jwrevagent

Sometimes it is important to feel shame. Sometimes there are things to be ashamed of, mostly deeds or lack of responses. That is not to say the shame should be continually reinforced-all things can be forgiven, and God forgives the most heinous of sin when true repentance is there-so when a daughter was pregnant and unmarried, shame was not shameful-it showed a conscience, an acknowledgement of the difference between right and wrong. Perhaps the first instances of abortion were with full knowledge and disclosure to parents of choices available-informed decisions are almost always preferable to not fully informed. However, it still means a human life is taken, regardless of circumstance or condition. And that is what is unacceptable about abortion. If you can terminate a pregnancy without killing a human baby, by all means do so. It is similar to Portia's insistence in "The Merchant of Venice" -you may take your pound of flesh, but there can be no bloodshed. Not possible, of course, so the pound of flesh stayed right where it was, on the merchant's body.
Soon enough, going down this slippery slope, parents are no longer required to be told if their minor daughter is pregnant and having an abortion-though you must get parental consent to go on a field trip-and abortion is being used as birth control, no matter what Planned Parenthood or any abortion provider tells us. How would they know for sure? And so it goes, and we go deeper and deeper into the pit of total depravity. Kill a human, receive about 10 years at most, be cruel to an animal, you get the same or more. Is it any wonder mass shootings occur regularly? We kill unborn children by the thousands, with not even a "too bad" and get all emotional about a few adults or at least living breathing people being killed. Please note: I am for no killing, at all....just pointing out the hypocrisy of the situation as it now stands.

Peewee Loc: San Antonio, TX

I understand completely. We think pretty much the same. The left's saying it would be rare didn't last long they monetized and ramped it up as quick as possible. They know the law says to report certain cases to law enforcement and they don't do that either. The left is basically lawless. Yet pretend to be morally superior.

zombinis3 Loc: Southwest

Roe vs Wade is on the books. Until it is removed people are going to try and change it. Still the law itself doesn't make it right. Unfortunately if there is nothing controlling it will be done the cheapest and quickest way , which isn't good for anyone. One misguided attempt at stopping Roe v Wade was stopping all infomation about the services available , one problem is you can't expect a person in trouble to know all the avenues available. If the information is not available in an acceptable and knowledgeable manner the kids will have to go to an unapproved source which will do more damage. It has to be realized that the human is socially inclined and is going to experiment. Knowledge will make that experimental moment good or bad. You are right people need to feel shame but it should not cause more hurt.To often while I was in high school a girl would disappear at which time the rumours would start that she was pregnant and the parents were upset because it hurt their standing in the community.That is the wrong result of shame.

Peewee Loc: San Antonio, TX

Roe v Wade is bad law. SCOTUS has one job, to ensure all laws comply with the Constitution. The SCOTUS created law with same-sex marriage and Roe v Wade. Both should be abolished, they opened a can of worms and division among the public which can never be healed unless one ceases to exist. Without those two laws, millions of people would still be alive, children wouldn't be undergoing one-way sex changes, trannies wouldn't be reading to innocent children, and sports would still be women competing with women and men against men. It was just perversion on a massive scale.

zombinis3 Loc: Southwest

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/

Right or wrong the SCOTUS did interpete Roe v Wade according to the Constitution ;

Primary Holding

A person may choose to have an abortion until a fetus becomes viable, based on the right to privacy contained in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Viability means the ability to live outside the womb, which usually happens between 24 and 28 weeks after conception.

Below is summary of why it was brought up;

Facts

The law in Texas permitted abortion only in cases involving rape or incest. When Dallas resident Norma McCorvey found out that she was pregnant with her third child, she tried to falsely claim that she had been raped and then to obtain an illegal abortion. Both of these efforts failed, and she sought the assistance of Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington, who filed a claim using the alias Jane Roe for McCorvey. (The other named party, Henry Wade, was the District Attorney for Dallas County.)

McCorvey gave birth to her child before the case was decided, but the district court ruled in her favor based on a concurrence in the 1965 Supreme Court decision of Griswold v. Connecticut, written by Justice Arthur Goldberg. This concurrence had found that there was a right to privacy based on the Ninth Amendment of the Constitution. However, the district court refrained from issuing an injunction to prevent the state from enforcing the law, leaving the matter unresolved.

Now as with defining/interpetation the Constitution they both can change in accordance to the members of the government. I still maintain that the law doesn't make it right. As per procedure the SCOTUS decision is law and can only be removed/changed via a new interpretation or an admendment to the present laws. Which has been attempted, in some cases the rights of the mother or persons involved have been changed or removed.

Peewee Loc: San Antonio, TX

Not according to what I read years ago. Correct me if I'm wrong. One of the two or maybe both Coffee and Weddington worked for the ACLU and sought out McCorvey and mislead her. Basically they used her to present their case to promote abortion. The right to privacy based on the Ninth Amendment seems flimsy and invented to me. Sort of like trying to put a square peg in a round hole. and Marshall saying if the fetus attains personhood it would attain personhood with all the attached rights. When clearly every fetus/baby that is allowed to be born turns out to be a human, not something else. The right to abortion seems to have been agreed upon beforehand and all the players knew their parts. But the SCOTUS let it slide through which is an outrage to me. Maybe if they ruled against Marshall they were afraid of being called racists. Anyway, it was done and millions have died. I just hope and pray it gets overturned someday soon.

If you recall the story of Baalam who was hired to curse Israel in Numbers 22. He couldn't do that, but he wanted the money, so he came up with the plan to allow the women of Moab to entice the men of Israel into sin and that would cause God to curse Israel. I think that is the same thing abortion was meant to do to America. In the book of Jasher 69-79, Baalam was the father of Jannes and Jambres who contended with Moses in the court of Pharaoh.

Ephesians 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

I think that is what abortion is all about. A scheme to cause God to curse America. It seems to be working.

bahmer

Amen and Amen

jwrevagent

Is not the first right listed in the Preamble to the Constitution the right to LIFE? You need life to exercise any other right, correct? Free speech does the dead no benefit, nor does freedom of religion or assembly or vote or anything else. As to a definition of life-viability should not be a consideration. If viability were the standard, then I could legally kill any toddler or baby, or even a pre teen-they cannot survive fully on their own without breaking a number of laws. Right to life is paramount!

Peewee Loc: San Antonio, TX

We agree. I've been fighting abortion since it became law.

zombinis3 Loc: Southwest

The toddler, the baby or preteen statement. I don't understand your reasoning because their viability has already been proven because they have passed through the birth channel. They are in existance and are already considered to have rights. Roe v Wade is the law that concerns the possible being before passing through the birth channel. The question is when does the egg become a person? At which time does the the right to life apply? Even when the baby has had a hard trip though the channel and may have to be helped with additional equipment they are considered alive possibly can at some point survive on their own.

zombinis3 Loc: Southwest

The chapter and verse given would be a good rule to follow if this country was a theocracy , the country was formed by religious people yes but the fact that they put the phrase freedom of religion sort of set this country on the road we are on. Below is the ten chapters which can be used to argue with the word;
As property
Exodus 21:22-25).
Purity test for adultery
Numbers 5:11-31
For disobedience
Deuteronomy 28:18,53).
Elisha's prophecy
(2 Kings 8:12).
destroyed Tiphsah (also called Tappuah)
2 Kings 15:16).
Babylon
(Isaiah 13:18)
Idol worship
Jeremiah 44:7-8).
punish the Israelites
(Hosea 9:10-16).
rebelling against God,
(Hosea 13:16).
anticipated end times:
Matthew 24:19).
The rest I will have to look into and see where it fits.

Peewee Loc: San Antonio, TX

I've also thought the same about that freedom of religion loophole. Guess it's just another way of separating the wheat from the chaff. I think it was a poison pill that would take generations to kill the country but would eventually. Now we allow Satanist and witches to mock God. Paganism is returning along with child sacrifice. Which is what abortion is. Pitiful.

jwrevagent

My point was that a baby is not actually able to live on its own, nor is a toddler, nor actually is a teen. They breathe, yes, but babies and toddlers cannot provide for themselves. I was using a broader definition of "viability" than normal-but if the baby is not a human baby at conception, then what is it? Elephant babies are elephants in the womb-no one expects a goat, for instance, out of an elephant, and I could go on. If this fertilized egg, which has all the DNA markers for all of its characteristics is not human, than what is it? And if it is not human, when does it become human? Roe v Wade answered none of those questions that I can see, yet approved the removal of a growing human from a mother's uterus for whatever reasons they gave. So again, we know it is alive, because it is growing-presumably it is human, thus it has the right to life-otherwise why are some people who kill pregnant women charged with two murders-there was one in Milwaukee a few years ago, and he was charged and found guilty of the murder of two human beings. So, which is it? That is my question.

Peewee Loc: San Antonio, TX

It's a human since they have always turned out to be human 100% of the time.

bahmer

Amen and Amen