Thank you Justice Sandra Day O'Connor for your service

Neither scripture nor science support that view.

 

It shouldn't be a debate. The Supreme Court has devolved into the sort of institution that you had in communist Russia where a handful of men could sign some cheap papers and send 40,000,000 to their deaths without due process. The 20th century is a nightmare because so many governments have dealt death to their own citizens.

It is human rights abuse to murder the unborn. Christianity never allowed this in 2,000 years. The fact that it involves 13,000,000 blacks makes it genocide by any wishy-washy UN definition.

The day that legal abortion ends in America will be a day of great blessing to the USA!

 

Whether science does or not is irrelevant. The Bible does.

 

Prove it

 

An embryo is human life. It is not animal life and it is not inorganic.

Psalm 139:13 (ESV)
For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother's womb.

Luke 1:44 (ESV)
For behold, when the sound of your greeting came to my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy.

I understand that not everyone believes the Bible.

By the way, in case you are more comfortable with non-Bible reasons to be against abortion, here is a link you might find interesting -

www.l4l.org/library/index.html

 

Ken,

These verses do not support the statement that human life begins at the moment of conception. They do affirm that babies grow in the womb.

BTW, as a Christian, I do believe the Bible, so hopefully you are not implying otherwise.

 

Also, sperm are not inorganic either, and are human. However, millions are lost upon each ejaculation. Is this murder? What are they? Animal? Inorganic?

Add to this the fact that thousands, maybe millions of zygotes fail to attach to the uterine wall every day, and are flushed out in the human menstrual process. Apparently, according to your view, God designed an imperfect reproductive process that kills millions of innocent people.

Just something to think about.

 

A fertilized egg is human life. I do not question what God does with His creatures. I do question when man thinks he can be God by intentionally destroying innocent human life.

 

Yep, best not think too hard on it huh?

And again, your verses do not support what you claim. You once more make the assertion that a fertilized cell is a human with no support for the statement.

Thirdly, maybe this should be moved to its own thread. Mods?

 

Why? You're not going to change your mind and I'm not going to change my mind. Plus this subject has been debated ad infinitum in this country since Roe v. Wade. I doubt either you or I will add anything new to the debate.

I don't know why I even got involved in this. I knew you weren't going to believe the truth.

 

Ken, if you would only provide some evidence to support your assertion. You claim the Bible supports your view, and I asked you to demonstrate such. You provided verses that show babies grow in the womb. No argument there.

 

Then why not err, if err we must, on the side of life since you can't disprove that a fertilized egg is human life?

Speaking of life, I need to go water some grass. Looks like it will be a dry, hot summer in south Arkansas.

 

O'Connor is gone. That is good.

Of course, the fertilized egg is human life--we all begin life that way. That's what it means to be pregnant.

By the way, MP, you have dodged the question of genocide. If Sandy Day O is so good, why did she allow blacks to suffer a disproportionate number of abortions, or does she also support genocide as she does sodomy?

 

BTW, does anyone know about the reliability of this website?

www.blackgenocide.org

 

Mouse, I have not dodged anything. I just think the question is ridiculous. Justice O'Connor "allows blacks to suffer a disproportionate number of abortions"? There are a number of socio-economic factors involved. The black community has a disproportionate number of a lot of bad things. This is not her fault, nor does it mean she is committing genocide. Very strong words, and very very misplaced. In other words, I wasn't dodging a legitimate question...I was ignoring yours.

I also don't see that she "supports" sodomy. She recognizes the government has no business as bedroom police.

 

Unfortunately, MP, I think that the public is tired of the liberal "solutions" to social problems. States had a right to outlaw sodomy since the beginning of the country until Sandy Day O and our other black-robed masters decided differently. Clearly the state has a right to decide the age of consent so there is some aspect of bedroom police. We have just witnessed England's lowering of the age of consent for sodomy and we have to wonder if the black-robed masters during their vacations at Nice this year will decide to follow the European path?

As for your dismissal of the charge of genocide due to "socio-economic factors involved," evidently not all blacks agree with you on that point as you can see by visiting www.blackgenocide.org It seems that her affirmative action outreach does not extend to the unborn black. The math of genocide is really quite simple: blacks suffer 1/3rd of all abortions but are about 1/8th of the population. If that goes on for 35 years unchecked, I think that black clergy have a right to call it genocide. The abortion industry has gotten very wealthy from all this bloody murderous work. They probably donate a great deal of money to the Democrats in order to keep that pro-choice plank in the Democrat platform and to keep people like Mrs. Pillar of Salt on the Supreme Court. She was a do-nothing. She deserves no praise but a great deal of condemnation and indeed only liberal Democrats are praising her--an indication of her rejection by her own party, who either condemn her as I do or ignore her as most have done. She stinks and she has stunk since the beginning when people publically warned Reagan not to appoint her because even her early record showed that she was no conservative. One thing about some Westerners--they rely on the federal government for handouts.

 

I thanked her for leaving. Now, let's appoint a real conservative.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Just because she is a female does not mean that she has been a good judge. That would be sexism in the extreme. It is your mistake to start a thread thanking her because she is a GOP turncoat--your main political advantage I think. I should think from a Christian viewpoint you would find her decisions anti-Christian. You forget that many people warned about her 24 years ago and she has proved them correct. She should join the Democrat Party and let us all see her true colors.

 

Judges are to make their rulings by the constitution, not by partisan politics.

Ooops, I guess I am thinking of that proverbial "perfect world".