Featured The Irony of moral opposition to Trump

The problem is the basis for legal recognition. Does a woman who miscarries 3 times get to claim three dependents in one tax year? Who certifies the pregnancy?

Would we need an IRS Form BA-BY?

I just think that legal personhood is going to bring an avalanche of lawsuits from the left.

 

This continued foolishness of looking at abortion as some sort of measuring stick of worthiness is silly.

Evangelicals en masse supported a man for President in 2012 who rejects Jesus Christ. We are now adding our support behind an adulterous, anti-character of Christ man. And the world is supposed to take us seriously about abortion when we continue to show no love for the One to whom the immorality of abortion is measured?

 

It's not a measuring stick of worthiness. It's a measuring stick of policy. We aren't dealing with Israelite monarchs or prophets or Levitical priests. We aren't dealing with apostles, pastors, or deacons.

We're dealing with policy.

 

I don't think it is reasonable to consider how it effects taxes first in order to determine if we should recognize an unborn child as a person. We should first determine (as if there is really any question) whether or not the unborn child is a person then we worry about how that effects taxes. After all this is a matter of life and death.

 

We're dealing with policy, morality and immorality. The SCOTUS just happened to have made legal what God had already given folks the right to do.

In accordance with God's word, from which so many of our laws are derived, "I have the right to do anything," you say--but not everything is beneficial. "I have the right to do anything"--but I will not be mastered by anything. 1 Cor. 6:12

That of course in no way means that God approves of abortion.

It does however point to the primary reason Christians take issue with abortion is because it's a moral issue and our laws go against God's position

 

I'm not saying that it's the priority. I'm saying it would be the attack point of the left. You don't have to establish full legal personhood to outlaw abortion.

 

It is just the right thing to do.

 

I'm not sure whether it's right or wrong, as personhood isn't an ontological term; it's a legal concept.

I would argue that you could use the term "human life" to the same effect. It wouldn't have to imply a legal status of "person" but would recognize that you don't have the right to take the life.

 

I am

 

The evidence is in the Quran. If they "follow it", they will advocatete force for conversion. Period. If they don't advocate "force", then they don't follow the Quran. But they are lying to themselves. It's a violent backwards tribalistic heathen religion.

 

That's your right, and I understand the sentiment. I was just thinking from a legal perspective in terms of what "revenge" might be taken.

I would also fear that legal personhood could be the foundation for reversing at least part of any reversal of Roe v. Wade. The lawsuits that would swarm could be innumerable, and one might stick.

It's most important to stop abortion first, I agree. Then we can debate the best ways to ensure respect for human life without jeopardizing the progress we will have made.

But I do hope that we get to have this debate!

 

I don't think we will. Abortion has become something of an idol in the church. Often, Christians seem to care much more about standing against abortion than we do standing for Christ. And God will not have HIS place usurped by anyone or anything.

I envision God giving us the side eye when we say something like "I support Mitt Romney because he's anti-abortion" or "I support DT because he was for abortion and now he's against it".

It seemingly doesn't matter that they reject Jesus Christ as long as they are against abortion.

Pure idolatry. And again like the golden calf, I don't imagine God being okay with it.

 

Will God have his place usurped by racial equality? by welfare? by "....lives matter"? by peace treaties? healthcare?......

 

Are evangelicals rallying around a candidate who is for racial equality while rejecting Christ?
Are evangelicals rallying around a candidate who is for welfare while rejecting Jesus Christ?
Are evangelicals rallying around a candidate who is for "...lives matter" while rejecting Christ?
Are evangelicals rallying around a candidate who is for peace treaties while rejecting Christ?
Are evangelicals rallying around a candidate who is for healthcare while rejecting Christ?

Consistently, the single most defining issue for evangelicals (not all) continues to be abortion. Most of them don't seem to care if their candidate rejects Christ. Most don't seem to care that their candidate is an adulterer. Most don't seem to care that their candidate doesn't feel that he needs God's forgiveness. Most don't seem to care that he's a bigot. Most don't seem to care that he doesn't love his neighbor as himself. Most don't seem to care that he insults women and Hispanics and Blacks and gay people and immigrants ? Most don't seem to care that their candidate appears to be of worse moral character than even Bill Clinton from the 90s. And if I recall that time correctly, most evangelicals went on and on about how moral character mattered so much that they felt that Clinton should be impeached and removed from office . He wasn't fit to hold office they said.

Any of you supporting DT need to apologize to Bill Clinton.

 

As if you didn't know, the meaning was that many people who claim the label,Christian, have a particular public issue that is more important to them than anything. And it's a reasonable suspicion that that includes you, based on the things you post on here. You say little about the gospel of Jesus Christ other than in this kind of context; your clear implication that anyone who voices support for a political candidate that you oppose has a different god-- and thus is not a Christian. Your roundabout way of questioning other posters' salvation is your god here (IMO, of course).

 

I am not concerned what revenge might be taken. Deal with the life of the unborn child first. The revenge is not a factor as to whether we should do it or not.

 

I agree that the life of the unborn child is paramount. My posts have been based on the assumption that abortion was outlawed. Until that happens, it's a moot point. But my purpose was always to explore the best way to make sure that abortion doesn't come back, if it can be outlawed.

 

So long as there are activist judges on the bench with wild imaginations there will always be the possibility of abortion.

 

I don't. I've never been in favor of his impeachment. I thought what he did was immoral behavior, but I didn't think anything rose to the level of impeachment or conviction.

 

Why do you think he was impeached?