House Healthcare Bill Promoting Abortion

[Bro. Curtis]

You misunderstand what I meant to say, although in reading my comment I understand why; I didn't word my statement very well.

What I was trying to say is that you seem to be discounting Johnv being against abortion because he doesn't do the same things in response to abortion that you do. I never doubted that you or Johnv are both against abortion. I don't like abortion either.

It's really great to see these kinds of posts.

 

[alatide]

It will be interesting it hear your response when doctors, nurses, and other health care providers resign their professions rather than be required to partake in the slaughter of the unborn at the governments insistence.

Even if an exception is made for individuals to opt out on moral grounds - many hospitals will simply close their doors rather than become part of the Obama national abortion mill.

But no doubt you will conjure up some line of reasoning to blame the Republicans when all that comes to pass too.

If I'm not mistaken the slaughter of the unborn started when the Roe vs. Wade REPUBLICAN Supreme Court made it legal on January 22, 1973. Correct? The REPUBLICAN Richard Nixon was in office until Aug. 1974 when the REPUBLICAN Gerald Ford became president. He was followed by the Democrat Jimmy Carter (1978-1982). The REPUBLICAN Ronald Reagan was then president for 8 years followed by the Democrat Bill Clinton who also served 8 years. The last 8 years we were under the REPUBLICAN George Bush and now the Democrat Obama for 6 months.

Since the Republican court ruled in favor of abortion we have 22 years under REPUBLICAN presidents and only 12 under Democratic presidents. The president's party is particularly important because it is generally thought that the best way to reverse Roe vs. Wade is to change the makeup of the Supreme Court.

So my question is which party has done much of anything to reverse Roe vs. Wade? The Republican party? In what way and what is the result 35 years after R v W?

 

[Johnv]

If I'm not mistaken the slaughter of the unborn started when the Roe vs. Wade REPUBLICAN Supreme Court made it legal on January 22, 1973. Correct?

That's incorrect. Nonelective abortion has always been legal in all 50 states. Prior to RvW, elective abortion was allowed to be regulated from state to state. It was legal at 3 months in some states, 6 months in others, and illegal in others.

So my question is which party has done much of anything to reverse Roe vs. Wade?

It was a SCOTUS Constitutional issue. Presidents are extremely limited in their power to overturn SCOTUS rulings. Long before RvW, SCOTUS had ruled that the Constitution guarantees the right to a certain level of privacy, referencing Amendments III, IV, V, IX, and others. If Roe were overturned (which, even with the most conservative court, is unlikely) it would not make abortion illegal. Rather, it would give greater control to states in how they regulate it. In all states, it is likely that nonelective abortion would continue to remain legal.

 

[rbell]

You don't want government rationing health care or to come between you and your doctor but you want it to legislate against abortion.

You don't want an activist judge but you want one pro-life so they can overturn roe v wade.

Anyone besides me see a pattern of hypocrisy here? Sounds like the government can ration and a judge can be activist as long as it's for your cause.

What part of "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness" don't you understand??

Protecting life is one of the few jobs given to the government.

The more you post, the more obvious it is that abortions don't bother you all that much. I find that sad.

BTW....it isn't an activist judge that will toss Roe v. Wade. It is an activist judge who allowed legal abortion-on-demand to begin with.


I bet you would have taken some interesting positions in 1930's Germany...

 

[donnA]

Just more christians approving of and defending the murder of babies, and still we allow this on a 'christian' board.

 

[Johnv]

What part of "life, liberty, pursuit of happiness" don't you understand??

That's actually a reference to the Declaration of Independence. The DoI is not a body of law. The Constitution is the body of law.

It is an activist judge who allowed legal abortion-on-demand to begin with.

Again, that's untrue (see prior post). Elective abortion was legal prior to Roe v Wade.

Just more christians approving of and defending the murder of babies, and still we allow this on a 'christian' board.

If that statement were to be directed at me, I would take offense to it. I have't once "defended" elective abortion.

 

[rbell]

Abortion on demand was upheld via Roe v. Wade.

I'm fully aware of the contents of the Declaration of independence.

I'm also fully aware that abortion is murder. Are you?

 

[Revmitchell]

That's actually a reference to the Declaration of Independence. The DoI is not a body of law. The Constitution is the body of law.

And?

Again, that's untrue (see prior post). Elective abortion was legal prior to Roe v Wade.

Legal where?

 

[Johnv]

Abortion on demand was upheld via Roe v. Wade.

A common claim among Christians is that Roe vs Wade legalized elective abortion. That's incorrect. Acknowleging that fact does not in any way suggest that one is anti-abortion.

I'm fully aware of the contents of the Declaration of independence.

Then you're aware that the Declaration of Independence has no legal standing.

I'm also fully aware that abortion is murder. Are you?

I believe elective abortion is murder. Nothing I have said in this thread indicates anything to the contrary.

 

[Revmitchell]

Then you're aware that the Declaration of Independence has no legal standing.

The constitution gives legs to the DOI. It is still and always will be an important document and should be looked to as Rbell has done. The DOI does have legal standing as it is what we based our separation from England with. And it serves no purpose to dismiss it when it is quoted.

 

[Johnv]

The constitution gives legs to the DOI... The DOI does have legal standing as it is what we based our separation from England with. And it serves no purpose to dismiss it when it is quoted.

Rbell cites the DoI as a source for what the job of the federal government is. The DoI does not define the job of the federal government. It has no legal authority or power whatsoever, as it is not law.

Legal where?

Twenty states had laws permitting abortion in cases of sexual assault. Nineteen of those also allowed abortion for general health reasons. Of those, seventeen allowed abortion if the fetus was damaged. Four of those states allows elective abortion for no reason whatsoever.

 

[Revmitchell]

Rbell cites the DoI as a source for what the job of the federal government is. The DoI does not define the job of the federal government. It has no legal authority or power whatsoever, as it is not law.

It does have legal authority. It is the basis on which we declared out independence form England. Whether or not it governs the the Fed is another issue all together. But it certainly can be used as a source of the intent of the Funding Fathers who put the constitution together. It should never be dismissed off hand.

 

[Johnv]

It is the basis on which we declared out independence form England.

It's a declaration, and obviously an important one. It declared why we were breaking from England. But it's not a legal document. For example, you can't sue someone claiming they denied your Declatation of Independence right to the pursuit of happiness.

But it certainly can be used as a source of the intent of the Funding Fathers who put the constitution together. It should never be dismissed off hand.

I'm not dismissing it in the slightest. BTW, the DoI and Constitution were not drafted by the same founding fathers. The documents were drafted 11 years apart. Of the 56 men who were involved with the DoI, 6 of them (George Read, Roger Sherman, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Morris, George Clymer, and James Wilson) were involved with the Constitution.

 

[Revmitchell]

It's a declaration, and obviously an important one. It declared why we were breaking from England. But it's not a legal document. For example, you can't sue someone claiming they denied your Declatation of Independence right to the pursuit of happiness.

It is a legal document. Its parameters are different but it is a legal document.

I'm not dismissing it in the slightest. BTW, the DoI and Constitution were not drafted by the same founding fathers. The documents were drafted 11 years apart. Of the 56 men who were involved with the DoI, 6 of them (George Read, Roger Sherman, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Morris, George Clymer, and James Wilson) were involved with the Constitution.

Thanks for making my point. Not sure what difference you see here form what I said.

 

[Johnv]

It is a legal document. Its parameters are different but it is a legal document.

I encourage you to take a civics class.

Thanks for making my point. Not sure what difference you see here form what I said.

It doesn't make your point at all. You claimed that the DoI can be used as a source of the intent of the Funding Fathers who drafted the Constitution. In fact, of the 56 people involved in the Declaration, 50 of them were not involved in the Constitution. This is why we commonly refer to the men involved in the American Revolution and Independence Movement as the Founding Fathers, while we refer to those involved in the Constitution as the Framers.

 

[Revmitchell]

I encourage you to take a civics class.

Of course.

It doesn't make your point at all. You claimed that the DoI can be used as a source of the intent of the Funding Fathers who drafted the Constitution. In fact, of the 56 people involved in the Declaration, 50 of them were not involved in the Constitution. This is why we commonly refer to the men involved in the American Revolution and Independence Movement as the Founding Fathers, while we refer to those involved in the Constitution as the Framers.

Wanting to split hairs is not helpful. It does in fact make my point. Having even only 6 involved makes my point.

 

[Johnv]

Wanting to split hairs is not helpful.

Then kindly refrain.

It does in fact make my point.

The point is that Rbell cited the DoI as a source for what the job of the federal government is. The DoI does not define the job of the federal government.

 

[LeBuick]

Abortion on demand was upheld via Roe v. Wade.

I'm fully aware of the contents of the Declaration of independence.

I'm also fully aware that abortion is murder. Are you?

So if abortion on demand was upheld by Roe v Wade, then it would be an activist judge to over turn just like I said.

Being for or against abortion shouldn't change truth. God desires us to be truthful even when the truth hurts. My post are not pro-abortion, they are simply pointing out the truth. God wants his people to know truth.

The truth is abortion is legal. That doesn't say I like it, it is a fact. The way to stop government paying for abortions is to have legislation passed by congress making them illegal. That is the correct way to solve the problem per our constitution and would not involve being a hypocrite by desiring an activist judge or going against your core principles by desiring government to ration health care. These are things you don't want from the liberals so be real and set the example.

Some here pretend voting GOP is more Godly, truth is the GOP had 6 years to pass such legislation and they failed to act. I don't see how voting for them helps the unborn any more than voting for the liberals.

 

[rbell]

So if abortion on demand was upheld by Roe v Wade, then it would be an activist judge to over turn just like I said.

Being for or against abortion shouldn't change truth. God desires us to be truthful even when the truth hurts. My post are not pro-abortion, they are simply pointing out the truth. God wants his people to know truth.

The truth is abortion is legal. That doesn't say I like it, it is a fact. The way to stop government paying for abortions is to have legislation passed by congress making them illegal. That is the correct way to solve the problem per our constitution and would not involve being a hypocrite by desiring an activist judge or going against your core principles by desiring government to ration health care. These are things you don't want from the liberals so be real and set the example.

Some here pretend voting GOP is more Godly, truth is the GOP had 6 years to pass such legislation and they failed to act. I don't see how voting for them helps the unborn any more than voting for the liberals.

The difference between us: I work to have this ungodly legislation overturned.

You like having it around, because it gives you a chance to slam Republicans.

Shame on you for being opportunistic like that.

 

[rbell]

That is the correct way to solve the problem per our constitution and would not involve being a hypocrite by desiring an activist judge or going against your core principles by desiring government to ration health care. These are things you don't want from the liberals so be real and set the example.

What a monumentally ridiculous statement.

I don't believe it is the government's job to take care of our health needs at all. So, my opposing government-funded abortions as a part of healthcare is entirely consistent.

I firmly believe you are losing your grip on reality. Such is likely to happen when you find yourself defending the murder of babies.