Thanks Bob

[Granite]

There are so many side bar issues being brought up i just wonder where to begin.

First of all our opinion has nothing to do with what the law actually says. Government is actually a function of men and every government is by its nature a product of fallen man. So all government is flawed and to expect anything else outside the reign of Christ is just day dreaming and not dealing with reality. We must deal with what is here and now and the conditions that exist here and now.

Legally it does not matter if the unborn is alive or dead. Legally it does not matter if the unborn is a person or not.. What matters is the fact that the life has to be born and the person has to be born in order to have legal standing. Show me one place where the constitution says otherwise. That is the cold hard facts. Ron Paul's bill does nothing to change that. It does not matter according to law as to whether life exist or that the unborn is declared a person. There is no standing for the unborn in a court of law until the unborn life or the unborn person is born.

One of my objections to this argument is that Dylan's "personhood" certainly didn't stop him from being starved to death in Denver...

 

[PKevman]

First of all our opinion has nothing to do with what the law actually says.

I agree. God has communicated it very clearly in His Word if we will but submit to what He says.

Government is actually a function of men and every government is by its nature a product of fallen man.

I agree that every government becomes corrupted by fallen men. But God has set forth in His Word what a Godly government should look like. He will DEMONSTRATE this openly during the Kingdom through Israel for all men to see.

So all government is flawed and to expect anything else outside the reign of Christ is just day dreaming and not dealing with reality.

Or we can trust that DESPITE our sin and wickedness, God knows better than us, and trust in the precepts and instructions that He has given us for human government. They're in His Word E4E.

We must deal with what is here and now and the conditions that exist here and now.

By sticking our heads in the sand and giving up, saying it will never happen so what's the use?

Legally it does not matter if the unborn is alive or dead. Legally it does not matter if the unborn is a person or not..

Sure it matters. It matters a good deal.

What matters is the fact that the life has to be born and the person has to be born in order to have legal standing.

I utterly disagree with that statement. Every American should have the right to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" if we are going by the constitution. And God's command precede and superced the constitution. God says "You shall not murder". That supercedes any government or any law! In the eyes of God, they have legal standing from the moment they are fertilized, and it is ILLEGAL to kill them! If our country says it's legal it's because our country is wrong!

Show me one place where the constitution says otherwise. That is the cold hard facts. Ron Paul's bill does nothing to change that. It does not matter according to law as to whether life exist or that the unborn is declared a person. There is no standing for the unborn in a court of law until the unborn life or the unborn person is born.

I agree that Ron Paul's bill would not change anything most likely, but I don't agree with the ways in which you arrived to that premise.

 

[PKevman]

One of my objections to this argument is that Dylan's "personhood" certainly didn't stop him from being starved to death in Denver...

Good point Granite.

 

[Granite]

Good point Granite.

Thank you. I know I caught a lot of flak for this when I dismissed the proposed constitutional amendment declaring the personhood of the unborn as a waste of time, but I think it was by people who didn't bother seeing why I objected to it in the first place.

 

[elected4ever]

One of my objections to this argument is that Dylan's "personhood" certainly didn't stop him from being starved to death in Denver...

I am not familiar with that. Be sides that is comparing apples and oranges.

 

[Granite]

I am not familiar with that. Be sides that is comparing apples and oranges.

My point being that declaring the official "personhood" of the unborn won't necessarily stop them from getting killed. The acknowledged "personhood" of an individual, by the state, is not any kind of guarantee that the state won't find grounds for ending their life (or will see it as a deterrent in the first place). Why ever should it?

 

[The Berean]

Man is born entitled to such rights. Even the Declaration says as much. The federal government's role is to protect and provide national security and a national infrastructure, nothing more. To paraphrase an old wag, a government big enough to declare your personhood's big enough to take it away.

Just curious but why is man entitled to such rights? :think:

 

[elected4ever]

My point being that declaring the official "personhood" of the unborn won't necessarily stop them from getting killed. The acknowledged "personhood" of an individual, by the state, is not any kind of guarantee that the state won't find grounds for ending their life (or will see it as a deterrent in the first place). Why ever should it?

The constitution already recognizes the person hood of the unborn. The person hood of the unborn and has no legal standing. You are right though, legal standing does not prevent the miscarriage of justice. That is another issue altogether.

 

[Granite]

Just curious but why is man entitled to such rights? :think:

By dint of his position on the food chain.

 

[GuySmiley]

Then it should be quite easy to show me the text within constitutional law that specifies the right to an abortion. Please post it here.

That is false. The Supreme Court can and has reversed its own decisions many times, including Lawrence vs Texas and Plessy vs Ferguson. It does not take a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion or overturn Roe v Wade. The Supreme Court can do it at any time.

Once the issue is back at the state level where it belongs, the state courts can also do it at any time... and many of them are waiting, right at this instant, to do so. The only thing stopping them are the Christians on this forum.

So is the fantasy of getting 75% of the states to agree to a politically-incorrect constitutional amendment outlawing abortion. You've had forty years to do it and what do you have to show for your efforts? Twenty million dead babies.

If anyone here is serious about stopping abortion - which I'm beginning to doubt - then stop playing games and pontificating. Get off your can and go vote for the one and only man in either party who will send the issue to the state level where six states will outlaw it overnight, saving tens of thousands of lives within weeks.

Why is it a fantasy that 75% of states will agree to outlaw abortion, but you want to leave it up to the states to outlaw it? I think that if six states outlaw abortion overnight, then people will drive an hour or so to the next state and still get their abortions.

 

[Servo]

By dint of his position on the food chain.

That is where our individual rights come from? Our domination over animals?

 

[PKevman]

Why is it a fantasy that 75% of states will agree to outlaw abortion, but you want to leave it up to the states to outlaw it?

Now THAT is an excellent point guy! :up:

 

[elected4ever]

Now THAT is an excellent point guy! :up:

Speaks well for a constitutional amendment, doesn't it. Why leave the remaining 25% to kill at will.

 

[Nick M]

Why leave the 25%? Do like cigarette buyers and drive across the state line for lower rates.

Thank you. I know I caught a lot of flak for this when I dismissed the proposed constitutional amendment declaring the personhood of the unborn as a waste of time, but I think it was by people who didn't bother seeing why I objected to it in the first place.

Limbaugh has talked about this problem also. You have to change people's hearts. Yes, the law is the great teacher, and you need to start there, but many people are just rotten.

 

[Granite]

That is where our individual rights come from? Our domination over animals?

Berean's question was where I thought our entitlement comes from.

 

[elected4ever]

Berean's question was where I thought our entitlement comes from.

Who ever has the biggest gun?

 

[Granite]

Why leave the 25%? Do like cigarette buyers and drive across the state line for lower rates.



Limbaugh has talked about this problem also. You have to change people's hearts. Yes, the law is the great teacher, and you need to start there, but many people are just rotten.

I've been saying just that for a while now: without changing hearts you'll accomplish nothing on this issue.

 

[PatriotBeliever]

My position is that neither the state, NOR the federal government NOR THE PEOPLE should have the right to decide if "You shall not murder" is right or wrong. That is something that God has already decided and made clear. :think:

Who has made this claim, that anyone but God himself has the "right to decide that? Even our founding documents acknowledge that no right exists.They acknowledge life and liberty that God has given us. This was the logic behind our "right" to "break the ties" with an oppressive government/king in England. Yet we continue to pretend that more federal power will protect life when it only has proven to do the opposite.

To allow State's the authority that already existed to protect life is no more dangerous than allowing the existing national ban on the states preventing abortions to continue. This is double think. Put it this way...protecting the unborn is currently banned by the federal government.

So we are left with what, a constitutional amendment? Does anyone understand what that really requires? A single President cannot amend the Constitution. A constitutional amendment is highly unlikely in any event. We may as well over the basics as I'm sure most of you have little idea as to what it would take.

There are two ways to amend the Constitution and one has never been used. Both ways require the consensus by the States' in the process so the very thing that keeps coming up as the danger (the States) in the Sanctity of Life Act is the same obstacle that must be met to amend the Constitution.

The way of amending that has never been used is a Constitutional Convention to amend. That requires two thirds of the state legislatures to call for the convention in the first place and then that convention must propose the amendment. Then, the proposed amendment must be sent back to all of the State legislatures or state conventions which have to approve the amendment. that sounds easy enough.

The other way to amend is not much easier, if any, but is the one that has been used and typically takes years... sometimes many. Both houses of the US Congress must pass a bill with at least a two-thirds majority in both. Then it goes to the States and again requires three-fourths approval by the very States that we don't trust to do the right thing. To complicate things, the amendment text itself can specify either the state legislatures or conventions to be the final approving body otherwise the default is the legislatures. The make-up of each state convention can complicate the process even beyond all of that. the President has nothing to do beyond an opinion with the entire processes of a Constitutional amendment.

So keep that in mind when considering an amendment for the definition of marriage, definition of life or anything else added to the Constitution. How many abortions are we willing to allow to wait for a chance for this to happen? Huckabee, Paul or anyone else would not be much help in getting a constitutional amendment done anytime soon.

That brings me back to the big question. What person in a position to do anything at all, is or has done anything at all to reverse the current law of the land, legal abortion in every one of our 50 states? H.R. 2597 is a current bill and the only thing remotely close to actually improving the situation.

Nick M.

What do you think government is for?

The simple answer is that in America, government exists to secure our God given rights, liberty and property. But any study of the Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers and the founding documents will prove the enormous importance placed on and care that went into defining this for the founders. We have trivialized this in the name of selfishness, religion, zealotry, economics and just plain ignorance.

 

[PatriotBeliever]

Speaks well for a constitutional amendment, doesn't it. Why leave the remaining 25% to kill at will.

Because as it stands right now 100% can kill at will?

 

[Granite]

If pro-life thinking is so well ingrained and is in the opinion of many pro-lifers representative of the majority of Americans's take on the issue, why the reluctance to allow it become a state by state matter? Shouldn't it be a shoe-in?