‘FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT’ ENSURES ‘FREEDOMS AND OPPORTUNITIES’
Barack Obama used the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade to reconfirm his belief that abortion is a “fundamental constitutional right” and that the Regime will “continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”
Obama, who never seems to have the time to issue statements recognizing Christmas or Easter, issued a statement commemorating Roe:
“As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right.
As we remember this historic anniversary, we must continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”
They always have to get that “woman’s health” part in there, don’t they? And “reproductive freedom”? Liberals have always had an interesting way of sanitizing reality.
Of course the president included the usual disclaimer language about ”staying united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, supporting pregnant woman and mothers, reducing the need for abortion, encouraging healthy relationships, and promoting adoption,” but Obama’s fervent pro-abortion stance is well-documented:
As a state lawmaker in Illinois, he voted four times against legislation to protect the life of a baby that survived a botched abortion.
As president, Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, which appropriates federal money toward insurance plans that pay for abortions.
Last week, the Obama Regime finalized regulations that order all Americans – unless they work directly at a church – to purchase government-approved health insurance plans that cover sterilizations and contraceptives – including those that cause abortions.
What a shame that our president doesn’t view “the rights, freedoms and opportunities” of unborn children the same way he views those of illegal aliens.
^
Maybe Obama will issue an Easter statement this year, although that would offend Muslims, wouldn’t it?
The Sage
Steve
E the Wise
DFV the Scribe
hairybeast
Mo K.
Sting the Away
Rudy
Voice of Reason
Anthony Rogers
Vérité
Isaiah's Cry
danagall
Hal Jordan
The Rat
Aquinas Shrugged
jackcurtis
a west texas view
pino
Cultural Limits
Regalo Di Spine
Tokyo Tengu
Short Little Rebel
AWOL Civilization
SeePamBlog
rogueoperator
provider4many
jimmullen1
thomaspaine2nd
badoracle
ljponders
weeicemon
Daniella Nicole
plainansimple
If, as most conservatives believe, that “life” begins at conception, then “god” is the biggest abortionist of all since over 50% (and really, closer to 80%) of all pregnancies fail 12 days after conception.
http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/jun99/wilcox2.htm
Now if you want to grant “personhood” to all those failed zygotes, well then, you have some real issues with your “god”.
PS…the Illinois legislation was finally passed when it included language not granting personhood to fetuses.
Science and and technology have allowed us to look into the womb and it is obvious that life begins at conception. From that moment on through birth and on through infanthood, adulthood etc. until death “it” is alive. This is not a hard concept to understand. Now if you have some other secret knowledge as to when a biological creature’s life ‘begins’ outside of fertilization of an egg by a sperm please be sure to let us know. And even someone like you probably has the ability to understand the difference between the purposeful taking of a life as opposed to unintentional, accidental, or natural biological processes…
Life is not personhood, that is the point. All life on Earth is alive, but it is not all human persons. As I already showed, over 50% of “life” fails within the first week fertilization, “god” is aborting a lot of human “life”.
Personhood, when human life gains status as a person, is the point. According to the Bible and under Jewish beliefs, personhood begins at “nephesh”, when the “soul” enters the body, which happens at birth when the first breath is taken, as when “god” breathed life into Adams’ nostrils.
Personhood is a matter of consciousnesses, upper brain activity, which begins @ 23 weeks and ends when it ends. When one is brain dead, the body might be living, but what makes us a person is no more.
If you want to argue about when a person exists, go for it, but it is not at conception, nor is it when one has zero upper brain activity from injury or disease.
We as a society have already decided what personhood is, it is conservatives that want to extend it to before and after death.
“We as a society have already decided what personhood is”?! Actually, an oligarch of men in black robes “decided” for “us”. Hitler certainly decided who was to be considered persons and who weren’t, I think I’d rather have God rather than government decide whether a person lives or dies.
Well Lefty, by your analogy then, there is no difference if a person deliberately pushes another off a building (murder) and that same person witnessing another falling off that building (accident). Abortion is a choice, yes, just as murder is a choice and both should be illegal. It’s a slippery slope from ending a new life to deciding when agism should end…65, 85, 90? It’s part of Obamacare’s “end of life” commission. Now who thinks he’s God?
No, because a PERSON is not a zygote. A zygote MIGHT develop into a PERSON (though the odds, naturally, according to your “god”, are against it), but the murder of a living PERSON is not the same as the intentional or unintentional abortion of a zygote.
Again, by your equating, “god” is the greatest abortionist of all time.
And, Mr. Tangent, how does your attempted rational fit in with Obama and ‘our daughters fulfilling their dreams…”? When you’ve talked to people who have worked in abortion mills (like I have) and listened them to describe putting piles of little limbs and baby body parts into buckets then come back and talk to me about how great abortion is. That was one of the most chilling conversations I ever had in my entire life (it was with two young ladies who volunteered in a Planned Parenthood clinic and were very proud of their part in ‘cleaning up’ after procedures).
Dave, you are taking the comment out of its context, that comment was an additional comment on the general rights of women, that it should be equal to the rights of all people (PERSONS).
Again, you do not want to discuss what a person is, you want to stick with the ubiquitous “life” definition.
“As we mark the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we must remember that this Supreme Court decision not only protects a woman’s health and reproductive freedom, but also affirms a broader principle: that government should not intrude on private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right. While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue- no matter what our views, we must stay united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, support pregnant women and mothers, reduce the need for abortion, encourage healthy relationships, and promote adoption. And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”
Now the left has reduced life to “personhood”? You people are hysterical – seriously.
Nope.
“Life” is all “living” things.
Personhood is a subset of “life”.
Try again.
Still the arrogant fool, eh? “Um…”
As is typical of atheists, you are attributing a naturally occurring event with God. Although God does have an influence in and on humankind, He does not enforce His will on every aspect of it. According to the Bible, bad things happen in life because of the existence of sin. And, as sin is no respecter of persons, there is no one exempt from its effect. So, in response to your statement, no, God does not abort unborn babies.
With regard to “personhood” and your belief that the Bible teaches that personhood does not occur until birth when the baby takes its first breath, again you are wrong. The Bible very specifically teaches that that we are individual people, humans, at the moment of conception. Please see Jeremiah 1:5 (where God says, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.” -NKJV) and Psalm 139:13,16 (where King David says to God, “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.” – NIV).
Since the term “personhood” is defined as “The quality or condition of being an individual person”, then clearly the Bible, and therefore God, teaches that one becomes a person at conception. This fact clearly indicates that “consciousness” or “upper brain activity” is not necessary for a person to be a person. Therefore, those who are “brain dead” due to injury or disease are still people. They still possess “personhood.” Now, I will concede that this is a Biblical view, and therefore one held by Christians. I would not expect an atheist such as yourself to accept it, nor would I expect any liberal, socialist, or other who has such a narrowly defined view of personhood as to equate the term with their own defined view of quality of life. Margaret Sanger (the mother of eugenics – from whom Hitler took his views on the subject) would be proud of the way you so cavalierly dismiss life.
I would also disagree with your statement that “we as a society have already decided what personhood is…” It is not society who has made this decision, it is the liberals and progressives and socialists (please forgive my redundancy there) in our society who have made that decision. Our society is made up of both liberals (et al) and conservatives. It was not conservatives, not true conservatives who have made that decision. The decision as to exactly how “personhood” was to be defined was decided by God long ago, regardless of what liberals (et al) or the Illinois legislature think.
As for President Obama’s statement (in light of Roe v Wade), “…we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”, he was speaking only to a select segment of our society, and not to our society as a whole. He was speaking only to those who agree with him, that abortion is necessary to ensure that “our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.” His statement is pure hogwash, and nothing more than liberal rhetoric. Abortion does not in any way guarantee those “rights,” nor would a repeal of Roe v Wade hinder those “rights.”
Nowhere in his speech did President Obama indicate just what “rights” he was speaking of, unless it was the “right” to have one’s dreams fulfilled, which I do not believe is a guaranteed right. If it is, then I would like to have my powerball check now please. No, the fulfillment of dreams is not a right. The opportunity to pursue the fulfillment of one’s dreams is, to limited extent, a guaranteed right. If the inability to abstain from sex and a resulting pregnancy makes it difficult to pursue one’s dreams, then one has no one to blame but themselves. (by the way, sex is not a “right” regardless of what anyone may tell you). And in no way does a pregnancy make it impossible to fulfill one’s dreams (assuming those dreams are reasonable). One just has to try harder, and such is the result of one’s personal choices – whatever the outcome.
Well said my thoughtful friend.
Thank you, Thomas. for giving a definition of person-hood. Since I haven’t indulged in the purchase of a dictionary since 1995, I was unable to find a definition. This of course meant I would have to look up two words and figure it out. Which I did. The result was “-hood:” state or quality. “Person:” 1) a human being (body and mind), 2) a human body, 3) personality, self, 4) pertains to grammar, 5) pertains to law usage. I would never have thought of it as your definition but I should have because that is the way I was taught to figure this type of thing out. I believe Lefty may be the result of a critical thinking education (Dewey’s version). A zygote could be described as a human being, a human body, a personality ( the quality or fact of being a person{ a human being, a human body, a personality but then you couldn’t use personality because that wouldn’t be an accurate definition.}), A zygote is the union of a male and female gametes into one cell which immediately begins to divide into other cells. When it is found in a female human, it would immediately become human since we have not found other species being born of humans.. If the zygote is the descriptive state that abortion would be OK, then by the time the lady finds out she is pregnant, that time is gone. If I may use a play on words, personally I think Lefty doesn’t really know what he is saying. Please excuse my being so pedantic, but with one as Lefty I find it useful.
An excellent response to his comments. I admire your thinking.
What I really enjoy about Biblical arguments is how quickly they contradict themselves. In the 1st paragraph you claim “He does not enforce His will on every aspect of it (human life).”, rejecting predeterminism, but then in the 2nd paragraph you quote 2 passages that confirm predeterminism.
What those quotes described was the mythical “soul”, the ancient description of consciousnesses, our awareness, our upper brain functions. You and yours want to believe this is an everlasting fairy tale, that it is separate from the body. You can believe anything YOU want, but when you start to impose YOUR beliefs upon the rest of society, that is when you have crossed the line into theocracy….but then, that is ultimately what you want.
Of course you disagree with me about when the Biblical “soul” enters the body, because you never heard of the Old Testament description of nephesh, and even if you did you reject it since that theology does not agree with yours.
A zygote in no way qualifies as an individual person either a Biblical manner or legally. The Old Testament has many passages showing that fetuses and newborns (less than 1 month old) have no value ( Leviticus 27:6), are not counted as persons ( Numbers 3:15-16). Your “god” even goes further to indeed cause abortions ( Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28). Legally, a zygote has no rights, at all. If you can point to these rights, by all means produce them.
We have as a society determined that a person who is brain dead is LEGALLY DEAD, that is the law in all 50 states. You can argue that they are a “person” (Biblically), but they are a dead person, without legal rights or responsibilities.
Now, how you can say that this….
“And as we remember this historic anniversary, we must also continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”
……only speaks to a “segment” of our society is beyond me, unless you are characterizing women, who are the majority of this society, as a “segment”. That would fit into the male dominated Biblical viewpoint where females (even when they are the majority) are secondary. It is even funnier when you say it does speak to society as a whole even though it is a call for equal rights for all, men and women.
When you say the President did not say what rights he was speaking of, it shows again how much you missed. Even in the short passage I posted he stated what specific right he was speaking to….
“that government should not intrude on private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right.”
What is so weird is how conservatives who claim to have a constitution club, do not understand where this right comes from and even skip over it when it is stated by our President.
Correction:
It is even funnier when you say it does NOT speak to society as a whole even though it is a call for equal rights for all, men and women.
Lefty, What you are apparently unaware of (as are most atheists), the Bible does not contain contradictions. One may not understand apparent contradictions, however, this is primarily due to an ignorance of Scripture, or reliance on commentators who are also ignorant of Scripture and who attempt to take specific passages out of context in order to support their preconceived biases.
I am not sure why you are claiming that my statement “He does not enforce His will on every aspect of it (human life)” as rejecting predeterminism, and my use of two passages of Scripture as confirming predeterminism. As I am sure you are aware, predeterminism is the view that the development of an individual is predetermined by heredity. I am equally sure that your use of the term was nothing more a slip of the fingers whilst typing. Most likely you intended to write predestination, which is the doctrine stating that God predestines from eternity the salvation of certain souls. However, if you actually did intend to say predestination (which I am sure you did), it would still not support your claim that my statement is contradictory, as there are other aspects of one’s life in addition to one’s eternal salvation – as important as eternal salvation is. Should you like to discuss predestination, I am sure we can find another area or forum within which to discuss it, as it does not specifically pertain to the subject at hand.
You go on to state that the passages I used (Jeremiah 1:5 (where God says, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations.” -NKJV) and Psalm 139:13,16 (where King David says to God, “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.” – NIV) are actually describing “the mythical soul, the ancient description of consciousnesses, our awareness, our upper brain functions.” If you were correct in your assumption, then God would have ordained a “consciousness” an “awareness” or an “upper brain function” to be a prophet to the nations. As this makes no sense whatsoever, your premise that the passages describe the “mythical soul” is clearly incorrect. As for the existence of the soul and what Christians believe about the soul, again, you are incorrect as we do not want to believe that the soul and the body as two separate entities is an “everlasting fairy tale.” In fact, Christians do believe that the soul exists and that although part of us (as is our body), the soul can and will at some point exist separate from the body. We know this is not a fairy tale, and we do not want to accept as such. I believe it is atheists who wish to “believe this is an everlasting fairy tale.”
You go on to state that I (and I presume you mean all Christians) can believe anything I/we want. Fortunately, the Founding Fathers believed this as well, and provided the establishment clause in the First Amendment, which guarantees us all to believe what we want and to worship as we want. You go on to insinuate that I (and again I presume you mean all Christians) am imposing my “beliefs upon the rest of society” and that I/we ultimately want a theocracy. If I, or any true Christian was “imposing” our beliefs upon the non-Christians in our society, then prayer would be forcibly (which is what the term impose means) allowed in school, abortion would be illegal, Sunday would be a required day of rest, adultery would be illegal, church attendance would be mandatory, and, among other things, worship of the one true God would also be mandatory. As none of these things are being forcibly required of our society, your claim that Christians are “imposing” our beliefs upon anyone is clearly wrong. As for a theocracy, Christians look forward with great expectation and faith of that great and glorious day when the Lord returns to takes us home to be with Him. We do not expect, nor will we ever see a theocracy ruled by the one true God anywhere on earth prior to that.
You go on to question my understanding of the Old Testament teaching of “Nephesh”. I, on the other hand, would question your understanding of ensoulment (the O.T. teaching of nephesh). The Talmud (as well as the Torah, and other Jewish writings) upon which the Old Testament is based, does not give a clear definition as to exactly when ensoulment occurs. In fact, it has been a topic of debate amongst Jewish scholars for millennia. Some Jewish scholars have said that ensoulment (the point when a person receives their soul from God) occurs are the point of conception. Some have said it occurs on the 40th day after conception. Some say at birth, and some say it does not occur until the child begins to speak. The earliest record on the subject comes from a discussion between Rabbi Judah the Prince (a 2nd century Rabbi) and the Roman Emperor Antoninus. The Talmud records the conversation thusly:
Antoninus said to Rabbi Judah the Prince: “When is the soul placed in man, as soon as it is decreed that it shall be male or female or when the fetus is actually formed?”
Rabbi Judah replied: “From the moment of formation”.
Antoninus objected: “Can a piece of meat be unsalted for three days without becoming putrid? But it must be from the moment that God decrees its destiny”.
Rabbi Judah then said: “This thing Antoninus taught me and Scripture supports him”.
Therefore, the Talmud does support what Christians believe, and is itself supported by such Biblical passages as Psalm 139:13,16 (quoted above). As you can see, the Old Testament description of the soul, the Talmudic description of the soul, and the Christian description of the soul are all compatible, and not rejected by me, nor by any other Christian. Clearly, your claim that I have never heard of the O.T. description of nephesh is incorrect, your claim that I would reject the O.T. description of nephesh is incorrect, and your claim that the O.T. description of nephesh does not agree with Christian theology is incorrect. It is, in fact, you who do not understand the teaching of nephesh, and it is you who do not agree with the Old Testament teaching, the Talmudic teaching, and the Biblical teaching of the soul.
You also claim that many Old Testament passages show that “fetuses and newborns (less than 1 month old) have no value, are not counted as persons, and that God causes abortions. Your references for these claims are: Leviticus 27:6; Numbers 3:15-16; and Numbers 5:21-21 (?), 27-28. Your citing of these references to support your claim shows either an ignorance of Scripture, or reliance upon the teachings of someone who is ignorant of Scripture (see the first paragraph above).
You claim that Leviticus 27:6 shows that fetuses and newborns less than one month old have no value. The passage you are citing states: “for a person between one month and five years, set the value of a male at five shekels of silver and that of a female at three shekels of silver;” (NIV) What this passage is referring to (if taken in its proper context) is people who have been devoted to service to God (primarily in the Tabernacle). Once so devoted, if the parent or devoted person later desires to be excused from said service in the Tabernacle, they must be redeemed by paying a specific amount of money, with said money being paid to the priest and to be used for the Tabernacle. The passage does not say that fetuses and newborns are of no value, rather the passage teaches that fetuses and newborns less than one month old cannot be devoted to said service (with the exception of certain fetuses and newborns of the Levitical tribe such as Samuel), and therefore would not need to be redeemed, or excused from said service.
You claim that Numbers 3:15-16 shows that fetuses and newborns less than one month old are not counted as persons. The passage you are citing states: 15“Number the sons of Levi by the house of their fathers, by their families; every male from a son of a month and upward thou dost number them.”
16And Moses numbereth them according to the command of Jehovah, as he hath been commanded. (YLT) Again, the passage must be taken in context to understand its meaning, not taken out of context to support a preconceived bias. The passage is talking about a census of those members of the Tribe of Levi (the priestly tribe) who will be devoted to God (service in the Tabernacle, etc). The passage in no way indicates, implies or teaches that unborn children and children less than one month old are not counted as persons.
You also claim that Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28 (your use of verses “21-21” makes no sense) shows that God causes abortions. The passage you are citing (verses 21-28) state: 21 “here the priest is to put the woman under this curse—“may the LORD cause you to become a curse among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it.”
23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the LORD and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.” (NIV)
This passage is talking about a woman who commits adultery. A very grievous sin, and one taken very seriously at the time and place referenced in the passage. If a woman is suspected of adultery, then she is removed from the home and taken by the priest to another location. The priest will then speak a curse to the woman. The woman then states “Amen. So be it.” (thus stating that she deserves the curse if she is guilty of adultery). The priest will then write the curse on a scroll, and wash the scroll in a container of bitter water, which the woman then drinks. If the woman has committed adultery, and has become pregnant as a result, she will miscarry. If she has not, then there will be no ill effects from drinking the water. You have made several mistakes in citing this passage to support your premise. The first being the difference between abortion and miscarriage. The second is attributing the sin of the adulterous wife (which causes the miscarriage) to God, who has done nothing to encourage the wife to commit adultery, and everything to discourage it. Nor does God cause the miscarriage (if a miscarriage does occur). It is the sin of the adulterous wife that causes the miscarriage. Not the curse, not the bitter water, and not God. It is the sin of adultery. Once again, your ignorance of Scripture has caused you to misunderstand it, and attempt to use it to support your unbiblical premise.
That a person has no legal rights as a fetus, or as a brain dead person in America is not being questioned by me. What I question is your claim that all of society wants that. There is a large segment of our society that does not, and contrary to your other claim, we have not “imposed” our belief on you or on society. What I am saying is that Biblically, both fetuses and “brain dead” people are still “persons.” Whether or not you, or anyone else rejects this is irrelevant. Truth does not rely on a majority vote, nor does it rely on a piece of legislation, or presidential order, or judicial interpretation.
You ask how I can say that Obama’s Roe v Wade speech only speaks to a segment of our society, unless I am characterizing women. I would have thought it would have been obvious that I am speaking of Christians and others who are do not agree with Roe v Wade and abortion and have never agreed with it. Contrary to what many would like, we are still part of our society, and Obama’s statements clearly are not meant for us. They are meant for those who subscribe to his beliefs regarding abortion. Therefore, your prejudicial statements about “male dominated Biblical viewpoint where females are secondary does nothing more than highlight your bigotry against Christ, Christians, and a Biblical viewpoint. It also highlights your ignorance of Scripture and its teaching on men and women.
You insinuate that I do not know what I am talking about when I say the President did not say what rights he was speaking of, and that you posted the specific right he was speaking to was “that government should not intrude on private family matters. I [Obama] remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose and this fundamental constitutional right.” Please forgive my ignorance, but I seem to be unable to find anywhere in the United States Constitution a “right” to be free of governmental intrusion on private family matters. In fact, I can find nowhere in the Constitution where any express right to privacy is guaranteed. True, the Bill of Rights does indicate specific aspects of privacy such as the privacy of religious beliefs in the First Amendment, the privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers in the Third Amendment, the privacy of the individual against unreasonable searches in the Fourth Amendment, but nowhere can I seem to find it expressly stated that anyone has an express right to be free from government intrusion.
Nor can I find anywhere in the Constitution or in the Bill of Rights, an express right to abortion. Surely as it is a “fundamental constitutional right” as explained by a Constitutional Law expert like President Obama, it must be in the Constitution or in the Bill of Rights, or at least somewhere in one of the 27 amendments. But I just can’t seem to find either of these “rights” anywhere. Perhaps you would be kind enough to point out just where in the Constitution or in any of the 27 amendments where United States citizens are given and express “right” to be free from governmental intrusion into private family matters, or an express “right” to abortion. Clearly, you cannot, because these “rights” do not exist anywhere in the Constitution or in any of the amendments.
In fact there is no right to be free from governmental intrusion into private family matters regardless of what Obama says. And there is no “right” to an abortion. Women have the right to an abortion under certain circumstances according to a Supreme Court decision on the Roe v Wade case (a decision, I would add, that has been deemed indefensible by both pro-life and pro-choice advocates alike). Period. While it may be legal for a woman to have an abortion under certain circumstances, it is most certainly not a “right,” and one would think that Obama, a former law professor, a former president of the Harvard Law Review, and a former practicing attorney would know this. Apparently he does not, and apparently neither do you. Perhaps you should read, actually read the Constitution before you ascribe guaranteed “rights” to the Constitution when they do not exist there at all. The fact that you is, as you say, kind of “weird.”
I have no issues with my God. You are adamant about precise definitions of life and personhood, yet cannot make a distinction between abortion and miscarriage. God calls us all to judgement on His own time, however early or late.
Miscarriage is unintentional (accidental), whereas Abortion is Intentional (PREMEDITATED MURDER!!) And you might not have any Issues with ‘your god’ but THE GOD OF ABRAHAM, ISAAC AND JACOB HAS A REAL PROBLEM WITH YOU!!
OIAT, What problem does the God of Abraham have with me?
Roe v Wade was a wrong decision by the Supreme Court and was based on fraud. It an issue that should be decided by the states, not the federal government.
To try to justify abortion by saying it is part of girls being able to succeed in life is the ultimate evil. It is also a way of discriminating against girls, much in the same way backhanded compliments do more to put down the recipient than uplift them. This statement from Obama says that girls cannot succeed in life if they also give birth or become mothers. It says that school and a career have more value and give them more value than motherhood.
Putting down motherhood is also discriminatory. I thought the women’s rights movement was about women having the right to choose their own future? This right includes the choice of being a mother.
Abortion is NOT birth control – it is murder. To tell boys and girls that abortion is an acceptable form of birth control can be classed as nothing else but pure evil. And yes, there are such things as ‘right and wrong’ and ‘good and evil’.
I believe in women’s rights as well, I simply do not believe that they have the right to kill their own children. Indeed the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are fundamental to all human beings by virtue of their existence and government’s sole purpose is to help secure those rights.
The concept of the sanctity of human life is a foundational stone of both Christianity and conservatism. It is always better to ‘err’ on the side of life instead of on the side of death.
And anytime you want to show where you have said that all war is wrong, where the destruction of “sanctified human life” is the rule, by all means do so. Somewhere along the line, that sacredness of life gets devalued…in your eyes.
I cannot be responsible for your continued inability to grasp or understand the conservative mind or the concept of valuing all innocent human life (the sanctity of life as we call it). You are a borderline troll to begin with and I see a lot of thread-jacking lately. Continued attempts to dominate threads will be dealt with from here on out. This is our blog, not yours. I let you off your tether on occasion but I tire of the liberal, atheistic nonsense quickly.
BORDERLINE?
Heh…I was being diplomatic I guess.
I know.
And if you did indeed at some point had read the Constitution, you would have noticed that those rights are for persons, not zygotes.
Children are naturally born persons, they cannot be killed by their Mothers. Again, zygotes are not children.
When you have trouble with the basic ideas and definitions, it is no wonder that this disagreement goes on and on….
Hmm, don’t remember reading about “zygotes” in the Constitution, although I AM impressed that you showed said document reverence by employing the upper-case “C.”
There is hope for you yet, “Um.”
Now lefty, the rights are not for a zygote? You say the rights are for persons which means they are for human beings which the zygote can be shown to be by DNA. Using person is a very poor wording to making your point. Besides, abortion interferes with evolution. Those selfish little genes are striving to survive and those mature intellectual humans beings are making sure they do not survive. Tell me something, if one shoots a woman twice with a pistol. One hits her heart killing her while the other hits a fetus and kills it. Why would the state charge the one who did it with a double murder? One charge for the woman and one for the fetus.
“Children are naturally born persons, they cannot be killed by their Mothers. Again, zygotes are not children.”
Of course they can be killed by their mothers, it happens all the time. You believe that a government has the right to define who is human and who is not. The government has no rights.
Believers holding human life a gift of God beyond human jurisdiction cannot accept the asserted power of a mother to kill her nascent offspring. Neither can they accept the power of the state to kill citizens but they mostly do, affirming the death penalty and drafting (enslaving) unwilling soldiers. Ambivalence, no?
Nonbelievers are left with only human authority to justify killing humans as they acknowledge no other. An interesting choice between the protection of unalienable rights of the Declaration of Independence for believers and only politicians’ promises for nonbelievers. I would rather rely on the unalienable rights than upon politicians…but can’t help but note that we now have a post-Christian society in which even lip service to those is becoming scarce.
It seems likely that the perceived value of any one human life will continue to decline along with the lives of nascent humans…
Obama is SATANIC and SATANICALLY EMPOWERED! He is a Servant of Satan! His Entire Cabinet is made up of Homosexuals, Lesbians, Ex-Terrorists, Ex-Convicts, Communists, Socialists, etc. I restore Ancient Holy Bibles from 1250 A.D. through 1699. I am an ex Outlaw Biker who came to Christ in 1993. Eschatology is my specialty (End Time Prophecy). Only months are left until the United States collapses as Obama set out to do. I suggest you gather non perishable foods, gold, silver, fuel, generators, etc NOW WHILE YOU STILL CAN. Go mbeannai Dia duit! “MAY GOD BLESS YOU” In Irish.
You can’t eat gold.
In my opinion those that support the illegalization or the legalization of abortion are no better than the people who support Obamneycare. Abortion, right or wrong, is a medical procedure and therefore a health issue and both sides wish for the federal government to get involved in this issue. So that part is moot.
Now why am I not “Pro-life” or “Pro-choice”? Because as I see it we don’t have the luxury to deal with it at the moment and the issue by itself won’t save the country. If abortion were banned tomorrow and all doctors who practice it given the death penalty (I use the Pro-life side because it’s more dramatic a change from today’s reality) the country will still crash and burn 10-20 years from now. Now I do lean Pro-life, not because I have a concise opinion on the matter (because I don’t) but because of the company I would have take up if I leaned Pro-choice. I distrust liberals on a general principle.
If I were forced into making a decision on Abortion, like if my state was making a referendum on the issue and everyone had to vote, I’d take Pro-Life.
On the issue of religion and “God”, while I don’t personally take to the notion, I refuse to attack people who do. If it’s wrong to attack Atheists for being Atheists then it’s equally wrong to attack Christians for being Christians. Now if you wish to have a lively conversation about religion then I’m game, but I refuse the tactics some more outspoken Atheists use. I see it as someone insecure about their own beliefs.
Dave, I apologize for the exceptionally long response to lefty’s latest, but as you know, I sometimes cannot help myself when someone misquotes the Bible and the Constitution. I did at least try to keep my response to something less than novel length.
Personally I saw nothing wrong with it. I learned a lot. Thank you.
Right on, Thomas, right on.
[Howdy, C.C. I want to share what my eyes viewed while at my computer - a net nugget!]
EMPEROR AND EMPRESS OBAMA
The Old Testament has time-proven insights into professional vacationers like the Obamas:
Proverbs 19:10 (NIV): “It is not fitting for a fool to live in luxury – how much worse for a slave to rule over princes!”
Also Proverbs 30:22 (NIV) which says that the earth cannot bear up under “a servant who becomes king.”
And Ecclesiastes 5:2-3 (KJV) advises: “let thy words be few…a fool’s voice is known by multitude of words.”
Although Obama is not descended from slaves, he may feel that he’s destined to become a black-slavery avenger.
Or maybe an enslaver of all free citizens!
For some stunning info on Pres. Obama and his fellow traitors, Google “Imam Bloomberg’s Sharia Mosque,” “Michelle Obama’s Allah-day,” “Obama Supports Public Depravity,” “David Letterman’s Hate Etc.,” “Un-Americans Fight Franklin Graham” and also “Sandra Bernhard, Larry David, Kathy Griffin, Bill Maher, Joan Rivers, Sarah Silverman.” Also Google “Islam will purify Jews and Christians” and “Prof. F. N. Lee’s ISLAM IN THE BIBLE [PDF].”
Since Christians are commanded to ask God to send severe judgment on persons who commit and support the worst forms of evil (see I Cor. 5 and note “taken away”), Christians everywhere should constantly pray that the Lord will soon “take away” or at least overthrow all US leaders (including subversive, America-hating, Jesus-bashing Hollywood shmucks) who continue to sear their conscience, who dangle every unspeakably filthy vice before young people, and who arrogantly trample the God-given rights of the majority including the rights of the unborn. Do we need a second American Revolution?
After the Obamas are kicked out of the White House, there will be no place on earth where they can escape from scowling folks who wish to belatedly express their gratitude, in tangible ways, to the Obamas who tried to destroy the greatest nation ever!
When I was a very young and immature college lad, my girlfriend and I found “ourselves” pregnant. We were scared to to death. We chose the alternative that any “responsible” unmarried young couple would choose: “We” got an abortion.
That decision has haunted me my entire life; it has haunted her too. We have recently reunited. We still wonder, “What if?”
After the 12th paragraph, I started getting light-headed. I had to stop and set up a base camp to rest while the Sherpas went ahead to scout out the rest of the post. But after a long nap and some serious re-hydration, I was able to push through and read a little over half of these comments. Thomas, you were arguing with Lefty about how the Torah and Old Testament texts don’t contradict the Christian belief that life begins at conception. I think it is irrelevant. As written by Paul in Galatians, the old law is useless and obsolete. It was only made for the “transgressions of man” until the seed to receive God’s promise to Abraham had been born. It was also an Old Testament law to stone adulterers but we don’t do that anymore either. The law was made obsolete when Jesus was crucified.
I do tend to get a bit long winded at times, and I apologize for that. Although I do understand the relevance of the Old Testament, as well as what Paul wrote in Galatians. The reason I used the Old Testament references that I did, was because Lefty attempted to use the same verses (incorrectly) to support his premise. The verses he (or she?) did not support his argument, and I felt it necessary to use the same verses, and the Talmudic teachings to show Lefty that they did not support his arguments.
Pingback: In Obama’s Dreams | A Taxi Dog Diary