This is the third article in a series on abortion. It is advised that you read the first two in order before reading this one. I have written about abortion before. The first one was in Tucson and was published. The rest were written in Illinois and the first two were also published. The final two were not. Here they are:
....... ....... in her letter to the editor concerning "partial birth abortions" laments "how a 'medical procedure' finds its way into legislative halls." But, in fact, government regulates medical practices continually from medical school requirements, to licensing practices, to determining what drugs can and can not be legally prescribed.
Secondly, she contends that the "right to privacy provided by the 14th Amendment should have prevented this ban from taking place." Since I didn't recall any "right to privacy" mentioned in the 14th Amendment, I reread it. It is not there! Therefore, I reread the entire Constitution from preamble to the final amendment. No where in the Constitution is a "right to privacy" mentioned let alone guaranteed.
Therefore, such a right must have been manufactured by the Supreme Court by Constitutional interpretation. "The Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says." However, along with that is the concept that a law passed by a legislative body is Constitutional until ruled otherwise. Consequently, unless Ms. ....... is now on the Supreme Court, she does not yet know if it is unconstitutional. Only nine justices will ultimately know.
Finally, does this "right to privacy" mean that a child can be abused outside of the womb? If not, when does the "right to privacy" to murder a child within the womb end? If a child is partially delivered, can the mother in the name of "right to privacy" reach down and take the child's life as long as the child is not completely delivered? Scary! But, then, claiming the right to murder your child in the womb is scary too!
Let's play fill in the blank with letter writer ....... .......'s "I abhor abortion, but women should have a choice" philosophy. I abhor robberies, but people should have the choice of robbery or not. I abhor murder, but people should have the choice of committing murder or not. I abhor the murder of defenseless, unborn children; but a woman should have the choice of murdering her unborn child or not. I abhor the murder of young children, but parents should have the choice to murder their off-spring. How ludicrous!
Concerning his admonition that "we live in a society where one opinion is not supposed to be imposed on someone else with a different opinion," he obviously doesn't know the history of abortion. In 1973, five unelected men imposed their opinion collectively on the United States. Not one elected government body allowed abortion until the Supreme Court usurped its constitutional authority and in effect "wrote" the law on abortion for the entire country. Again, how ludicrous!
As a lifelong Democrat and having a master's in political science from Illinois State, I read with interest the article by George Condon Jr. about the GOP convention published Sunday the 29th (August, 2004). Since when is supporting the murder of unborn children a moderate political position? When did the support of immoral behavior as a civil right become a moderate political position? When did the protection of the country from terrorists become a right-wing position?
I guess I am now a right-wing Republican. I don't remember making the change!
Until recently, consenting adult has never been the standard for this country. Nor should it be. It leads to the lowest common denominator. It allows for sodomy, adultery, bigamy, bestiality, the murder of unborn children, and quite possibly pedophilia.
Think pedophilia can't happen? Think again. The same was said of abortion. The age of eighteen is an artificial boundary. Already the Supreme Court, that self proclaimed oligarchic final decision maker, has ruled that eleven year old children are mature enough to determine whether or not to murder their own child.
When we allow five people to be the final arbitrator and allow them to arbitrarily make law, any thing they decide is legal becomes a possibility. The absence of law is anarchy. The absence of moral controls is also anarchy. Sinful nations historically do not remain in power for very long.
"Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows." Galatians 6:7. Any farmer knows that. At the rate we are going, so will the United States.
Columnist William Raspberry (January 24, 2005 Peoria Journal Star) has joined the growing list of individuals who believe they somehow have the right to deny Christians their freedom of speech and deny them the right to participate in the political process because he disagrees with our position on issues. When did it become democratic that only the irreligious can express their view and push their agenda in the public arena?
Just as outrageous, he chides Christians for refusing to compromise our principles on issues. Did the nine member United States Supreme Court compromise when they ruled in a split decision that the laws of every State in the union were unconstitutional because they did not allow the murder of unborn children? How undemocratic is that? Then, the court proceeded to write the law on baby murdering contrary to Constitutional Law. How undemocratic is that?
Now, thirty two years and millions of murdered babies later, Christians must compromise our position on the murder of the unborn for the good of the nation. Prayerfully, that will never happen. How can any Christian compromise to allow murder?
....... ....... in her letter to the editor concerning "partial birth abortions" laments "how a 'medical procedure' finds its way into legislative halls." But, in fact, government regulates medical practices continually from medical school requirements, to licensing practices, to determining what drugs can and can not be legally prescribed.
Secondly, she contends that the "right to privacy provided by the 14th Amendment should have prevented this ban from taking place." Since I didn't recall any "right to privacy" mentioned in the 14th Amendment, I reread it. It is not there! Therefore, I reread the entire Constitution from preamble to the final amendment. No where in the Constitution is a "right to privacy" mentioned let alone guaranteed.
Therefore, such a right must have been manufactured by the Supreme Court by Constitutional interpretation. "The Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says." However, along with that is the concept that a law passed by a legislative body is Constitutional until ruled otherwise. Consequently, unless Ms. ....... is now on the Supreme Court, she does not yet know if it is unconstitutional. Only nine justices will ultimately know.
Finally, does this "right to privacy" mean that a child can be abused outside of the womb? If not, when does the "right to privacy" to murder a child within the womb end? If a child is partially delivered, can the mother in the name of "right to privacy" reach down and take the child's life as long as the child is not completely delivered? Scary! But, then, claiming the right to murder your child in the womb is scary too!
Let's play fill in the blank with letter writer ....... .......'s "I abhor abortion, but women should have a choice" philosophy. I abhor robberies, but people should have the choice of robbery or not. I abhor murder, but people should have the choice of committing murder or not. I abhor the murder of defenseless, unborn children; but a woman should have the choice of murdering her unborn child or not. I abhor the murder of young children, but parents should have the choice to murder their off-spring. How ludicrous!
Concerning his admonition that "we live in a society where one opinion is not supposed to be imposed on someone else with a different opinion," he obviously doesn't know the history of abortion. In 1973, five unelected men imposed their opinion collectively on the United States. Not one elected government body allowed abortion until the Supreme Court usurped its constitutional authority and in effect "wrote" the law on abortion for the entire country. Again, how ludicrous!
As a lifelong Democrat and having a master's in political science from Illinois State, I read with interest the article by George Condon Jr. about the GOP convention published Sunday the 29th (August, 2004). Since when is supporting the murder of unborn children a moderate political position? When did the support of immoral behavior as a civil right become a moderate political position? When did the protection of the country from terrorists become a right-wing position?
I guess I am now a right-wing Republican. I don't remember making the change!
Until recently, consenting adult has never been the standard for this country. Nor should it be. It leads to the lowest common denominator. It allows for sodomy, adultery, bigamy, bestiality, the murder of unborn children, and quite possibly pedophilia.
Think pedophilia can't happen? Think again. The same was said of abortion. The age of eighteen is an artificial boundary. Already the Supreme Court, that self proclaimed oligarchic final decision maker, has ruled that eleven year old children are mature enough to determine whether or not to murder their own child.
When we allow five people to be the final arbitrator and allow them to arbitrarily make law, any thing they decide is legal becomes a possibility. The absence of law is anarchy. The absence of moral controls is also anarchy. Sinful nations historically do not remain in power for very long.
"Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows." Galatians 6:7. Any farmer knows that. At the rate we are going, so will the United States.
Columnist William Raspberry (January 24, 2005 Peoria Journal Star) has joined the growing list of individuals who believe they somehow have the right to deny Christians their freedom of speech and deny them the right to participate in the political process because he disagrees with our position on issues. When did it become democratic that only the irreligious can express their view and push their agenda in the public arena?
Just as outrageous, he chides Christians for refusing to compromise our principles on issues. Did the nine member United States Supreme Court compromise when they ruled in a split decision that the laws of every State in the union were unconstitutional because they did not allow the murder of unborn children? How undemocratic is that? Then, the court proceeded to write the law on baby murdering contrary to Constitutional Law. How undemocratic is that?
Now, thirty two years and millions of murdered babies later, Christians must compromise our position on the murder of the unborn for the good of the nation. Prayerfully, that will never happen. How can any Christian compromise to allow murder?
posted by Christian Gunslinger at 12:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home