Abortion, the Declaration of Independence, the Bible, and the First Amendment

Abortion stops a beating heart, and is a decision by one human being to end the life of another human being. Both end up being victims – the first wounded, the second killed.

Our government was instituted to secure our God-given (“endowed by [our] Creator”) unalienable Rights, including Life:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Again, our government was instituted to secure our God-given (“endowed by [our] Creator”) unalienable Rights, including Life. That is why murder is illegal. And it is why abortion should be illegal. No woman should be forced to raise a child that she doesn’t want to raise (she is free to put the child up for adoption), but no woman should be allowed (or pressured) to kill a child.

This isn’t about the mother’s body, it’s about the child’s body. Every cell in the mother’s body has her unique DNA. Every cell in the developing baby’s body has its own unique DNA. That baby is a temporary resident of the mother’s body, not a part of it, and the mother has no right to terminate that baby’s life as if it is just another part of her body. This isn’t like removing a kidney. It’s ending another human being’s life, violating one of their Creator-endowed unalienable Rights.

God formed you in your mother’s womb:

For You formed my inward parts;
You covered me in my mother’s womb.

Psalm 139:13

Thus says the LORD who made you
And formed you from the womb, who will help you:

‘ Fear not, O Jacob My servant;
And you, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen.

Isaiah 44:2

Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer,
And He who formed you from the womb:

“ I am the LORD, who makes all things,
Who stretches out the heavens all alone,
Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself;

Isaiah 44:24

“ And now the LORD says,
Who formed Me from the womb to be His Servant,
To bring Jacob back to Him,
So that Israel is gathered to Him
(For I shall be glorious in the eyes of the LORD,
And My God shall be My strength),

Isaiah 49:5

“ Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you were born I sanctified you;
I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”

Jeremiah 1:5

What am I doing quoting the Bible and discussing our government in same post? Don’t I believe in the “Separation of Church and State”?

No. The words “Separation”, “Church”, and “State” are not found anywhere in the 1st Amendment. The first Amendment was not written to keep the Bible and Christianity out of our government. The Liberty Bell has a portion of a bible verse (“Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof Lev. XXV:X“) on it. There is a chapel in our Capitol Building with a stained glass window with a bible verse (the source of our nation’s motto: “In God We Trust”) on it.  There are multiple examples of references to God, Moses, Crosses and the Bible in Our Capitol Building.

Coming back to the issue of abortion, someone asked a Yahoo question about abortion and the first amendment, and I am impressed with the winning answer. 

Question: South Dakota passed abortion bill banning it…

So where does the separation between religion and government begin and end. At the polls? I thought separation of church and state was necessary in a free democracy. What happend to the right of privacy in the Bill of Rights that our country was founded upon?

and the Best Answer – Chosen by Voters:

You have a twisted view of the First Amendment – as do most Americans today. Until the mid-1900s, this amendment was understood to be exactly what it said:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, or PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF …” (caps added)

The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion. This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church. Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson’s letter from which the phrase “separation of church and state” was taken affirmed first amendment rights. Jefferson wrote:

“I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

The reason Jefferson choose the expression “separation of church and state” was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church. He was establishing common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the Baptist’s own prominent preachers. Williams had said:

“When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that there fore if He will eer please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world…”

The “wall” was understood as one-directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values.

Our Constitution was founded on Biblical principles and it was the intention of the authors for this to be a Christian nation. The Constitution had 55 people work upon it, of which 52 were evangelical Christians. We can go back in history and look at what the founding fathers wrote to know where they were getting their ideas.

This is exactly what two professors did. Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman reviewed an estimated 15,000 items with explicit political content printed between 1760 and 1805 and from these items they identified 3,154 references to other sources. The source they most often quoted was the Bible.

The founding fathers took ideas from the Bible and incorporated them into our government. If it was their intention to separate the state and church they would never have taken principles from the Bible and put them into our government.

An example of an idea taken from the Bible and then incorporated into our government is found in Isaiah 33:22 which says, “For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king…” The founding fathers took this scripture and made three major branches in our government: judicial, legislative, and executive. As mentioned earlier, the founding fathers strongly believed that Man was by nature corrupt and therefore it was necessary to separate the powers of the government.

For instance, the President has the power to execute laws but not make them, and Congress has the power to make laws but not to judge the people. The simple principle of checks and balances came from the Bible to protect people from tyranny. The President of the United States is free to influence Congress, although he can not exercise authority over it because they are separated.

Since this is true, why should the church not be allowed to influence the state? People have read too much into the phrase “separation of church and state”, which is to be a separation of civil authority from ecclesiastical authority, not moral values. Congress has passed laws that it is illegal to murder and steal, which is the legislation of morality. These standards of morality are found in the Bible. Should we remove them from law because the church should be separated from the state?

Bottom line is this: the First Amendment was meant to protect religion from the government – NOT to protect the government from religion.

P.S. Both Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barry Soetoro (Barack Hussein Obama II) supported the most hiddeous form of abortion: Partial Birth Abortion. Obama’s abortion lies.

Update:

Just how corrupt is the Senate Ethics Committee?  They seem to prefer infanticide to live birth.

Update: More on Obama’s position on infanticide.

Update: McCain tests our “tolerance”

“I think that the pro-life position is one of the important aspects or fundamentals of the Republican Party,” McCain told Hayes. “And I also feel that — and I’m not trying to equivocate here — that Americans want us to work together. You know, [former Pennsylvania Governor] Tom Ridge is one of the great leaders and he happens to be pro-choice. And I don’t think that that would necessarily rule Tom Ridge out.”

Later he added: “I think it’s a fundamental tenet of our party to be pro-life but that does not mean we exclude people from our party that are pro-choice. We just have a — albeit strong — but just it’s a disagreement. And I think Ridge is a great example of that. Far more so than [New York City Mayor Michael] Bloomberg, because Bloomberg is pro-gay rights, pro, you know, a number of other issues.”

Meanwhile, John McCain has yet to give a convention speaking spot to the Presidential Candidate who is the overwhelming preference of Values Voters. This is just one more piece of evidence that John McCain is no friend of Pro-Life conservatives. 

The pro-life position is more than just “one of the important aspects or fundamentals of the Republican Party”.  As our founders of our Republic made absolutely clear, it is a self-evident truth that Life is an God-given unalienable right.  This is not an issue on which we compromise.

Abortion is the sine qua non of the social conservative agenda, not gay rights, for a simple reason: abortion kills human life.

And people still trust McCain to appoint strict constructionist Judges and Justices? 

Wake up, Neo.

Update:

Keep in mind that the man who vouched for McCain on judges, the man who told the National Right to Life Conference that you can trust John McCain to make good Judicial nominations is…

…the same man who was McCain’s stalking horse in South Carolina, to ensure  that McCain won that primary over the candidate (Huckabee) who supports a Human Life Amendment and committed in writing to appointing more justices like Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.

Fred Thompson, who “in a McCain administration…would play a dominant role in selecting Supreme Court nominees and other judicial appointments”,  is the same man who thinks that abortion is a “states rights” issue, not a “God-given unalienable rights” issue.

So Fred Thompson does not support a Human Life Amendment, and actively worked to prevent the nomination of a candidate who does.  This is the man McCain has picked to “play a dominant role in selecting Supreme Court nominees”.

And people still trust McCain to appoint strict constructionist Judges and Justices? 

Wake up, Neo.

So, is the answer Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton? 

No, absolutely not…they are much worse.  As mentioned above, they both support partial birth abortion, and Obama even supports infanticide. 

The answer is making sure that we nominate a true conservative at the Republican National Convention.

Who is the most conservative?

Update:

I just came across a speech where a former President of the United States made the same point about abortion and the Declaration of Independence…

More than a decade ago, a Supreme Court decision literally wiped off the books of fifty states statutes protecting the rights of unborn children. Abortion on demand now takes the lives of up to one and a half million unborn children a year. Human life legislation ending this tragedy will someday pass the Congress, and you and I must never rest until it does. Unless and until it can be proven that the unborn child is not a living entity, then its right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness must be protected.

You may remember that when abortion on demand began, many, and indeed, I’m sure many of you, warned that the practice would lead to a decline in respect for human life, that the philosophical premises used to justify abortion on demand would ultimately be used to justify other attacks on the sacredness of human life — infanticide or mercy killing. Tragically enough, those warnings proved all too true. Only last year a court permitted the death by starvation of a handicapped infant.

I have directed the Health and Human Services Department to make clear to every health care facility in the United States that the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 protects all handicapped persons against discrimination based on handicaps, including infants. And we have taken the further step of requiring that each and every recipient of federal funds who provides health care services to infants must post and keep posted in a conspicuous place a notice stating that “discriminatory failure to feed and care for handicapped infants in this facility is prohibited by federal law.” It also lists a twenty-four-hour; toll-free number so that nurses and others may report violations in time to save the infant’s life.

President Ronald Reagan
Remarks at the Annual Convention of the National Association of Evangelicals
Orlando, Florida
March 8, 1983

This entry was posted in Christian Nation and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to Abortion, the Declaration of Independence, the Bible, and the First Amendment

  1. theminuteman says:

    The Bill of Rights was definitely intended to limit the governments intrusion on personal rights such as the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, etc. There are several good articles about the purpose and history of the Bill of Rights as well as articles about each of the first ten amendments at this page – http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/bill-of-rights.html

  2. theminuteman,

    Thanks for your comment and link.

    The first amendment prohibits Congress from influencing or restricting religious freedoms.

    The “Separation of Church and State” crowd tries to turn the 1st amendment around and use it to restrict religious freedoms and religious expression.

    For a recent and relevant example, this question over the meaning of the 1st amendment led directly to my being banned from HotAir.com.

    Allahpundit couldn’t handle the truth, so he banned me.

  3. bk3k says:

    So you don’t believe in the “Separation of Church and State?” I believe my lord and savior Jesus Christ has something to say about that – [url=http://bibleresources.bible.com/keywordsearchresults.php?multiplemethod=all&numpageresults=25&select=searchBible&keyword=Caesar&Submit.x=0&Submit.y=0&version=9]Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.[/url] I’d really like to see a good rebuttal for that!

    As far as abortion being a Christian issue – that is a mass misconception that is without true biblical support. Twisting the meaning of obscure versus to fit your meaning does not prove your point, and dare I say that doing so spits on God’s word as it is written. I may have to start my own blog soon to elaborate more on this.

    I’m REALLY tired of people incorporating their political and personal beliefs into Christianity and referring to it all as Christianity. If it isn’t in the Bible, it isn’t REAL Christianity.

  4. Wayne says:

    Linked to your post, (great post) from Jeremiah Films’ .. McCain vs Obama on “Right to Life”

  5. bk3k,
    It took a while to post your comment because it was in the “spam” bucket.

    The verse you reference does not imply a separation of church and state. It teaches that we should be obedient to both God’s authority and man’s authority.

    If we don’t follow the advice of the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, then we end up with men and women in government who create laws that are contradictory to God’s laws. Now that creates a problem. All the more reason to select and prefer Christians for our “chosen rulers” in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of our government.

    “Providence,” said he, “has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of a Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

    I have not “twisted the meaning of obscure versus to fit my meaning”. I have presented several verses exactly as they come from the Bible, with links to prove it, and each verse makes it clear that God formed you in your mother’s womb. I wish Nancy Pelosi knew how to quote the Bible instead of making up her own twisted verses and trying to pass them off as legitimate.

    Please do start your own blog. It’s a free country, and I fully support your 1st amendment rights.

  6. bk3k,
    Here’s another thought…

    Since infanticide-supporting Barack Hussein Obama claims to be a Christian, and mentioned Harry S. Truman while speaking in Truman’s hometown of Independence, Missouri, why didn’t Obama mention this Truman quote?

    The most important business in this Nation–or any other nation, for that matter-is raising and training children. If those children have the proper environment at home, and educationally, very, very few of them ever turn out wrong. I don’t think we put enough stress on the necessity of implanting in the child’s mind the moral code under which we live.

    The fundamental basis of this Nation’s law was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings which we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don’t think we emphasize that enough these days.

    If we don’t have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.

    Truman obviously agreed with the Supreme Court decision in 1892 which said, “this is a Christian nation.”

    But Obama doesn’t believe that. Obama says America is ‘no longer Christian‘.

  7. Eric says:

    So if I understand it correctly, the USA was meant to be a Christian nation BUT the government should not have control over what kind of Christian nation (that is, which Church or interpretation is ‘right’). That’s the seperation if Church and state. As views about if abortion is allowed or not can differ between Christians, it sounds to me this is not a state matter than. Leave the decision to the individual Christians, as their views should be protected from the goverment as Jefferson claimed. however, the fundamental question this raises is when do you leave issues to the decision of the individual, and when can they be forced upon by government? In the end this is about majority vote, Christianity has little to do with it.

  8. Eric,

    Thank you for your comment.

    Jefferson wrote in his letter to the Danbury Baptists that the “wall” (the 1st Amendment) would protect the individual churches from the state (by preventing a state-established, state-run religion, and protecting the individual church’s rights to free speech, press, assembly, and petitition for the redress of grievances).

    You turn that around and say the state should be protected from the church. If that were true, then why did all 50 states write references to God into their constitutions?

    You say:

    …the fundamental question this raises is when do you leave issues to the decision of the individual, and when can they be forced upon by government? In the end this is about majority vote, Christianity has little to do with it.

    This is not just a “Christian” issue. Sure, the Bible makes it clear that God knew you and knit you together in your mother’s womb. But even if you take a purely secular approach, it is clear that your life began when your unique DNA began…at conception. And our founders made it abundantly clear in the Declaration of Independence that one of the primary purposes of any government is to protect the life of each citizen.

    Please read the following posts I made at Michelle Malkin’s site before you reply here:

    http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/08/slick-joe-biden-admits-yes-im-a-cold-blooded-murderer/comment-page-1/#comment-445278

    http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/08/slick-joe-biden-admits-yes-im-a-cold-blooded-murderer/comment-page-1/#comment-445301

    http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/08/slick-joe-biden-admits-yes-im-a-cold-blooded-murderer/comment-page-2/#comment-445476

    http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/08/slick-joe-biden-admits-yes-im-a-cold-blooded-murderer/comment-page-2/#comment-445488

    Sincerely,
    Red Pill

  9. SmarterthanUwilleverKnow says:

    Wow, I was just wondering if you people plan to punish men who ejaculate without having intercourse with a women since he is “murdering half of a person”since “it is clear that your life began when your unique DNA began…at conception.” and our 48 genes are divided in 24 from our father and 24 from our mother. When you Red Pill become violated and impregnated with a “Miracle Child” of rape you can keep your baby and look down upon those who believe that the government should not control decisions over one’s body. I also was wondering if you realize the bible was written by Men beginning in 1450 – 1410 B.C and maybe should be updated? Oh wait then it wouldn’t be that useful in manipulated the Lambs.

  10. SmarterthanUwilleverKnow,

    Thank you for your comment.

    There is no such thing as “half a person”…it’s all or nothing.

    “the government should not control decisions over one’s body”

    You miss the whole point about the DNA. “one’s body” has “one’s DNA”. Abortion is not about the mother’s body. It’s about the child’s body. And the truth is, no matter what the circumstances of the conception, ending the life of the child is often very damaging to the mother. Women who have been through that experience personally are bravely telling their stories and spreading the truth:
    http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/testimonies/index.aspx

  11. Dr. Paul Anderson says:

    After spending many hours researching these documents: The United States Constitution, The Bill of Rights in regards to the 1st Amendment and the legal arguments surrounding Roe Vs Wade, I am convinced that the abortion provider, it’s supporting legal representation, the individual who chooses abortion over life, and the voter that supports pro-choice, has absolutely no respect for human life. When God’s word is supressed
    ( Romans 1:18-32), and the philosophical dictates of Marx and Darwin are professed, mankind’s moral values diminish.

    Progressives have attempted to suppress the “Truth” ( John 14:5 ) in their efforts to distort the “intent” of the 1st Amendment, penned by James Madison. In an effort to clarify the intent of the founding fathers, I found it necessary to examine documents from the Library of England, concerning the Colonies and the English Reformation. As a result of this research, the issues surrounding the 1st Amendment are clear. The separation of church and state is directly related to: the establishment of a state run church. Example: The Church of England, which the founding fathers were opposed to.

    As a result, God’s word could be freely proclaimed throughout the land, without being hindered by state or federal goverment. The adverse intrepretation of the 1st Amendment by Progressives, is the first of many attempt’s to eliminate the United States Constitution, and our nations sovereignty. In doing so, this nation will become united with the
    European Ten Nation Global Union.

    In the not to distant past, this Ten Nation Global Union, was referred to as a “conspiracy theory.” The thought of such an event taking place, was more than most could, or would make an attempt to comprehend. The fact is, the entire global financial network is nearly complete, along with other elements which will complete this union. A Google search for the: BIS Central Bank Hub, will provide the names of 163 Central Banks, and the nations they are associated with. One of these Central Banks is known as: The Federal Reserve Corporation, of these United States. A private corporation in business to make money, by lending currency to the US Treasury.

  12. Dr. Anderson,

    Thank you for your comment. I agree with what you said.

    You may also want to read some of my related posts:
    http://itooktheredpill.wordpress.com/category/christian-nation/

    There are many there, but be sure to see this one:
    LBJ’s Unconstitutional Amendment

  13. gdog says:

    What a bunch of horse shit. It amazes me how the anti-abortionist right wing Gestapo would care for the unborn child but leave it to the wolves once it’s born.

  14. gdog,

    Your comment exposes both a deep level of anger and a belief in lies. You have absolutely zero evidence to support your premise that anyone who is pro-life would “leave it to the wolves once it’s born”. The truth is quite the opposite. And it was Obama who lobbied and voted in favor of allowing viable, born-alive infants to be left to die.

    If you want to see which political wing acts like a “Gestapo”, see this.

    Jesus love you, gdog.

    And I do, too.

  15. Elogios says:

    Thank you so much for this post. I’m in tears knowing that some one took time to understand the biblical values our nation was founded on. I pray that we (our nation) would honor our founding fathers by returning to the values of our patriarchs and not the value of our dollar. God bless.

  16. Thank you, Elogios, and God bless you, too.

  17. Two days before the country was set to celebrate Constitution Day, President Obama decided to invoke the words of another founding document: the Declaration of Independence. Except he changed the words.

    Towards the end of a speech on September 15 to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, Obama began quoting the famous “rights” line from the founding document. But partway through, he omitted where those rights come from: a Creator.

    The line is supposed to read: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    But Obama’s recitation left out an important part: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are crated equal. [Long Pause] Endowed with certain inalienable [sic] rights: life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

  18. So now, Obama has misquoted both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

  19. Pingback: Honey Trail Redux

  20. Emily says:

    I just wanted to say thank you for this post, and all of the backup comments. It’s wonderful to see someone thinking for himself, and doing his research. Keep up the good work =)

  21. When it comes to the Founders and the Constitution, David Barton knows orders of magnitude more than Jon Stewart.

    Jon Stewart threw every straw man (that his staff gave him on note cards) that he could at David Barton, and Barton knocked every single one of those straw men down. Barton has spent decades studying thousands of primary source documents. Stewart has spent minutes, possibly hours, studying the note cards his staff gave him. It was no contest. Every time Stewart threw a false accusation at Barton, Barton countered with the truth. And every time, Stewart would interrupt Barton’s answer. Stewart could only crack a joke or change the subject; he couldn’t have a straight-up discussion of the truth.

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-4-2011/david-barton-pt–1

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-4-2011/david-barton-pt–2

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-4-2011/exclusive—david-barton-extended-interview-pt–1

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-4-2011/exclusive—david-barton-extended-interview-pt–2

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-4-2011/exclusive—david-barton-extended-interview-pt–3

    I would love to see a similar discussion between David Barton and “Constitutional Law” lecturer Barack Obama.

    When it comes to the Founders and the Constitution, David Barton knows orders of magnitude more than Barack Obama.

  22. From WallBuilders

    As Discussed with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show: John Adams 1809 Letter
    A December 21, 1809 letter by John Adams to Benjamin Rush.
    Read Letter »»

    As Discussed with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show: Treaty of Tripoli
    The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, specifically article XI, is commonly misused in editorial columns, articles, as well as in other areas of the media, both Christian and secular.
    Read Article »»

    As Discussed with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show: The Aitken Bible
    Robert Aitken’s Bible was the first known English-language Bible to be printed in America, and also the only Bible to receive Congressional approval.
    Read Article »»

    As Discussed with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show: The Separation of Church and State
    In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, “The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach.”
    Read Article »»

    Letters Between the Danbury Baptists and Thomas Jefferson
    An 1801 letter from the Danbury Baptists and President Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 response in which he used the famous phrase “a wall of separation between Church and State.”
    Read Letters »»

    The Founders And Public Religious Expressions
    An article with quotes by various Founding Fathers on pubic religious expression.
    Read Article »»

  23. erock says:

    I am not saying you aren’t entitled to your beliefs, but as a man what gives you the right to decide what a woman may or may not do with her own body? You do not have a uterus, therefore you really have no idea what you are talking about. It is a personal choice that should be between the woman, the father if he is in the picture still, the on/gym, and God. There is no place for your judgment in the lives of others. It says very clearly in the bible “judge not lest he be judged”.

    Quite frankly unless it is your partner and your unborn child YOU DO NOT GET A SAY IN THE MATTER. I do not say this out of anger, I say this because it is the truth. If a woman on the other side of the country, who you never met, whose existence you are completely unaware of gets an abortion what effect does that have on you?

    Children are expensive. Growing another human being inside of your body is not a walk in the park. It is painful, taxing, and difficult. To expect anyone to put their body through that kind of hell when they are not prepared for it financially, emotionally, and physically is a totally skewed way of looking at things.

    If you really want to put an end to abortion than educate people better about sex. And offer them free birth control. I don’t understand why people opposed to abortion are so opposed to birth control. Nobody but nobody can ever have it both ways so why not compromise and provide BC for sexually active adults? Sex is an intimate and personal thing. In addition it is a basic human instinct and nobody has the right to deny someone else a basic need. As long as the sex is 100% consensual it is nobody’s business to dictate what others can and cannot do.

    When it comes to a woman’s uterus and vagina, only her partner may have the right to voice his/her opinion.

  24. I am not saying you aren’t entitled to your beliefs, but as a man what gives you the right to decide what a woman may or may not do with her own body?

    A woman has every right to decide what she does or does not do with her own body.

    But she does not have the right to decide what she does or does not do with someone else’s body.

    I say the same thing to you that I said to Barack Obama:

  25. There is no place for your judgment in the lives of others.

    Ironic.

    You think the mother can terminate the life of her child, yet you say, “There is no place for your judgment in the lives of others.”

    I suggest you practice what you preach.

  26. erock says:

    Way to chery pick my comment. Why don’t you try addressing the entire thing, please.

    Also, who said I was judging you? I was pointing out that it is not your place (nor mine) to judge others.

    In the first trimester of pregnancy a “fetus” is a glob of cells. NOT a “body” as you put it. Also, HALF of that DNA comes from the mother. It’s grade school science. Look it up.

    And again I say:
    Unless it is YOUR partner and YOUR unborn child YOU DO NOT GET A SAY IN THE MATTER.

  27. There is no place for your judgment in the lives of others.

    You think that there is no place for my judgment in the lives of others.
    Yet you think that there is a place for your judgment in the lives of others.
    And you think that there is a place for the judgment of the mother to interfere with and terminate the lives of others living in her womb.

    Again, I suggest you practice what you preach. Respect the lives of others including those growing in their mother’s womb.

    As to your comments about grade school science, I would venture to say that my science grades were better than yours, though that is not germane to the topic.

    In a court of law, your DNA could be used as evidence to uniquely identify you as a human being. The only exception is for identical twins, identical triplets, etc. If your DNA tied you to the scene of a crime, the court would not find that your mother or father was half tied to the scene of the crime, even though each of them gave you half of your DNA.

    Your unique DNA was established at conception, when the growth of your body began. If you do not believe that life begins at conception, then please define clearly at what point you became a human being.

  28. Why don’t you try addressing the entire thing, please.

    I’ve been very busy since you wrote your comment, but I have a bit of time now, so OK…

    I am not saying you aren’t entitled to your beliefs

    Good.

    , but as a man what gives you the right to decide what a woman may or may not do with her own body?

    As I replied previously, a woman has every right to decide what she does or does not do with her own body.

    But she does not have the right to decide what she does or does not do with someone else’s body.

    I said the same thing to you that I said to Barack Obama:

    “Her body” has her DNA. The baby growing inside her body has its own DNA, unique from hers, and is NOT “her body”.—

    Your body has always been your body, even when you were growing inside your mother’s body. Your body began at conception. Even though we have historically marked birth as the start of a person’s life, their body was alive and growing from the moment of conception.

    You do not have a uterus, therefore you really have no idea what you are talking about.

    By that logic, since you presume to tell men what they can and cannot say, yet you do not have a penis, you really have no idea what you are talking about.

    It is a personal choice that should be between the woman, the father if he is in the picture still, the on/gym, and God.

    It is no one’s “personal choice” to take the life of another person.

    There is no place for your judgment in the lives of others.

    There is no place for your judgment in deciding to take the lives of others.

    It says very clearly in the bible “judge not lest he be judged”.

    Indeed…

    “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?

    Matthew 7:1-3
    New King James Version (NKJV)

    Who are you to judge that a most innocent human being should receive the death sentence?

    Quite frankly unless it is your partner and your unborn child YOU DO NOT GET A SAY IN THE MATTER.

    Really, then why do we have laws against murder? Does not society as a whole have a say in what happens to others?

    I do not say this out of anger, I say this because it is the truth.

    Since you reference the Bible and speak of “the truth”, please give this the Bible verse the place in your heart which it deserves:

    Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”

    John 14:6
    New King James Version (NKJV)

    And please also take note of these verses:

    These six things the Lord hates,
    Yes, seven are an abomination to Him:
    A proud look,
    A lying tongue,
    Hands that shed innocent blood,
    A heart that devises wicked plans,
    Feet that are swift in running to evil,
    A false witness who speaks lies,
    And one who sows discord among brethren.

    Proverbs 6:16-19
    New King James Version (NKJV)

    There is no blood more innocent than that of an unborn child.

    Their feet run to evil,
    And they make haste to shed innocent blood;
    Their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity;
    Wasting and destruction are in their paths.

    Isaiah 59:7

    Again, there is no blood more innocent than that of an unborn child.

    Abortion and Infanticide are evil.

    If a woman on the other side of the country, who you never met, whose existence you are completely unaware of gets an abortion what effect does that have on you?

    If a woman on the other side of the country, who you never met, whose existence you are completely unaware of, gets murdered, what effect does that have on you?

    Should we not have laws against murder simply because her murder has no immediate, direct effect on you?

    Murder on a larger scale most certainly affects our society as a whole. Fully one-third of what should have been part of generation X, Generation Y, Millennials, etc. have been murdered. Well over 50 Million people. And the impact goes even further when you think of the descendants those people would have had, had they been carried full term and allowed to live their lives.

    Children are expensive.

    Yes. So?

    If you don’t want to raise your child for any reason, including financial reasons, then put your child up for adoption.

    Growing another human being inside of your body is not a walk in the park. It is painful, taxing, and difficult.

    Yes. So?

    To expect anyone to put their body through that kind of hell

    In your world-view, pregnancy is “hell” for the mother, but abortion is not “hell” for the baby growing inside her.

    when they are not prepared for it financially, emotionally, and physically is a totally skewed way of looking at things.

    Have you read any of the personal accounts of women who had abortions and were in no way prepared for the emotional and physical pain that it caused them? You should. Because it might change your totally skewed way of looking at things.

    If you really want to put an end to abortion than educate people

    ThEn educate people, Ms. educated.

    better about sex. And offer them free birth control.

    How about we educate them better about the FACT that the ONLY 100% effective form of birth control is abstinence?

    Our government was instituted to secure our Creator-endowed, unalienable rights, including the right to LIFE itself.

    If the lives of the unborn were protected by our government which was instituted to secure our Creator-endowed, unalienable rights, including the right to LIFE itself, then teens would know that a very real outcome of their sexual activity could be a pregnancy which would make their hidden activities suddenly very public. One major motivation behind abortion is to conceal the fact that the pregnancy ever existed.

    I don’t understand why people opposed to abortion are so opposed to birth control.

    Straw man argument. I’m not opposed to birth control. I’ve used it myself. And when I used it, I knew that it was not 100% effective and that pregnancy could result. One of my children was conceived when my wife and I were using birth control. If we had felt that we could not have financially afforded to raise that child, we would have put our child up for adoption, not terminated its life with an abortion.

    Nobody but nobody can ever have it both ways

    Your worldview is myopic. I can support birth control while thinking that is in everyone’s best societal interests (not the least of which the girl’s own self-interest) to abstain from sex outside of marriage.

    so why not compromise and provide BC for sexually active adults?

    Is your name Sandra Fluke?

    Why should I have to subsidize your, or anyone else’s, birth control?

    Sex is an intimate and personal thing.

    Yes, and best shared within the love and commitment of marriage.

    In addition it is a basic human instinct and nobody has the right to deny someone else a basic need.

    I’m not denying anyone else “a basic need” (like air, water, food).

    I’m advocating that it is in one’s own self-interest, and society’s best interests, for one to rise above “basic instinct” and deny themselves the pleasure of sex until they can share it with one, marriage-committed partner.

    As long as the sex is 100% consensual it is nobody’s business to dictate what others can and cannot do.

    Straw man argument. I’m not dictating to others what they can and cannot do in their sex life. I’m advocating the benefits of waiting for marriage. If they choose to have premarital sex, then they choose to accept the potential consequences.

    But when it comes to standing up for the weakest and most defenseless among us, the “little guy” who can’t fight for himself, I will fight for their Creator-endowed, unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

    When it comes to a woman’s uterus and vagina, only her partner may have the right to voice his/her opinion.

    Another straw man argument. I don’t have an opinion to voice about yours or any other woman’s uterus and vagina. Other than perhaps to point out to you the grade school science fact that your body is not a part of your mother’s uterus or vagina, even though your body once spent some time there temporarily.

  29. Why don’t you try addressing the entire thing, please.

    So, you pester me to respond to your entire comment,
    but then when I take valuable time to do so, you run away?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s