Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Killing the infant is murder. "Partial birth" means that the child is born and then killed. That goes on in America.
US President George W. Bush wont tolerate killing womb babies. Political and theological liberals literally despise the President for that stand. Of course, they are joined by such anathema organizations as Planned Parenthood and the National Organization for Women.
Therefore, it is imperative that the President continues course. That is why it is utterly significant that his administration now requests the Supreme Court to "reinstate a ban on a procedure that critics call a partial birth abortion, setting up a showdown that could be decided by the presidents new choice for the court," reported the AP.
The issue has gone back and forth throughout the country, involving St. Louis and Richmond courts in particular.
The Supreme Court will confront still another abortion case in November, this time from New Hampshire.
America will have to wait until next spring for the Supreme Court to deal with the federal law titled Partial-Birth Abortion Ban act. However, by then the court could have seated two new members.
Those who abhor killing womb babies pray that the two new personages on the Supreme Court will join the President against abortion in the United States. Murder of infants in womens bodies simply cannot continue if the nation is considering itself civilized with a moral base.
Moralists have continually championed for the unborn, defending them at every turn. The younger generation has taken up the issue with a fresh conviction. While liberals thought that their energy would overextend the moralists, the liberals have been proven wrong.
Killing womb babies is the chief ethical issue dividing the nation. It will continue to do so. It is the old battle of right versus wrong, light against darkness, life and death. The battle will always be with mortals; that is why those who defend the right never give up, knowing that philosophically they have the long-term to reckon with.
FOOTNOTE:
THE BIBLE AND ABORTION
J. Grant Swank, Jr.
It is alarming to realize the nonchalance on the part of many concerning abortion. But it is not new. A popular newsmagazine quoted one medical opinion: "Abortion is finding its place as a perfectly acceptable and valid health measure. We no longer think of it as a crime."
There are those who say that every woman has a right to control her own body. That is true. Then, having control over her own body, she should not become pregnant if she does not want children. That is control! When she becomes pregnant, then she has lost her control over that situation.
But more importantly, only God has final rights to any person's body. He brought that body into life and someday will take that body out of life. In the meantime He provides the very sustaining power for the body's life to continue.
The Bible speaks of a fetus as a person, not simply tissue that can be discarded if found to be a bother or nuisance. Since the fetus is a person from the moment of conception, then the destroying of the fetus is killing a person. "In the past, some people have mistakenly speculated that perhaps the body might be in the process of formation for some time, and then 'God breathes a soul into it.' They had it backward. The life that is present forms matter into a body for itself' (Joseph Breig, "Life Forms Matter," The Catholic News, Jan. 24, 1974, p. 8).
"Your hands shaped me and made me. Will you now turn and destroy me? Remember that you molded me like clay. Will you now turn me to dust again? Did you not pour me out like milk ... and knit me together with bones and sinews? You gave me life and showed me kindness, and in your providence watched over my spirit" (Job 10:8-12 NIV).
"Before I was born the LORD called me; from my birth he has made mention of my name...and now the LORD says--he who formed me in the womb to be his servant..." (Isaiah 49:1, 5).
"The word of the LORD came to me, saying, Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations" (Jeremiah 1:4-5).
In the following passages we note that personality is ascribed to the unborn.
"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that fully well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be" (Psalm 139:13-16).
"Sons are a heritage from the LORD, children a reward from him" (Psalm 127:3).
Exodus 21:22-25 relates how Israel was to judge a circumstance relating to the death of the unborn:
"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
All of the latter deals with unintentional hurt that comes to a pregnant woman; how much more will divine penalty come upon those who intentionally discard the fetus? The Gospel of Luke ascribes personality to the fetus within Elizabeth:
"When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit... As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy" (1:41, 44).
Mere tissue does not leap for joy; only personhood leaps for joy. The Bible regards the fetus as having personality. In Galatians, Paul speaks of himself as a person while still in his mother's womb, but more a person consecrated by God for a holy mission (compare Jeremiah 1:5 for the same accent):
"But when God, who set me apart from birth, and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles..." (Gal. 1: 15-16).
Since the Bible regards the fetus as personality, then the aborting of the fetus is murdering personality.
Some verses from Scripture dealing with murder are then appropriate for study, such as Genesis 9:6: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." Also, read Exodus 23:7: "Have nothing to do with a false charge, and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty." Note I Peter 4:15: "If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer..."
"For all the talk of freedom and self-determination, the abortion movement is at its heart a movement denying rights to a silent segment of humanity and soliciting public sanction, support and subsidy to its own cause" (Donald P. Shoemaker, ABORTION, THE BIBLE AND THE CHRISTIAN, Hayes Publishing Co., 1976, p. iv).
Copyright © 2005 by J. Grant Swank, Jr.
deaddude said:The republicans have a majority in congress and they control the executive branch. If they were realy going to do somthing about "family values" they should be able to do it. However they do not. The politicians love abortion, because it can net them votes. If you'r opponent is pro-choice you can call him a baby killer and that can net you votes. It is a great wedge issue. I think that at least some republican politicians would be hesitant to get rid of abortion because then they would be short another talking point come next election.
That is just how it seems to me.
deaddude said:Ah yes the supreme court, the right controls 2 out of 3 of the branches of the federal government and they still manage to bitch about the one they dont have.
deaddude said:Ah yes the supreme court, the right controls 2 out of 3 of the branches of the federal government and they still manage to bitch about the one they dont have.
theim said:Considering that it contains only 9 unelected, unaccountable people, and that liberals like Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden see it not as enforcing law but CREATING law, "bitching" about it does not seem unreasonable.
deaddude said:It is not the Judiciarys job to enforce the law, that would be the responsiblity of the executive branch, the judiciaries job is to interpret the law and to judge the laws based on constitution.
gop_jeff said:It's also not the judiciary's job to write laws, which is exactly what they did in Roe v. Wade. If they want to strike down a law on constitutional grounds, they can do so. But to make up a totally new law - which is the effect of the Roe v Wade decision - is outside the premises of the judicial branch.
Roe v. Wade should be overturned.
The ClayTaurus said:Wouldn't this logic mean that courts should never look to past rulings when forming their own? Not meant snidely; honest question.
gop_jeff said:No. It means that the judiciary does not write new laws. Judicial precedence is certainly a valid factor in making decisions. But judicial decisions should not write new law. that is the power of Congress alone.
gop_jeff said:But to make up a totally new law - which is the effect of the Roe v Wade decision
But that's exactly what they did in Roe v Wade isn't it, Jeff?gop_jeff said:... If they want to strike down a law on constitutional grounds, they can do so. ....
deaddude said:The republicans have a majority in congress and they control the executive branch. If they were realy going to do somthing about "family values" they should be able to do it. However they do not. The politicians love abortion, because it can net them votes. If you'r opponent is pro-choice you can call him a baby killer and that can net you votes. It is a great wedge issue. I think that at least some republican politicians would be hesitant to get rid of abortion because then they would be short another talking point come next election.
That is just how it seems to me.
The ClayTaurus said:Sorry,
I read that as though the decision had the effect of law. If it's just a decision, and not a law, then the problem is more with the method of interpreting law, no? I guess what I'm trying to say is, if the problem is that judicial rulings get interpreted as laws, shouldn't we address not interpreting them as laws instead of just overturning them?
The ClayTaurus said:Sorry,
I read that as though the decision had the effect of law. If it's just a decision, and not a law, then the problem is more with the method of interpreting law, no? I guess what I'm trying to say is, if the problem is that judicial rulings get interpreted as laws, shouldn't we address not interpreting them as laws instead of just overturning them?
Mr. P said:But that's exactly what they did in Roe v Wade isn't it, Jeff?
