The fight for abortion rights in Missouri just gained an unlikely ally: religious clergy.
A group of 13 Christian, Jewish, and Unitarian Universalist clergy leaders have filed a lawsuit to challenge a highly restrictive abortion ban passed by Missouri legislators, arguing it would “impose their religious beliefs on everyone."
Now, a judge in the Show-Me state is hearing their case against the abortion ban, and will likely decide soon if the state’s restrictive policy is tantamount to pushing Christian beliefs on the state’s non-Christian residents.
God and Government
Does a lawmaker’s overtly religious intent make a law itself religious? That question is at the heart of the plaintiffs’ argument.
It's true that some state legislators referenced their religious motivations when backing the law before it was originally passed in 2019.
At the time, state Rep. Nick Schroer stated “as a Catholic I do believe life begins at conception and that is built into our legislative findings.”
“God doesn’t give us a choice in this area. He is the creator of life,” added State Sen. Holly Thompson Rehder on the House floor during initial debates. “And I, being made in his image and likeness, don’t get to choose to take that away, no matter how that child came to be. To me, life begins at conception, and my God doesn’t give that option.”
One of the bill’s co-sponsors, State Rep. Barry Hovis, even stated explicitly that his intentions were “from the Biblical side of it.”
But does that mean the law itself is pushing biblical values on Missourians?
Missouri Deputy Solicitor General Maria Lanahan argues no. She explained to the judge that while the law is certainly “in harmony” with Christian values, it’s not necessarily pushing Christianity itself on anyone.
No one, she argued, is being forced to convert.
Is It Unconstitutional?
Of course, the law's many opponents – including the group of clergy members – don't see it that way.
“If a law’s predominant purpose is to impose religious beliefs, that is clearly unconstitutional,” argued one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, Kalli Joslin.
As evidence, they say all one has to do is look at the language used by lawmakers.
“We know this has a religious purpose because when the lawmakers passed the law in 2019, they told us that,” explained K. M. Bell, another attorney representing the plaintiffs.
One of the clergy involved in the case, General Minister at United Church of Christ Traci Blackmon, says that the law’s religious motivations couldn’t be clearer.
It’s “an unconscionable abuse of religion to oppress all Missourians,” she says. “Legislators do not have the right to impose their faith on me or anyone else.”
Faith Divide Grows on Abortion
The case echoes similar lawsuits filed by other religious groups in the wake of the controversial Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade.
Jewish women in Kentucky, for example, challenged that state’s strict abortion ban by arguing that the right to an abortion is actually a right under Jewish law.
As for the Missouri case, St. Louis Circuit Court Judge Jason Sengheise heard arguments from both sides last week. He says he’ll likely rule early next year.
What is your reaction?
Legislators didn’t seem to hide their religious motivations when passing the abortion law... but does that mean that the state legislature is imposing Christianity on Missourians, or can religious beliefs be reasonably separated from legal outcomes?
204 comments
-
Catherine
I think each lawmaker who attempts forcing religious standards on non-religious citizens should be fined, removed from office, and or additionally penalized for frivolously misspending taxpayers' time and money.
-
Marcella J Schieffelin
Amen!
-
Rev Mark D
...should be fined, removed from office, and or additionally penalized...
Will never happen.
-
Catherine
One can hope.
-
-
Daniel Gray
Nope 1st Amendment does not allow that
-
Amber Fry
Sorry man but you are wrong. Part of that amendment reads as follows:
"Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. "
These laws are doing exactly that. It is entirely unconstitutional and they should be fined and removed from office.
-
Daniel Gray
Yea it says CONGRESS, it does not mention anyone else.
-
-
-
Rev Mark D
Comment removed by user.
-
-
Donald J Rothschild Jr
The Christian Right likes nothing more than to try and impose their beliefs on others. These politicians should b3 thrown out of office. They take an oath of office upon assuming that office. They do not take an oath to follow their Bible.
-
Danny D. Maynard
The US Constitution says there is to be no religious test for occupying one of those elected or appointed offices.
-
Rev Mark D
True enough, and that ends it. But a "belief test" is allowed.
-
Daniel Gray
Oh really? Then show WHERE it says its allowed. Feinstein was ripped to shreads when she tried to inject this kind of crap in the last SCOTUS nomination and even her own party told her to NEVER do that again and she was even told the same by the US SAG. SO do please show us where you think this is applicable. I wont hold my breath waiting
-
Rev Mark D
No on second reading that was wrong there is no belief test, sorry about that. I would remove my own comment here but the machine won't let me anymore.
-
-
-
-
-
Marcella J Schieffelin
Had I lived in the State of Missouri under this law as a Jewish woman I would not have been able to receive a life-saving abortion, and my already existing daughter who I gave birth to would be without her mother. Because I was able to exercise my Jewish convictions under Colorado law, I am still alive and since then have an adopted daughter from China. One religious group may be a majority and it doesn't give them the right to restrict others from exercising their religious convictions. That's abuse of power. One religious group should not supercede another.
-
Rev Mark D
Comment removed by user.
-
Rev Mark D
Well Marcella, it was to save your life. That's understandable of course.
Since you are Jewish you don't believe in the afterlife so you will not have to meet up with your aborted daughter and explain yourself to her. (If you are right about no afterlife that is.) That would be very fortunate for you had your abortion not been to save your life.
But even so, I'm sorry you didn't favor your daughter's life over your own, me personally I feel like yes I would be willing to die to save my kid's life. What parent doesn't?
-
Sherrell K Zitting
@ Marcella.
Yuh, but what if YOUR religion is F'd up? Kidding... KIDDING... K.I.D.D.I N G.
-
Rev Mark D
Case on point going on in Texas as we speak.
-
Daniel Gray
Nope case is settled, neither the woman nor the doctor could medically prove what they were claiming. There are hundreds of children that are born either brain dead or die in birth and it does not stop the parents from having another one. Case in point in a local military watering hole a former commander of same had a grand daughter who died WHILE she was being born. Now that is a tragedy BUT the daughter just found out she was pregnant again and its a healthy baby boy. Sometimes things happen and there is no rhyme or reason to them
-
-
-
Carol M. Anaski-Figurski
Well interesting topic. I am woman a pro choice & a christian. I believe God give you options. It's a woman's right to choose. These rights matter.
-
Joy
Absolutely! When choices are removed from society, the more those in charge will control the rest.
-
Sherrell K Zitting
@ Carol and Joy.
Huh, right to kill babies?
-
Rev Mark D
What do you say Sherrell about the case in Texas right this minute?
-
-
-
Daniel Gray
Really? then I guess you also agree to the dna test that will soon be required for all children being born so that you can make sure that the child actually belongs to both parents. Or are you going to argue about that as well considering that if a woman wants a child and the man does not she can have the child and then hit him up for 18 years worth of support. Now if the man wants the child and the woman does not she can get rid of it and the man has no say? Tell me ladies exactly how fair is that?
-
-
Bishop William Dusenberry, DD
The Christian God (before he became a Christian, and, was back then, the Hebrew God) became peed-off, by the people he’d created, and drowned everyone — except Noah, et al.
Approximately 956,423 pregnant females ( some as young as nine ) were drowned in this flood, making the Hebrew God (who’s now the Christian God) the greatest abortionist of all time — he just used a different method to do so; however with similar results. Make sure you bring this to the attention of the anti-choicers, who, if their raped daughter, or granddaughter had been raped, then became pregnant, would tell their friends and neighbors, that they were taking their sexually assaulted family member, on a trip to Italy, which coincidentally provided safe, medical pregnancy terminations, on demand. PS, Italy’s where the Vatican is located, and the Vatican is at heart of the anti-reproductive choice fiasco.
-
Danny D. Maynard
The presence of the genocidal Hebrew God caused the death of several million people. The Christian God, by its obvious absence, has caused the death of a few billion people since Its conversion! I am not sure which is worse!
-
Gregory Brown
Do you understand why God destroyed everyone except Noah and his family? Seems to me it was because they wouldn’t stop their evil ways. That’s how I see it it but people believe all kinds of things. To each his own.
-
Lionheart
Ohhhh ok, Sir Gregory. So let me get this right. Your God drowned infants, toddlers, children, and pregnant mothers because of their evil ways, and people bow down and worship that god….right? Got it!
You’ll be telling me next that he condoned slavery, stoning people to death, and genital mutilation of baby boys, but he’s all about love…right?
It’s amazing what people worship isn’t it, and will find excuses to support the pathetic deistic brute?
🦁❤️
-
Lori-Ann Neeb
I agree mostly except God, The God, never did those things. Those who wrote or published texts portrayed Him the way they were taught to portray Him. He never judged or condemned anyone. Men are responsible for their acts against other then all by themselves. I think that if people would accept that the book they were told to believe is not accurate, they would be able to open their minds. That published work was edited before publishing by the church and they kept editing until one pope declared no more changes. Fear to accept it as inaccurate is one of the biggest road blocks to spirituality there is.
-
Lionheart
Thank you for your reply, Lady Lori-Ann. For the most part I totally agree with you. The problem of course is in deciding what is truth, and what isn't, within any written works created by mankind.
The biggest issue, is whether there is actually any God worth writing about, and if there is, which one is it? Even the omnipotent Gods of mankind seem to not be able to prove they exist.
Anyway, for me, I'm totally happy to accept that none of them exist until such time as there is any demonstrable evidence to prove at least one of them does. No one has managed to do that so far, not even any God. 🤗
I wonder what "spirituality" really is?🤔 To me, it just seems to be yet another human construct, with everyone grasping at their own personal interpretation in an attempt to decide what it is.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, my dog has a beautiful spirit. As for my cat....well....I'm not quite sure. 😜
🦁♥️
-
Lori-Ann Neeb
Mr. Lionheart, I believe we all find the path that speaks to us. So I respect others right to believe as they will. I have no idea what constitutes proof to you or if you will find it. That is your path to travel. To me spirituality is simple. It is an innate sense of right and wrong or good or not good. I heard a man speak once and he brought up the analogy of primitive people who lived before organized religion or even language, etc. These were people who just survived. Should they have been bannished to some form of "hell" just because they hadn't even invented those concepts yet? Most would say no. Yet these people who didn't understand such things or care about them still knew right from wrong. It was there inside them as they are in us. To me that is spirituality. No one teaches it to you or has to explain it. It is just there and comes from the heart.
I do have a belief that God exists and that works for me. And it gas nothing to do with any organized religion. They are man made. I know there are many good people who also believe in religion. To love God and do good deeds does not depend on whether one belings to any church or not. If one does go to church and is spiritual, that is fine. The only ones who ever bother me are those that claim a church membership then go out and judge others or harm others and say it is ok because they go to church. Or bible thumpers who start snd end every thought with the bible says. When you ask for any reasoning or validation that doesn't depend on an innacurate book, they either turn rude and judgmental or keep spouting more memorized verses because they have nothing else to offer.
-
-
-
Rev Mark D
Lionheart, have you been secretly reading Hitchens?
-
-
-
Sherrell K Zitting
@Danny.
Well, Pappy knows best
-
-
Lori-Ann Neeb
The vatican is responsible for much more also. All those trying to use the bible as reference need to study vatican history. They controled and edited that bible so many times that very little, if any, original material remains. It is their book published their way with their own agenda. Those same enlightened people also led inquisitions that tortured and killed Thousands of innocent people.
-
Rev Mark D
More than thousands. Many many more than thousands. Burnings, ever see one, like those Buddhist priests who self-immolate? All property taken. Killed if they did not convert so huge numbers had to and even today there are many Catholics who were converted Jews. Why don't you read a little Hitchens about a little bit more of the history if you don't want to take the time to read many sources to confirm what is documented. Religion poisons everything.
But... a few exceptions here and there. The Jewish religion is extremely ethical and all of their written documents of their canons shows it. The Baha'i are extremely ethical and always have been, they're like Arab flower children. Many Buddhists are extremely ethical and much of their religion allows for that, only some of their radical offshoot sects over time have been destructive.
-
-
Lori-Ann Neeb
The vatican is responsible for much more also. All those trying to use the bible as reference need to study vatican history. They controled and edited that bible so many times that very little, if any, original material remains. It is their book published their way with their own agenda. Those same enlightened people also led inquisitions that tortured and killed Thousands of innocent people.
-
-
Joy
Abortion legislation has never been about abortions. It has always been about control. If they really want to control unwanted pregnancies, why not give vasectomies to newborn males? It's completely reversible when the time comes. But no, we can't do that! Men in control would cry havoc over the State telling them what they can do in their own bodies. And that is the entire point of the abortion legislation. Control.
(No, I'm not "men bashing." This is just the patriarchy rule we have been living in and it's being called out.)
-
Rev Mark D
You're right, all those women who are anti-abortion, they were controlled by men to believe what they were told, because they are weak and not independent adult women capable of thinking on their own or of assuming consequences for their decisions and beliefs. There, false feminine male bashing called out.
-
Amber Fry
Nevermind the fact that happens too? Many of the women who go along with this believe the men should make those decisions, that they have the protection and best interests of the women in mind when making them. I have a few of those with my inlaws so I know. That said, it isn't false, just not the majority.
-
Daniel Gray
fair is fair.....if a man wants to get "snipped" then he has to have his wife's permission and this is in most states. So if the wife has a say over her husbands body then why cant the husband have a say over hers?
-
Rev Mark D
Is what you say really true, that a woman must consent to a man having a vasectomy? I don't know any law that goes that way, except if the man is legally incompetent and unable to give proper consent and the woman has guardianship and power of attorney, and even if the man is a minor I'm not sure the parent can block it although it may differ in different states. I just find your assertion a little hard to believe about "has to have his wife's permission." Really?
-
Daniel Gray
Already gave you a list of states that require this, but I guess it was just too much to expect fact to be left alone and it was removed.
-
-
-
-
-
Lori-Ann Neeb
Or instead of just preaching to young people about some supposed "hell and damnation" for "sinners", teach them safe sex and responsibility in a real world. We all know that the young make some bad decions no matter how strict or fanatical their parents are. Sometimes directly in spite of it. Do you want your children to grow up safe and happy young adults or end up living with bad decisions for the rest of their lives?
-
Sherrell K Zitting
@ Joy.
Abortion legislation about control? Correct, deadly control over others, babies.
-
-
John W
I am a male. I cannot get pregnant; I can only cause a pregnancy. Therefore, who am I to tell a woman that I am not or have not been intimate with on what actions she should do in the event of a pregnancy? And if a woman I am intimate with gets pregnant, I can only offer her my feelings about what actions she should or shouldn't take. In the ultimate end, it is all about the woman. She is the one that has to make the decision to keep or abort. Her actions either way will be with her for the rest of her days mentally, physically and emotionally. As a male, I should be man enough to respect the decision, even if I don't agree with it and if the decision is to keep the child, my responsibility to see that the child is properly supported mentally, physically and materially. It is not the job, so to speak, of non-medical outsiders to render personal opinions as to what a pregnant woman should do if she becomes pregnant for, they are not the ones who will be left with the results of their opinions. Are they going to be the ones that provide food, shelter, clothing, medical care, emotional support and education for these children until they are adults? Are they going to be the ones that provide the support for the mothers who are doing all of this? Before condemning me for my opinion, I have experienced this in real life in several different ways in that I had a girlfriend that, before she met me, decided to abort because she knew, as a young college student, that she could not properly care for a child at that point in her life. In another instance, a female friend of mine found herself the victim of an incestuous rape by her highly religious father; the child was born with severe birth defects and could not be cared for by my friendand had to be institutionalized where it later died. Both these women expressed the mental anguish that they experienced and do still in many instances experience as grown women. When my wife got pregnant, we were both overjoyed, and a bit scared as we were both career established and in our early 40s. Despite some major complications during my wife's pregnancy, that one doctor advised termination, our son was born, and we were happy as could be only to have our son pass away 26 hours later because his pancreas could not produce insulin. Meanwhile we see stories on the news of "parents" who kill or brutally injure their children and still after all these years, wonder why the Almighty allowed them to become parents and denied us. So therefore, if it was not or is not you that the pregnancy is happening to, keep your opinions to yourself and don't condemn others for the choices that make or have made. It is not the call of any religious leader or politician to force others to conform to their personal feelings or beliefs. It is the call of the pregnant female to make the decision.
-
FRED McATEE
John that was the most honest, sincere, and convincing post I've ever read on the issue. Thank you for this, wish this could be reposted on many other forums on the issue.
-
Rev Mark D
Red, you said it only because it happens to be that you like what he said.
-
-
Catherine
Thank you for saying, John W.
-
Marion Sowerby
John, I thank you for your honesty, and hope that you recover from the obvious hurt that you have suffered.
I was in a position where I got pregnant and my family wanted me to terminate. At that time, I was 21 and had a job that would never afford me to stay and have childcare, so I had to quit. I am so glad that I genuinely had the opportunity to be able to have a long hard think and actually choose what was best for me. This is the whole crux - I could have good advice and choose. My maternal grandmother was wonderful, and she helped me a great deal throughout.
-
Richard Michael McNiven
Well said John W. Possibly the best comment I've seen on any blog/social media concerning the abortion issue.
-
Sherrell K Zitting
@ John W.
All about the woman? Since Eden, it's all about the man, which includes wo-man (woe man). SHE sinned, so SHE was cursed, and then the Lord directed THE MAN with long LIFE: 930 years, and directed woman: "Thy desires shall be to the man, and he shall rule over thee". Hehe, it's all right there in that novel Book. Now don't go turning it into a novel or bathroom tissue. Okay darlin?
-
Tecla Caryl Loup
Sigh. Only if you believe that the creation myths in Genesis translate literally into Old English. Plus, where does this woe (is me) man nonsense come from? Here's some etymology for you: "adult female human," late Old English wimman, wiman (plural wimmen), literally "woman-man," alteration of wifman (plural wifmen) "woman, female servant" (8c.), a compound of wif "woman" (see wife) + man "human being" (in Old English used in reference to both sexes; see man (n.)). Compare Dutch vrouwmens "wife," literally "woman-man."
So "man" doesn't refer only to, ah, dudes.
-
Rev Mark D
Not a bad comeback Sherrell, it is in there.
-
-
Rev Mark D
"In the ultimate end, it is all about the woman."
John, I think you left somebody out, don't you? And as to the word "all," well, there's something about people who think in absolute terms.
-
-
Merlin
Religious bias has no place in government. Abortion is a personal choice. The Bible does support abortion in certain circumstances. Hosea 13:16 and Numbers 5:27.
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
What the bible says has squat all to do with squat all. You might as well quote Spiderman’s uncle’s little ditty ‘With great power cones great responsibility.’ That’s infinitely more meaningful than ‘what the bible says.’
-
ServantOfJudgement
Actually Z, the Bible said that. It was just re-branded for the comic. It's in Corinthians I think. It's good to know your subconscious self agrees with God's word, even if such wisdom you proclaimed as profound was written by primitives.
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
If it’s in the bible then give the reference. As for agreeing with the bible I agree with some things in the bible. Nothing new there. But using the bible for moral advice is like looking for gold in a cess pool. You may find gold in there but that gold is easily available without walking around chest deep in s**t.
-
ServantOfJudgement
I did give the reference, it's in Corinthians. Of course you agree with things in the bible, you dont really have a choice. Now you can and do violate those things you agree with in Bible. Your knowledge of you doing that causes you the hate the document, as the document says you will. As it turns out, the greater the ego, the more you(we) despise instruction and critique. You are the creature the Bible says you.
It's interesting that you repeated the bible's assessment of you for it says you live in a pig toilet and you think your opinion is gold.
What an unusual document.
-
Dr. Zerpersande, NSC
Chapter verse. Not reading a lot of goat herder nonsense to find it. Not worth my time.
Of course I agree???? Nope, I agree with helping others. I don’t agree with anything about the miracle status of Jesus. Any of the miracles. Don’t agree with all the commandments. Definitely don’t believe the Noah, Jonah, Job or Lot stories. It’s a lot easier to find things I do NOT agree with or believe.
‘The document says you will.’ There has to be a good story behind that. Early Bible proponents sitting around in their emotional circle jerk, whining about the difficulties of being a ‘believer’. Someone says “ All the smart people are always laughing at me and telling me that believing in superstitions silly. What can we do about that?” Someone comes up with the idea of just adding something in The Book that says anybody that disagrees with their nonsense has too big of an ego and their god will put them in a torure chamber for 100 years. No, a 1000 years. No, ETERNITY. Hey, make it fire, BURN THEM. That will scarevthembthe smart people and make them go away.
As the youngsters say these days….
…NOT!
-
ServantOfJudgement
I know it's not worth your time, not worth mine to lead you to something you don't care about in the first place. I get it.
You lost me in your vulgarity, sorry didn't read the rest of your statement. Sometimes too much is too much ya know.
-
-
Lori-Ann Neeb
It is all meaningless in the end. Your bible is an innacurate man made book. Very little actual text exists in it. Editing over centuries has clouded it. One must use all sourcescacailble to make responsible decisions using the intelligence God gave them. The bible alone offers very little useful information or advise. If all you have is "the bible says" then you have very little to add to any topic orcdiscu
-
-
-
-
Rev Mark D
Oh no Z, now you've done it.
-
-
Merlin
Regardless if you agree with the Bible or not, it does speak of abortion which could run counter to beliefs that appose freedom of choice.
-
ServantOfJudgement
It speaks of killing innocent life Merlin. I'm having a hard time thinking of any life more innocent than that of a human baby.
-
-
Sherrell K Zitting
@ Merlin.
Wait a minute, you say religious bias has no place? Then you immediately quote the Bible?
-
Merlin
It's a fact.
-
-
-
Susan Guthrie
As a young Christian woman, I was very anti-abortion until I worked around a 3000-bed facility for abused and abandoned children. The horrors revealed to me that are perpetrated against unwanted, unloved children and infants were horrifying. I still suffer greatly from knowing these things go on. And starting then, I began to thank God for abortion.
Mature believers realize that the body is just a vehicle for the human soul, it is not the human itself. True Christians let go of the materialistic view of the human experience. And we let go of judging the decisions and beliefs of others.
Under Jewish law, which gave birth to Christianity, a fetus does not become a human being or child until birth. That is, the mother's life is always more important than the life she is nurturing inside, since without the mother, the newborn is in jeopardy.
More importantly, it is every child's right to be born into a safe, loving home where it is wanted. with adequate resources for the nurturing and time it takes to actually become a full human being. If there are monster humans on Earth, they were born unwanted and unloved.
-
Lori-Ann Neeb
Consider also the quickening. That is the moment the soul or entity meant for that body enters the physical body. Does that happen the momenh an egg is penetrated by a sperm? I think not. I believe the entity knows it has time to remain at Home until it is ready to give up its natural form at Home. Why force itself to exist as cells in a womb for nine months which I can only imagine as boring as it gets. Plus, depending on the life chart of the mother and entity, either can reconsider and decide that the charted life will be too difficult to live or survive. In that case, the soul meant for that form never enters it and the form is aborted in some natural way or other. That soul is free to choose a better circumstance to be born into.
-
Rev Mark D
"Mature believers realize that the body is just a vehicle for the human soul, it is not the human itself."
"Under Jewish law, which gave birth to Christianity, a fetus does not become a human being or child until birth."
Well, 2 things about that.
First, Jewish law was not "stillborn" all one and done in one moment it grew and evolved over time, including changing...or do you sssert that as of a certain moment it froze and in final perfection from that moment until today, and that it as of then is perfect? Second, "slept with the fathers" means the end, period, thus including the soul. Yes, following your logic, the child's life and soul are worth less than the mother's life and soul, such that it is religiously or morally, appropriate to choose death for the child to favor the life of the mother. Third, Judaism spawned Islam as well as Christianity. So since you above subordinate Christianity to Judaism because Judaism spawned christianity, do you likewise invalidate Islam in favor of Judaism for the same reason (if you want anybody to believe you in the first place, you had better say yes, that is where you put yourself, with Judaism because it is the elder, in the case of both Christianity and Islam). So in one stroke of strange logic you repudiate all of Christianity and all of Islam because whenever there is a difference, Judaism is superior because it is older and proceeded the other two religions in line. Good luck with that one."More importantly, it is every child's right to be born into a safe, loving home where it is wanted."
Well, if that right is not met, do you then say "So it is therefore ok to do away with the child"? No?
I'm sure it must be me, but I am really confused with what seems to be your logic here, because of where it leads.
-
Rev Mark D
Okay one last thought on your earlier statement:
"As a young Christian woman, I was very anti-abortion until I worked around a 3000-bed facility for abused and abandoned children. The horrors revealed to me that are perpetrated against unwanted, unloved children and infants were horrifying. I still suffer greatly from knowing these things go on. And starting then, I began to thank God for abortion."
So, according to what you just said, we have: A is born. B (and maybe D and E) does terrible things to A. C observes that terrible things have been done by B to A. So to prevent B (or maybe others) doing the bad things to A, C authorizes B to kill A. Perhaps in the "hope" (I could use the word "knowledge" but then you might not like it put that way, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say hope) that somehow A would want thank C for snuffing her.
Huh???
-
-
Paul Johnson
Once again delusional people acting like they did in Jobs day. It is also amazing how smart we become when we are placed in a position that you have to answer as with Job. We discover how we really line up when we are put to the test with God. Job finally came to his senses when he discovered how he compared to God. No different than Sodom when you are hell bent on going against God nothing is going to change your attitude. If and I know that is a big word "If" you ever realize that you were created then and only then will you acknowledge that there is a Creator. Live with it are die with hate bitterness FEAR and what ever else you would like to deal with. It a choice. Why would people be hell bent on destroying an unborn child who has no voice in the first degree murder that will tqke place and you want everybody to agree with you. Some Clergymen (person). If the truth would be known most Christians can't handle the TRUTH the Truth is the WORD of God.
-
Sherrell K Zitting
Amen Paul
-
Lionheart
Awww, bless you. Did you get all that belief type structure from reading a book? We are all pulling for you and hope you get well 🤗
🦁❤️
-
Paul Johnson
Remain calm and relax then truley submit yourself to the one who created you. Now with some folks I think they were hatched However I believe that I was created therefore there must be a creator. So who is in charge the created or the creator? Wake up and quit fighting God. If He created you don't you think that He loves you. Prove me different. Thank you .
-
Lionheart
Thank you, Sir Paul. Until there is any demonstrable evidence that any of the worlds gods that mankind has created are real, I’ll assume they don’t exist. No one has managed to do that so far, are you up to the task? There’s a Nobel prize waiting for the first human being to do so. Will your name be on the next one?
🦁❤️
-
-
-
-
Carol M. Anaski-Figurski
I am also an independent Christian clergy x2 & doctor of divinity with a master of wiccan & a RN BSN in the State of IL.
-
Lionheart
I’m so sorry to hear about your terrible psychological indoctrinations. We all hope you get well and recover. Can anyone at the hospital you work at help? 🤗
🦁❤️
-
-
ServantOfJudgement
All 50 states convict a person of two murders that kill a pregnant woman. All 50. If killing a human in the womb isn't murder, who does the murderer of the mother kill and get convicted for murdering? Who?
Are certain humans permitted to kill whom they choose? Can a woman kill the child of a man? The child is in fact his as well, why can a woman murder a man's child?
The bible says no to theft, shall we pull that from the books? Shall we pull every jot and tittle from our laws that are found in the bible?
-
Rev Mark D
Really good questions, soj.
Everybody here is the product of a decision to not have an abortion.
-
-
Harvey Darwin Myers II
I think that atheism is a religion of its own. To deny the existence of a higher power, while it doesn't require anyone to go to a rock on Sunday and say, "I don't believe in you." It is a choice about religious ideas. Since neither side can prove the existence of or the lack of existence both sides have opinion or belief involved.
If this is correct, then for someone to advocate for abortion because they are an atheist is also a religious argument.
We have many arguments that hinge on the Constitution. The Constitution restricts the government and not the citizens. So separation of Church and State is about the Government cannot declare a 'State religion' or required belief. It was never that the citizens in government MUST NOT HAVE any religious belief.
I think that the USSC was correct. The Consitution restricted the Federal Government from having an opinion on abortion which leaves it to the states. Each state can rule according to what the citizens of the state think is correct. Wonderfully we live in the USA which allows us ot move to another state if our state doesn't agree with what we want.
-
Michael Hunt
Moving states is much easier said than done. If you live in poverty, there's little opportunity for you to leave.
-
Harvey Darwin Myers II
So just because it is easier we should force all Americans to live under the same rule? Is that your argument?
I would suggest that may be we should spend some of the money trying to legalize abortion every where and instead use it to help those move that want to.
We are supposed to be 50 independent states not clones of each other.
-
-
Shannon Forkner
Well stated.
-
-
Sherrell K Zitting
Well put SOJ. Religion aside, the statute and common and constitutional laws of both the U.S. and of all the states, clearly state that murder is a felony. Social justice and common sense agree, and ALL cultures including Christian codify the same. The first duty of all governments worldwide is to defend the lives of the weak, and the weakest are the unborn children. But Lucifer, the master of death will and does oppose, even with the support of some clergy. But clergy for who?
-
Daniel Jude Atkinson
I think classifying an anti-abortion stance solely as a religious stance is short sighted, and a lazy argument. Sure, some people opposed to abortion base their stance on religious standards, but in my experience, most people who are against abortion base their belief on the same laws that make murder a crime. They feel that abortion and murder are one in the same. Are laws banning murder (which are pretty much universal) considered religious laws?
-
Harvey Darwin Myers II
I agree and it is interesting that many of the environmental group are pro abortion because it isn't a baby until birth. However, they gleefully hope someone is punished for destroying an eagle's egg. Is it an eagle before it's born? If not, then why is that the law?
-
Tecla Caryl Loup
It is far more likely that some species of eagle is endangered than that humans are. Of course one could be deluded by espousal of the Great Replacement conspiracy theory. So eagles are not the best analogy.
-
Harvey Darwin Myers II
Well, Loup, that one human fetus is facing extinction, if the mother is allowed to abort. That is about the silliest argument I have ever heard, but you are right in line with Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthoods Founder. She was hoping to reduce the number of blacks by abortion and look at what she has accomplished.
Saying abortion is correct because humans are not likely to become extinct would extract to Murder should be ok for the same reason. Are you suggesting that as well?
Did anyone know Albert Einstein was in the womb or any number of other humans that changed the world as we know it? Maybe the person that will cure cancer or any number of diseases could be the fetus that some person decides doesn't need to live.. That might be the reason for the extinction of the human race. One never knows.
-
-
-
-
Robert Alexander Owens
It's amazing to me that this is argued about. How many times have you read or heard of someone throwing a puppy or kitten out of a car or they are left to die, then the person that did this are brought forward and everyone cast stones at them, even going to court and charges of animal cruelty are brought against them. Animals have rights but not a fetus that is of human DNA. i find it so laughable that you who argue for abortion will argue to save a puppy or a kitten but a human baby can be killed without a blink. You say, as woman it's my body, well what about that baby's body do they have a right to protect their body from you killing them, who defends the weak and defenseless.
-
Tecla Caryl Loup
Perhaps you're not aware that the puppy/kitten has been born, while a fetus has not. False comparison. It's not as if we're arguing about infant exposure to the elements.
-
-
Patricia Rae Tooke
What happened to our strong stance on separating church and state? When lawmakers state clearly that this is a biblical mandate or "their" God believes so and so, why would that law even be considered? It clearly crosses the line of separation which our country was built on.
-
Shannon Forkner
Actually that separation was applied to stop the states corrupting the church.
-
Michael Hunt
And to stop the state from being corrupted by the church.
-
Harvey Darwin Myers II
This was never part of it.
"John Adams, observed, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”1 He wasn’t the only Founding Father to hold this view. Indeed, James Madison wrote that our Constitution requires “sufficient virtue among men for self-government,” otherwise, “nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.”2" https://constitutionallaw.regent.edu/preserving-a-constitution-designed-for-a-moral-and-religious-people/
-
Tecla Caryl Loup
Hmmm. Classic conservative beliefs even unto this day.
-
-
-
-
-
Father Flanagan
And in all of these arguments about a “woman’s right to choose” they all and pretty much every one on here just ignores a fathers rights! The child is 50% the father yet he has no rights if the mother murders his child with abortion but if she has a child that he doesn’t want, he can go to jail for not supporting it so until the father has a say in any of this - it’s all crap 💩 just a big two sided steaming pile of crap and one of those sides is the government when it should stay out of they’re “employers” business!
-
Tecla Caryl Loup
When the day comes that a father carries a child for 9 months and goes through childbirth, then perhaps he can have his say.
-
Rev Mark D
Ah, Ms loup, only some people can have their say, such as women who have had a child. Some people are better than others and some people have more rights than others, and fetuses are things or blobs of cells, just vessels or bodies or crates, identities or persons are spirits and souls, and men don't get to have an opinion at all about somebody they helped create oh I'm sorry chemical contributors of some cells and cell material.
How convenient for you. And yet you don't like that other people with religious convictions based on their beliefs only get to say. Sounds like you have your own religion too, and you created it...
Now following your example, rather than your words and claims, everybody can make their own religion and their beliefs and they're just as valid as anybody else's. That's nice. And anything that you don't have to agree with is not valid. Okay then, back at you. What did that get you? What's should it get you?
-
-
-
Alexander Arends
You don't have to follow a certain religion to oppose abortion. There are non-believers who consider an abortion to be murder. Right or wrong, such people are expressing their belief as much as those who support the right to have an abortion. This includes lawmakers.
-
Joy
No one has the right to tell anyone what they can or cannot do to their own bodies. Ever. This has never been about killing babies. It's been about control.
-
Sherrell K Zitting
Right, deadly control of the life of others, babies.
-
Rev Mark D
No Joy, you just tried to, having men get vasectomy. How about women just closing their legs or getting birth control? Or how about both, except not compulsory?
-
Amber Fry
You really need to catch up on who's actually getting abortions and why. The majority are women already married, already with children and cannot afford more. Some have a medical crisis while carrying and need one to save their own life. Some are raped and shouldn't be forced to carry the reminder of being assaulted. Nobody just wants to have one. It's a procedure that is actually often quite necessary for the survival of those already alive.
-
Cheryl Pettijohn
So every pregnancy is created by consent? Including the rape of children? SMH
-
Tecla Caryl Loup
Clearly you are thinking of some female lying on her back waving her legs in the air. And you have never had someone try to force your legs apart nor do you understand domestic violence. A strong person can force an unwilling victim. The victim could first be beaten unconscious.
And what will your opinion be when the anti-birth control movement picks up more steam??
-
Rev Mark D
"Clearly"? "Clearly?"
Loup, I think you need to check with your retinal surgeon.
-
Tecla Caryl Loup
My name is not Loup and my eyesight is excellent, Mr. Smarty Pants.
I want to know how many times you've been pregnant and carried the embryo->fetus->baby to birth. And I REALLY want to know your position on birth control and the right of anyone to use it.
-
Rev Mark D
All your position revolves around the determination, decision, pronouncement, postulate, judgment, that anything in the womb is a bunch of cells until some magical cartoon Force called the spirit, and already formed and complete being with identity thought and awareness, and ability, inserts itself into the crate, and the crate itself is just like material, wood, stone, or plant cells or something constructed, a thing with nothing, a box.
And actually there is a second further construct, and that is whatever you believe is valid because you happen to believe it and "so there, I believe it so it's true and I am right because I believe it."
Oh and then there is even a third presumption: it's inside me so I alone decide what it is, and I alone get to say it's value and what can be done with it... Like property being nine tenths of the law only with you it's all 10.
Sounds like you are "I am that I am." So you are not Loup, you are "I Am."
-
-
-
Rev Mark D
Comment removed by user.
-
Rev Mark D
"Clearly"? "Clearly?"
Sorry Loup, I think you need to check with your retinal surgeon.
But in any case, it sounds like your idea of crime and punishment is that the cure to the crime of rape and child sexual abuse is to punish the baby by killing it... What did the baby responsibly do to earn a death sentence in response? That's your idea of justice. Or, "Well the crime was committed against me, but I'm going to kill you as part of my becoming whole. Yes I'm the victim here, and though you were not, I'm going to kill you anyway and make a victim out of you, too. Sorry, can't be helped, it's my right. So even though you have to die (well, not really, except in the occasional rare case where you are putting my life in danger), I need you to die, so I can reclaim my right to my body. You're just some tissue anyway. Sorry, them's the breaks."
That is seriously messed up. I say "messed" instead of the more actual verb because it would be bleeped.
-
Tecla Caryl Loup
What baby? Have you seen all the pictures shown by actual medical persons of the stages of development of tiny cells into something resembling a human?
You'll never convince me that a quivering blob of protoplasm is the same as a formed creature with a chance at life. It may have that potential, but potential is not the same as being there. Are you aware of how often miscarriages happen due to developmental problems?
I could go on and on, but in essence I believe that people should keep their long sharp noses out of others' underwear. Until you've walked in their shoes, you really have no right to judge.
-
-
-
-
-
Danny D. Maynard
Lawmakers who only follow their personal creed are not suited to be makers of law!
-
Alexander Arends
You are absolutely right, but that does not change my opinion. If politicians don't consider the will of the people, they should not be re-elected.
-
-
-
Sherrell K Zitting
Well put SOJ. Religion aside, the statute and common and constitutional laws of both the U.S. and of all the states, clearly state that murder is a felony. Social justice and common sense agree, and ALL cultures besides Christian codify the same. The first duty of all governments worldwide is to defend the lives of the weak, and the weakest are the unborn children. But Lucifer, the master of death will and does oppose, even with the support of some clergy. But clergy for who?
-
Russell Selph
Sherrell,
Your argument hinges crucially on when the embryo/fetus/child is granted personhood. Opinions on the time at which this happens vary from fertilization, to first heartbeat, to viability, to first breath, and for some simply based on time since fertilization. The extremes of that spectrum are largely motivated by religious belief, while the others usually boil down to more secular criteria. It's not an easy question to tackle, hence the controversy. Your logic holds, but it leaves out this important distinction.
(As an aside, murder is not always considered a felony. In particular when it is committed by the government, as in capital punishment or the conduct of war, but also in self defense depending on the circumstance. When a doctor has to choose between the life of the mother and that of the child, does that count as self defense for the mother? That one's tough, too.)
-
Sherrell K Zitting
@Russell Selph
LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION
https://dailycitizen.focusonthefamily.com/life-begins-at-fertilization-96-of-liberal-pro-choice-and-non-religious-biologists-agree/
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36629778/#:~:text=Biologists%20from%201%2C058%20academic%20institutions,5577)%20affirmed%20the%20fertilization%20view.
As for murder, we are not talking about war, self-defense, nor capital punishment. We are talking about a live innocent baby in the womb, quite the opposite of the violence that you refer to.
The choice between the life of the mother and the slaughter of their baby is often a fluke to force abortions. But when the death of the mother is truly imminent if she doesn't slaughter her baby, the mother has had a life. The baby has not. So it's a clear choice. Furthermore, all will agree that babies are far more innocent than adults, the life to save, if there is the off-chance that only one of the two can be saved.
-
Tecla Caryl Loup
Focus on the Family is a far-right Christian organization founded by James Dobson that opposes domestic partnerships, same-sex unions, abortion, etc., etc. and supports at least some of the Their definition of "life" is not universally accepted.
Nor is anyone who believes in reincarnation going to accept innocence in babyhood, born or not. From my own experience, I know that we aren't born as blank slates, whether we espouse reincarnation or not.
Again, I think people should mind their own business on topics that are faith-based.
-
Tecla Caryl Loup
And it doesn't sound like you care much for women. We're not a separate species, you know.
-
-
-
-
Adam Cox
Are we getting to the point that government itself is religion? or "a religion" (thereby making all of our rules fairly unenforceable)
-
Cheyenne Marie Vance
Vasectomies are not always reversible, that is a common misbelief. Having one successfully reversed is the exception, not the rule. Not to mention how dangerous it is to perform surgery on small babies, this is completely unethical.
-
Rev Mark D
Wait did somebody recommend doing vasectomies on babies? That sounds like the America of the '60s and seventies sponsoring voluntary (but which was often forced because the women were not informed who was being done) sterilization in order to impose "zero population growth" (there was even a formal program and political movement collectively referred to as ZPG) on the third world. I remember it was called "PIEGO." Though the original might have been sterilizing women.
-
Rev Mark D
I found it. It's in a pdf, and you can read from there. It's the article about Chancellor Danforth hearing protests from students at the University and echoing articles in local newspapers about the US policy, and sending a letter to the US department of something or other asking if the policy is devoted to mass sterilization in foreign countries... Gives you an idea of what the program was in the first place.
So now who is it HERE raising that spectre again only saying it needs to be males given vasectomies at birth? They say people who do not pay attention to history are doomed to repeat it.
-
Sherrell K Zitting
To clarify Mark on PIEGO:
Program for International Education in Gynecology and Obstetrics
-
Rev Mark D
Yes I know it was a cute name... Just like my old military unit was named "studies and observations group." It was a euphemism for what we were really doing. In PIEGO's case it was a government program paying for and sponsoring medical education efforts in third world countries to preach birth control as a matter of education and health, but it had its political claimants who said it was also a cover for Force sterilization in the more authoritarian and totalitarian poor countries who had exploding populations, and in any case the activity stimulated campus and other political protests claiming forced or involuntary sterilization or sterilization which was done without telling the women. To universities who publicly participated were Washington University and Johns Hopkins.
-
-
-
Nathaniel Robert Hunt
After roe v wade was overturned a large number of men got Vasectomies, of their owe free will, just because of it and the fact that some christian lawmakers are now wanting to do away with birth control
-
Daniel Gray
And exactly HOW can you say it was overturned when you can still get an abortion?
-
-
-
Ahmed Abduljabar Al-Hujazi
The real question is: What do the people of Missouri want? If a political leader imposes their views, and those views are contrary to the community viewpoint, then the system is supposed to work to replace that representative. If a law is not agreed upon after the fact, then there are procedures in place to repeal that law. So, what do the people of Missouri want?
-
John Casillo
WOW.............ever notice there is never a author to any of these articles......WHY?
-
Rev Mark D
Because John, it could be dangerous...could lead to dancing.
-
-
John T. Watson
If this law is ruled un-Constitutional because of the separation of Church and State then the vast majority of our laws must also be rescinded for the same reason. Laws against murder, stealing (confiscation without agreement) and a myriad of other laws based on religious teachings must be rescinded. This will leave the governments of the US and states without the financial means to operate and reduce us into a state of Anarchy where only the strong survive. Those well armed would then be able to dictate to the weak by what laws they must live or die. The vast majority of laws are based on religious principles, i.e. The Christian Bible, The Jewish Torah, The Islamic Koran, or another religious writing and teaching. You cannot do away with one law based on the argument of separation of church and state without affecting other laws based on the same religious principles. Those ministers arguing against this law have absolutely NO respect for life and are arguing against the Holy Word of God Almighty. I want them to show me where Gods word states that abortion is okay by Him! False teachers and preachers abound in this world and many of them will one day stand before the Lord and have to give an accounting of themselves and their actions and words.
-
Nathaniel Robert Hunt
" Do not murder"-The Code of Hammurabi Babylonian/Pagan legal text composed during 1755–1750 BCE I have not murdered" - The Egyptian book of the dead 1550 BCE Laws against murder have been on the books in both secular and Pagan places throughout history
-
Tecla Caryl Loup
So you think that abortion was unknown to these people? Abortion was considered women's business.
-
Rev Mark D
So Ms. Loup: you wouldn't object then in your own case where until your soul entered your fetus, your mother would be fine with aborting your fetus, your fetus being nothing more than a box? That seems to be what you're saying, "until I was born I was the thing that my mother could choose to kill because I was a blob of cells and hadn't been born.
Or perhaps you can say, what, that this would be true until your soul entered your fetus. And then after the soul enters the fetus then what, can abortion or termination be okay? And is all that before birth?
So what else do you believe, can you specify when the soul enters the fetus, or does the soul only enter the baby after birth?
-
-
-
-
Rev Mark D
Missouri may be one of those places now that the people of the state are not as crazy and insane as the people in charge, and running the state. For instance, I was really very surprised when I read that Missouri had legalized recreational cannabis.
-
Rev Mark D
So who is it here now suggesting for sterilization on males at birth? What was your logic again?
-
Loretta Nieves
The fetus is a live human being in the womb of the mother upon conception. To abort this life, is elective killing of the live fetus unless it is warranted a medical necessity to abort the fetus. This is not a religious matter.
-
Lori-Ann Neeb
That depends on whatever your belief of the quickening is. That is the point the soul of who is reincsrnate jnto it actually enters it. I have never had children do cant say from personal experience but who says that an entity that has been living their best lifr at Home didn't want to leave Home right away for the negativity of earth's current residents. I have read that sone women feel when their child's
-
-
Sherrell K Zitting
@Russell Selph As for murder, we are talking about innocent children in the womb, NOT war and capital punishment. Quite the opposite. And as for the choice between the life of mother or child, first of all that is often a fluke by doctors to force abortion, genuine murder. Second of all, even if the death of the mother is imminent if the baby is not slaughtered, she has lived a life. The baby has not. Easy choice.
-
Sherrell K Zitting
Pastures, pastures, pastures, can't we just sit down together over cookies and milk, and read the Bible, Gita, Quran, the commonalities of comparative religions, cultures, societies, economies, and secular lives. We are one human family.
-
Andrew Philip Black
I have great respect for people who believe that abortion is against G-d's law, and would oppose any law that forced one of those people to have one. I also have great respect for people who believe that the life and health (including the mental health) of the mother should be prioritized over the life of a foetus, and thus oppose any law that forces a mother to suffer.
One of the founding forces of the United States was religious persecution in Europe: one group forcing, by laws and violent reprisals, the outward conformity of non-believers to their religious views. That's exactly what's happening in the states that are outlawing abortion: lawmakers in these states are forcing those who disagree with them to practice their beliefs in secret, on pain of punishment should they be found out.
So, I think that the plaintiffs in this case are in the right, although I doubt that they will prevail.
-
Rev Mark D
Black, I pretty much agree with you and I find therefore that there is a hi problem and cost due to an uneven degree of consequence attached to the two opposing beliefs. One is about the right to bodily choice, versus the other which is a right to kill and have the victim's life snuffed out, a life which might have been yours had you been aborted. The two are not equal and therein lies the conflict and the problem. With abortion, you get to live but the baby gets to die, you get to inflict death on a person so you can have control of your body... cuz if you aren't allowed to have an abortion, you lose a choice, but the other person loses his life. In doing abortion, you get to do it to somebody else rather than yourself, but you get to live and the other one is forced to die to preserve your choice. The two risks, the two costs, the benefit you derive versus the harm (or loss) to the other are NOT equal. are not equal...you get to do it to another person, and you get all the say over both lives, but the one gets it done to them, with no say for their own life, while the fetus gets no choice in his own life... Yep doesn't get to decide to impose his birth on the mother... the two are not equal, and the one loses his life for committing no crime, while the other gets to arbitrarily snuff a life that has no say, and only loses some freedom. When I look at my kids and think about that, and I look in the mirror and think about that, I'm very glad and thankful for the pure happenstance that I was allowed to live, while hitting myself for thinking I in effect give myself the same choice to arbitrarily to end my children's lives, the children I created, and that my mother could just as well have done the same to me for the sake of a freedom.
-
-
Gureg Amun Ankh
Render unto Caesar’s (government) what is Caesar’s and render unto God(deities) what is God’s, does anyone overstand what that truly mean? Religious leaders, your not here to take freewill (choice) from people you’re here to counsel the people on what the creator has put forth foo us, a way of life to like and to help save souls, when things don’t go your way then you want Caesar to intervene and when you don’t like his decision you lash out, those souls that are aborted have to be answered for in the next life of existence by those who help and those that ask(the parent) the religious community is wrong and the political community is wrong, 2 wrongs don’t make it right because because what ever decision is made between both sides, will cause unmentionable consequences for the fetus and the mother force abortions may cause illegal acts of abortions to happen the both souls maybe lost, let people make their own decision in life to keep the peace on earth, the Heavenly Father will sort it out then that soul will have to Him at the end then it will be to late. My your mine you mind for the jewels of your soul.
-
Sherrell K Zitting
Ga-ry, Ga-ry, Ga-ry...
-
-
Theresa C. Marquess
Like everything else in life, abortion is a choice. It is not and never would have been my choice. Personally, I consider abortion murder, but that is my opinion. The lives of my children were precious to me from the very moment that I had suspected their conception was evident. Like so many other current-day issues, we really need to keep abortion out of the news and off of the steps of Capital Hill. It is a very personal issue, not a public one.
-
Rev Mark D
Yes Theresa Marquess it's a personal issue, but it's an issue between two persons, not one. And one of them gets to die solely by the choice and action of the other, with no recourse to defend himself or ability to preserve himself against dying at the hand of the other. Without a specific context you and I would call that barbaric. I'd say if a government exists but allows that, is it really a government, for what else is the government for, to sit by and watch one person destroy another that first person created in the first place? To you that is a choice service of your life and freedom, or convenience depending on the circumstances...to the helpless person we call a fetus, or baby one before it's born, where we rather arbitrarily decide when is the dividing line between being a thing and a person, one minute before that line being a thing, and 1 minute after that line being a person, to that daughter (or thing) it's a deadly assault.
-
Theresa C. Marquess
Rev Mark D. I cannot nor, will I defend a person's choice to have an abortion. As I said in a previous post, I consider an abortion to be murder. Yes, there are two people involved, the mother and the precious child who is truly a gift from God. God help those mothers who do make the choice to abort their babies, it is something that they will have to live with for their entire lifetime.
In September, 1965, as a young expectant mother, I read a Reader's Digest article about abortion, with a line that remained with me for a lifetime... "Mommy, we could have had such fun together."
-
-
-
Sherrell K Zitting
That was in response to Joy, in her reference to abortion laws to control others. Right, the deadly control of innocent babies.
-
Rev Mark D
Oops, should have been meant for Joy, ok. By the way, I'd like to resend somebody else you mentioned, I also believe we have to follow the law and if the law gives you a choice okay you have the right to make that choice, but I wouldn't because of what I think I know, which is every one of us were subject to whether to be aborted. Who of us is going to look us in the eye and tell us we weren't a person or not alive and why it was good to kill me and theirs to decide?
-
-
Sherrell K Zitting
Well put, Rev. Mark. Millions of baby killers have alot to answer for, and it will be deadly and eternal. What you just said there bears repeating:
Rev Mark D Nov 30, 2023 at 02:23 pm (1M votes) "Clearly"? "Clearly?"
Sorry Loup, I think you need to check with your retinal surgeon.
But in any case, it sounds like your idea of crime and punishment is that the cure to the crime of rape and child sexual abuse is to punish the baby by killing it... What did the baby responsibly do to earn a death sentence in response? That's your idea of justice. Or, "Well the crime was committed against me, but I'm going to kill you as part of my becoming whole. Yes I'm the victim here, and though you were not, I'm going to kill you anyway and make a victim out of you, too. Sorry, can't be helped, it's my right. So even though you have to die (well, not really, except in the occasional rare case where you are putting my life in danger), I need you to die, so I can reclaim my right to my body. You're just some tissue anyway. Sorry, them's the breaks."
That is seriously messed up. I say "messed" instead of the more actual verb because it would be bleeped. .
-
Rev Mark D
Sheryl
Yes I know what I said, I was saying that rhetorically but also because it's a real world problem, making laws and following laws.., what do you do when a law creates an untenable conflict? A law that says you can't do an abortion...well, that's a law, just as a law is that you CAN do an abortion. Well that's the problem we have here. Do you just follow the laws you want? That means you make your own laws. This isn't about should, this is past "should," this is about "will do or not do, can do or not do." We're past should.
-
Sherrell K Zitting
Hi Marque,
Yes, I know that you know what you said. It was worth repeating for the benefit of others, because of its intrinsic value. Defending the lives of children should never be rhetorical, but I recognize much rhetoric or satire in your comment, to clealy manifesting the irrationality of pro-choice for killing little babies. Pro-life is obviously the right. So "what do you do with conflicts of the law"? You do what's right. You don't kill babies when the law says it's okay. Such a law violates the law: statute, common, constitutional, canon, and natural law. You always consistently stay with what is right. Pro-choice law is "making your own law". THAT is the should and the do. Perhaps that is what you are saying too.
-
-
-
Amber M. Castleman
Let all of us pray that this ban is lifted every where and that this ban is lifted in Missouri having Clergy win this!
-
ServantOfJudgement
Would the prayer go like this?
Please God, let us resume killing innocent life.Or like this?
Please Satan, let us resume killing innocent life?-
Rev Mark D
Well soj yes you can put it that way.
I put it this way: I am God and you are nothing but a box inside me. You're living tissue but you are inanimate so it is no loss, killing you is just recycling.
That's the crux, you're either a person or you are not, you are either an entity or you are just the parts. You're either a plant or you are a future judge (mother father brother daughter president, {insert whatever you like here}.
-
Lori-Ann Neeb
How do you know when the quickening happens, which is when the soul charted to be in that body actually enters it? We are all just bags of bones with the essense of our souls attached. It is like a car and driver. The person is at the wheel controlling it but not in the car itself.
-
-
Sherrell K Zitting
SOJ
That's right. Who and what do they worship?
-
Lori-Ann Neeb
sOJ - Yet, if that child grows up to gay or transgender, you would probably judge him or her and wish them to your fictitious hell. How "christian" is that? And there is no Satan or hell except in the minds of those who hate. The church created the concept of hell to contro the people through fear and intimidation.
-
-
-
Blanca E Thompson
I wonder what is the book that those called clergies are reading, if is not the Traditional and Original bible? It seems that these days anyone can call themselves a Clergy, if they have just read a diccionary describing the Bible and memorazing Sundays preaching. No wonder why there is soo much confusion specially amoung women who think that by aborting -something that was caused by a man- they will be free of moral responsibility, on the contrary, men and women are responsible for their own actions and if they, a man and a woman, want to have 30 seconds of exciment, should know what to do to prevent to have to have an abortion of someone that is not wanted. I am amazed to see women, not all of them though, get pregnant and do not want to face the responsability of becoming a real mother or just want to hide their lack of morality when going to bed with a man, either married or single, expecting that no one else will find out, and ashamed of what happened, run to have the government paid for the abortion not just of the child but the abortion of their lack of morality and then preach to others like a good thing to do. What is morality?
-
Tecla Caryl Loup
More than half of all abortion patients are already mothers, you know.
-
Lori-Ann Neeb
All are responsible for their actions including those who use their own interpretation of a book that is proven inaccurate since it was published by the corrupt church at the time. They edited and did some creative adding and deleting until they had the book they wanted. That was one that helped them control the people through fear and manipulation. Anyone putting their own spin on it just to try to justify their own judgement of others is just as responsible for their hatred, judgment of others and and condemnation in the name of God should worry more about the state of their own souls. There is no hate like christian hate. Remember David Karesh had the bible memorized.
-
Sherrell K Zitting
Lori
The Bible is true, despite some editing, which is not extensive. Are you a minister of God's word?
-
-
-
Bishop William Dusenberry, DD
Only those able to obtain abortions, should have any vote, in whom should be able to obtain an abortion; after-all the Christian God aborted more fetuses, in 40 days, and 40 nights of heavy rain (During Noah’s great flood) when 957834 pregnant people were drowned, so how can such a God, be opposed to abortions?
-
Sherrell K Zitting
Mark D
Dancing, or even patty cake.
I believe this is unconstitutional in that the ruling is based on religious beliefs and not medical facts. It may not force Christianity on others, but it does impose Christian standards. This is wrong.
Thanks! As I have said before, I’m a militant atheist but will change my ways when xtians and other religiously delusional individuals and groups stop trying to legislate their beliefs onto others. The first one I was aware of was the Blue Law that prohibited the sale of alcohol, mops, brooms, and other items that potentially involved laboring on Sunday. (I was a bag boy and had to put up signs every Sat night at closing.)
With abortion I’ve heard that in States that plan to ban abortion some of them want to prosecute residents to go to other States for such services. Yeah, what’s next, motorcyclists that chose to not wear a helmet in SC get prosecuted when they come back home to NC? It's not enough that they (apparently) have the right to ban abortions in their States but want to control the behavior of their residents outside State lines? Give them an inch, they’ll take a mile.
So stop legislating your beliefs. Here in Japan legislators never bring up their religious beliefs. It just isn’t done. Stop it.
Next, keep your religious beliefs to yourself. I don’t interrogate others in order to find out if they are religious in order to harangue and annoy them with my opinion as to why religion is sheepish, irrational and demonstrates willful ignorance.
Lastly, do way with this tax-free situation for churches. Treat them like any other corporation.
Do this and I will downgrade my attitude toward religious people to that of ‘Eye-Roll’ status along with Flat Earthers, crystal power, horoscopes and homeopathic ‘medicines’.
One of the best books out there:"God Is Not Great, How Religion Ruins Everything," Christopher Hitchens.
Hah, just checked the sample of the book available on Amazon. He starts out attributing his atheism to a teacher when he was 9 y.o. A very religious person and a person he liked. But if you spend too much time around religion, and are intelligent and inquisitive, being around religion turns you against it.
Just checked… the actual title is ‘God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.’
Close enough though.
I recommend you read and study The Torah and The New Testament writings in The Complete Jewish Study Bible. You are promoting the religion of atheism. You allude that religion is not reality but I do not only believe in Jesus Christ, I know also that Heaven and Hell exist. You can answer this or not, it is strictly up to you. But, are you trying to convince others that your stance is correct or are you trying to convince yourself? Turn to Jesus Christ, where you spend eternity depends on it.
Atheism isn’t a religion any more than not collecting stamps is a hobby. (Thus that ‘NSC’ tacked onto my name. Lots of interesting clips on YouTube by the real Non Stamp Collector.)
The Old Testament belongs to the Jews and is close enough for my purposes to know that I have no desire to deal with them. However they do ‘accept’ their members that do not believe in god.
Sorry but the Supreme Court of the US says it IS a religion
We’ve beat this horse before. If you ask “Do you have a hobby?” and I respond with “I don’t collect stamps.” is that a hobby? It’s the same thing with religion. The SCOTUS recognizes atheism is a religious belief but I have ‘t read their opinion or why they came to that decision. More importantly, why did they make that decision. Somebody brought the issue beforevthe court andbit soubds asvifbit was done by an atheistic group wishing to obtain that status in order to be able to counteract /limit the nonsense of religious groups. Don’t know. Don’t give a rat’s arse why. But stating that you don’t have religious beliefs is not a freakin’ religion and any religious person that thinks such is doubly delusional. Ohhh, I like that. Doubly Delusional Daniel. Go to anothervthread abd spout. This group’s formatting is insane.
Seems YOU are the one that is doubly delusional in this case. Especially since you refuse to accept reality
Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 n. 11 (1961), the Supreme Court listed Secular Humanism, Atheism; Satanism and a host of others as some of non-theistic religions practiced in this country."
Did you get that Zerp? Seems the SCOTUS is not agreeing with you at all.
I checked the case. The SCOTUS didn’t rule that atheism is a religion. What happened was an atheist wanted to run for public office and the state had a law that said you had to take an oath having to do with something about God. The atheist wasn’t having any of that, and the case got passed along until the result you referenced came about. What the court decided was is it the state cannot have a law or a rule, or a test that requires anything about religion. That test or condition was unconstitutional. Basically, it was a spanking of State’s butt for having an unconstitutional law. So I suppose that the atheist got to run for office because the state cannot have such conditions.
Seems you need to have your eyes checked as you are clearly wrong, and here it is AGAIN in yet ANOTHER SCOTUS decision "The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545U. S.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-7th-circuit/1467028.html
Now tell us please just how you can make the claim you are making when SCOTUS has said you are wrong more then twice!
Oxford definition of religion… “ the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods.”
Doesn’t apply to atheists.
Pound sand.
Here’s what the ruling ACTUALLY STATED…
There is, and can be, no dispute about the purpose or effect of the Maryland Declaration of Rights requirement before us — it sets up a religious test which was designed to and, if valid, does bar every person who refuses to declare a belief in God from holding a public "office of profit or trust" in Maryland.
...
We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.
Seems you need to have your eyes checked as you are clearly wrong, and here it is AGAIN in yet ANOTHER SCOTUS decision "The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545U. S.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-7th-circuit/1467028.html
Now tell us please just how you can make the claim you are making when SCOTUS has said you are wrong more then twice! So one has to wonder just why you are protesting so much when you have been proved wrong time and time again. Not to mention that even the US Military was sued because some soldiers and families of deceased ones wanted a satanic symbol on their tombstones and it was refused, and yet the SCOTUS ruled they not only had to allow this RELIGIOUS symbol on the tombstones but they also had to allow Satanic pastors and churches as well. As well as allow Atheistic pastors and churches and the use of an atomic swirl as their symbol for their tombstones.
https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/NCO-Journal/Archives/2017/September/Atheist-Chaplain/
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjM1cLtxoODAxWoj4kEHVF6BX04ChAWegQIDxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.armyupress.army.mil%2FPortals%2F7%2Fcombat-studies-institute%2Fcsi-books%2Ffor-man-and-country.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1cM6uMEa0spFaoIXj8DUaf&opi=89978449
https://www.stripes.com/branches/navy/would-be-atheist-chaplain-files-suit-over-navy-s-rejection-of-application-1.312395
Over and over and over again the courts have all said the same thing, that atheism IS a religion. if not then why the heck are they so hard up on demanding chaplins and churches and so on? Your tantrum does not make a lick of sense.
Daniel, I think I will never be willing to ride in a vehicle you drive, because I am pretty certain that if we were to be in an accident where the vehicle hit a tree, I think you would blame the tree, for having jumped into the roadway and bit your car. :)
@ Rev MD I haven’t been following this thread so I don’t completely understand why you made that comment about Greh. But Greh is one of the vehemently delusion types. He claims things he wishes were true as fact. He even thinks SCOTUS has his back.
No the problem is that if there was an accident, then you would try and blame the wind or the tree or the road or anything else you could think of to show your beliefs, and not fact
@Greh I refuse to participate in a discussion in which posts are literally displayed only 16 characters in text length. This post is it….
Again, in the ruling you mentioned the SCOTUS did not state, in any way, that atheism was a religion. What it said was that the State was NOT allowed to have a test/requirement that involved religion. It has nothing to do with whether or not the person believes or doesn’t believe. The point is STATES CAN’T have tests that requires individuals to profess a belief.
As to your new nonsense, the first link is not something that SCOTUS stated, but an opinion of a Kentucky circuit court on a SCOTUS ruling. But the actual SCOTUS. Kentucky circuit court rulings don’t impress me. SCOTUS rules against the opinions of hillbilly circuit courts all the time. The original case you presented was upheld in a lower court but SCOTUS came back with their ‘Nope, you guys can’t make laws like that.’ ruling.
Your last effort to prove your point was just an article about how the military runs its own circus. That doesn’t impress me at all. In fact, they had a little party back in the 60s. Lots of people turned down the invites. My plans were to do so but the party ended before I got mine.
Send me links of actual SCOTUS rulings. But keep in mind they can treat evolution as a religion but I won’t agree with them. They can treat cosmology as a religion but I won’t agree with them. Because what the SCOTUS says, in almost all of their decisions, simply don’t apply to me. I don’t live in the US any longer.
But, please, pgive me the link to the SCOTUS ruling that says that atheism is a religion.
what wrong Zerp? cherry picking instead of letting the people read exactly what was said that proves you wrong
How do you know that they exist? I don't wish to disparage your faith, but that's why it is called faith. I have faith too but I know of no way to prove anything and I don't try. If someone asks me to prove it, I tell them that I can't.
Hitchens was a good example of a militant atheist but I haven’t read any of his books. Maybe I’ll give this one a try. The only book ‘on atheism’ I’ve bought was ’The God Delusion’ by Dawkins. Interesting read.
Thevthing about books like that they is that for an ‘already atheistic’ person it’s just preaching to the choir. They just serve to solidify what one already knows. I guess they could provide arguments to use when talking to a RD (religiously delusional). But unless that RD is willing to read a couple of books such as these nothing will be accomplished.
My atheism developed as a result of going to church too much. A 70s, evangelical, speaking in tongues, dancing in the spirit, Jesus Freak church. The people were really amazingly nice people, DAF. And when I left, (and the relationship that had kept me there) I did so because religion had changed from background noise that you just get used to and accept to something I started actually thinking about. And the investigation into philosophy and reading about other religions by reading their texts made it abundantly clear that, well, go and read Dawkins and Hitchens.
Point is although those books by Hitchens et al are interesting their primary purpose at this time (for me) would be to give me strategies to ‘discuss’ these matters with theists. But the theists I talk to aren’t going to change their minds. And they are NOT going to do a true investigation and, as I did, fully experience both sides of the situation. (Oh, some xtian pastor decided to spend a year *not believing’ and truly investigate atheism. He is no longer believes.) It’s like going to a restaurant with only two choices. I’ve tried each and one is total crap so I order the other. But the restaurant has a bunch of customers that like that crap item. Not only that that spend a lot of time trying to convince everybody else to eat the crap. Thing is, none of them have ever tried the other item.
So Hitchens book. Sounds like the item I always order but with a little more cheese. Maybe I’ll try it.
Rev Mark One of the greatest books I have ever read would be the "BIBLE" The reason I think it is so great I can't find one place that it hasn't always prevailed no matter what. Anything else is a perversion of the Truth. As I have said before most people can't stand the TRUTH and the reason is simply its GOD's word. I can't find one person who can improve are correct one word. The Truth is the Truth and nothing can change that, ask Job?
Ahh, here’s another one.
Write, rewrite, revise, correct, repeat hundreds of times over a few centuries and viola! A book that contradicts itself with nonsensical answers for everything by providing nothing. A book of magic that even states how a mythical being that created all from nothing needed puny creatures to write & rewrite 100s of times till they got it right on the mythical being’s behalf. Wow how gullible some are.
"The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.”
So, those that are guilty of not believing in your God deserve this? Sounds violent.
@PJs Try this site for 50,000 errors and contradictions. Please address them one by one.
The Bible is a nice story and you can pick and choose parts of it to say whatever you would like, to draw whatever inspiration you would like, and to bend to your will. So it is very useful tool and you can draw wisdom or evil from it, depending on your purpose, you're intelligence, your awareness, or lack thereof. It always has something for everybody, including opposites on every page.
Sorry but it isnt wrong. They are voting their opinions and what their voters say they want their vote to be. And since they are not forcing anyone to convert to their religions then it isnt in violation of the myth of separation of church and state so its not unconstitutional in the slightest no matter what you or anyone else thinks. And when the judge agrees with this outlook, what exactly then are you going to complain about? I mean here in Ohio, the people that got the abortion amendment passed into the Constitution thought they did something great, Only problem is that they ignored the Hyde Amendment which has been law for over 40 years and has been ruled as constitutional. And what that means is if a person wants an abortion, then fine. But you had better have the money for it yourself as the Hyde Amendment clearly states that NO tax monies can be used for the promotion of or the actual procedure of abortion. And if the doctor or business or even planned parenthood receives even one penny of tax money and they do this....they can lose all the tax monies and have to pay back this money AND could actually be brought up on charges of a felony if its found out that they knew they were violating the law. Thus it could cost them their business license and their medical license.
SO you still can get an abortion, you just have to pay for it yourself without medicare and medicade. Cant have your cake and eat it too as they say.
Daniel, in some states it is a crime to perform or receive an abortion. This isn't about the government paying for abortions or not, it's about people having access to them in the first place.
After Roe they could always get an abortion and still can, they just cant go to the taxpayer and expect them to pay for it
@ Daniel Gray Again you are wrong. Getting an abortion in some states is a crime. Not sure were you get your information but it always seems to be wrong.
No its fact and at no time in any state is it a crime to get an abortion. Now if you know more then the DOJ then please show it
Wrong. Look it up. Abortions are illegal in Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Texas, and several others. In addition abortions are heavily restricted in some states. Including Florida.
Sadly Daniel neglects to comprehend the actual laws, instead choosing to try to mix two separate concepts to gain support through ignorance of laws.
Sorry but you are wrong. in Indiana and North Dakota, South Carolina there is a ban after 6 weeks. In North Carolina and Nebraska there is a ban after 12 weeks. Its still up for debate in Iowa, Utah and Wyoming. And while most Abortions are banned in Texas, not all of them are. You need to stop listening to the bunk put our by Planned Parenthood Colleen.
This article is not about tax monies paying for abortions. That is a distraction you put in. This is about the access to abortion itself. Many states outlaw it completely. There are areas that prosecute people for going to another state to get an abortion, trying to regulate who can drive in the interstate.
I am glad Ohio hasn't gone that route and people actually have a choice there.
Nope its not a distraction, its fact. Even if you dont want to believe it as according to HHS the vast majority of abortions were paid for with taxpayers money. Now they cant do it any more and that is the reason you are so upset. And Ohio says you can get an abortion,,,but taxpayers wont pay for it and the very FIRST time a child gets an abortion and is hurt or killed because of it, just look for the hell to break lose and there is no way for you to stop it
Poor Daniel believes that all abortions should be paid for by female concerned. However OH has previously covered for rape, abnormalities, and if woman’s life endangered when necessary. Seems poor Daniel does not comprehend what some Ohio politicians tried to do, instead trying to bring the minuscule “tax dollars” occasionally used on behalf of rape victims, and further feels let the mother die if her life is in danger so village can raise child. Men like Daniel Gray really need to STFU about women’s body autonomy and medical care unless Mr. Gray fully accepts women deciding his body autonomy and medical care.
Poor D, he believes all the bunk pushed into his head by Planned Parenthood.
Daniel you keep quoting Hyde Amendment. Suggest you read Hyde Amendment, especially part about “except in cases of rape, incest, and save the mother’s life” in which federal dollars can be used to fund procedure. Oh but that would screw up your lie about HHS reporting most abortions tax funded. Approximately 70% of all procedures are self funded. About 24% are fully or partially funded through various insurances including Hyde Amendment exceptions allowed by Medicaid/ Medicare. Read more Daniel, learn, and do onto others as you want done to you.
Sorry but the Hyde Amendment makes no such distinctions according to the CRS report from the US Congress. Now please show exactly where you seemingly think you have to authority to tell Congress what to do.
Yes I bought the title slightly, I should know better since I read it and I have it on my bookshelf and I'm looking at it right now. Yes, it is nothing like you have ever read and it is very well referenced, though not in the academic tradition of end of chapter citations. It is also shot through with many personal examples of the author, as he was friends and opponents with numerous writing and religious authorities and authors on the debate circuits throughout his life, as well as his a very successful career as an insightful, and extremely incisive, participant and observer of social political and religious life as well as personal history. If you want a variety of minimal samples in the flesh, all you have to do is type in Hitchens at YouTube for a number of his activities in video with various participants opponents and speaking engagements, most of which are very interactive with other speakers and his audiences. It was a favorite debating opponent of many religious apologists and official Christian authorities who would invite him to speak, engage, and debate before their pulpits.