[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

The Left's War On Christians
See other The Left's War On Christians Articles

Title: We will not obey: Christian leaders threaten civil disobedience if Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015 ... disobedience-if-supreme-court/
Published: Apr 28, 2015
Author: By Todd Starnes
Post Date: 2015-04-28 23:19:07 by out damned spot
Keywords: Christian, Supreme Court, civil disobedience
Views: 29810
Comments: 140

"We will not obey.”

That’s the blunt warning a group of prominent religious leaders is sending to the Supreme Court of the United States as they consider same-sex marriage.

“We respectfully warn the Supreme Court not to cross that line,” read a document titled, Pledge in Solidarity to Defend Marriage. “We stand united together in defense of marriage. Make no mistake about our resolve.”

“While there are many things we can endure, redefining marriage is so fundamental to the natural order and the common good that this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross,” the pledge states.

The signees are a who’s who of religious leaders including former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, National Religious Broadcasters president Jerry Johnson, Pastor John Hagee, and Franklin Graham, president and CEO of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritan’s Purse.

The pledge was co-drafted by Deacon Keith Fournier, a Catholic deacon, and Mat Staver, the founder of Liberty Counsel. Also involved in the document were Rick Scarborough, the president of Vision America Action and James Dobson, the founder of Family Talk Radio.

“We’re sending a warning to the Supreme Court and frankly any court that crosses the line on the issue of marriage,” Staver told me.

He said that once same-sex marriage is elevated to the level of protected status – it will transform the face of society and will result in the “beginning of the end of Western Civilization.”

“You are essentially saying that boys and girls don’t need moms and dads – that moms and dads are irrelevant,” Staver said. “Gender becomes pointless when government adopts same-sex marriage. It creates a genderless relationship out of a very gender-specific relationship. It says that it doesn’t matter and that two moms or two dads are absolutely equivalent to a mom and a dad.”

Dobson said the legalization of same-sex marriage could fracture the nation.

“The institution of marriage is fundamental and it must be defended,” he told me. “It’s the foundation for the entire culture. It’s been in existence for 5,000 years. If you weaken it or if you undermine it – the entire superstructure can come down. We see it as that important.”

And that means the possibility of Christians – people of faith – engaging in acts of civil disobedience.

“Yes, I’m talking about civil disobedience,” Staver said. “I’m talking about resistance and I’m talking about peaceful resistance against unjust laws and unjust rulings.”

That’s quite a shocking statement. So I asked Mr. Staver to clarify his remarks.

“I’m calling for people to not recognize the legitimacy of that ruling because it’s not grounded in the Rule of Law,” he told me. “They need to resist that ruling in every way possible. In a peaceful way – they need to resist it as much as Martin Luther King, Jr. resisted unjust laws in his time.”

Scarborough said the pledge was meant to be forthright and clear.

“We’re facing a real Constitutional crisis if the Supreme Court rules adversely from our perspective on same-sex marriage,” he told me. For me there’s no option. I’m going to choose to serve the Lord. And I think that thousands of other pastors will take that position and hundreds of thousands – if not millions of Christians.”

Scarborough is urging pastors across the nation to sign the pledge.

He referenced the “outrageous penalties” being assessed against people of faith simply because they don’t want to participate in a same-sex union.

An Oregon bakery is facing a $135,000 fine for refusing to make a cake for a lesbian wedding and a Washington State florist faces fines for refusing to participate in a gay wedding.

“Christians are being declared the lawbreakers when we are simply living by what we have always believed, and by a set of laws that the culture historically has agreed to,” he said. “Right now the courts are changing the playing field and declaring that what the natural eye can see and natural law reveals is not truth. ... What will we do, and how will we respond?”

Dobson said there’s no doubt that LGBT activists are targeting Christian business owners.

“For about 50 years the homosexual community has had as its goal to change the culture, to change the ideology and if necessary – to force people who don’t agree by use of the courts,” Dobson told me. “I think there’s a collision here and we can all see it and where it’s going to go is anybody’s guess – but it is serious.”

To be clear – the men and women who courageously signed this pledge did so knowing the hell storm that is about to be unleashed on them – and their families.

“We have no choice,” Staver told me. “We cannot compromise our clear biblical convictions, our religious convictions.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Comments (1-96) not displayed.
      .
      .
      .

#97. To: Vicomte13 (#80)

The United States of America, today, is as murderous as Nazi Germany with Auschwitz. Think about that.

Thought about it.

Schindler /= Hitler.

In America we have one political party for which baby-murder is supported 95%.

You have the other party for which baby-murder is opposed opposed 95%.

Conflating the two criminal "Americas" and indicting ALL doesn't hold water in this case. But I understand your point...and frustration.

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-30   17:33:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#98. To: Stoner (#95)

" I DO care about the murdering of babies. An abortion mill is Auschwitz. And we are taxpaying Germans. "

I agree wholeheartedly!!

What, if anything, do you think God thinks we should do about it?

The new gods are promiscuous sex, abortions, and recreational drugs to smother the feelings of emptyness generated by the life style.

rlk  posted on  2015-04-30   19:07:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#99. To: Willie Green (#78)

No the SCOTUS ruled that THAT is a private moral/medical decision made by a woman & her doctor.

Frankly, I have know idea how you expect to overturn Roe v. Wade if you don't even understand what the SCOTUS did.

Not that we want to. But what if me and my doctor want to cut you into little pieces. Its our private choice right?

Expect to overturn RvW. We would have to get rid of the leftists first.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-04-30   21:17:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#100. To: redleghunter, SOSO, liberator, Biff Tannen (#86)

Here is what our side needs to do. We need to tell them that we have discovered the gay gene. I know there is no such thing but say there is.

Then start an abortion clinic that specializes in aborting babies that are going to be born gay.

Doing the you will put the abortion rights people against the queers. The only thing is though. The abortion crowd would probably have one exception to abortion. That would be if the person had the "faggot gene".

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-04-30   21:20:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#101. To: A K A Stone (#100)

Gay issues aren't on my radar. Don't care. I think mean people pose more danger to society.

The super gay types disgust me, personally. But so do country & western people.

Don't make me choose!

Biff Tannen  posted on  2015-04-30   21:34:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#102. To: Willie Green, A K A Stone (#53)

So the only way to overturn the Court's ruling is to ratify another Constitutional Amendment that specifically protects the baby's Right to Life. Congress has been trying to do that ever since 1973, with no luck.

It could be done with a lawsuit resulting in SCOTUS overturning or reversing Roe.

In Roe v Wade, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion:

That is not quite precisely what was written.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 153-3 (1973)

VIII

The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 484 -485; in the Ninth Amendment, id., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S., at 453-454; id., at 460, 463-465 [410 U.S. 113, 153] (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944); and child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-30   21:47:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#103. To: redleghunter, Liberator, GarySpFc, Willie Green (#67)

[#67 redleghunter] SCOTUS made a life and death decision in Roe vs. Wade. In effect they believed they could make medical decisions and also 'play God' by determining life in the womb is not 'valid life.'

It is not precise that they made such a decision.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 159

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

Also,

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 162-166 (1973)

X

In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling."

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.

This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

Measured against these standards, Art. 1196 of the Texas Penal Code, in restricting legal abortions to those "procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother," sweeps too broadly. The statute makes no distinction between abortions performed early in pregnancy and those performed later, and it limits to a single reason, "saving" the mother's life, the legal justification for the procedure. The statute, therefore, cannot survive the constitutional attack made upon it here.

This conclusion makes it unnecessary for us to consider the additional challenge to the Texas statute asserted on grounds of vagueness. See United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S., at 67-72.

XI

To summarize and to repeat:

1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

2. The State may define the term "physician," as it has been employed in the preceding paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined.

In Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 179, procedural requirements contained in one of the modern abortion statutes are considered. That opinion and this one, of course, are to be read together.

This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative weights of the respective interests involved, with the lessons and examples of medical and legal history, with the lenity of the common law, and with the demands of the profound problems of the present day. The decision leaves the State free to place increasing restrictions on abortion as the period of pregnancy lengthens, so long as those restrictions are tailored to the recognized state interests. The decision vindicates the right of the physician to administer medical treatment according to his professional judgment up to the points where important state interests provide compelling justifications for intervention. Up to those points, the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician. If an individual practitioner abuses the privilege of exercising proper medical judgment, the usual remedies, judicial and intra-professional, are available.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-30   22:05:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#104. To: Biff Tannen (#101)

I added you to the list because of you unique perspective.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-04-30   22:28:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#105. To: Liberator, redleghunter, tpaine (#72)

P.S. -- The 14A should be called the Jello-Amendment of the Constitution. It has become the Left's most dependable in-absolute, unstable, malleable monument to moral relativism the Constitution has ever seen, rendering the entire document....a fraud. The 14A has been the loop hole they've fantasized about: a subversive Tool for the Left.

Here are two books about the 14th Amendment and its ratification process. The first I have put on scribd and it is below. It is available as a free PDF download (link below) or from Amazon in various print formats. It was originally a doctoral dissertation in 1906 and then published in 1908. It is now out of copyright.

The second is from 1984 and is available from Amazon used very cheap.

The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment (1908), Horace Edgar Flack (dissertation)

https://archive.org/details/adoptionfourtee03flacgoog

The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment

Free download

- - - - - - - - -

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=horace+edgar+flack

The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment

Horace Edgar Flack
A Dissertation of 1906 Published in 1908

Multiple print editions available at Amazon

- - - - - - - - - -

http://www.amazon.com/Ratification-Fourteenth-Amendment-Joseph-James/dp/0865540985/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1430446491&sr=8-1&keywords=The+ratification+of+the+fourteenth+amendment

Ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment Hardcover

Joseph B. James

Hardcover: 331 pages
Publisher: Mercer Univ Pr; First edition (February 1984)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0865540985
ISBN-13: 978-0865540989
Product Dimensions: 1.2 x 6.5 x 9.5 inches

Used from $1.24

- - - - - - - - - -

nolu chan  posted on  2015-04-30   22:40:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#106. To: A K A Stone, Biff Tannen (#104)

I added you [Biff Tannen] to the list because of you unique perspective.

Huh?

buckeroo  posted on  2015-04-30   22:42:52 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#107. To: A K A Stone (#104)

I do what i can.

Biff Tannen  posted on  2015-04-30   22:44:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#108. To: buckeroo, A K A Stone, Biff Tannen (#106)

A K A Stone: I added you [Biff Tannen] to the list because of you unique perspective. (Huh??)

The sub-Neanderthal demographic needs to be represented too, Buck!

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-30   23:49:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#109. To: Biff Tannen (#107)

I do what i can.

Atta boy! The thimble is half full.

Liberator  posted on  2015-04-30   23:54:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#110. To: nolu chan, redleghunter, Liberator, GarySpFc, Vicomte13, Zesta (#103)

It is not precise that they [SCOTUS] made such a decision [of playing God.]

(snip)

This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.

If *that's* not playing God, then what is?

For argument's sake of this debate, I'm going to dismiss "the risk to the life of the mother" card. It's the case in a distinct minority number of cases. Almost like a card that's played much like the "race-card," "homo-phobe" card, "xenophobe" card, etal. It's the "Mulligan" That never ends.

(snip)

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

But yes, we DO and MUST.

"Those trained in medicine and simple science" *should* be able define and resolve "life" At minimum, it is at conception when the egg is fertilized; At the point a heart beats, it's officially "life" by ANY measure of the definition of life -- whether scientifically, theologically, OR through common sense. The problem is that although it is stated that "the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer," it indeed *does*. IT has become the final arbiter rejecting the common sense/scientific definition of "life." In doing so as per Roe v Wade, it clearly violates the 14th Amendment.

It is also stated that any attending physician with the endorsement of a patient who deems it convenient to discard this "blob of tissue" -- redefined NOT as living or breathing, by "not viable" -- have the final word on what is a Legal Execution of either a fetus or preborn. Five minutes after the Rove v Roe ink was dry, that definition has become a political decision.

The statute makes no distinction between abortions performed early in pregnancy and those performed later, and it limits to a single reason, "saving" the mother's life, the legal justification for the procedure. The statute, therefore, cannot survive the constitutional attack made upon it here.

The lack of distinction between a 7 day-old old fetus and 7 month old fetus -- a purposely vague "danger to the mother" loophole -- is a treacherous compromise that has wound up giving license to kill at will -- depending on the "recommendation" and "judgement" of the attending physician...or abortionist-for-hire.

How many abortions (rhetorically speaking) since 1973 *have* been performed legitimately "to save the life of the mother"? And especially given scientific breakthroughs on saving BOTH fetus/baby AND mother?

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-01   0:39:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#111. To: rlk (#98) (Edited)

The new gods are promiscuous sex, abortions, and recreational drugs to smother the feelings of emptyness generated by the life style.

The "new gods" are those self-absorbed narcissists whose narcotic is whatever they deem pleasing -- regardless of morality, ethics, or consequence to themselves or anyone else.

Funny you should mention "emptiness" -- THAT would be upon voiding all spiritual connection and fulfillment with the Creator, God.

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-01   0:45:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#112. To: nolu chan (#102) (Edited)

So after all the legal arguments and cases, Chan -- where do you stand on Abortion?

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-01   0:47:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#113. To: Liberator, redleghunter, Liberator, GarySpFc, Vicomte13, Zesta (#110)

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

But yes, we DO and MUST.

In the absence of sufficient scientific evidence, no, the Court shouldn't and didn't. Who is we? You and I and the public can speculate all we want. I speculate that abortion is not a matter for Federal jurisdiction.

This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.

If *that's* not playing God, then what is?

They are playing Judge. They are interpreting the law and applying it to the facts.

I think it was wrongly applied, but you would not be happy with my opinion either. I believe they should have found it to be a matter for State jurisdiction.

It should be a matter for the State Legislatures (or if it is Federal, for the Federal Legislature) to address. The courts rule on the law as it is, not religious beliefs or laws the legislature avoids for political purposes.

The legal question is not whether you find life begins at conception, but whether the Court finds the the law finds such and provides it some form of legal protection. I do not find any delegation of authority to the Federal government to judicially regulate abortion. On their assumed authority, they found that "the word person, as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn." It is the word as used in the Fourteenth Amendment and nowhere else.

A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, 2, cl. 2, and 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, 2, cl. 3; 53 in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. 54

All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. 55 This is in accord with the results reached in those few cases where the issue has been squarely presented. McGarvey v. Magee-Womens Hospital, 340 F. Supp. 751 (WD Pa. 1972); Byrn v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 31 N. Y. 2d 194, 286 N. E. 2d 887 (1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-434; Abele v. Markle, 351 F. Supp. 224 (Conn. 1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-730. Cf. Cheaney v. State, ___ Ind., at ___, 285 N. E. 2d, at 270; Montana v. Rogers, 278 F.2d 68, 72 (CA7 1960), aff'd sub nom. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961); Keeler v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 3d 619, 470 P.2d 617 (1970); State v. Dickinson, 28 [410 U.S. 113, 159] Ohio St. 2d 65, 275 N. E. 2d 599 (1971). Indeed, our decision in United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62 (1971), inferentially is to the same effect, for we there would not have indulged in statutory interpretation favorable to abortion in specified circumstances if the necessary consequence was the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection.

Be aware that Roe was also upheld under the 9th Amendment, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

nolu chan  posted on  2015-05-01   1:30:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#114. To: Liberator (#112)

So after all the legal arguments and cases, Chan -- where do you stand on Abortion?

I believe it should have been left to State jurisdiction. I do not find a delegation of authority to the Federal government to decide the issue of abortion.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-05-01   1:34:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#115. To: Liberator (#96)

Time to obey and clean house.

That means all the prosperity frauds lose.

"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-01   1:34:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#116. To: A K A Stone, BobCeleste, liberator, CZ82 (#100)

Here is what our side needs to do. We need to tell them that we have discovered the gay gene. I know there is no such thing but say there is.

Then start an abortion clinic that specializes in aborting babies that are going to be born gay.

Doing the you will put the abortion rights people against the queers. The only thing is though. The abortion crowd would probably have one exception to abortion. That would be if the person had the "faggot gene".

Yeah it would backfire. The soulless minions of liberal marxism are never logical or consistent. They are like Muslims. While in the minority and out of power cry the victim. Once they get power they force their dogma on all.

"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-01   1:52:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#117. To: nolu chan (#103)

When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

Yet their decision led and continues to lead to the death of human life in the womb. They decided. Plus modern embryonic medicine/science has advanced to the degree where the '72 decision is archaic. No OBGYN can deny technology today can prove that SCOTUS decision or lack of one valid today.

"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-01   1:57:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#118. To: nolu chan, Liberator, CZ82, GarySpFc (#103)

To summarize and to repeat:

1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Right there...our government decided some animals are more equal than others. Babies are disposable items. The hypocrisy in citing the 14th amendment is staggering.

Basic logic: we all start our human journey and growth in the womb. To trivialize a certain point in that journey is absurd.

Roe vs. Wade was bad logic and a bad decision. May God have mercy on the butchers.

"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-01   2:05:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#119. To: Liberator (#110)

Excellent points.

Plus modern diagnostic equipment makes Roe vs. Wade archaic.

But the modern soulless minions of Molech want more dead human babies so they can save more whales and spotted owls.

"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-01   2:16:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#120. To: Liberator (#97)

In America we have one political party for which baby-murder is supported 95%.

You have the other party for which baby-murder is opposed opposed 95%.

This is not true. It (or some variant of it) is repeated often here on this site. It's an obvious lie.

In 1973, when Roe v. Wade was decided, the Supreme Court was controlled by Republicans. Roe passed anyway.

Ever since then, the Supreme Court has been controlled by Republicans. At one point, there were 7 Republcans and two Democrats. The entire Supreme Court has been replaced. If 95% of the Republicans opposed "baby murder", Roe never would have been instituted by the Republicans in the first place, and would have been struck down since, because with 95% of the party on one side on an issue, no wavering Republican would ever have been appointed to the Supreme Court.

That is not the case. A little less than half of the Federal Judiciary overall are Republicans. Judicial activism on the issue could bring it to a head time and again...and of course if the Supreme Court does not choose to hear a case, the decision stands in a Circuit. Has that happened? No.

You used the right term too: "baby murder". That's what it is. But that is not even how judges like Scalia and Thomas treat it. They treat it as a question of jurisdiction. If there were a law that required, say, the slaughter of all Mormons, that would be treated on its face as insane. There would be no deep, evasive judicial arguments. Judges, and Republicans in general, would address the issue face on and say "Selective murder is unconstitutional", and then provide a litany of clauses to make that clear. But when it comes to babies, it's NOT "baby murder" according to "95%". It's something less than that, an issue, an abstract issue of law and rights.

Your Republican allies are not the warriors for this cause that you think they are. If they were, then Mitt Romney would have simply signed he pro-life pledge and been as full-throated in his opposition to abortion as he and the other Republicans are full-throated on economic issue.

Truth is, the Republicans have been enablers, and have feet of clay on the issue. Truth is, you and others who really, really agree with the Republicans on economic issues, try as hard as you can to see the Republicans as the party of righteousness and truth on the KEY issus. Truth is, they are not a pro-life party. They are pro get-out-the-pro-life-vote-for-us, but when they get power, they NEVER go after abortion. Truth is, every day since 1973 the Republican Party has had the power to strike down Roe, because every day since 1973 they have controlled the Supreme Court. Truth is, they haven't, and they won't, because nothing like 95% of the Republican is pro-life. They have been co-opted by the Republicans. The Republican Party is mostly about crony capitalism. That's not a vote winner, so they play social issue cards to get the Christians to vote for them, but they put men in charge who never actually DO anything about abortion, and who never have any intention of doing anything about it.

And the truth is that pro-lifers who commit themselves to the Republican Party refuse to see it. But willful blindness does not change the truth, no matter how loudly the drum is sounded. The Republicans are NEVER going to be a pro-life party. They've ALWAYS had the power to strike down Roe, from the very day they put it in place in the first place. As Governor of California, Reagan put abortion law in place there. Reagan put O'Connor and Kennedy on the Court.

The "95%" dog don't hunt.

Vicomte13  posted on  2015-05-01   6:36:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#121. To: redleghunter (#58)

Exodus 1

Been there read that. Who wrote Exodus?

Where's the archaeological evidence supporting the assertion the Hebrews were kept as slaves by their fellow Noahedic tribesmen?

VxH  posted on  2015-05-01   20:11:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#122. To: VxH (#121)

Where's the evidence the Torah is not historical?

"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-02   1:09:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#123. To: redleghunter (#122) (Edited)

Where's the evidence the Torah is not historical?

Where's the evidence it's not just another mythology concocted by invading, lying, victors and fallen "angels"?

The Torah devotes more than four books to the proposition that the Israelites came to Canaan after having been subjugated in Egypt for generations, and yet there is no archaeological evidence to support that they were ever in Egypt. A prolonged Egyptian stay should have left Egyptian elements in the material culture, such as the pottery found in the early Israelite settlements in Canaan, but there are none...
www.reformjudaism.org/were-jews-slaves-egypt

VxH  posted on  2015-05-02   8:24:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#124. To: VxH (#123)

Where's the evidence it's not just another mythology concocted by invading, lying, victors and fallen "angels"?

Jesus Christ followed and taught from Torah. Are you inferring Messiah spread myth?

"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-02   17:18:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#125. To: redleghunter (#124)

"The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true." --Albert Einstein

a prolonged Egyptian stay should have left Egyptian elements in the material culture, such as the pottery found in the early Israelite settlements in Canaan, but there are none...

History is what history is.

VxH  posted on  2015-05-03   10:18:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#126. To: VxH (#125)

So some Egyptian Pharoah is going to record his greatest defeat or the greatest defeat of all Pharaohs?

They will record in pottery and coin the great plagues which inflicted them and cost them every first born.

Israel DID record their events. See Torah.

"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-03   13:16:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#127. To: redleghunter (#126) (Edited)

I forget, which tribe were the "Egyptians" related to again?

VxH  posted on  2015-05-04   21:12:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#128. To: VxH (#123)

Where's the evidence it's not just another mythology concocted by invading, lying, victors and fallen "angels"?

The evidence is in the words. They fit together perfectly. Unlike man written documents like say the constitution.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-05-04   21:15:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#129. To: A K A Stone (#128) (Edited)

The evidence is in the words.

You mean like the evidence of fallen "angels" like Lucifer, err wait, Nebuchadnezzar?

Whose who again in Isaiah 14?

VxH  posted on  2015-05-04   21:21:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#130. To: VxH (#129)

You mean like the evidence of fallen "angels" like Lucifer, err wait, Nebuchadnezzar?

I'm talking about how the words work together and never ever contradict each other.

What are you talking aboutt? I know there were fallen angels. But what is your point about them?

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-05-04   21:22:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#131. To: A K A Stone (#130)

I know there were fallen angels.

LOL. Like the one in Isaiah 14?

VxH  posted on  2015-05-04   21:24:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#132. To: VxH (#131)

LOL. Like the one in Isaiah 14?

Show me exactly what you have a problem with.

14 For the Lord will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob.

2 And the people shall take them, and bring them to their place: and the house of Israel shall possess them in the land of the Lord for servants and handmaids: and they shall take them captives, whose captives they were; and they shall rule over their oppressors.

3 And it shall come to pass in the day that the Lord shall give thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from the hard bondage wherein thou wast made to serve,

4 That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!

5 The Lord hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers.

6 He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth.

7 The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing.

8 Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us.

9 Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.

10 All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?

11 Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.

12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;

17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?

18 All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie in glory, every one in his own house.

19 But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet.

20 Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned.

21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

22 For I will rise up against them, saith the Lord of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the Lord.

23 I will also make it a possession for the bittern, and pools of water: and I will sweep it with the besom of destruction, saith the Lord of hosts.

24 The Lord of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand:

25 That I will break the Assyrian in my land, and upon my mountains tread him under foot: then shall his yoke depart from off them, and his burden depart from off their shoulders.

26 This is the purpose that is purposed upon the whole earth: and this is the hand that is stretched out upon all the nations.

27 For the Lord of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? and his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?

28 In the year that king Ahaz died was this burden.

29 Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken: for out of the serpent's root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent.

30 And the firstborn of the poor shall feed, and the needy shall lie down in safety: and I will kill thy root with famine, and he shall slay thy remnant.

31 Howl, O gate; cry, O city; thou, whole Palestina, art dissolved: for there shall come from the north a smoke, and none shall be alone in his appointed times.

32 What shall one then answer the messengers of the nation? That the Lord hath founded Zion, and the poor of his people shall trust in it.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-05-04   21:28:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#133. To: A K A Stone (#132)

Do you believe that the Lucifer of verse 12 is "satan" the fallen angel?

VxH  posted on  2015-05-04   21:33:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#134. To: VxH (#133)

Do you believe that the Lucifer of verse 12 is "satan" the fallen angel?

I'm not the biggest expert. But it sounds like it to me. Because it talks about ascending into heaven.

Tell me please what you think it is describing? Or is it just a fable in your opinion.?

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-05-04   21:38:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#135. To: VxH (#127)

Jeremiah 6:

16 Thus says the Lord:

“Stand in the ways and see, And ask for the old paths, where the good way is, And walk in it; Then you will find rest for your souls. But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’ 17 Also, I set watchmen over you, saying, ‘Listen to the sound of the trumpet!’ But they said, ‘We will not listen.’ 18 Therefore hear, you nations, And know, O congregation, what is among them. 19 Hear, O earth! Behold, I will certainly bring calamity on this people— The fruit of their thoughts, Because they have not heeded My words Nor My law, but rejected it. 20 For what purpose to Me Comes frankincense from Sheba, And sweet cane from a far country? Your burnt offerings are not acceptable, Nor your sacrifices sweet to Me.” 21 Therefore thus says the Lord:

“Behold, I will lay stumbling blocks before this people, And the fathers and the sons together shall fall on them. The neighbor and his friend shall perish.”

"The Lord shall preserve you from all evil; He shall preserve your soul.” (Psalm 121:7)

redleghunter  posted on  2015-05-04   23:54:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#136. To: Vicomte13 (#120)

Truth is, the Republicans have been enablers, and have feet of clay on the issue. Truth is, you and others who really, really agree with the Republicans on economic issues, try as hard as you can to see the Republicans as the party of righteousness and truth on the KEY issus.

Yes, GOP leadership are enablers, hypocrites, and weak. The Fix is in. UNTIL/IF something drastic happens within the Party.

ALL I'm saying is that IF there are ANY ethics, morals and righteousness within either the Republican/Democrat Parties, IT is found amongst individuals within the Republican Party. Unlike the Dem Party, the GOP reps are NOT monolithic in their respective views and positions.

As Governor of California, Reagan put abortion law in place there. Reagan put O'Connor and Kennedy on the Court.

I would argue that Reagan's Elite globalist-ringer advisers selected both O'Connor and Kennedy.

The truth is that pro-lifers who commit themselves to the Republican Party refuse to see it [full support from the GOP].

I agree. But is there an alternative party to support actually changes and fights in the abortion battle?

The Republicans are NEVER going to be a pro-life party.

No nowawdays. BUT THEY WERE at one time (and no, you can't cue the Roe v Wade GOP position as representative of the Republican Party. AGAIN, the political Fix was in as arranged by whatever Powers-That-Be.)

The "95%" dog don't hunt.

Maybe not. But does the 40%-50% dog hunt? Is it 25%? Tell me -- what is the pct. of Democrats who promote pro-life positions? 0%? 2%?

The point: ANY AND ALL pro-life positions are found within the GOP whether we the GOP's chronic fecklessness and weakness disappoints us or not. And where pro-life Republicans STILL EXIST to fight that battle.

Liberator  posted on  2015-05-05   12:01:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#137. To: A K A Stone (#134)

Tell me please what you think it is describing?

It's describing the fall of Nebuchadnezzar.

VxH  posted on  2015-05-06   0:59:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (138 - 140) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com