NotfooledbyW
Gold Member
- Jul 9, 2014
- 26,272
- 5,525
- 245
beagle9221127-#5,838 “No it means that they aren't struggling for the same body, otherwise as if the mother is on some type of high risk adventure where if she gets scared then she'll just call on a Hitman to take that risk away and maybe for a few dollars extra that would next fall into Play.”
NFBW: They are not struggling for the same body beagle9 . ROE v Wade had to be based upon the Constitution in some way. Christians object that ROE v Wade illegitimately made it legal to kill unborn persons in the name of Reproductive freedom. Christians dread that ROE v Wade abrogates a necessary religious restraint against evil that each of us as a human being has a fundamental duty and responsibility to all other human beings. And God demands that duty applies to unborn human beings as it does to born human beings.
The problem for Christians such as you beagle9 is the Constitution is specifically is written for born human beings.
Do you see the dilemma that Roe v Wade settled fifty years ago: The ROE V Wade riddle?
If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?
The pushy Christian answer picks the person who must use another persons body for nine months before such a person can be born. But we do not live under a Christian constitution.
The strict originalist constitutional answer picks the only person it can be - the person with the body needing to be used. The pregnant woman. The person already beyond the stage of being born.
The mothers right to decide in private to give birth and life or not to give to birth and life to the unborn human being, clearly and unequivocally trumps the right to life of the unborn human being in strict interpretation and compliance with the Constitution.
Therefore there is an originalist constitutional case to be made that each of us as a human being has a fundamental duty and responsibility to all other human beings with the exception of human beings prior to their ability to be born. And there is no evil or breakdown in civilization or in religious terms “sin” when we agree the mother’s right to choose in private the life or death of her own unborn child trumps the right to life of the unborn child when we follow the Constitution.
END2211270007
NFBW: They are not struggling for the same body beagle9 . ROE v Wade had to be based upon the Constitution in some way. Christians object that ROE v Wade illegitimately made it legal to kill unborn persons in the name of Reproductive freedom. Christians dread that ROE v Wade abrogates a necessary religious restraint against evil that each of us as a human being has a fundamental duty and responsibility to all other human beings. And God demands that duty applies to unborn human beings as it does to born human beings.
The problem for Christians such as you beagle9 is the Constitution is specifically is written for born human beings.
Do you see the dilemma that Roe v Wade settled fifty years ago: The ROE V Wade riddle?
If two persons, both being human beings, are contesting the use of one person’s body, does one person’s (human being) right to life automatically trump a significant and lengthy and potentially harmful or deadly use of the other persons body?
The pushy Christian answer picks the person who must use another persons body for nine months before such a person can be born. But we do not live under a Christian constitution.
The strict originalist constitutional answer picks the only person it can be - the person with the body needing to be used. The pregnant woman. The person already beyond the stage of being born.
The mothers right to decide in private to give birth and life or not to give to birth and life to the unborn human being, clearly and unequivocally trumps the right to life of the unborn human being in strict interpretation and compliance with the Constitution.
Therefore there is an originalist constitutional case to be made that each of us as a human being has a fundamental duty and responsibility to all other human beings with the exception of human beings prior to their ability to be born. And there is no evil or breakdown in civilization or in religious terms “sin” when we agree the mother’s right to choose in private the life or death of her own unborn child trumps the right to life of the unborn child when we follow the Constitution.
END2211270007
Last edited: