if he happened to notice that there actually is a fundamental Constituional right to life?

I know as Christians we make mistakes and sometimes we don't understand the responsibilities of being Christians. However, those of us who know that the Democrat Party is the party of death need to take responsibility to talk to mistaken Christians about their faith and the moral issues involved in voting for a Democrat in the next election.

I know its not the Constitution, but in the Declaration of Independence :

"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".

Notice it says "among these" - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are three among others not mentioned.

Abortion irreversibly denies all of these rights (both iterated and not mentioned) to its victim.

HankD

 

[bacustic]

He said abortion is a: “Fundamental constitutional right”? I’d sure like the president to tell me where in the Constitution a woman’s right to have an abortion is guaranteed. and I wonder if he happened to notice that there actually is a fundamental Constituional right to life?

I know as Christians we make mistakes and sometimes we don't understand the responsibilities of being Christians. However, those of us who know that the Democrat Party is the party of death need to take responsibility to talk to mistaken Christians about their faith and the moral issues involved in voting for a Democrat in the next election.

in roe vs. wade the supreme court ruled that women have a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th amendment protecting that right of privacy from state action therefor guaranteeing their constitutional right to have an abortion. that would make it "fundamentally constitutional".

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZS.html

 

[Salty]

in roe vs. wade the supreme court ruled that women have a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th amendment protecting that right of privacy from state action therefor guaranteeing their constitutional right to have an abortion. that would make it "fundamentally constitutional".

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZS.html

Using that logic I should have the right to sell my body organs - but that is against the law.

 

[SolaSaint]

I know its not the Constitution, but in the Declaration of Independence :

"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".

Notice it says "among these" - life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are three among others not mentioned.

Abortion irreversibly denies all of these rights (both iterated and not mentioned) to its victim.

HankD

AMEN Brother

 

[bacustic]

Using that logic I should have the right to sell my body organs - but that is against the law.

that's the supreme court's interpretation of the 14th amendment not mine. your analogy may or may not work under their interpretation because specific rulings on medical cases do not automatically allow or restrict other procedures.

 

[Walter]

I Posted on another thread:

I don’t think legal abortion will end. Instead, I expect we will have different laws on abortion from state to state after Roe v. Wade is overturned. And, although, I am very pro-life, I think that is the best feasible outcome. Last week-end I participated in the 'Walk for Life' in San Francisco, the protesting pro-choicers have certainly dwindled in size from what they were when the 'Walks' first began seven years ago, but I saw from them the most blasphemous, disgusting displays portraying Our Lord and His mother and I hope none of you ever have to witness. The police intervened more than once because of the filthy and hateful rheteric they were using against Christians. I suppose they were concerned it might turn violent.

 

[Walter]

Wondering what people on this board might do in this case. What if one candidate says he’s pro life but you are not sure you trust Him, or think he’s lying to get elected or simply a flip flopper. Would you go with a stated pro lifer who might be leading the polls but that you don’t trust or go with another pro lifer with an established voting record? Any advice? This is, unfortunately, one of my problems with Romney, another being that he is LDS and if he buys into that, what else might he buy into? I certainly will vote pro life. I could just simply write in Santorum in the general election. But say Romney gets the nomination and I live in a toss up state with razor thin polls the day of the general election, what would you do if that hypothetical presents itself? I sure hope it doesn’t but wonder what others plan to do if Romney is the nominee. I'm not at all convinced that his 'conversion to the cause' is real. The fact that he does not even know that some forms of birth control constitute an abortifacient is truly breathtaking.

 

[glfredrick]

Walter, the question changes somewhat if one is talking about the primary process or the general election.

During the primary phase of the election, BY ALL MEANS vote for the candidate that BEST represents your views. That is how this nation arrives at the candidate that will represent that segment of the population in the general election.

In the general election, however, another strategy often arises, where one must vote for the candidate that will do the least damage OVERALL in the governing of our nation. That candidate MAY NOT be as pro-life as many of us chose, but in that regard may also not be totally in favor and work to solidify the pro-choice movement, not to mention a whole host of other issues that stand before the electorate during any general election for POTUS.

As in the last election, where a LOT of otherwise conservative (and many Bible-believing) people were dismayed at their choice of candidates, they either stayed home because they didn't have a candidate that they felt they could trust in the general election or they voted for the most liberal candidate who has ever gained his party's nomination "to teach the other side a lesson."

The "lesson" we've all learned since that little error on the part of the general electorate is that electing "the most liberal President the United States has ever seen" will cost us money, cost us lives, cost us freedom, cost us our capitalism, cost us taxes, cost us regulation, cost us government control of many segments of industry and banking, cost us states rights, cost us freedom of speech, and cost us, in the end, even the choice that we might make concerning our life in the future. Virtually our entire nation's laws and reglatory system has been overhauled under the watch of this current President, but most don't realize the ramifications of that move -- yet. They will shortly after the new President is sworn into office in 2012 when most of the (tens of thousands of pages) new laws and regulations begin to take effect.

The timing was very interesting in this matter -- and done with an eye toward this upcoming election cycle, knowing that people would not care "that much" if they had yet to learn what was actually done to them, and after that, there would not be much they could co about it.

In the end, "votes matter" and voting against an otherwise lesser of two evils candidate will not help and will definitely hurt. Best to take one chunk of our government back at a time than to chunk it all in and let the nation drift into Marxism.

 

[billwald]

Would it not be wonderful if we had "instant runoff" elections and NO primaries? Also a tax money saver. If the parties wanted to hold and pay for their own primaries, fine with me.

 

[glfredrick]

Would it not be wonderful if we had "instant runoff" elections and NO primaries? Also a tax money saver. If the parties wanted to hold and pay for their own primaries, fine with me.

We would be just like many European nations, where the government disolves whenever someone else gains favor. Not the greatest system, which we've proven over the last 200+ years -- that is, until we started drifting in their direction for some unknown reason.

Instead, let's go back to the original Constitution where States select their Senators, who represent THEM while the House elects those who represent the people. Additionally, let's go back to when the SCOTUS viewed the law under the Constitution instead of wrote their own law and where the Executive Branch acted in accordance with Constitutional limits (modifed by the SCOTUS writing law...).

 

[Walter]

Walter, the question changes somewhat if one is talking about the primary process or the general election.

During the primary phase of the election, BY ALL MEANS vote for the candidate that BEST represents your views. That is how this nation arrives at the candidate that will represent that segment of the population in the general election.

In the general election, however, another strategy often arises, where one must vote for the candidate that will do the least damage OVERALL in the governing of our nation. That candidate MAY NOT be as pro-life as many of us chose, but in that regard may also not be totally in favor and work to solidify the pro-choice movement, not to mention a whole host of other issues that stand before the electorate during any general election for POTUS.

As in the last election, where a LOT of otherwise conservative (and many Bible-believing) people were dismayed at their choice of candidates, they either stayed home because they didn't have a candidate that they felt they could trust in the general election or they voted for the most liberal candidate who has ever gained his party's nomination "to teach the other side a lesson."

The "lesson" we've all learned since that little error on the part of the general electorate is that electing "the most liberal President the United States has ever seen" will cost us money, cost us lives, cost us freedom, cost us our capitalism, cost us taxes, cost us regulation, cost us government control of many segments of industry and banking, cost us states rights, cost us freedom of speech, and cost us, in the end, even the choice that we might make concerning our life in the future. Virtually our entire nation's laws and reglatory system has been overhauled under the watch of this current President, but most don't realize the ramifications of that move -- yet. They will shortly after the new President is sworn into office in 2012 when most of the (tens of thousands of pages) new laws and regulations begin to take effect.

The timing was very interesting in this matter -- and done with an eye toward this upcoming election cycle, knowing that people would not care "that much" if they had yet to learn what was actually done to them, and after that, there would not be much they could co about it.

In the end, "votes matter" and voting against an otherwise lesser of two evils candidate will not help and will definitely hurt. Best to take one chunk of our government back at a time than to chunk it all in and let the nation drift into Marxism.

I read an interesting article recently that gave some common reasons that Christians use to justify voting for a pro-choice canidate

The first went something like this: "I agree that abortion is wrong but we cannot legislate moral choices. Instead, why don't we simply focus on preaching the gospel. Only changed hearts will bring about a changed culture." By this logic we could say "killing toddlers is wrong but we can't legislate moral choices."

The second reason was something like this: "Why take this one great evil and elevate it above the others? I vote for the candidate who will, overall, do the most good. Every once in a while, that will mean voting for a pro-choice politician." The other 'evils' apparently equally as bad might be:
poverty, injustice, inadequate health-care and war. Apparently this would necessitate a Christian to vote for a pro-choice canidate. Garbage! The radical difference between these 'evils' is that abortion is the purposeful killing of a human being.

 

[glfredrick]

I read an interesting article recently that gave some common reasons that Christians use to justify voting for a pro-choice canidate

The first went something like this: "I agree that abortion is wrong but we cannot legislate moral choices. Instead, why don't we simply focus on preaching the gospel. Only changed hearts will bring about a changed culture." By this logic we could say "killing toddlers is wrong but we can't legislate moral choices."

The second reason was something like this: "Why take this one great evil and elevate it above the others? I vote for the candidate who will, overall, do the most good. Every once in a while, that will mean voting for a pro-choice politician." The other 'evils' apparently equally as bad might be:
poverty, injustice, inadequate health-care and war. Apparently this would necessitate a Christian to vote for a pro-choice canidate. Garbage! The radical difference between these 'evils' is that abortion is the purposeful killing of a human being.

I disagree that most Christians vote for a pro-choice candidate for those reasons. Rather, I suggest that, being pinned against a wall, we vote for the candidate who will do the least harm, even if we must hold our noses and get one who is pro-choice. I suppose there are some liberal Christians out there who are yet FOR abortion (seem to be a lot who are for "choice" but I don't know if their libertarian free will extends to the issue of abortion -- good question to ask!) but I doubt that there are enough to quantify Christians with either of the two positions above. Both sound like they were written by a Democrat Party apologist. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Walter]

I disagree that most Christians vote for a pro-choice candidate for those reasons. Rather, I suggest that, being pinned against a wall, we vote for the candidate who will do the least harm, even if we must hold our noses and get one who is pro-choice. I suppose there are some liberal Christians out there who are yet FOR abortion (seem to be a lot who are for "choice" but I don't know if their libertarian free will extends to the issue of abortion -- good question to ask!) but I doubt that there are enough to quantify Christians with either of the two positions above. Both sound like they were written by a Democrat Party apologist. :smilewinkgrin:

Speaking of liberal Christians. Other than to say this is sickening, words escape me. Well let me say this, the next time a partial-birth abortion is performed in this country, (The Rev.) Ragsdale and her supporters needs to be present to see what they are actually supporting. She is the Dean of Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, Mass. and said the following:

- Finally, the last sign I want to identify relates to my fellow clergy. Too often even those who support us can be heard talking about abortion as a tragedy. Let’s be very clear about this:

When a woman finds herself pregnant due to violence and chooses an abortion, it is the violence that is the tragedy; the abortion is a blessing.

When a woman finds that the fetus she is carrying has anomalies incompatible with life, that it will not live and that she requires an abortion – often a late-term abortion – to protect her life, her health, or her fertility, it is the shattering of her hopes and dreams for that pregnancy that is the tragedy; the abortion is a blessing.

When a woman wants a child but can’t afford one because she hasn’t the education necessary for a sustainable job, or access to health care, or day care, or adequate food, it is the abysmal priorities of our nation, the lack of social supports, the absence of justice that are the tragedies; the abortion is a blessing.
And when a woman becomes pregnant within a loving, supportive, respectful relationship; has every option open to her; decides she does not wish to bear a child; and has access to a safe, affordable abortion – there is not a tragedy in sight -- only blessing. The ability to enjoy God’s good gift of sexuality without compromising one’s education, life’s work, or ability to put to use God’s gifts and call is simply blessing.

These are the two things I want you, please, to remember – abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Let me hear you say it: abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done. Abortion is a blessing and our work is not done.

 

[glfredrick]

I heard a story this week -- likely has been passed around for decades if not centuries as it mimics the biblical story of Solomon and the two mothers.

In any case, a woman came to a doctor, frantic, because she had just birthed a child a year ago and now she was just about to deliver another baby. She could not afford to feed and diaper both children, nor could she take the labor that it would take to rear two healthy children as a single mother, so she frantically pleaded her case with the doc.

He listened intently, then after a bit when he fully understood her problems he offered her a solution.

"Maam," he said, "I am saddened by your plight, and admit that it is a very real dilemma. I do not have any easy answers for you, and in your case it appears that you have made up your mind that you actually do need to rid yourself of a child."

"Yes sir," she responded, "I am in dire straits and cannot support two children."

"That is fine then," responded the doctor, "as long as you have made up your mind, we can proceed."


















The doctor continued as he turned to extract some medical equipment from a cabinet behind him, "If you could please hand me your child, I will begin the process of disposing of him."

"Oh my word, NO!" screamed the woman. "How could you kill my baby?"

"It is rather simple," responded the doctor. "You made it abundantly clear that you cannot support two children, and for the best possible health for your own body, I propose that we remove the life from the living baby."

"That is horrendous," cried the woman.

"Yet," the doctor said softly, "You have no qualms about killing the child within you merely because you cannot afford either the time or the costs it takes to raise that child."

"Oh my God," wept the woman. "I just about killed my baby!"

She gathered her things, wrapped her living baby carefully, and cradling her enlarged midsection said, "Thank you sir, for showing me the truth," and she went on her way home to raise another child that somehow, God would provide for in the way that only He can -- and does.

 

[Walter]

According to scripture, to unjustly take a human life is one of the greatest sins primarily because we are created in the image of God. Doing so without just cause is therefore, not only an act of violence, but it is a blasphemous act. It amounts to violent aggression toward God Himself. Doing this in the womb where God is knitting together a child in his own image, is the height of hatred for God.

 

[righteousdude2]

I Don't Know About You, BUT...

...Roe vs Wade shluld have ceased being once Roe changed her opinion of abortion, converted to Christianity and became pro-life!

SEE:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_McCorvey