Bush Signs Partial Birth Abortion Ban...

Kiffin pointed out this:

The President should be commended for the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. And yes, back in 2001, he did block Federal Funding for International Abortions.

But that was then. This is now. UNESCO, which the US has just re-joined in October and whose abortion policy I linked above, comes with a hefty price tag of American tax dollars. You see, the catch is, we don't just get to rejoin (and by rejoining partake in the innocent blood dripping by association), we actually get to fund the murder.

PDF File

Ya'll can thank your elected officials in the Senate and House, too, because they passed this expenditure to help finance world-wide murder of the unborn.

 

I would assert to you that the reason Bush doesn't do what you want him to do are as follows:

1. They don't have the votes in the Congress to do it. Even though they have Republican majorities, not all of the Republicans are conservative or support the president. John MCcain would be a prime example of this.

2. The American people will not support such legistlation because the majority of Americans today are immoral people when it comes to the issue of abortion. We still need more Biblical preaching and a holy Spirit revival to change the hearts of the American people and create a political climate that wants to do something about the holocaust here in America.

3. We do not have a Supreme Court who will uphold the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for the unborn. And if we elect Clark or any of the other DEMS by voting for someone who has no legitimate chance to win, we never will, I fear, in my or my son's lifetime.

4. The Church (in general) is not doing its job by preaching the Bible. Many Churches are too busy with man-made creeds and church growth programs, they have neglected the power of the Word of God to change people's lives. We need to get back to the Bible.

Until this happens, you could elect PA. Jim president and there would still be no more change in America's policies than there are now. Perhaps we as the Church need to take some responsibility as well and get busy doing our job.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Thanks Joseph.

Your thoughts hit the nail on the head!

Roger

 

The bottom line is the Republican Party is only a partial-pro life party. Therefore, when you vote for a Republican candidate you helping the pro-choice Republicans as well remain in power as well.

On the other hand, the Constitution Party( www.constitutionparty.org ) is solidly pro-life.

Therefore, if the abortion issue is THE issue that is most important as to how a person votes, then he should vote for the Constitution Party candidate.

Remember, if don't vote for what you want, then you won't get it.

Here is the pro-life platform of the Constitution Party gubernatorial candidate in the just completed Mississippi election:

The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God’s image. The first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. It is, therefore, the duty of all civil governments to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-born.

To that end, the Constitution of United States of America was ordained and established for "ourselves and our posterity." Under no circumstances may the federal government fund or otherwise support any state or local government or any organization or entity, foreign or domestic, which advocates, encourages or participates in the practice of abortion.

As to matters of rape and incest, it is unconscionable to take the life of an innocent child for the crimes of his father.

In addition, Article IV of the Constitution guarantees to each state a republican form of government. In a republic, the taking of innocent life, including the life of the pre-born, may not be declared lawful by any institution of state or local government — legislative, judicial or executive. The right to life should not be made dependent upon a vote of a majority of any legislative body.

Moreover, this right should never depend upon a majority of justices on any court, including United States Supreme Court. Therefore, although a Supreme Court opinion is binding on the parties to the controversy as to the particulars of the case, it is not a political rule for the nation. Roe v Wade is illegitimate, contrary to the law of the nation’s Constitution. Above all, it is contrary to the Sixth Commandment of the Decalogue which sets forth the sanctity of life. Therefore, since abortion is contrary to the law of Almighty God (which is above any earthly court anyway) and since abortion is contrary to the Constitution of United States of America --- it must be resisted by all civil government officials, federal, state, and local, and by all branches of the government — legislative, executive, and judicial.

If elected to office, John Thomas Cripps, will use his authority as the highest "law enforecement" agent in the State to order the arrest of abortion doctors and have them tried for murder. This authority is established in both the Constitution of Mississippi and United States of America. If necessary, he will take further action to oppose any federal intervention.

What other candidate will offer more than lip-service in protecting the unborn. The stench of our sin rises high to the nostrils of the God of creation. When will this unbridled murder end? Under the term of Haley Barbour? My dear Christian, read below and ask yourself if the Christ you profess to serve with your heart, soul, mind and strength will be pleased with you casting your vote for Haley Barbour!

- web page

 

What is the Constitution party's stand on abortion to save the life of the mother? Are you sure they are not only partially pro-life?

Joseph Botwinick

 

The mother has the right to save her life.

There are four scenarios in the situation you describe -

1)The mother and the baby could both die.
2)The mother could live but the baby may have to die for her to live.
3)The baby could live but the mother may have to die for him to live.
4)The mother and the baby could both live.

Fortunately, the situation where the baby's and the mother's right to life come into conflict are very rare in the United States. Remember, the mother has a right to life as well.

 

Thanks Joseph.

Your thoughts hit the nail on the head!

Roger

 

She eagle stated

Thanks for pointing that out to me. That is very sad.

 

Yes Ken, this is certainly your opinion. But what is the stand of the Constitution Party? They seem strangely silent about that issue.

Joseph Botwinick

 

To my knowledge, partial birth abortions are almost never done to save the life of the mother.

Anyone with statistics otherwise, please feel free to move this thread down to the "All Others" section, so we may continue.

 

Done, Brother Don! Moving to General Baptist Discussions to continue!

Thanks, Sue, for posting the original News Article.

This has been a very good discussion !!

SheEagle
Moderator

Carry On!

 

Sanctity of Life

The pre-born child, whose life begins at fertilization, is a human being created in God’s image. The first duty of the law is to prevent the shedding of innocent blood. It is, therefore, the duty of all civil governments to secure and to safeguard the lives of the pre-born.

To that end, the Constitution of the United States was ordained and established for "ourselves and our posterity." Under no circumstances may the federal government fund or otherwise support any state or local government or any organization or entity, foreign or domestic, which advocates, encourages or participates in the practice of abortion. We also oppose the distribution and use of all abortifacients.

As to matters of rape and incest, it is unconscionable to take the life of an innocent child for the crimes of his father.

In addition, Article IV of the Constitution guarantees to each state a republican form of government. In a republic, the taking of innocent life, including the life of the pre-born, may not be declared lawful by any institution of state or local government — legislative, judicial or executive. The right to life should not be made dependent upon a vote of a majority of any legislative body.

Moreover, this right should never depend upon a majority of justices on any court, including the United States Supreme Court. Therefore, although a Supreme Court opinion is binding on the parties to the controversy as to the particulars of the case, it is not a political rule for the nation. Roe v Wade is illegitimate, contrary to the law of the nation’s Charter and Constitution. It must be resisted by all civil government officials, federal, state, and local, and by all branches of the government — legislative, executive, and judicial.

In office, we shall only appoint to the federal judiciary, and to other positions of federal authority, qualified individuals who publicly acknowledge and commit themselves to the legal personhood of the pre-born child. In addition, we will do all that is within our power to encourage federal, state, and local government officials to protect the sanctity of the life of the pre-born through legislation, executive action, and judicial enforcement of the law of the land.

In addition, we condemn the misuse of anti-racketeering and other federal laws against pro-life demonstrators, and strongly urge the repeal of the RICO and FACE Acts as unconstitutional expansions of federal power into areas reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.

Finally, we also oppose all government "legalization" of euthanasia, infanticide and suicide.

- www.constitutionparty.org/ustp-99p1.html#Sancity%20of%20Life

There is no need to mention the taking of the unborn babies's life to save the life of the mother. The law cannot compel one person to die on another's behalf. In the very, very rare instances when this might be a real issue - where one person or the other will die - it would be the mother's decision whether to die or not.

 

Is that the Constitution Party's official position, or is that your opinion? The law cannot allow one to commit murder (abortion) to save their own life or for any other reason---That is my full pro-life position. Anything less than that, IMO, is only a partially pro-life position.

Where does the Constitution Party stand?

Joseph Botwinick

 

Ken,

Do you know what their position is on this issue? If not, why not just say "I don't know" and go on?

Joseph Botwinick

 

To save the life of the mother is not murder. To say a mother does not have the right in these very rare cases to save her own life in what is in essence self-defense, IMO, is a stupid, uncaring position.

I already gave you the platform of the Constitution Party.

 

Joseph, medical personnel make that decision all the time. It's called "triage".

 

Committing murder is never justified.

What is the Constitution Party's view of abortion (murder) in order to save the life of the mother?

Joseph Botwinick

 

Don,

Please explain how triage is the same as committing murder.

Joseph Botwinick