The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy

Abortion is not a constitutional right

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Abortion is not a constitutional right

    Since the Roe v. Wade decision abortion has been considered by most to be the law of the land and a constitutional right. Here is some information about the decision that most people are unaware of.

    Working from what the Supreme Court ruled in Roe, pro-life lawmakers can pass a Life at Conception Act and end abortion by using the Constitution instead of amending it.

    A simple majority vote in both houses of Congress is all that is needed to pass a Life at Conception Act as opposed to the two-thirds required to add a Constitutional amendment.

    When the Supreme Court handed down its now-infamous Roe v. Wade decision, it did so based on a new, previously undefined "right of privacy" which it "discovered" in so-called "emanations" of "penumbrae" of the Constitution.

    Of course, as constitutional law it was a disaster. But never once did the Supreme Court declare abortion itself to be a Constitutional right.

    Instead the Supreme Court said:

    "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins . . . the judiciary at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."[/SIZE][/FONT]

    Then the High Court made a key admission:

    "If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case [i.e. "Roe" who sought the abortion], of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."

    That's exactly what a Life at Conception Act would do.

    A Life at Conception Act changes the focus of the abortion debate. It takes the Supreme Court out of the equation and places responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the elected representatives who, unlike life term judges, must respond to grass-roots pressure.

    Legislative Action

    he decision can be overturned by enacting a law that defines life as beginning at conception
    Clyde Herrin's Blog

  • #2
    And the Supreme Court cannot legislate from the bench; that is up to legislators. They did not, to my knowledge legislate this as law. We have been allowing abortions simply on the premise that there is no law to stop it, not that their is a law to protect abortion. Later, the government acted to protect abortionists, but with no legal right to do so, but there is no legal right to stop it yet. This is an instance where God's law prevails over man's. Those who break it shall be judged by God, if not by man.
    Comment>

    • #3
      The US Constitution explicitly gives Congress authority over the Supreme Court. But, who cares what the Constitution says. :(

      Not only is there is there a "right" for a mother to kill her pre-born baby, but apparently there's a "right" to force you and me to subsidize abortion through the Affordable Care Act, Planned Parenthood Funding, and IRS tax breaks.

      I just watched an episode of Sons of Anarchy. In the episode, a man's young baby, from a ended relationship, is kidnapped. He travels halfway around the world and battles a mob to get his baby back. At the same time, his new girlfriend makes an appointment to abort his baby (of course, she doesn't follow through. Abortion "rights" are always championed on TV but these same women always choose to keep their babies). It's amazing how Liberals can show a man to be heroic for the lengths he'll go to to save a born baby, while a pre-born baby is just something to throw away.
      Comment>

      • #4
        I think as long as the baby is still in your body the baby is a part of your body and if you want to lop it off prematurely you should have the right to do so.
        Comment>

        • #5
          Originally posted by NewDawn View Post
          I think as long as the baby is still in your body the baby is a part of your body and if you want to lop it off prematurely you should have the right to do so.
          If the baby is part of your body, how come men have to pay child support after it comes out of your body? If you cut off your finger, does it suddenly become someone else's finger?

          How come Liberals think that the moment a woman's baby is born that the State has a right to take it away, or at least heavily regulate how it's raised? How is it a woman goes from absolute rights to practically no rights, just by a little change in relative location of her child?

          Abortion is the killing of a human being. It is murder. If you can say it's okay to kill a human being in your body, why doesn't a man have a right to kill a human being in his house? Is a house not private enough? Is privacy a factor on whether something is murder? How about if the house is in a remote location?

          Is abortion okay because babies are dumb and helpless? Should killing handicapped people be less of a crime? "But, Judge Sir, Your Honor, my victim had a low IQ and a bad leg, shouldn't I get a reduced sentence... ahem, and he was in my house?"

          If abortion is no one else's business, why do Liberals want to force other people to pay for abortion, and even to supply abortion?

          I bet allegations of "unjust killing" is something you hold against against believing all the Bible.





          Comment>

          • #6
            Originally posted by Cornelius View Post

            If the baby is part of your body, how come men have to pay child support after it comes out of your body? If you cut off your finger, does it suddenly become someone else's finger?

            How come Liberals think that the moment a woman's baby is born that the State has a right to take it away, or at least heavily regulate how it's raised? How is it a woman goes from absolute rights to practically no rights, just by a little change in relative location of her child?

            Abortion is the killing of a human being. It is murder. If you can say it's okay to kill a human being in your body, why doesn't a man have a right to kill a human being in his house? Is a house not private enough? Is privacy a factor on whether something is murder? How about if the house is in a remote location?

            Is abortion okay because babies are dumb and helpless? Should killing handicapped people be less of a crime? "But, Judge Sir, Your Honor, my victim had a low IQ and a bad leg, shouldn't I get a reduced sentence... ahem, and he was in my house?"

            If abortion is no one else's business, why do Liberals want to force other people to pay for abortion, and even to supply abortion?

            I bet allegations of "unjust killing" is something you hold against against believing all the Bible.




            I think of the unborn baby as sort of a part of your body and a parasite at the same time. So I think the mother should be able to choose whether or not if she wants to keep that baby to term or abort it. As for some of the other stuff you mentioned. Well I don't think its right that other people should have to pay for someone else's abortion. You made the choice to abort not them. I also don't think its right that a man should pay child support unless he wanted that baby to be born. If it was his body he may have made the other choice of having the baby aborted. So why should he have to pay for a baby he didn't want just because she made a different choice then he would have? As for the handicapped people thing. Well it depends really. If they are so bad that they can't move and can only lay in bed doing nothing all day then it maybe more merciful to offer them death as an option. I know if I was paralyzed from the neck down and couldn't do anything without someone else's help and had to get my diaper changed a few times a day I'd want someone to put me down.
            Comment>

            • #7
              Originally posted by NewDawn View Post
              I think of the unborn baby as sort of a part of your body and a parasite at the same time.

              That's a contradiction.

              Originally posted by NewDawn View Post
              Well I don't think its right that other people should have to pay for someone else's abortion.
              Most "pro-choicers" want to force others to pay for abortions, which is now required by ACA (Obamacare) of all insurance companies, even private insurance companies that don't serve the general public. And, right now, the ACLU is suing Catholic hospitals to try to force them to provide abortions. And, of course, men are forced to pay child support for children they never wanted. There's nothing pro-choice about pro-abortion Feminists. To Feminists, abortion is a satanic sacrament, child sacrifice, that they are obsessed with, not simply an option they want to keep legal for women.




              Comment>

              • #8
                Originally posted by NewDawn View Post
                If they are so bad that they can't move and can only lay in bed doing nothing all day then it maybe more merciful to offer them death as an option. I know if I was paralyzed from the neck down and couldn't do anything without someone else's help and had to get my diaper changed a few times a day I'd want someone to put me down.
                Have you ever heard of Joni Eareckson Tada? When she was a teenager she broke her neck diving in shallow water and she has been paralyzed from the neck down since then. In spite of her disability she has found ways to serve God. Here is a link to her website:

                Joni and Friends

                I suggest that you visit the site and read about some of the things she is doing and see if you still think a person who is completely paralyzed would be better off dead.



                Clyde Herrin's Blog
                Comment>

                • #9
                  Originally posted by Cornelius View Post
                  Most "pro-choicers" want to force others to pay for abortions, which is now required by ACA (Obamacare) of all insurance companies, even private insurance companies that don't serve the general public. And, right now, the ACLU is suing Catholic hospitals to try to force them to provide abortions.
                  A lot of abortions are needed due to health reasons. I know personally a handful of people that have had to take the route of abortion, otherwise they pose a significant health risk to themselves, the baby is heavily ill with a low mortality rate at birth, or both. Abortions can sometimes be necessary, and that is when it is perfectly and entirely appropriate for a healthcare system to pay for the procedure. I'm absolutely positive God respects our decisions, and trusts us to make the right choice. Abortion has become a part of our world, and has been practiced in many very unsafe ways for most of history. The are many things that might break God's heart but He loves each and every one of us and He knows exactly what our futures are. Perhaps every abortion is as well planned for as anything else He does, who are we to say? Perhaps there was never a baby to be born, and the abortion is a part of our lives and how we grow? Many people have very viable reasons to abort a child, and I believe that if they make a decision, whatever grounds that decision is based on, God is with them, supports them and loves them. If a baby was meant to be born, that baby would be born.

                  And, of course, men are forced to pay child support for children they never wanted.
                  This is a contradicting statement. Are you saying that women must carry until term and support a child regardless of her wishes, yet a man can opt out whenever he sees fit?

                  There's nothing pro-choice about pro-abortion Feminists. To Feminists, abortion is a satanic sacrament, child sacrifice, that they are obsessed with, not simply an option they want to keep legal for women.
                  I have no idea where you're getting these ideas from. I identify as a feminist-- being a person that believes in equal rights (whether or not you agree with the name 'feminism' does not discredit the movement itself, fyi). There is no 'obsession' with abortion, there is a need to keep women safe, and grant them what they have been repeatedly denied throughout all of history. Being pro-choice doesn't encourage abortions, it just doesn't condemn them. It's right there in the title, 'choice'. 'Child sacrifice'??? What articles have you been reading? What part of the Bible have you misinterpreted? Not only is that ridiculous, but it's extremely insulting to millions of people.
                  Comment>

                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Ealisaid View Post

                    A lot of abortions are needed due to health reasons. I know personally a handful of people that have had to take the route of abortion, otherwise they pose a significant health risk to themselves, the baby is heavily ill with a low mortality rate at birth, or both. Abortions can sometimes be necessary, and that is when it is perfectly and entirely appropriate for a healthcare system to pay for the procedure. I'm absolutely positive God respects our decisions, and trusts us to make the right choice. Abortion has become a part of our world, and has been practiced in many very unsafe ways for most of history. The are many things that might break God's heart but He loves each and every one of us and He knows exactly what our futures are. Perhaps every abortion is as well planned for as anything else He does, who are we to say? Perhaps there was never a baby to be born, and the abortion is a part of our lives and how we grow? Many people have very viable reasons to abort a child, and I believe that if they make a decision, whatever grounds that decision is based on, God is with them, supports them and loves them. If a baby was meant to be born, that baby would be born.



                    This is a contradicting statement. Are you saying that women must carry until term and support a child regardless of her wishes, yet a man can opt out whenever he sees fit?



                    I have no idea where you're getting these ideas from. I identify as a feminist-- being a person that believes in equal rights (whether or not you agree with the name 'feminism' does not discredit the movement itself, fyi). There is no 'obsession' with abortion, there is a need to keep women safe, and grant them what they have been repeatedly denied throughout all of history. Being pro-choice doesn't encourage abortions, it just doesn't condemn them. It's right there in the title, 'choice'. 'Child sacrifice'??? What articles have you been reading? What part of the Bible have you misinterpreted? Not only is that ridiculous, but it's extremely insulting to millions of people.
                    Lets put this into perspective. Less than 3% of abortions are for health reasons involving the mother - the actual stat is 2.8%. And less than 3% are for reasons concerning possible health problems of the baby.

                    All abortion ends in the murder of innocent life. Please share with us Scripture stating that God respects the decisions of abortionist, and trusts them or anyone to make the right choice. Can you honestly provide any Scriptural basis for taking the life of the innocent?

                    Lastly, you stated that you're an advocate for equal rights, that's something that means a lot to you I presume. Do you feel compelled to argue for the father of a child that wants to have an abortion against the wishes of the mother? Do you argue for the right to life for the child, whether a boy or a girl?

                    Originally posted by Ealisaid View Post
                    If a baby was meant to be born, that baby would be born.
                    Sounds like a game of Russian Roulette played with the lives of others. One could argue that mankind was meant to live, but sin entered into the world. Do you think that sin can be the deciding factor when deciding to have an abortion?
                    Comment>

                    • #11
                      Less than 3% of abortions are for health reasons involving the mother - the actual stat is 2.8%. And less than 3% are for reasons concerning possible health problems of the baby.
                      I said 'a lot'. 3% is still a lot in numbers. I did not say most. And there are millions of women with health issues that choose to terminate a pregnancy because of the health risks it may pose, that aren't statistically shown. For example, PCOS (polycystic ovarian syndrome) is an illness which a whole of of women have, and a lot of the time it goes undiagnosed. This not only increases infertility and extremely painful menstruation, but if a woman with PCOS has an unplanned pregnancy and feels comfortable in the fact that her PCOS could impact both her body and the feotus', it's her right to terminate early before any damage is done.

                      All abortion ends in the murder of innocent life. Please share with us Scripture stating that God respects the decisions of abortionist, and trusts us to make the right choice. Can you honestly provide any Scriptural basis for taking the life of the innocent?
                      There is a lot of examples of abortion in the bible.

                      Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. -- Hosea 9:16

                      If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23

                      In particular the last quote -- this shows that abortion is not equated to murder. He shall be punished, but it is not considered murder. There are plenty other Bible passages that support this as well.

                      Lastly, you stated that you're an advocate for equal rights, that's something that means a lot to you I presume. Do you feel compelled to argue for the father of a child that wants to have an abortion against the wishes of the mother? Do you argue for the right to life for the child, whether a boy or a girl?
                      If the father of the child does not want a woman to carry to term, then of course, his wishes should definitely be taken into consideration. However, ultimately, it is the woman's body and life that will be affected the most. This is a good article on this subject Why Men Should Have No Say On The Abortion Issue | Feminism Online

                      The sex of the child is not important in any stretch of the imagination. However, the child is ... well, not a child yet. For a nice chunk of time in the pregnancy, the foetus is still a clump of cells developing through the natural progression of life. The foetus has no ability to give consent in any way, shape or form. This is because the foetus is not alive. Even the bible supports, in several places, that life begins with breath. There are several passages that say.

                      "Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live." (Ezekiel 37:5)
                      "...breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being." (Genesis 2:27)

                      Additionally, this passage makes it clear that no one can determine what is going on inside of the womb except God, so no one should question His will, which may be the act of abortion:

                      "As you do not know how the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything.” (Ecclesiastes 11:5)
                      Comment>

                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Ealisaid View Post
                        Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. -- Hosea 9:16
                        An interesting use of Scripture. God's wrath and punishment is being equated to equal rights for women to perform an abortion.

                        Originally posted by Ealisaid View Post
                        If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23
                        Exodus 21:22-23 say if men strive, and hurt a woman with child. The intent here was not to deliberately cause an abortion or murder the child. And no matter how you cut it, the Scripture condemns one party as guilty even without intent which would not be murder which involves intent.

                        Originally posted by Ealisaid View Post
                        "Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live." (Ezekiel 37:5)
                        "...breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being." (Genesis 2:27)
                        Ezekiel 37:5 and Genesis 2:7. The allusion to the first man Adam that was not born of the womb, God breathed life into him, and from Ezekiel which speaks of Rebirth from the Holy Spirit sent by God Ezekiel 36:25-27.

                        Originally posted by Ealisaid View Post
                        "As you do not know how the spirit comes to the bones in the womb of a woman with child, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything.” (Ecclesiastes 11:5)
                        We do know the way of the Spirit, of the wind, we do not know from which it comes, or whether it goes. Sound familiar? This Scripture is about the mystery of life indeed. Your comment, "this passage makes it clear that no one can determine what is going on inside of the womb except God" equates to a demolition team that does not check or know whether anyone is in a building before blowing it up. If you do not know, should you gamble with the life of the baby?
                        Comment>

                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Ealisaid View Post
                          There is a lot of examples of abortion in the bible.

                          Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. -- Hosea 9:16

                          If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23

                          In particular the last quote -- this shows that abortion is not equated to murder. He shall be punished, but it is not considered murder. There are plenty other Bible passages that support this as well.
                          Neither of these passage has anything to do with abortion.

                          (V. 22) "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child,"" - The context of the verse is hypothetical. In this case there is no intent to harm the woman or child. This would be a case of accidentally hitting a woman. Given the context this is a case of either a premature live birth or a miscarriage but certainly not an abortion.

                          so that her fruit depart from her," - Literally the Hebrew states "her children come out." Here the Hebrew reflects a birth and not the loss of children.

                          "and yet no mischief follow:" - The KJV translates the Hebrew noun אָסוֹן as "mischief." The noun אָסוֹן means "harm." However in this case the incident was accidental and no harm came to either the woman or the child.

                          "he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine." - Since there was no real harm, compensation for injuries are to be made and this is to be determined by the woman’s husband and a judge.

                          (V. 23) "And if any mischief follow," - Now we come to the section which deals with hypothetical situation if harm did come to the woman or the baby. There are two hypothetical situations: (1) if no harm comes, or (2) if there is harm. No harm equals compensation but if there is harm that is a different matter.

                          "then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." - Thus if harm does come to the woman or baby, then the principle of lex talionis apply. Thus it would be a case of life for life if either the mother, child, or both died.
                          Last edited by Origen; 09-04-2016, 07:10 PM.
                          Comment>

                          • #14
                            Hosea 9:16 is part of what is commonly referred to as a "woe oracle" (v. 12). The reason for the cruse is given in v. 10. They came to Baal-peor.

                            Ephraim is stricken their root is dried up; they shall bear no fruit.
                            Even though they give birth, I will put their beloved children to death.


                            Note that the text states "Even though they give birth." It is the same Hebrew verb used in Exodus 21:22-23. Clearly they give birth. Giving birth is not an abortion. The death will would occur only after the birth and this made clear by the future tense.
                            Comment>

                            • #15
                              There are no Scriptures supporting abortion. What pains me was the use of Hosea 9:16. The actions of God are being used to empower women to take the life of unborn babies. God and women are being equated by the use of that text. And the argument further makes my head slam against the keyboard to suggest that God supports abortion, and respects that decision by fallen mankind.

                              Your commentary on Exodus 21:22-23, Origen is spot on. The Lex Talionis states that punishment should be limited and not exceed the crime. If a woman has a premature birth and the baby is fine there still is recompense for the harm inflicted to cause such a thing. If injury is sustained by the child, then retributive justice is called for an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, life for life. The unborn child is with rights.

                              Both of these Scriptures should be handed over to the side of Pro-Life in defense of children.
                              Comment>
                              Working...
                              X
                              Articles - News - SiteMap