The Irony of moral opposition to Trump

[Revmitchell]

Let's be careful how we state things. Abortion was not "forced upon us" by the Supreme Court.

Sure it was. They had an agenda to legalize it and that legalization was forced on us. So yea it was.

 

[StefanM]

Sure it was. They had an agenda to legalize it and that legalization was forced on us. So yea it was.

Correct. Any state laws outlawing abortion were nullified.

 

[Baptist Believer]

It may very well involve more "welfare" or "entitlements," but I think that's a cost worth paying to stop abortion.

I agree, but I know a number of conservatives will not.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Sure it was. They had an agenda to legalize it and that legalization was forced on us. So yea it was.

What I intended to communicate - obviously, I failed - was that no one is forced to have an abortion. People are allowed to choose abortion under the ruling.

 

[StefanM]

I agree, but I know a number of conservatives will not.

Assuming a direct correlation, then the true test of compassion will emerge as this question----are you willing to pay higher taxes in order to save lives?

If a person says no to that question within those parameters, I don't think that person should claim to be pro-life.

Now that doesn't exclude a legitimate discussion of how to handle things. If it can be done without raising taxes, great! If it requires a different approach than is traditionally used, I'm all for innovation.

But if money is more important than life, that's a dangerous place to be.

 

[Revmitchell]

What I intended to communicate - obviously, I failed - was that no one is forced to have an abortion. People are allowed to choose abortion under the ruling.

But it effects more than just the individuals who choose abortion. It effects all of us. It was forced on all of us.

 

[HankD]

So is he allegedly pro-life or not? If he adds exceptions other than the life of the mother, he's not terribly pro-life.


Let's be careful how we state things. Abortion was not "forced upon us" by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that a woman has a right to privacy and that under that right to privacy she may choose to terminate a pregnancy. Women are not "forced" to have abortions under Roe v. Wade.

I oppose Roe v. Wade, so we must not give those who support it an opportunity to dismiss our arguments by misrepresenting what it actually is.


In matters of civil rights upheld (or established) by the Supreme Court, there are no votes.


I hope so. However, that won't stop abortion. I'm sure you agree, we need to build a pro-life culture to slow the destruction of the unborn. Unfortunately for many who hold to current "conservative" ideology, that means more cultural supports for women who bring their children to term, as well as for the multitudes of children who will be born in less than ideal circumstances.

OK, yes you are correct - For individuals who want an abortion no force, they want it and choose to murder.

But IMO it was forced upon us who hate it. It has been forced upon me to deal with, pray about, teach against, contribute to its demise, persuade against, etc, etc... And I will do so until it has been overturned.

Of course abortion will exist until Jesus puts an end to it.
Again - Until then, I will always oppose it.

HankD

 

[JonC]

Hopefully, no matter who is elected abortion will by God's grace and for the well-being of our nation become a States Rights issue and be defeated in all states.

I agree. We see so much which is truly evil in our nation, and abortion probably illustrates just how far we have fallen as well as anything else. I hope and pray things will change. But I really do not see the opportunity for real change without revival (without a reviving of the churches in America). That so many Christians believe their only option is to support evil (even if it is a lesser evil) leaves me less than optimistic.

 

[Baptist Believer]

But it effects more than just the individuals who choose abortion. It effects all of us. It was forced on all of us.

The Supreme Court found in Roe v. Wade that there is an inherent right to privacy implied in the Bill of Rights and in light of that position - and a lack of medical and legal consensus in the early 1970s regarding the issue of when life/personhood begins - that a woman has the right to made choices that concern her body and her health privately, outside of the realm of legal sanction.

Please note that we do not have to agree with the ruling to understand it or fairly present it. I believe that the ruling is fundamentally flawed in terms of personhood and that there are two lives to consider, not just the mother's.

In light of the civil right of privacy found in the ruling, no state or agency is allowed to significantly burden the right of the individual to exercise their rights.

Now, you can make the argument that it affects all of us. That's true. In terms of civil rights, the right to freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom to own firearms, etc. affects all of us. If we do not exercise that right, that's fine. But we don't have the right to restrict others from exercising that right without a compelling interest. So religious liberty and freedom of speech for others is also "forced on us." The rights of a law-abiding person to own a firearm is also "forced" on US society.

An example of inconsistency on this issue for many people on the left wing is that they argue for restrictions on the Second Amendment rights of others while hammering home the right of a woman to have an abortion at any stage of pregnancy - even to partial birth.

When we are pro-life people argue from the perspective that we want to restrict the civil rights of another person and resist gun control measures, then we are falling into the trap of a favorite argument against the pro-life side - that it is not about lives, but about the control of women.

What to do? Present the legal situation clearly and openly in terms of the question of the personhood of the unborn child. The Bill of Rights was written not to GRANT rights, but in RECOGNITION of the unalienable rights of humankind given by God (as noted in the Declaration of Independence) and that the inherent right to life of all innocent humankind (whether inside or outside the womb) is the issue.

 

[Revmitchell]

The Supreme Court found in Roe v. Wade that there is an inherent right to privacy implied in the Bill of Rights and in light of that position - and a lack of medical and legal consensus in the early 1970s regarding the issue of when life/personhood begins - that a woman has the right to made choices that concern her body and her health privately, outside of the realm of legal sanction.

Please note that we do not have to agree with the ruling to understand it or fairly present it. I believe that the ruling is fundamentally flawed in terms of personhood and that there are two lives to consider, not just the mother's.

In light of the civil right of privacy found in the ruling, no state or agency is allowed to significantly burden the right of the individual to exercise their rights.

Now, you can make the argument that it affects all of us. That's true. In terms of civil rights, the right to freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom to own firearms, etc. affects all of us. If we do not exercise that right, that's fine. But we don't have the right to restrict others from exercising that right without a compelling interest. So religious liberty and freedom of speech for others is also "forced on us." The rights of a law-abiding person to own a firearm is also "forced" on US society.

An example of inconsistency on this issue for many people on the left wing is that they argue for restrictions on the Second Amendment rights of others while hammering home the right of a woman to have an abortion at any stage of pregnancy - even to partial birth.

When we are pro-life people argue from the perspective that we want to restrict the civil rights of another person and resist gun control measures, then we are falling into the trap of a favorite argument against the pro-life side - that it is not about lives, but about the control of women.

What to do? Present the legal situation clearly and openly in terms of the question of the personhood of the unborn child. The Bill of Rights was written not to GRANT rights, but in RECOGNITION of the unalienable rights of humankind given by God (as noted in the Declaration of Independence) and that the inherent right to life of all innocent humankind (whether inside or outside the womb) is the issue.

Baloney it is not a civil right to murder someone else. Good grief

 

[StefanM]

The Supreme Court found in Roe v. Wade that there is an inherent right to privacy implied in the Bill of Rights and in light of that position - and a lack of medical and legal consensus in the early 1970s regarding the issue of when life/personhood begins - that a woman has the right to made choices that concern her body and her health privately, outside of the realm of legal sanction.

The right to privacy was actually established in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). I actually happen to agree with that decision.

Roe v. Wade just took it and applied the concept to abortion (an error, in my view).

Please note that we do not have to agree with the ruling to understand it or fairly present it. I believe that the ruling is fundamentally flawed in terms of personhood and that there are two lives to consider, not just the mother's.

I completely agree.

In light of the civil right of privacy found in the ruling, no state or agency is allowed to significantly burden the right of the individual to exercise their rights.

Now, you can make the argument that it affects all of us. That's true. In terms of civil rights, the right to freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom to own firearms, etc. affects all of us. If we do not exercise that right, that's fine. But we don't have the right to restrict others from exercising that right without a compelling interest. So religious liberty and freedom of speech for others is also "forced on us." The rights of a law-abiding person to own a firearm is also "forced" on US society.

An example of inconsistency on this issue for many people on the left wing is that they argue for restrictions on the Second Amendment rights of others while hammering home the right of a woman to have an abortion at any stage of pregnancy - even to partial birth.

I can see your thoughts, but given that the right to privacy was recognized prior to Roe, we have more flexibility to keep privacy and toss abortion.

When we are pro-life people argue from the perspective that we want to restrict the civil rights of another person and resist gun control measures, then we are falling into the trap of a favorite argument against the pro-life side - that it is not about lives, but about the control of women.

The argument (that won't convince anyone but is valid) would be that abortion is only found in a specious SCOTUS decision. The right to bear arms is explicitly protected by the Constitution.

What to do? Present the legal situation clearly and openly in terms of the question of the personhood of the unborn child. The Bill of Rights was written not to GRANT rights, but in RECOGNITION of the unalienable rights of humankind given by God (as noted in the Declaration of Independence) and that the inherent right to life of all innocent humankind (whether inside or outside the womb) is the issue.

Personhood becomes tricky, though. I'm wondering if we need another legal category for the unborn. If a fetus is legally recognized as a person, we can protect the fetus from abortion, but I'm not sure what other areas might be affected (tax laws, social security numbers, etc.). I suppose we could address this all by statute, but it could be tricky with a SCOTUS decision.

 

[StefanM]

Baloney it is not a civil right to murder someone else. Good grief

In actuality, of course not. In practice, unfortunately, it is seen as a "right."

 

[Baptist Believer]

Baloney it is not a civil right to murder someone else. Good grief

Is that what you got from what I wrote?

Good grief!

 

[Salty]

The right to privacy was actually established in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). I actually happen to agree with that decision.

Link for Griswold vs Conn

 

[Baptist Believer]

The right to privacy was actually established in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). I actually happen to agree with that decision.

Yes, you are correct.

Roe v. Wade just took it and applied the concept to abortion (an error, in my view).

Roe v. Wade took what had already been found and bolstered it with application to abortion. I agree that it was misapplied.

I can see your thoughts, but given that the right to privacy was recognized prior to Roe, we have more flexibility to keep privacy and toss abortion.

Yes we do.

The argument (that won't convince anyone but is valid) would be that abortion is only found in a specious SCOTUS decision. The right to bear arms is explicitly protected by the Constitution.

It is an absolutely valid point. I have made it forcefully in other discussions and contexts.

Personhood becomes tricky, though. I'm wondering if we need another legal category for the unborn. If a fetus is legally recognized as a person, we can protect the fetus from abortion, but I'm not sure what other areas might be affected (tax laws, social security numbers, etc.).

Maybe not as much as you would think. A fetus has no income or property that they can legally own until 18 years after birth. I didn't get a Social Security card until I was nearly seven-years-old, although I know they are doing it much younger today. That can be issued at birth when the child has "initial freedom of movement" or some more appropriate standard.

I suppose we could address this all by statute, but it could be tricky with a SCOTUS decision.

It would be a long battle to establish a statute with a legal abortion precedent that does not recognize a person that is unborn.

I appreciate your informed and careful consideration of my previous posts.

 

[HankD]

Hmm, I think I'm out of this discussion.

HankD

 

[StefanM]

Maybe not as much as you would think. A fetus has no income or property that they can legally own until 18 years after birth. I didn't get a Social Security card until I was nearly seven-years-old, although I know they are doing it much younger today. That can be issued at birth when the child has "initial freedom of movement" or some more appropriate standard.


It would be a long battle to establish a statute with a legal abortion precedent that does not recognize a person that is unborn.

I appreciate your informed and careful consideration of my previous posts.

You get a SSN at birth now. It has to be listed on the 1040 to claim the child as a dependent.

That's one area I would wonder about. Would a woman who had a miscarriage be able to claim that she had a dependent during the year? It would be dependent on her for 50%+ support, that's for sure!

It's absurd; I know. But if we get this thing turned, the left is going to come out with lawyers in force. Every nook and cranny of legal ambiguity will be exploited. They will cause havoc out of revenge.

 

[Salty]

You get a SSN at birth now. It has to be listed on the 1040 to claim the child as a dependent.

That's one area I would wonder about. Would a woman who had a miscarriage be able to claim that she had a dependent during the year? It would be dependent on her for 50%+ support, that's for sure!
...

Why not, mom, as well as dad have extra expenses while mom is pregnant.

 

[StefanM]

Why not, mom, as well as dad have extra expenses while mom is pregnant.

But is there a cutoff? 8 week miscarriage? Almost no expense at all. It's emotionally difficult, obviously.

Do ectopic pregnancies count?

I'm not talking about the full-term babies. I'm talking about early pregnancies that terminate spontaneously.

 

[Salty]

But is there a cutoff? 8 week miscarriage? Almost no expense at all. It's emotionally difficult, obviously.

Do ectopic pregnancies count?

I'm not talking about the full-term babies. I'm talking about early pregnancies that terminate spontaneously.

Well, if we believe that life begins at conception, I would have no problem from day 1