War may be between two groups who can protect themselves but what does that have to do with the sanctity of life.  Killing someone in a time of war is either just or unjust.  According to the bible "thou shalt not kill" so why is it acceptable to kill in a time of war?  This is not apples to oranges at all but asking why it's ok for Lula to draw lines when it comes to killing people but I can't draw lines as to when abortion is ok and when it isn't.

You implied all: "The pro-abort people are NOT consistent.  They ok murder in the womb but oppose war and capitol punishment."  But that's neither here or there, the same could be said about some pro-lifers who are very much in favor of war and capital punishment.  If all life is sacred then why is it ever ok to kill even if the other person has committed horrible attrocities?

What am I asking you to accept?  I'm not asking you to accept civil unions as marriage.  I'm not even asking you to accept the people in the civil union merely tolerate that they exist.

I'd agree with you up to the supporting something means you think it's wonderful part. In the case of abortion, being tolerant of it means you support womens right to have one, hence are pro-abortion (in that context). You might think it's a horrible process, yet if you also think women should be allowed to use it, then you are supporting it's use in such situations. It is mostly a binary alternative about whether you think women should have the right to have an abortion or not, and hence the 'tolerant of' camp merges with the pro.

To be honest I'm a bit puzzled why we're having such a massive debate over this though - if you support womens right to have an abortion, then what's the issue with being classed as being pro-abortion? It's simply a way of splitting people up according to whether they support womens right to have an abortion, and whether they are against womens right to have an abortion. It's also far less provocative than saying you're either pro-life or anti-life.

We are not to murder and there is a difference.  The call to individuals to not murder and the call to war  corporately are two completely different things.  One is sanctioned by the bible one is not. 

I've already said and told you it's because of sanctity of life.  When one goes to war it's to protect and defend it's people.  We went to war to stop Hitler from further atrocities against mankind.  It all fits under the sanctity of life. 

There is no ok in scripture anywhere where it's ok to take the life of the unborn.  It's not ours to take.  Oh we may think we have the power...but the end of the story is not written yet.  We will always reap what we sow.  For Christians like Lula and I we feel we are speaking for the unborn.  Those who do not have voices to speak out. 

again...to protect life.   Sometimes to take out an evil force by war or capitol punishment is necessary to protect the innocent. 

it's a slippery slope we're on now.  Schools are changing their textbooks.  The media and tv shows are showing acceptance of this lifestyle even though for thousands of years it was deemed dispicable, madness or an abomination.  So we are being force fed to believe this is ok.  OUr children are now being taught in schools it's intolerant not to believe its ok.  We're homophobic if we fight against such militancy. 

Did you not know that two states are in the process of outlawing beastiality?  Why is that?  Never had to do this before.  Why now?  Because we are now in a moral freefall.   We are losing our way and people are now going to the next thing on the menu.  Sex with animals.  Who's going to tell them it's not ok?  That's why you're going to see states start scrambling to put this new law on the lawbooks like sodomy used to be.  My how times have changed....and not for the better when it comes to this. 

Read this and tell me this isn't sick:  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,510015,00.html

And the Netherlands which is far more progressive than we are are also deep into this problem.  The Dutch Parliment has come out to outlaw this as well saying the Netherlands seems to be a magnet for such atrocities.  Hmmmm....I wonder why? 

They are ahead of us and can give us a glimpse of where we're going. 

I'm saying that I would never want one/have one, et al. However, the issue of OTHERS having an abortion, is none of my concern; it is not my body, and it is not my life, period.

Essentially:

Right there sums it up for me; I am tolerant of other individuals choice to have an abortion, but that does not mean that I am supportive of abortions.

~Alderic

What about wars where you are the agressor?  There is always an agressor and a defender in war so why is it ok for the agressor to go to war or are you trying to tell me that no christian has ever started a war?  At some point someone had to make the call that it was ok to take a life in this instance so what makes it any different?  Just because the other side might be able to defend themselves?  What about when the King of Englad tried to over take Scotland?  Sure the Scots were able to defend themselves a bit but they certainly weren't a real match for the entire English army and England was most certainly Christian.

But the bible says "Thou shalt not kill".  That seems pretty straight forward.  The commandment doesn't say "thou shalt not kill, unless ....."

No you're being asked to tolerate it not accept it.

I forget what states but there have been a couple where it's been outlawed for some time now.  And in some other states it falls under animal cruelty.

I can't think of any Christian who started a war.  Can you name one?  If you're talking about the RCC and the crusades I would agree with you.  I wouldn't necessarily say that had anything to do with Christianity other than they used it as a banner.  I'm not a big fan of the RCC in case you didn't know. 

Let's use Israel and the Palestinians in the latest war.  Gaza started the war and went after Israel unprovoked.  Israel protected herself and her people.  That was considered just for Israel to fight back in defense.  In this case who was the aggressor?   It may look like Israel because they are more powerful and won by doing alot of damage.  There has to be, in God's mind, a just reason for war.  As individuals he told us "as much as possible with you be peaceful with all men."  There are times that can't be done but we are to try our best and that goes well in a corporate sort of way as well. 

You're speaking about the 10 commandments which was given to individuals.  God also authorized war at times (for sanctity of life) and later in the NT made sure we understood he gives permission for this in our modern culture as well.  Murder usually has to do with vengeance or malice and that is never accepted.  Killing as in war is acceptable as long as it's a just war. 

no we are being pressed to accept this.  To not accept is to be labeled homophobic and mean spirited when that's not it at all.  I had a gay uncle.  I loved him but did not think his sexual behavior was acceptable. Back then it really wasn't but it was tolerated.   I was able to separate the two.  He never pressed us to accept his lifestyle either.  That's the old school.  Today it's much different.  There are lawsuits all over the place to show this to be true...like the photographer who declined taking the job of doing a gay wedding.  The judge fined the photographer something like $5K for discrimination.

Believe me we are being forced and that's the way our law is being regulated.  To bow out means discrimination. 

But they were still people who claimed to be Christians starting wars even though their own religious text told them not to kill.

Many English kings during the dark ages were Christians and they started many wars.

Where is the vengence or malice in abortion?  Often times it is a very difficult decision for the woman, one that is not made lightly, there is certainly no vengeful or malicious feeling toward the developing fetus.

And who determines that it's a just war? 

I hadn't heard about that.  That's absurd the guy should have the right to refuse whatever jobs he wants for whatever reasons he wants.

rephrase that.....many English Kings "said" they were Christians.  There's a diff between having a real faith and having a "said" faith.  I'm hoping to blog soon on what it means to really "know" God.  Stay tuned. 

A Christian is known by his actions.  A genuine Christian is a Christ follower.  If a King was motivated by his own greed, lust and power I'd have to question his belief in God on the evidence he presented.  Only God knows for sure but we do know a tree by what kind of fruit it bears. 

it's not about motive.  We have all sorts of motives for what we do.   I remember reading about a guy who killed his brother over the way he opened up a potato chip bag.  In his mind, he had a just motive. 

well I wasn't necessarily talking abortion when I said that but malice is involved here.  Malice is "ill will; wish to harm another."  In this case a baby is being punished for what the mother did.  It's not the baby's fault she's pregnant.  Killing her own baby is a malicious thing to do to her own unborn. 

there is criteria involved.  This was brought up when we invaded Iraq.  I think all the experts said this was a just war. 

exactly and I wrote about this when it happened.  It's in my archives but I'm too lazy to look it up...:)  This is going on all over the place. 

TALTIMER POSTS #204

You know what..this whole way of talking is maddening!  It's nothing else but a humanistic rationalization for promoting the abortive mentality. It's disdain of innocent human life in the womb is terrifying....as if, any one can make a "call" of when the baby in the womb gets his/her human rights!!! There is nothing arbitrary about the unborn baby's right to be born (right to life). Beside the right to his/her life itself, the unborn child has rights to inheritance, to damage suits from injuries suffered in the womb, to medical attention in utero, etc.

May I remind you that we are discussing the dignity of HUMAN life, not that of dogs or cats, or some other animal. While it's easy to make this kind of judgment on a dog or cat's life, who of us can judge the worth of an individual in the womb? Who of us can assume the responsibility of determining who shall be born and who shall die...that prerogative belongs to Almighty God alone.

Again, with the exception of legitimate defense, nothing ever authorizes a man to dispose of the life of another. It's a law written in every one's heart... that inner voice of conscience tells them that it's immoral to kill an innocent, defenseless, child trapped in the womb.  

Yet, the Supreme Court rulings assault this fundamental principle of justice that innocent human life can never be attacked directly. The justices who made these decisions assault the blatant core truth of the Declaration of Independence upon which the founding documents were written...that the inalienable right to life is the first right granted by our Creator.

Taltimer posts #204

KFC,

What do you mean "exactly"? Care must be taken to establish what is true and what is false. Taltimer's statement (which may have been just a slip) was nonetheless incorrect....Galilieo's work had nothing to do with the earth being round. It concerned the newly developing heliocentric theory. Both the scientists of the day and the Catholic theologians were rightly convinced that Galileo had not adduced a single scientific proof of his novel idea.  

And why be so intent of feeding the myth that you callously misrepresent the Catholic Church theologians as being ignorant of the Holy Bible?  They knew Sacred Scripture and they knew it well.  They were the ones who taught Scripture to Christopher Columbus and his sons when he was off sailing around the ocean blue.

The theologians were greatly concerned with the following problem. Galileo billigerently insisted the sun is immobile and the center of the universe which seemed to contradict Joshue 10:13. He presented himself as a rebel theologian applying the method of private interprtetation that Luther had fabricated some 50 years earlier and proposed the Chruch modify the traditional interpretation of various texts that mentioned the movements of the sun and earth. They defended a truth of Divine revelation by holding that as a general law, Scriptural texts are to be interpretated in their literal sense.  Psalms 93, 96 and 104 are cited as proofs that geocentrism is asserted in Scripture would require acceptance in the literal sense, but the same passages are open to understanding in the figurative sense.

A similiar phenomenon as in Joshue 10:13 occurred at Fatima on Oct. 13, 1917 when the sun was seen by 70,000 people to spin like a wheel on fire and the rays came rushing like a pinwheel toward the earth. There are news accounts and photographs of this occurring. Many Eyewitnesses experienced miracles of healing and conversion as in bringing mankind back to a fear of God.

lula, human rights are not an innate thing. It is a choice of society, societies with sensible human rights prosper, societies with bad ones collapse.

Allowing murder and assult, extreme disregard for human life, causes social collapse. That is why the whole dignity of human life, it is actually a point that all humans should have equal right to life and freedom, not only the aristocracy.

Allowing abortion and execution, slight disregard for human life in very specifical circumstances, improves a societies stability.

The pro abortion group pretends that the fetus is not a human, either due to ignorance or because it is easier to argue. When in truth it is simply a case where human life is NOT sacred and should not be protected. The last thing we need is more lower class teens dropping out of high school and into welfare to raise their accidental babies.

Or worse, having them perform an illegal abortion, and then putting them in prison (and out of the workforce) at taxpayer expense.

I think it's important to recognize first that human life is not a legal or social construct. Human life is a sacred and precious gift from God. The "right" to life is good and just. We, societies, have responsibilities and duties to write just laws. In our laws, we can either love, respect and treat people, including the unborn, with inherent dignity or without, as though they are raw materials with no inherent value or dignity at all.

This is what abortion is...murder and assault against the innocent, defenseless human life in the womb.

Abortion on demand is "legal" in the US becasue those who advocate it have convinced judges, etc. that abortion is a "right" to privacy. This only shows that the abortion advocates are masters at manipulating "rights" terminology in their favor...abortion rights, abortion services, abortion provider....when in fact, abortion is never a right or a service...and one doesn't provide an abortion, one commits an abortion for abortion is an act of killing...just as one commits a crime.

If you believe this you are living in a materialist dream world outside of reality. With over 50 million babies killed since 1973, the holocaust of abortion is a crime against humanity in addition to being a crime of homicide (infanticide). How can a society be stable when it "legalizes" the killing of its own progeny? The blood of thousands of innocent children flows daily throughout our land and cries to God for vengeance.

That doesn't change the fact that many wars were carried out in the name of Christ.

You said Murder was about vengence or malice which implies that the motive must be considered to declare something as murder.

Just because a woman elects to have an abortion doesn't mean she has "ill will" or "wishes to harm another".  If you elect to take someone off life support which will most likely result in their death does that mean you have "ill will" or "wish to harm" them?  Of course not, it is much the same with abortion, the fetus is on life support but you are elected to take them off of it.  Maybe it's because the woman is on some heavy medications that are deadly to the developing fetus and can't be taken off of them so it is in the best interest of all involved to terminate, there's no "ill will" here.

Who determines the criteria and what is said criteria?  There were many "experts" who were in favor of the war and many who were against it.  It depends on what you use as justification for it.  If you use 9/11 as the justification then it was an unjust war, if you use WMDs it's a toss up, if you use spreading democracy it's a toss up.  But this is a topic for another thread.

And it's sad that it's going on.  I certainly don't agree with crap like this.  I'm all about tolerance, and I think civil unions are a big piece of that tolerance, but stuff like this is taking tolerance way too far.

All of those "rights" are predicated on the woman choosing to carry the child to term.  It only gets inheritance rights because the woman chose to carry it to term in the first place, the family can only sue if the woman had intended on carrying the child to term anyway, etc.  It's all predicated on the woman's choices and none of those rights are given until that child is actually born.  The only time the fetus is considered to have rights is when the woman and fetus are murdered like the case of a robbery gone bad the robber would be charged with multiple counts of murder because if it wasn't for the robber the woman would have carried it to term.  I have a feeling that if the defense could prove that the woman was on her way to get an abortion the other murder charge would be dropped.

Why is it any different for dogs, cats, etc?  Why are their lives worth less in your eyes?

But I don't believe in god so that argument doesn't work on me.

Obviously it's not written in my heart.  I have no moral problem with abortion.  You might have a problem with it which means that you should never get an abortion but why should your morals be imposed on me?

Because we already legalize killing.  Capital punishment, self defense, war to name a few.

The mother procuring the abortion kills the baby in the womb and so there is indeed ill will against the baby and there is no getting around it.

And good will is just the reverse....we see a mother's good will toward her child in the womb when she tries her best to take good care of herself by not smoking, taking drugs, interacting with the unborn through talking and music, etc.

If a woman meant no ill will towards her unborn baby, and, if for some reason being pregnant was life threatening, then she would elect to have a procedure like cesearean section  and try in every way to save the life of the baby.

El-Duderino posts: #188

I think it was Bill Clinton whose mantra was "keep abortion safe, legal and rare". What a crock!

Legal?

Problem is, even though the proponents of abortion and the media tell us the the Supreme Court legalized abortion in 1973 with Roe v. Wade and that it is now "the law of the land", abortion is not legal.  Article VI of our founding document declares that "this Constitution, and the laws of the US...made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties...made under the authority of the US shall be the supreme law of the land." What's missing from this list of supreme laws is a court opinion. Court decisions can never be law. We see from the COnstitutional text that a statute enacted by COngress is the supreme law of the land only if made "pursuant to"  (meaning in conformity with) the Constitution. If a statute passed by the people's representatives is not law unless it conforms to the Constitution, how can a court decision be given a higher status? It can't.

Safe?

There is no such thing as a safe abortion..there are always dangers inherent in an abortion. Even under the best conditions, the procedure is a gory, bloody mess that always results in the death of the child and always carries risks during and after the procedure for the mother.    

There are short and long range complications as well as effects on subsequent pregnancies and bodily functions. Some immediate or short range complications are hemorrhaging, pelvic infection, perforated uterus, cervical damage, steritlity and even death. Saddest of all is the increase of miscarriages and death of babies of subsequent pregnancies.

Medical experts are finding a linkage between abortion and breast cancer,

Rare?

One year before Roe V. Wade, in 1972, there were 750, 000 legal abortions......By 1979, abortions totalled 1, 500, 000 per year. By 1990, the number reached 1,600,000 per year with 10% of major abortuaries not reporting. By 1988, repeat abortions were 44% and rising 1% per year.  From 1990 through today, the number of pregnancies ended by abortion per year is approx. 1,300,000.  

According to Finer and Henshaw 2003, "Abortion is the most common surgical procedures in the US."  

But what if it was too early to take the baby out of the womb?  What if nothing can be done to save the fetus?  That's still abortion.  What if the woman is on some rather heavy prescription medications to treat chronic illnesses and these medications are fatal to a developing fetus it is just unclear when the body will naturally terminate the pregnancy?  Is it ok to have an abortion then?  There certainly wouldn't be any ill will in that situation no matter what you say.

The decision was based on the constitution and an interpretation of what it said therefore it wasn't a new law it was merely a new interpretation of already existing laws.

True, but an abortion performed in adequately supplied medical facility and by a trained doctor is much safer than using a coat hanger or attempting to induce a miscarriage.

Most of these are extremely rare and there are similar risks with just about any surgical procedure.  As long as the woman is well informed of these it is her choice to accept the potential risks just like anyone who undergoes surgery.

The key to rare is to increase education about the proper use of birth control methods, including abstinence.  If birth control is used properly then the need for abortions drops significantly.  I am very much against abortion being used as the only form of birth control used.  It is my opinion that if a man and woman choose to have sex without any other form of birth control and get pregnant that she should carry that to term unless her health is at risk. 

I know from your personal testimony that this is a very weighty subject on your heart and want to assure you that I do not want to impugn your sincerity or judge you in any way.

"What if" terms are introducted to change the terms of the reality...what is bad, abortion, becomes good...by making it a "curative treatment". Ever since 1973, medicine has become a manipulative tool with practioners involved in both healing and killing. The Hippocratic oath formed the foundation for civilized medicine for 1500 years, but is now no longer  required of medical students.

It's bad...in this case, the role of medicine is so bad that who would have ever thought that abortion would be used to end the lives of healthy unborn babies simply becasue they weren't the preferred sex or becasue the baby was genetically defective?

For some abortion, no matter what, is never an option. I've read stories of pregnant mothers whose health and lives were in danger and let nature take its course. We could call them heroic choosing to put their baby's life and needs above their own.

No they aren't.  "What if" questions are asked to get a full scope view of where people stand on an issue.  I am merely asking if you would be ok with an abortion of a fetus that was destined to die in the womb anyway because of the medications that the woman is taking.  That isn't changing the terms of reality, it is asking you to consider the reality of your stance on abortion.  This situation does exist, my wife is an example but she is certainly not the only one.  She has schizophrenia and is bi-polar to boot (among other conditions).  The medications used to treat these mental conditions are deemed fatal to developing fetuses.  And according to the doctors we have talked to by the time you know you're pregnant it is too late to stop the medications to avoid damaging the fetus in most cases.  I have had a vasectomy so that we are never faced with the decision to have another abortion but that doesn't change the fact that other woman may need to make that choice.  If the fetus is doomed in-utero anyway what is the problem with aborting it before it becomes a major weight on the woman's health?

And that was the woman's choice and I would certainly respect and support her decision even if I didn't necessarily agree with it because it was her choice to make, not mine.

Yes.  Morals are extremely subjective to attempt to make laws based on something subjective is difficult at best and impossible at worst.  If I or others claim that it is immoral for churches to be tax exempt because churches have opinions that I and others don't agree with (ex gay marriage) would that be right?  Of course not.  Especially on topics that are split as much as this issue is.

Wrong because this isn't so much about morality as it is maintaining order in a society.

Wrong.  I don't think a buddhist needs to 10 commandments to know that murder is conducive to an ordered society.  Those laws are NOT based from religion.  If we based laws on the 10 commandments then why isn't illegal to take your lords name in vain?  Why isn't adultery illegal?

While some abolitionists may have been inspired by judeo christian ethics that doesn't mean we would bring back slavery.  Our constitution says that all men are equal, slavery treated people as not being equal so we were violating our own constitution.

That's not entirely true.  While you might claim it to be a scientific fact that life begins at conception that doesn't mean that the entire abortion debate hinges on that determination.  It's about how much control do you give the woman over what is going on in her body.

An example of morality right there. While preventing murder+theft are necessary to maintain an ordered society, you don't have to have a society in which everyone is equal. People are generally accepted as equal and afforded roughly equal rights in many societies because it is deemed right (/moral) to do so.

Exactly.  Andrew Jackson, our 7th President said this:

"That book [Bible], sir, is the rock on which our republic rests."

Now why would he say that if our laws were not patterned after the 10 commandments found in "that book"? 

Anyone who has done any research knows that America "was" a Christian nation founded on Christian principles no matter how hard the secularists of our day deny this and try to convince us otherwise. 

Well El-D I can see you don't like doing research as much as you claim....adultery was against the law in every state for quite a long time.  In fact from what I understand it's still on the books in some states, although not enforced anymore.  It was for a time a legal basis for divorce.  I remember lots of talk about adultery when I was a kid, how important it was to prove one spouse committed adultery in a court of law.  Nowadays, who cares? 

So now do you believe me that our laws were based from the 10 commandments? 

When you research history and read about our laws when our republic was first born it's easy to see that our laws and moral behavior was once based on the scriptures and especially the commandments.  Even the Sabbath was built into the laws.  When I was a child almost everything was closed on Sunday. 

But see now, little by little, politicians, law breakers and immoral people have done a very good job in getting rid of these constant reminders so they've denied there ever was a Christian foundation for our laws which is hard to do really because all the monuments in Washington are covered in scripture. 

You know why?  Because immorality is big business.  Follow the money trail.

But the rest of us are left holding the stone tablets that have been thrown to the ground. 

Patrick Henry in 1775 said this:

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, people of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity and freedom of worship here."

Sad to say even an atheist like Alexis can't say this anymore:

Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great." Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859)

So even an atheist from enlightened France could see there was something divine going on in America that made her a great nation. 

We are on our way to ceasing to be great.  What a shame. 

Lula posts:

Hmmm....you say that Roe v. Wade was based on the US Constitituion? That Roe v. Wade is a new interpretation of already existing laws? Which existing laws?

I disagree...Roe v. Wade is not Constitutional law...rather it's a decsion made by a majority of Supreme Court justices who haven't the Constitutional authority to make laws, new, old, or out of so-called "already existing laws". We don't get our laws by interpreting them into existance...we democratically legislate law into existance....and only the US and State Congress has that authority.

And then again, in order for a state law to be constitutional, it must conform or be in harmony with the US Constition.

"Roe v. Wade is a "very bad decision....becasue it is not constituional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."  John Ely, Yale Law School professor....

"As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible...[It is] one of the most intellectually suspect constitional decisions of the modern era."   Edward Lazarus, former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmum who authored Roe.

"One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found."   Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School Professor

Not so.  For a truly ordered society everyone needs to be treated equally.  Look what is happening with AIG right now as an example of this.  People are in an uproar because they see AIG execs as being treated differently that they are.  It's not about morality it's about keeping order.

No it wasn't.  Yes some of our founding fathers were Christians, and they probably used their religion as a measuring stick but that doesn't mean that we ever were a Christian nation.  If we were a Christian nation why bother allowing freedom of religion?  Why not just make it the national religion from the get go?  Because some of our founders weren't Christian and some of those who were thought of religion as a private matter and not one for government.  In fact part of the reason that they created our founding documents the way they did was to avoid the tyranny that comes along with a theocracy.

It was at the state level, we weren't talking about the state level but the federal level which to my knowledge never outlawed adultery, but I could be wrong on that because I haven't researched it (happy, should I qualify every statement I make with whether I've researched it throughly or not).

As far as I'm aware it's still a legal basis for divorce.  But this isn't because it's immoral but because it's against the contract that you enter into when getting married.

That doesn't change the fact that it was wrong to do so.  We are supposed to have freedom from religion in this country and if someone wants to be open on Sunday they should be allowed to, which is why most of the blue laws have been overturned.  Even in WV the blue laws have been overturned but there are still some busninesses that choose to close on Sunday, but that is their choice and their right.

I agree with you here, just for different reasons.

The whole right to privacy.  I'm not saying whether they were right or wrong but they chose to interpret that right to privacy to include abortion.  It's not new law but new interpretation of old law.

Now if you want to get into the validity of that interpretation that's another matter and I would probably be led to (take a deep breath) agree with you.  And if that's the case it should be challenged and let the Supreme Court over turn it.  Or have the US congress pass a law to ban abortion or make it legal.  Then that new law could be challeneged on it's constitutional grounds.

exactly you just answered your own question. They didn't want the tyranny they had experienced when they came out of  England.  They wanted people to have freedom of religion...not from religion but Christianity was the background of all the documents and the signers were mostly Christian.....not all but even those who weren't supported the scriptures.  Consider what James Madison (4th President)  said.....remember he wrote the U.S. Constitution:

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments."

now look at things all messed up today.....religion is out, morality has taken a beaten, God has been thrown out of our public places and guess who moved in to take over?  The government.  You think that's better?  We're in trouble and we are going down.  It's going to get very nasty because I can see no turning back.  We are already reaping what we've been sowing.  Just watch tonight's news. 

but still what diff does it make to our debate?  The states had more control back then and they I believe unanimously agreed that adultery was against the law because it violated the moral code at the time and the moral code was drawn from the scriptures which was much more important back then. 

no, it's not the same.  Adultery today isn't even really a factor anymore like it used to be.  The reason?  Just about everyone is cheating on everyone so it's a case of if everyone's doing it what can we do? 

no this is where you've bought into the new revisionism.....we were to have freedom of religion....not from.  Big diff.

el-duderino posts: 248

Ya, the right to privacy...which the National Organization of Women (NOW) gals quickly sloganized a so-called "right to choose". But again there is no right to privacy to commit abortion. It doesn't even make sense. There's nothing private about committing abortion. Other people are involved, the father, the unborn baby, the abortionist and nurses.

As to the validity of that interpretation, when you think it through...there is none.

The right to privacy is an important human right.   At the same time government has always understood that an individual's rights don't include taking another person's life.  It's disorderd... placing a mother's right to a private life over society's responsibility to protect the weakest members and government's constitutional responsibility to promote the general welfare.

What's at stake here is the principle of the moral and natural law and the very dignity of human life which can't be trifled with.

Roe v. Wade was a grevioulsy wrong decision and even Justice Ruth Ginsburg said of Roe, "We ventured too far in the change it ordered andpresented an incomplete justification for its action."