The Right Scoop
Thank God accountability, and respect of human life, rules the day in this case and could possibly be a gateway that leads to further similar actions by states to hold the puerile and immature actions of so-called adults responsible for these and other-such reprehensible, heinous actions on the innocent and unborn!
Indeed, it is unrealistic for me to profess sainthood, by no means, and I do not expect others in this blogosphere to declare as well. Yet, rationale and pure reason alone, unless one has already succumbed to the intoxicating effects of chemical addiction of ANY kind, especially while carrying the unborn, should prevail and become the decisive interdicting narrative of sound judgment when the fate and health of another's life is under one's control. Hell, there are other ways to allay one's fears of living in the world that is absent of chemical dependency and abuse to not only the unborn but to yourself as well. Isn't your own life, at least, worth fighting? So terribly sad how the fear of mere existence has led many to destroy their lives in the damnedest of ways.
Thank God accountability, and respect of human life, rules the day in this case and could possibly be a gateway that leads to further similar actions by states to hold the puerile and immature actions of so-called adults responsible for these and other-such reprehensible, heinous actions on the innocent and unborn!
Indeed, it is unrealistic for me to profess sainthood, by no means, and I do not expect others in this blogosphere to declare as well. Yet, rationale and pure reason alone, unless one has already succumbed to the intoxicating effects of chemical addiction of ANY kind, especially while carrying the unborn, should prevail and become the decisive interdicting narrative of sound judgment when the fate and health of another's life is under one's control. Hell, there are other ways to allay one's fears of living in the world that is absent of chemical dependency and abuse to not only the unborn but to yourself as well. Isn't your own life, at least, worth fighting? So terribly sad how the fear of mere existence has led many to destroy their lives in the damnedest of ways.
Unborn children deserve equality and protection under the 14th Amendment. It's very obvious.
I'm jealous. I live in what I un-affectionately call a "moral free zone", aka Washington State. :(
Sterilize her and let her go screw all she wants. No need to keep her on the govt's dime. People (M/F) who don't know how, want to care for kids, or control their reproductive systems need to be sterilized, including Sandra Fluke and Shanty Lo -- one little operation contraception taken care of for life.
HAH! I'm glad you said it first. Sterilization would be my answer, too. If you can't be responsible then you lose your reproductive rights.
I am not for sterilization of folks on welfare per se. If a family is on welfare AND they have less than 4 kids its okay. A girl with 2 kids and no husband, yes. A guy with 2 and not married yes.
Pedophiles and rapists should be made into eunuchs, not jailed. No hormones to get excited.
It's funny you used the word 'eunuch'. It was in my crossword puzzle today. Rarely used, but you found the perfect spot!
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.
Can't have liberty and pursuit of happiness without life. Endowed by our Creator. Good for Alabama.
I'm hoping in my heart that this is a snowball that will roll until it becomes an unstoppable demand to change abortion law. I've never ever read a justification for abortion where the mother would die if the doctors didn't kill the baby! Not one! IN the millions (oh so sadly!) of abortions done...
You never will read that, Wolfie. Because it's never been illegal in America to perform an abortion on a woman whose life is truly in danger. I wish the right to lifers would constantly remind the abortion supporters that important fact.
Things I never thought about. The slippery slope does exist and government uses it all the time.
Wolfie I have so much respect so I'm going to toss this out for your thoughts.
You are not a woman, you will not be the one raped and impregnated by a rapist, you will not be the one to be told you are going to die unless the pregnancy is terminated. What would you say to your 14 year old daughter if it were her? Honey, I know you are going to die but god has blessed you with your rapist's baby; you are going to die but you should be happy because your rapist's baby will live instead? The rapist's baby is more important than your 14 year old daughter?
What would you do when the gov't arrests your 20 year old daughter who had a miscarriage and charge her with murder because she accidentally fell, the fall lead to the miscarriage and the gov't argues it was foreseeable? What is the mother is in a car accident and miscarries, is that murder?
This is akin to slavery. Women will be terrified to do anything because they could be arrested for eating the wrong food, gaining too much or too little weight, delivering prematurely, etc. Where is the line drawn? PaulBots want drugs to be legal so what then? Will the woman be charged with child endangerment for taking communion not knowing she is pregnant?
We have no fault insurance for car accidents so everyone is partially to blame in a car accident. Will the pregnant woman be charged for child endangerment here too? And if she miscarries because a drunk driver hit her, murder?
Your post made me proud and made me laugh to read it all at the same time!
No, you fantastic person....it was not racist!
Murder of human beings, especially the most defenseless IS a BLACK AND WHITE issue! Just say NO to murder, is my motto!
I'm not a woman, but I've thought this through... If I were pregnant with a gift from God... and for some reason (which I've never read about) my life was somehow in danger unless they murdered my unborn baby... I'd DEMAND the medical staff SAVE the BABY! Let ME die! Simple as that for me... As most readers know I'm grey on a few "hot button" issues... But on Abortion... It's BLACK AND WHITE!!! (Oh carp, was that racist!) (sigh)
This story makes me remarkably sad... and angry. I'm happy with their ruling. But she gets out in 2015... unbelievable.
Godless world...
Isn't this the court Judge Roy Moore sits on? Thanks Scoop, between this and the school in Ohio you have made my day. God is moving in and through His people and this lifts me up and gives me hope of a brighter day for America. The Lord is among us and fighting with us; therefore, our victory is sure.
So, what's the lesson? If you're on crack, kill the baby before you have it. Seriously. The laws seem to totally contradict each other. You can legally kill your baby, but if someone kills you they get charged for two murders. If it's murder for someone else to kill a mother's baby in the womb, shouldn't it be murder for the mother, too? And if you take drugs while you're pregnant you can get charged with child endangerment...or something along those lines.
I'm not totally pro-life. I believe abortions are ok if done as early on as possible. I hate late stage abortions.
But, seriously, don't our laws totally contradict one another?
No more than your view that early term abortions aren't killing a life. Why shouldn't the law reflect your view too? You can't have it both ways my friend.
A life is a life, is a life. The moment you open the door to murder, it becomes easier and easier to justify the next one. Then you begin playing word games: "What is a life exactly?" and "I don't believe that...."(fill in the blank).
Well, there are a lot of conservatives that don't believe in being able to use contraception or the morning after pill. That's not me. I would never be part of an abortion of any kind, even in the early stages , if it was my child. However, if it's done in the earliest stages I'm not going to complain about others. It's when the child becomes fully developed with a nervous system and brain that I get really bothered by it.
There's also the fact that our system would be overwhelmed with unwanted pregnancies and an overload of welfare cases. Conservatives want to bitch about all the women draining the system and not being able to pay for their babies, yet they don't want them to stop the process. YOU can't have it both ways.
My point is that the laws contradict one another. If you choose to attack me that's your choice, but I care not.
That's all very controversial, and I can see the argument on both sides....but not beyond early pregnancy. I agree that if abortions became illegal they would have to change other laws as well. Some of those laws need to change regardless, and it might lead to people being more responsible.
It appears kong gets the last word. Oh well. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Kong can wallow in the mushy middle.
I'm not basing my opinion on emotion. I base it off the fact...or view....that in the very early stages of pregnancy the baby has not formed into a functioning system yet (I don't mean that to sound so debasing). In my view, it's part of the mother's body. When it grows into a functioning body with a functioning brain and working nervous system, it's too late. I don't condone it any time, but during that stage I don't throw a fuss, either.
I know people say it's the same thing just at a different stage. Some people go all the way back to conception. It's extremely controversial. You may call it cowardice to not force my view into law, but when something is that controversial there shouldn't be a law that is completely one-sided to cater to one point of view.
Yes, I know I wouldn't be able to stop a partner from getting an abortion, but I would do what I could to get her to have the baby and let me raise it. That's something I cannot control, but since it involves me I would try to influence it. A woman doing it in Ohio doesn't impact me one bit, so it's not my place to force a controversial law on that woman.
'I have been asked to determine exactly what that point is where it changes, and I can't answer that.'- kong
It's at the point of conception. that is when the sperm cell is no longer and the unfertilyzed egg is no longer. That 'being' has some DNA of the father and some DNA of the mother, but it ceases to have the exact same DNA of either of them at conception.
The child stops being part of the mother at that time. It grows in the mother, but is no longer a part of her. That is the point. Many people consider it okay to abort at these early stages because that being doesn't 'look' like us. It doesn't appear to be a human being, but then a 5 year old looks nothing like a 50 year old, either. I'm not saying this is your opinion, but that thinking is bigoted against any form of the human growth.
Abortion is legal because it's acceptable (not to me, but to society). Having 15 babies is acceptable too. The laws would have to change along with removing abortion as a means to an end. People don't kill their 5 year olds (not legally anyway) because society says it's wrong (due to our morality). If society said it was okay, more of it would happen all the time (sadly enough).
The morality has to change. When it does, abortion will no longer be acceptable, people will decide that if abortion is out of the question then they may have to be more responsible, and we will find ways to take care of those babies that are born unwanted. It all works out in the end.
One problem with the pro-abortion argument is that they keep all the laws and moral ideals the same and consider only that abortion would stop. Well, everything changes when abortion stops, so you have to take it all in consideration together.
I understand the comparison of a young adult to a 5 year old child, except the 5 year old child has a functioning brain and nervous system. In my mind, during the very early stages of pregnancy, it's just tissue that has not formed into anything yet. I do consider it part of the mother's body at that point, but not later in the pregnancy. I have been asked to determine exactly what that point is where it changes, and I can't answer that. I'm not an expert by any means and it's controversial.
I agree that casual killing of babies is wrong, sort of like a McDonald's drive through.
What really angers me are the women that have 15 kids on our dime. I want that stopped...period.
I would support a law that banned abortions outside of a 2 month period in the early stages. Even that's questionable because determining the point that one would consider it to be a functioning body would be difficult. Especially when many people believe it starts at the moment of conception.
I have never participated in, nor would I, in an abortion. That's my own moral standard. I don't have 15 kids, have never been on welfare, and have paid for my daughter without help from anyone. Find a way to stop the leeches and I'll bend on my views. Society has lost it's morality and many use babies as a crutch for a free ride.
My dear that is the coward's way out. If it is good enough for you then it should be good enough for everyone. I repeatedly pointed out your emotional responses which is akin to a tantrum. Anytime one responds with emotion in reality that is a tantrum. It certainly isn't logic.
Polls show repeatedly that over half of the country disagrees with abortion. Start with Gallup then go onto PPP. Things have changed in the last decade, Numbers go way up when partial birth abortion is added to the mix.
The fact that it is so controversial is why one should be bold and apply values...not back down. What's that old saying about strength in the face of adversity? Precisely the time to be bold.
How do you know that isn't my goal? You make a lot of presumptions my dear in an effort to deflect. I find your use of the word 'force' interesting. I think perhaps that is based in emotion too. We 'force' or 'not force' via the law all sorts of things agreed upon by society. Try not paying your taxes and you will see what 'force' truly is. The use of the word 'force' is thinly veiled here to mean coerce which of course brings to mind things like fascism. That is why we hear phrases from a president like "wouldn't want to necessarily punish them with a baby" or phrases like 'force someone to have a child'. That word use planted in your head long ago is by design. It worked. It got you to modify your position. It will work again. The more exceptions you make the more you will break.
And so long as abortion is legal you cannot stop a partner of any stripe from aborting your child. Think about that.
'It's when the child becomes fully developed with a nervous system and brain that I get really bothered by it.' - kong
I don't wish to be argumentative here, Kong, as I sense your frustration with what you believe. But consider the fact that a zygote and an unborn child with fully developed nervous system and brain are both the very same individual, but just at different stages of their development.
People would never say, "I could never kill a young adult, but killing a 5 year old is okay" (I know that sounds grotesque, but it's an example). Those two beings are the very same individual, but merely at differnet stages of their development.
In the case of the zygote to preborn comparison as well as in the case of the young adult to 5 year old comparison, they are all the same individual, merely at different points in their development, no matter how different they look to us or how different they are from us.
It's a difficult dilemma and an ever changing goal post, but the only logical decision that can be made overall and in the end is that a human being is a person from the time of natural conception to the day of his natural death. Nothing short of that encompasses the entire gamit of an individual's span of existence (of course, his existence after death is a discussion for another day and in need of further review).
Of course, there are always exceptions and special circumstances whereby the decision to kill is taken into consideration (throughout the entire life of an individual). But we should never have gotten to the point where we thought that just casually killing our children was a good thing and socially acceptable. Ever.
That was an excellent post. Liberals are definitely destroying the moral fabric our country was built on. It all boils down to morality.
A moral culture does not elect liberals. An immoral culture does.
If you're a college aged kid who believes in sleeping around, you're probably more prone to believe in free birth control and abortions. You NEED these things to live your life of "fun and sin". Therefore you will elect representatives who best share your values. You aren't going to find support in the Conservative camp.
This could be said of a laundry list of things: immigration, marriage, economics and the rest.
The government is overrun with liberals on BOTH SIDES of the aisle! Because of this, folks are voting their values, or the lack thereof. Abortion remains in play because morality begins on a personal level and abortion is the last stage on a path of immoral behavior.
The church understands that if you change the heart you can change the man. Change the man and you change what he does and who he votes for. Liberals learned this from the church, they're just doing it in reverse. Their goal is to morally corrupt; ours is to morally reform.
Christians learned early on that if you can change the hearts of the people, the culture will change with them. Like a rider turning a horse. The problem is, liberals are godless. Whether they realize it or not, liberals are not turning people towards virtue but towards hell.
---
You're right, you can't "force someone to believe". I would never suggest that, because the Lord didn't. BUT the church IS RESPONSIBLE for at the very least engaging the culture with a "relevant Gospel". That does not mean making it palatable for the culture. That means showing its applicability to our modern age.
For instance, how can the Bible speak to the issue of evil in the world? Why do bad things happen to good people? How does the Bible respond to the culture's view that "science" makes the Bible obsolete? Why is homosexuality wrong? These are just a few, but these issues need to be answered and disseminated.
Once people increasingly realize that the Bible is reliable and its morality is the basis for our nation's very existence, then discrediting secular attacks becomes easier. Because the Bible has been ruthlessly attacked and its contents left mostly undefended, the world has chosen to adopt ethics outside of scripture. Ethics that are relativistic and have no solid footing.
No one, for instance, can make a good argument as to why homosexual marriage is bad for society, so in ignorance, after filtering it through relativism, they wind up endorsing it. Then it's implemented, and then you wind up with something like this:
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm_2012/index.html
But there are answers in the BIBLE for EVERYTHING we're facing as a nation right now.
Lol, I wasn't yelling or throwing a tantrum. I emboldened to show the portion that showed I did not say all children that would be saved from abortion would starve. Only if we don't have the money to shelter and feed them. We are not at that point yet, but we will get there when 75% of the population is on welfare and foodstamps....and we are well on the way. We are at the tipping point now, and we are going over....period.
As I said before, I don't like abortions at any stage. I apply that to my own life. But since it's such a controversial subject I am not going to force others to abide by a law that half the people (or more) disagree with. Being so, I don't have a problem if it's restricted to the early stages before development.
I apply the values you are laying down for me. I would never let a partner abort my child. Your next goal should be to convince others to live by the same values instead of thinking I am wrong because I won't force them to do so.
I'm not calling you anything. You once again are making assessments not based in any sort of reality. All I did was show you the origins of your thinking.
Putting the same thing in bold type doesn't change a thing. It still puts money before people and the value of life. And it is still not based on any sort of reality.
"But if you want to hate me because I don't want to totally ban abortions then that's your perogative."
I never said I hated you. That is more rampant emotionalism as well, not to mention presumptive. I don't hate you but I wonder why you use emotion instead of reason based in logic that doesn't make presumptions. I can 'hate' your actions or even your thinking without hating you. I don't like the word hate quite honestly because it often doesn't fit. I prefer 'dislike'. I can also disagree on one issue with you and agree on many others.
The truth hurts, and I know you are hurting right now just based upon your responses. You are projecting. I do think you are a friend as do many on here as well I am sure. As a friend I am going to point out the flaw in your logic and screaming, yelling and having a tantrum won't change it. As a matter of fact it tells just how much I hit the target. In short you don't scare me I'm a parent! ;)
I addressed your point about contradicting laws. Often the law thinks like you do in that stages of pregnancy denote value. Laws can contradict within states as well. Scott Peterson case is a prime example of that.
I wonder what the world would look like if we viewed ALL life as you do in valuing stages. For example the apple blossom is not yet an apple but will eventually be one after it goes through various stages. What would happen if we snuffed out all of those blossoms? What if we applied that to every single living thing at all levels? We would starve for starters.
"Maybe it's my anger against that that fuels my position, I don't know."
I think you answered your own question.
Peace, kong. I'm glad you are a conservative!
I believe we are imploding because of degradation of society that wants to suck off the tit of government....and politicians are too happy to give them what they want for votes.
I wish people were responsible and didn't have 15 kids on welfare, but that ain't gonna happen....not as long as Democrats are around. I fully understand the position against abortion, and yes I have been desensitized. Is it wrong to kill the unborn? Yes. But society isn't about to change and people aren't going to be responsible as long as government is paying their bills. All they have to do is become baby factories.
Maybe it's my anger against that that fuels my position, I don't know.
If you're determined to come from a purely negative premise, then I would guess you have been desensitized to the full impact of abortion on an innocent being and willingly remain unaware what it does to a society.
When abortion became legal we started on a downward spiral in this nation that remains unabated to this day.
Any society that dehumanizes any segment of the population soon implodes.
I said that if we don't have the money to pay for the boom in kids with parents on welfare that they will starve.
Call me whatever you like. Communist / socialist /fascist / ignorant. I didn't resort to degrading you.
You act as if I support abortion of all stripes. I don't. Only the very early stages when the baby is still part of the mother and has not developed yet. I don't find that appealing or even a good thing because I wouldn't do it. But if you want to hate me because I don't want to totally ban abortions then that's your perogative.
This is getting too deep. I tried making a point about contradicting laws and the people I thought were my friends are talking to me like I'm the devil.
Well, before abortion was legal we did not have the population we have now. What makes you think they are 50 million dead tax payers? There aren't enough jobs to support our current population....with the help of government. Why can't it be considered 50 million MORE people without jobs that we are giving foodstamps and welfare to? By the way, most of them will be Democrat and it will put the cycle into full speed. Welfare and foodstamps, putting liberals in power. No, I'm not making this a political issue, but just pointing out that the problem will perpetuate.
This sounds really cruel, but I want our population to increase where the kids grow up to know what work is. Kids born into really bad poverty grow up to be a burden to society just like their parents (on a large part, not all of them).....because it's what they learn (live off government). No, that's not their fault, but it still factors into the stability of our nation.
I'm really making some friends today.
You presume that all the babies aborted are aborted for financial reasons or because of poverty.
Not even close. There are lots of stats out there on this. So many that I couldn't even begin to post them all.
And stating that 'all those children would starve to death and live on the streets' is rampant emotionalism not based in any sort of reality or fact. Even during the Depression people did not drop dead like flies on the streets from starvation. You are projecting a fear that is not based in reality and posting it as a fact.
Here is a simple fact. Even if abortion were banned today it would not stop abortion. However it would stop the overall societal arch of being pro-death and pro-inhumane to pro-life and pro-people. Until we as a society adopt that mindset as a whole we will never ever begin to solve fundamental societal problems like poverty, hunger, ignorance. So far as I can tell abortion hasn't solved or even alleviated any poverty or hunger in the world, let alone ignorance. Really what problems has it solved? We have abortion yet we have more people than ever on welfare. So much for your money choice. If we are to base abortion on money then we might as well set up gas chambers with the debt this country has. That is the logic you posited. The logic I posit is we are aborting our tax base. Think of what kind of solvency we might have if we hadn't been aborting for decades. Millions paying into the system.
I, as a Christian, would never value money above human life. That is the mindset of abortionists and of socialists, communists, fascists, etc. That is the same mindset that will snuff Granny because it is cheaper to kill her than save her. That is the mindset that is snuffing children deemed 'terminal' when in reality just expensive in socialized medicine. All disregard for human life begins somewhere.
I, as a Christian, oppose entitlements because it circumvents what God commands us to do as Christians...HELP THY NEIGHBOR. He never commanded us to set up a government and outsource our charity and responsibility to the government. Nor did he command us to outsource the responsibility of the receiver to the government either. Yes, when it comes to charity both the giver and the receiver have a responsibility. When you understand that you will see the fallacy of posting something such as this: "I'm not saying I like abortion. Not at all. But we have to be prepared for what follows after you ban abortion. Society could not handle the boom of welfare hitting government offices. We can't pay for what we are already on the hook for."
Your whole premise is based on a negative. What happened to society before abortion was legal? Did we send 10's of millions of people into the streets starving and therefore with the need to survive on Government? No, we did not.
We are talking 50 MILLION dead TAX PAYERS at this point. What do you think that did to our economy????
We can't compare China to America (at least before progressives became the norm). A free society produces productive human beings, by and large.
By the way, being conservative involves a lot more than abortion. On most issues I'm sure we agree. Just not this one.
China allows women to kill their kids up to two years of age, if I'm not mistaken....so you are correct on that. But, why is that? Population control. When society cannot support the babies being born irrational measures are taken to deal with it.
I don't want anyone to think I agree with abortions. I have never been a part of one in any relationship ever. I'm looking at the collapse of society because the poverty stricken people have much higher birth rates than those that can actually pay for their kids. Why is that? Because government encourages it. Open your legs, we'll pay you for it.
It's sort of like making government bigger and shrinking the private sector. Sooner or later the private sector cannot pay for the big government (sound familiar?) and EVERYONE collapses. Increase the population of the poverty stricken areas and combine it with a government that encourages it and pays for it. Less people to support more kids with no food or shelter.
It's a legitimate position. Although I don't care for abortion, I also don't want to be like China...or have a shrinking sector of the population pay for babies that have irresponsible parents.
Like it or not, without money to support all of the babies that would be born into the world if abortion was banned is necessary to have. Without it, all those children will starve to death and live on the streets. Our system only works as long as one sector of society...the poverty stricken sector...doesn't collapse it.
I'm not saying I like abortion. Not at all. But we have to be prepared for what follows after you ban abortion. Society could not handle the boom of welfare hitting government offices. We can't pay for what we are already on the hook for.
Degradation of society is killing us. Government rewards women that open their legs and have 15 kids while the fathers are nowhere to be found. Until something changes to where people are more responsible, I will not change my position.
By the way, if I were to choose a religion it would be Christianity and the Bible. I believe they have the correct interpretation of G-d and what He stands for and wants. I still believe the Bible is just an interpretation.....a very good one.
My brother is a pastor, so imagine the headaches I've given him over the years, lol.
I'm going to respond as I read your comment, so it might seem a little disjointed.
I totally agree about "sexual improprieties"...or irresponsibility. But we have a government that encourages it and pays people for it. We are losing that battle big time, and I see no point in the future where it changes. Degradation of society furthered by the helping hand of uncle Sam.
Although I agree that churches teach good morals, I don't necessarily believe they are the answer. You can't force someone to "believe", and if you don't believe that's no excuse to throw morals aside. That's a parenting and society failure....and a government failure for encouraging irresponsible behavior. For any changes to occur in culture, government has to stop rewarding immorality and irresponsibility. People need to be taught morals whether it be in the church, society, parenting, or all of them. This is a long battle that has to change over decades. It will never happen overnight.
I don't like to admit this on conservative sites, but I don't believe in religion. I believe in G-d, but I believe religion is man's interpretation of what G-d has not revealed. Even so, I still have good morals. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I agree with the Ten Commandments. I believe going to church can teach you good morals and I don't begrudge anyone for their beliefs....unless they believe in killing senselessly in the name of their religion.
I don't believe it's right to have an abortion, but I apply that to myself and my relationships, not everyone elses. As long as they do it as early on as possible, I'm not going to try to stop them.
Although the church can help with morality, it's not the only conduit for that to happen. Government can encourage moral behavior instead of immoral, parents can teach it, and society can enforce it by being good communities to live in rather than criminal rat holes where parents teach their kids to hate cops and live off government.
Please, please read, digest and take to heart what Laurel has so wisely and clearly stated.
I appreciate that you vote conservative even though you don't view the earliest stages of a child's development worthy of protections.
I'm wondering if you know that the first ruling for the legality of abortion was to be restricted just thru the first trimester? It didn't satisfy the abortion supporters and in due time it was changed thru all nine months.
It will, MARK. MY. WORDS., one day be allowed for a mother to kill her child for a few weeks after a viable birth. God will have returned to destroy this nasty world before it progresses beyond that, but it would with no intervention.
That is why it is urgent that the child from moment one be recognized as a "person".
"There's also the fact that our system would be overwhelmed with unwanted pregnancies and an overload of welfare cases."
I'm glad you made this point, because it gets at the HEART of the entire debate. And at the heart of the debate is morality.
If the numbers are still valid, slightly +/- 1% of all cases involving abortion are due to rape, incest or involve the life of the mother. If this is still true then that means that the vast majority are due to something else. Sexual improprieties perhaps? If promiscuity represents the vast majority of cases then abortion is a "service" that caters to immoral behavior.
I don't think this is any surprise to anyone here nor is it news.
The solution however, rests not in the culture or government; it's inside the walls of our churches. The church is responsible for keeping it's finger on the pulse of the culture. It is responsible for guiding the culture's moral trajectory. At the moment, the church is asleep at the wheel. It hasn't got a CLUE what the pulse of the culture is and so the culture speeds along to hell with nothing to stop it.
You're right that the laws are contradictory, but there would be no abortion if our culture was once again governed by godliness and righteousness. And that can only happen in the heart. And only God can convert that. And God can only do that if preachers are sent.
"How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?" Romans 10:14
We can't answer immorality with immorality. We in the church must embrace our responsibility, endure the hatred of a culture we have enabled, and preach an uncompromising Gospel message in love, and proving its worth and legitimacy both in word and deed.
It was MSNBC's Lawrence O’Donnell last week who said: ‘No One Believes the Bible’.
But sadly, he's right -- neither do most Christians. If the Bible has lost its authority, then so has the Gospel that it proclaims. If no one believes the Gospel, then no one is saved.
Why don't they believe the Gospel? because no one in the Church is convincing them that the Word upon which the Gospel rests is reliable.
Why is the Bible unreliable? It's isn't but because no one is defending it from the attacks of the culture the "ungospel" has rushed in to take its place.
Since the Gospel is based upon a book that no one believes then the morality it proclaims is also of no worth. If the Gospel is not made to permeate the culture then the "ungospel" will. And the "ungospel" is being preached from media, entertainment and university and school pulpits all over the country.
The "ungospel" preaches promiscuity, abortion on demand, sodomy, counterfeit marriage, pornography, drug use, euthanasia, anti-Christian bigotry, government dependency, et al. The "ungospel" breeds immorality, which breeds more abortions, more murders, more theft, more poverty, more drugs, more cultural predation and more justifications for even more immorality.
Kill the "ungospel" and you kill immorality. How? By believing the Gospel. Living the Gospel. Preaching the Gospel. Defending the Gospel.
We all believe in the free enterprise system. We all believe in "supply and demand." Morality works like supply and demand. If there is no demand for abortions, there would be no abortions. How do you kill the demand? By teaching morality. Someone who lives a moral life doesn't need an abortion.
It's an uphill battle to change the culture, but God is very good at removing mountains.
Are you seriously putting the value of money before the value of life?!
That is precisely why I hate and despise entitlements. They have totally undermined society and your post proves it. Unfortunately you are not the first to say it.
No there are not a lot of conservatives that believe in not using contraception or morning after pill. I personally only know of one and she is a adamant Catholic with pregnancy troubles. That is a myth based in stereotype and regardless they are not a majority. This country needs to get back to not having tyranny of the minority but quietly letting them personally practice their beliefs without persecution. If the minority wants to eschew birth control...let them. However the majority does not. That is why you have seen abortion be re-categorized over decades as 'birth control' then 'women's health'. It is a manipulative tactic to put forth in the political arena that people are against 'birth control' when in reality they are against snuffing out children.
You should re-think your position because tyranny is tyranny and it continues when good men do nothing. I do agree though at some point in time we have to let men face God for their bad decisions. Justice comes to those who are willing to work for it while exercising patience.
P.S. The laws do indeed contradict each other when view in context of national laws. View the laws in context of state to state and you see the 10th amendment at work.
![[EXTENDED VIDEO] Heartwarming moment when old woman finds dog ALIVE in rubble](http://www.therightscoop.com/wp-content/plugins/special-recent-posts/cache/MTI1MTAwbm9vbGR3b21hbl9mb3VuZF9kb2dfYWxpdmU=.jpg)
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.