But what if it was too early to take the baby out of the womb?  What if nothing can be done to save the fetus?  That's still abortion.  What if the woman is on some rather heavy prescription medications to treat chronic illnesses and these medications are fatal to a developing fetus it is just unclear when the body will naturally terminate the pregnancy?  Is it ok to have an abortion then?  There certainly wouldn't be any ill will in that situation no matter what you say.

The decision was based on the constitution and an interpretation of what it said therefore it wasn't a new law it was merely a new interpretation of already existing laws.

True, but an abortion performed in adequately supplied medical facility and by a trained doctor is much safer than using a coat hanger or attempting to induce a miscarriage.

Most of these are extremely rare and there are similar risks with just about any surgical procedure.  As long as the woman is well informed of these it is her choice to accept the potential risks just like anyone who undergoes surgery.

The key to rare is to increase education about the proper use of birth control methods, including abstinence.  If birth control is used properly then the need for abortions drops significantly.  I am very much against abortion being used as the only form of birth control used.  It is my opinion that if a man and woman choose to have sex without any other form of birth control and get pregnant that she should carry that to term unless her health is at risk. 

I know from your personal testimony that this is a very weighty subject on your heart and want to assure you that I do not want to impugn your sincerity or judge you in any way.

"What if" terms are introducted to change the terms of the reality...what is bad, abortion, becomes good...by making it a "curative treatment". Ever since 1973, medicine has become a manipulative tool with practioners involved in both healing and killing. The Hippocratic oath formed the foundation for civilized medicine for 1500 years, but is now no longer  required of medical students.

It's bad...in this case, the role of medicine is so bad that who would have ever thought that abortion would be used to end the lives of healthy unborn babies simply becasue they weren't the preferred sex or becasue the baby was genetically defective?

For some abortion, no matter what, is never an option. I've read stories of pregnant mothers whose health and lives were in danger and let nature take its course. We could call them heroic choosing to put their baby's life and needs above their own.

No they aren't.  "What if" questions are asked to get a full scope view of where people stand on an issue.  I am merely asking if you would be ok with an abortion of a fetus that was destined to die in the womb anyway because of the medications that the woman is taking.  That isn't changing the terms of reality, it is asking you to consider the reality of your stance on abortion.  This situation does exist, my wife is an example but she is certainly not the only one.  She has schizophrenia and is bi-polar to boot (among other conditions).  The medications used to treat these mental conditions are deemed fatal to developing fetuses.  And according to the doctors we have talked to by the time you know you're pregnant it is too late to stop the medications to avoid damaging the fetus in most cases.  I have had a vasectomy so that we are never faced with the decision to have another abortion but that doesn't change the fact that other woman may need to make that choice.  If the fetus is doomed in-utero anyway what is the problem with aborting it before it becomes a major weight on the woman's health?

And that was the woman's choice and I would certainly respect and support her decision even if I didn't necessarily agree with it because it was her choice to make, not mine.

Yes.  Morals are extremely subjective to attempt to make laws based on something subjective is difficult at best and impossible at worst.  If I or others claim that it is immoral for churches to be tax exempt because churches have opinions that I and others don't agree with (ex gay marriage) would that be right?  Of course not.  Especially on topics that are split as much as this issue is.

Wrong because this isn't so much about morality as it is maintaining order in a society.

Wrong.  I don't think a buddhist needs to 10 commandments to know that murder is conducive to an ordered society.  Those laws are NOT based from religion.  If we based laws on the 10 commandments then why isn't illegal to take your lords name in vain?  Why isn't adultery illegal?

While some abolitionists may have been inspired by judeo christian ethics that doesn't mean we would bring back slavery.  Our constitution says that all men are equal, slavery treated people as not being equal so we were violating our own constitution.

That's not entirely true.  While you might claim it to be a scientific fact that life begins at conception that doesn't mean that the entire abortion debate hinges on that determination.  It's about how much control do you give the woman over what is going on in her body.

An example of morality right there. While preventing murder+theft are necessary to maintain an ordered society, you don't have to have a society in which everyone is equal. People are generally accepted as equal and afforded roughly equal rights in many societies because it is deemed right (/moral) to do so.

Exactly.  Andrew Jackson, our 7th President said this:

"That book [Bible], sir, is the rock on which our republic rests."

Now why would he say that if our laws were not patterned after the 10 commandments found in "that book"? 

Anyone who has done any research knows that America "was" a Christian nation founded on Christian principles no matter how hard the secularists of our day deny this and try to convince us otherwise. 

Well El-D I can see you don't like doing research as much as you claim....adultery was against the law in every state for quite a long time.  In fact from what I understand it's still on the books in some states, although not enforced anymore.  It was for a time a legal basis for divorce.  I remember lots of talk about adultery when I was a kid, how important it was to prove one spouse committed adultery in a court of law.  Nowadays, who cares? 

So now do you believe me that our laws were based from the 10 commandments? 

When you research history and read about our laws when our republic was first born it's easy to see that our laws and moral behavior was once based on the scriptures and especially the commandments.  Even the Sabbath was built into the laws.  When I was a child almost everything was closed on Sunday. 

But see now, little by little, politicians, law breakers and immoral people have done a very good job in getting rid of these constant reminders so they've denied there ever was a Christian foundation for our laws which is hard to do really because all the monuments in Washington are covered in scripture. 

You know why?  Because immorality is big business.  Follow the money trail.

But the rest of us are left holding the stone tablets that have been thrown to the ground. 

Patrick Henry in 1775 said this:

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, people of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity and freedom of worship here."

Sad to say even an atheist like Alexis can't say this anymore:

Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859)

So even an atheist from enlightened France could see there was something divine going on in America that made her a great nation. 

We are on our way to ceasing to be great.  What a shame. 

Lula posts:

Hmmm....you say that Roe v. Wade was based on the US Constitituion? That Roe v. Wade is a new interpretation of already existing laws? Which existing laws?

I disagree...Roe v. Wade is not Constitutional law...rather it's a decsion made by a majority of Supreme Court justices who haven't the Constitutional authority to make laws, new, old, or out of so-called "already existing laws". We don't get our laws by interpreting them into existance...we democratically legislate law into existance....and only the US and State Congress has that authority.

And then again, in order for a state law to be constitutional, it must conform or be in harmony with the US Constition.

"Roe v. Wade is a "very bad decision....becasue it is not constituional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."  John Ely, Yale Law School professor....

"As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible...[It is] one of the most intellectually suspect constitional decisions of the modern era."   Edward Lazarus, former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmum who authored Roe.

"One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found."   Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School Professor

Not so.  For a truly ordered society everyone needs to be treated equally.  Look what is happening with AIG right now as an example of this.  People are in an uproar because they see AIG execs as being treated differently that they are.  It's not about morality it's about keeping order.

No it wasn't.  Yes some of our founding fathers were Christians, and they probably used their religion as a measuring stick but that doesn't mean that we ever were a Christian nation.  If we were a Christian nation why bother allowing freedom of religion?  Why not just make it the national religion from the get go?  Because some of our founders weren't Christian and some of those who were thought of religion as a private matter and not one for government.  In fact part of the reason that they created our founding documents the way they did was to avoid the tyranny that comes along with a theocracy.

It was at the state level, we weren't talking about the state level but the federal level which to my knowledge never outlawed adultery, but I could be wrong on that because I haven't researched it (happy, should I qualify every statement I make with whether I've researched it throughly or not).

As far as I'm aware it's still a legal basis for divorce.  But this isn't because it's immoral but because it's against the contract that you enter into when getting married.

That doesn't change the fact that it was wrong to do so.  We are supposed to have freedom from religion in this country and if someone wants to be open on Sunday they should be allowed to, which is why most of the blue laws have been overturned.  Even in WV the blue laws have been overturned but there are still some busninesses that choose to close on Sunday, but that is their choice and their right.

I agree with you here, just for different reasons.

The whole right to privacy.  I'm not saying whether they were right or wrong but they chose to interpret that right to privacy to include abortion.  It's not new law but new interpretation of old law.

Now if you want to get into the validity of that interpretation that's another matter and I would probably be led to (take a deep breath) agree with you.  And if that's the case it should be challenged and let the Supreme Court over turn it.  Or have the US congress pass a law to ban abortion or make it legal.  Then that new law could be challeneged on it's constitutional grounds.

exactly you just answered your own question. They didn't want the tyranny they had experienced when they came out of  England.  They wanted people to have freedom of religion...not from religion but Christianity was the background of all the documents and the signers were mostly Christian.....not all but even those who weren't supported the scriptures.  Consider what James Madison (4th President)  said.....remember he wrote the U.S. Constitution:

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments."

now look at things all messed up today.....religion is out, morality has taken a beaten, God has been thrown out of our public places and guess who moved in to take over?  The government.  You think that's better?  We're in trouble and we are going down.  It's going to get very nasty because I can see no turning back.  We are already reaping what we've been sowing.  Just watch tonight's news. 

but still what diff does it make to our debate?  The states had more control back then and they I believe unanimously agreed that adultery was against the law because it violated the moral code at the time and the moral code was drawn from the scriptures which was much more important back then. 

no, it's not the same.  Adultery today isn't even really a factor anymore like it used to be.  The reason?  Just about everyone is cheating on everyone so it's a case of if everyone's doing it what can we do? 

no this is where you've bought into the new revisionism.....we were to have freedom of religion....not from.  Big diff.

el-duderino posts: 248

Ya, the right to privacy...which the National Organization of Women (NOW) gals quickly sloganized a so-called "right to choose". But again there is no right to privacy to commit abortion. It doesn't even make sense. There's nothing private about committing abortion. Other people are involved, the father, the unborn baby, the abortionist and nurses.

As to the validity of that interpretation, when you think it through...there is none.

The right to privacy is an important human right.   At the same time government has always understood that an individual's rights don't include taking another person's life.  It's disorderd... placing a mother's right to a private life over society's responsibility to protect the weakest members and government's constitutional responsibility to promote the general welfare.

What's at stake here is the principle of the moral and natural law and the very dignity of human life which can't be trifled with.

Roe v. Wade was a grevioulsy wrong decision and even Justice Ruth Ginsburg said of Roe, "We ventured too far in the change it ordered andpresented an incomplete justification for its action." 

EL-DUDERINO POSTS:

Becasue of love and God is love.

In this world, we human beings are the highest of God's living creatures....they have much, much higher dignity than animals. It's all about our end...the end of a thing is the purpose for which it was made...we are made for God while animals were created for us.

I think the government needs to get its nose out of just about everything.  Religion should be a private matter not one that is imposed by anyone including the government.

A lot.  I can speak somewhat about the US constitution because I have done some research on the matter, not extensive mind you but some.  I can't speak about the states at all because I have no idea how their individual constitutions were set up.

And I think we need to go back to whent he states had more control.  We need to have a very limited Federal Government.  Unfornately over the years it has become extremely bloated and prone to corruption.

Maybe I'm living in a bubble but I don't believe that's true.  Adultery is still a perfectly viable reason for divorce, as far as I'm aware.  Now whether someone is willing to file for divorce due to adultery is another matter entirely.

I definitely don't think that this is correct, but again maybe I'm living in a monogamy bubble.

Enlighten me, what is the difference?

That doesn't make it a public matter.  If you contracted some debilitating disease would you want that publicized?  Of course not because you have a right to keep that private even though you would have nurses, doctors, your family, etc invovled in your care.

At the moment it doesn't matter.  That is the standing interpretation until it is challenged and overturned.

and we are in complete agreement El-D! 

I agree.  I think the Supreme Court has alot to answer for.  They have made some very bad decisions and they are destroying America.  They are the ones who are completly out of order. 

Freedom "from" religion is getting more prevelant today.  God is being taken out of everything.  Where once we were allowed to have nativity scenes and the 10 commandments displayed at every town hall and public place in America are now being told to take them down (freedom from religion).  Schools are banning children from meeting together in afternoon groups if religion is concerned especially when it comes to Christianity  (freedom from religion).  Teachers have outlawed children bringing in any sort of books that mention God or Jesus or the bible even if it's the kid's choice to bring in the book for that reading period.  I heard one story when a teacher ripped up a child's religious drawing and said it was totally unacceptable.  Pretty interesting because in the same class a kid had drawn some gothic styled art and was accepted. 

As you know prayer, once a common thing not only among every classroom in America but even in locker rooms have been deemed unacceptable.  Coaches across the land who offered up prayers before a game have been asked to leave if they don't stop.  I can't count how many court cases were brought up because some footcoach coach who had prayed with his team for 20 years is all of a sudden told to stop because one kid complained.  (freedom from religion)

Now Freedom "of" religion is what our constitution speaks of.  That's because of the background of the pilgrims and those who had been persecuted in England and other places for their religious beliefs.  They had to choice between worshipping God in public or death  or imprisonment in many cases.   Our founding fathers wanted to ensure that not any one religion was enforced but that many faiths could worship freely in this new republic.    Many parts of the world this persecution is still going on.  Check out www.persecution.org if you want examples. 

So we are starting to explore the possiblilites where jail term will be a reality for any preacher who preaches against homosexuality in that it's a sin.  It's already happened in a few spots in the world already.  I know Canada had a case and I think Sweden there was a case.  Yep.  The pastor dared preach on Romans 1 and was jailed for it. 

They certainly had their role to play but I think it was mainly congress and the Presidency making power grabs that went unchecked (which violates the constitution by the way).  Basically no one was looking out for the states rights, even the states seem reluctant to say anything, and now it is almost too late to change it.

I think this could have been resolved better.  If the public places had been opened up to other religions putting up their religious work it would have complied with the constitution and everyone could have been satisfied.  However by only putting up Judeo Christian symbols it appeared like state sponsored religion which is against the constitution.

Again I think this is the schools overreacting to the situation.  If they would publicize that they allow all religious groups to meet after school and that they are merely providing a meeting place not endorsing the religion itself I think it would have solved the problem.  Unfortunately the schools took the cowards way out and eliminated religion entirely.

This kind of thing annoys me as well.  If the assignment is to do a drawing the teacher shouldn't get upset by what the kids draw no matter what it is.  Same with bringing in books from home.  The teacher isn't endorsing the religion rather they are endorsing the child's creativity which is very different.

This is because it appears that the coach, and school by proxy, are endorsing one religion over another.  Now if the coaches offered silent prayer that's different and should be allowed because then it's open to all religions.  Same with school prayer.  It's about the appearance of endorsing one religion over another which is a violation of the constitution since it gives the appearance of state sponsored religion.

And I agree with this.  Everyone should be ble to worship whatever they want to whether it be god, the sun,  or Joe Pesci.  But that must be done in such a way that it doesn't appear that the government is endorsing one over the other, that's also in that amendment.  And that's when we get into government buildings and schools as I've mentioned above.

I've heard of this before, possibly from you, and this scares the hell out of me.  No preacher should be thrown in jail for what they preach as long as they aren't inciting violence just like members of the KKK should be allowed to spread their filth (let me be clear that I am NOT calling what preachers say filth) around as long as they aren't inciting violence.  If this kind of crap starts happening here I will be there right beside people like you protesting it.

by then, I'm afraid it will be too late and the "genuine" Christians will go underground...they'll have to...just like they do in china. 

I just went to a garage sale today and got a book called "Men In Black."   It's about the Supreme Court and how much damage they've done over the years...I hope to dig into this book soon.   I had read somewhere recently where the SC really started going down in 1947 after some big decision, but I can't recall the specifics.  Maybe it'll be in this book. 

 It was a NY Times Best Seller.  Ever hear of it?