News: Abortion Protests

This thread reminds me of politicians saying, "Personally, I am against abortion, but to be 'politically correct' I can't vote against it".......

 

redwhitenblue said:

Now that I've said that, please attempt to separate what I am discussing here, I'm not talking about if it's ok to have the abortion, I'm talking about a rights. Your personal rights and my personal rights.

What about the rights of the unborn? Are they not entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" like the rest of us?

Although you personally may not believe this, your rhetoric presupposes that the unborn are not human persons entitled to the same protection under law as everyone else.

Are you also willing to throw yourselves in front of liquor stores and prevent folks from entering bars because of the fact they are drinking, driving and could kill another individual on the road?

Bad analogy. Some people entering bars might drink and drive, and some of them might hurt or kill other people. But it is by no means certain that anyone going into the bar will do either of those things. Besides, the mere act of hoisting a drink or two is legal and morally permissable.

However, it is virtually certain that a pregnant woman going into an abortion clinic is going to exterminate an unborn human person - either one in herself or someone else.

Hmm just a question here...how many would also agree to people blocking the doorway to enter a place which sells contraceptives? Isn't that also interfering with God's plan for pregnancy??

The issue is not "interfering with God's plan for pregancy" - it is the killing of human persons already conceived.

 

Actually, it may not be. In 2001, the Supreme Court upheld FACE, which prohibits such physical obstruction.


Edited to add that the personhood of a fetus is the issue of contention. It has not been established that a fetus is a person, certainly not legally, and not even in all Christian - or Baptist - circles.

 

I agree with Helen, Kelly. God established in the Bible that it is NOT a fetus, but a baby. When it comes to legal vs. moral....I'll go with moral.

Sue

 

That's by far the way I prefer to do things, too, Sue.

But here we're (or we were, anyway) talking about a legal issue, weren't we? The way our country currently works, you need more than the word of God to make a legal case for protecting fetuses. We have other reasons for protecting people, other reasons for protecting property . . . you get the idea. The word of God is certainly enough to make a moral case, but not a legal one.

SCOTUS effectively said in Roe that a fetus is not a person. In order to rule as they on 4th amendment grounds, abortion could not legally be classified as murder (since the right to privacy does not extend to illegal acts - see Bowers v. Hardwick or Stanley v. Georgia). I wouldn't be surprised at all if some intelligent attorney (yes, they exist, contrary to popular opinion ) used Roe for establishing precedent against the cloning bill, if it actually becomes law.

Still, if the 1st amendment is to be upheld, God's word cannot be the sole reason for our laws. If there's a secular way to define a fetus as a person, then use it. I haven't been able to come up with one yet, but if it's there, then that's the argument to use legally.

 

(Cloning Bill passed. It is on another thread.)

Kelly, I understand what you are saying; but to me, just seeing a sonogram, I would think no one could deny that there is an actual baby there.

And they are living outside the womb at an earlier age every day.

My son and his wife lost a set of baby twin girls, (Rachael and Elizabeth), when they were considered, by law, to be fetuses. That was several years ago. Had it happened today, the babies could have been saved.

They gave those babies more love in the four hours they lived than some people receive in a lifetime.

They were dressed in doll's clothes and both placed in one tiny casket for the funeral at the church. Their daddy was the only paulbearer, carrying that casket in his arms. They are buried at the foot of the grave his wife will be buried in when she goes to meet her Savior.

They were perfectly formed, had hair, nails, everything. It is just beyond me how someone can say aborting babies that looked like that is not murder.


Sue

 

stubbornkelly said:

SCOTUS effectively said in Roe that a fetus is not a person.

What is it, then?

 

Passage of the bill (which is only in the House so far, isn't it?) doesn't mean it will be upheld as legal . . . anyone remember the Communications Decency Act?


Ransom, legally, a fetus is a fetus. The SCOTUS didn't explicitly say so, but the Roe decision implies that a fetus is not, legally, a person. If it were a person and, as such, entitled to the same rights you or I have, there is no way they could have ruled the way they did. No way. But they did, and without having to come right out and say a fetus is not a person, they effectively deemed that it is not.

 

RANSOM
Legally, (not morally), the embryo comes first until it grows into a fetus and then grows into a baby.

Can anyone give me scripture to back up this three stage development???

KELLY
Yes, the cloning bill is in the Senate now.

I got my info on both of the above from the following link:

HUMAN CLONING BANNED IN HOUSE

 

Actually, I should have said "technically." Technically (scientifically), you have the three stages of embryo, fetus and baby. That's applied legally, as well, but my understanding is that it's based on the scientific terminology. Is the term "fetus" an immoral one? I think not. It's an amoral word, with no moral or immoral value whatsoever. It's just a term used to describe a stage of development from gamete to person, just as "child" is a stage of development from "baby" to "adult."

I was actually surprised to see my House rep on the "nay" side of H.R. 534. My Senators should be on the "nay" side as well, given their history, anyway.

 

stubbornkelly said:

Ransom, legally, a fetus is a fetus. The SCOTUS didn't explicitly say so, but the Roe decision implies that a fetus is not, legally, a person.

Was it a person before 1973?

 

Had it been ruled upon? No. And technically, it still hasn't been ruled upon. It's just inherent in the decision.

The Court doesn't make the law, it interprets it, as we all know. I would say that the Court made known through implication something that had already been so.

 

What to those of you who support breaking the law (and obstructing someone's free passage could be construed as a form of arrest, and consequently illegal) to prevent legal abortions do with Romans 13:1

?

 

stubbornkelly said:

Had it been ruled upon? No. And technically, it still hasn't been ruled upon. It's just inherent in the decision.

So we're just supposed to swallow an assumption "inherent" in a bad legal precedent, as though it were true? Codswallop.

 

Rev. Joshua said:

What to those of you who support breaking the law

The law of God ("You shall not murder") trumps the laws of men.