-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
How Does a Christian Choose?
- Thread starter Crabtownboy
- Start date
- Status
Government should not murder anyone. But our government is responsible for its citizens, not the citizens of other countries who sneak in illegally. We do, because we're nice, but that's not our responsibility, and shouldn't be. We need to protect Americans first and our legal guests.
But why on earth should we not consider unborn children of Americans to be citizens? Our failure to do this is what keeps abortion legal.
Last edited:
This is what you said to me
And there are two ways to become a US citizen - birth and naturalization. Abortion is a greater issue than citizenship.
Yes, but you took that post down. You didn't like it and wanted me to restate. So I restated, and now your going back and quoting the old post. You see what I mean about how confusing your arguments are?
I'd like you to respond to my latest post.
Last edited:
Though it seems very wrong that our current government will give more rights to illegal aliens than our unborn and if Hillary gets her way this includes up to the day before they are born.
No, I didnt take your post down and I quoted post #15.
My argument is clear. Governments are responsible regardless of citzenship (your argument of "well....legally" is silly because US citizenship IS a legal term). Responsibility doesn't stop with citizenship.
Again, all I'm doing is pointing to a statement you made. The above is what got you in trouble (at least with me).
There is no reason an unborn child should be less qualified for anything. He is a much human as a one year old or you. He should be protected as a citizen. That's the Biblical Christian view.
And while it wasn't your intention, reasoning like this is the foundation of legalized abortion. I'm not saying you're for legalized abortion, I'm saying your argument helps the other side.
Dealing honestly with the topic doesn't help the other side. If anything, diminishing life itself to a right of citizenship helps the other side. Your argument is in that way pro-abortion as the argument should be based on being human, a person....not rights of citizenship. In fact, pro-abortionists attack just that - NOT citizenship, but these children being persons.
But I also believe we, as a nation, incur guilt for our dealings with other nations who actively support abortion (like China). So I see your stance as contributing to the pro-choice argument and you probably see me as hyper in my anti-abortion view. Abortion is the top issue for me in this election. Simply, murder is wrong regardless of citizenship....period....not because of secular laws but because of God.
Now your misrepresenting my argument to deflect what you said. I say the unborn are just are qualified to be citizens as the born. You say they are not. That statement is indefensible, and helps the abortion lobby.
I've never argued only citizens should be defended. You pulled that out of thin air. I'm arguing that all humans beings have the right to be under the protection of the government system God put in place. They have the right to citizenship based on their humanity, just as you and I do.
You have made the indefensible argument that the unborn are somehow unqualified to be citizens. This reflects the worlds sentiments, and contradicts the word of God.
Except that one must be born!!!! You help the pro-choice lobby by moving the argument from human and person to some creative redefining of a legal term. You move from God to the courtroom....just like those you seek to oppose. You can't win on those grounds because you are wrong.
That part is true....we agree here.
That's just silly. We did not have the right to be US citizens based on our humanity. I had the right based on the fact I was born in South Carolina. Where on earth did you get the notion that citizenship was based on humanity????
Jesus was not a Roman citizen. Are you saying he was less than human???
“Citizen” is not the same as “human” or “person”. You are assuming the pro-abortion stance of reducing a government’s responsibility strictly to those who are citizens. The argument is not out of thin air, it was my only…get that???? MY ONLY disagreement with the article. And that was the point to which you objected.
You argued that God views all people as citizens…I presume of the government that they happen to be in or passing through at the time….and I rejected that argument. You argued for some kind of “right” of citizenship based on humanity (I’d love to see you defend that biblically or constitutionally)….and I reject that argument.
No, not indefensible at all: https://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship
Your position here reflects the pro-abortion stance. You seek to argue morality and evil based on secular laws of secular government. I am, spiritually and most of all, a citizen of the Kingdom of God. I am a US citizen by birth...get that??? I was born here and am a citizen because I met the requirement of citizenship that the US government established.
Abortion is wrong because it is a sin against God. Period. No need to redefine citizenship to meet your needs (remember, Paul was a citizen of Rome….but not all of those living there were Roman citizens). You are right on abortion but wrong to take the pro-abortion stance. Take the biblical position and stand for God instead of legal principles.
Abortion is wrong, not because it violates some rights of citizenship but because it is an evil against an Almighty and Holy God....PERIOD. It's evil...PERIOD. And all of your taking it to the courtroom and redefining citizenship is just playing along to the pro-abortion crowd because you'll never win leaning on the law of the land. We will never win when we toss out the gospel in favor of redefining secular law.
Last edited:
That is like saying we shouldn't pass laws to define morality in a civilized society - or shouldn't be concerned with doing so. Morality exists and any civilized society makes laws to impose morality on others. We as members of this society base the decisions we make about morality based on our views - and these views are (should be) based on our spiritual beliefs... .
It's like saying that when we sin we sin against God.
We do make laws, and abide by those laws insofar as they are not contrary to God's command. And the law requires a person to be born to be a citizen. I don't think that citizenship is an issue of morality, but you are right that our laws are (or should be) based on our spiritual beliefs.
I think the "citizenship" unavoidably becomes a matter ("issue") of morality when it is used as a justification to decide the rights of the unborn. I would not give credit to the argument that one can separate morality out by trying to distinguish between the two, because that at some point this law of citizenship directly affects this morality if it is allowed to be used as a argument point.
The problem is that governments are also accountable for those under their influence but who are not citizens (the unborn, resident aliens, ... even illegal aliens). We are accountable to God to how we treat other human beings. Citizenship does not make a person more valuable, is not based on humanity, and is not a part of the anti-abortion argument (it is a part of the pro-abortion movement).
That is all beside the point of my original objection to that "we shouldn't pass laws to define morality in a civilized society" and that this cannot be excluded from the laws that affect citizenship and thus the rights of the unborn.
I was being facetious with the question - I think you knew that.
But I agree - no murder by any government.
Apparently both our government and our sociopath medical profession consider it easier to murder the innocent/defenseless if they have no right to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.
HankD
Last edited:
Exactly! You get it. Jon, you do not get it. You are helping the abortion lobby by making these arbitrary distinctions between the born and the unborn. You accuse me of making the right to life dependent on US citizenship, but I said no such thing. I said the unborn qualify as citizens as much as the born. You say they do not. I see no distinction between the born and the unborn. You as a Christian should see no distinction between the born and the unborn. But you do and it's troubling and lends credence to abortion arguments.
Well I thought at first you were being facetious, then though maybe you coming from a different perspective. But yes, it's ironic we give more rights to illegal aliens then we do unborn citizens (yes, I call them citizens).
On the issue of abortion, we both agree that it is wrong. I don't see you as an opponent on the topic. On citizenship, we disagree. I see abortion as an equally horrible evil regardless.The US government is not only to protect the unborn children of it's citizens, but the unborn within their responsibility period. The distinction is that the babies of illegal aliens, of non-citizens, of resident aliens, etc. are just as precious to God and just as warranting of protection of the government in which they reside as are the babies of our citizens.
The difference is that citizenship has been used to justify evil in the past, to deny basic human rights, when those things should be founded on humanity and not citizenship. My only complaint here is that your platform on government responsibility is, IMHO, far too narrow.
- Status