|
|
Rank: Member  Joined: 9/29/2011 Posts: 24
|
I am as much for womens rights as anybody else, but roe vs wade is highly misinterpretaded. A woman has the right to get pregnant and have another child.She does not have the right of life or death of a fetus,thats GODS job,not a womans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 6/26/2010
Posts: 82
|
Unfortunately, Roe vs Wade is generally not misinterpreted. It did give a woman the right to kill her baby while it was still in the womb; this Court-manufactured right was unlimited for the first three months (trimester), but states could regulate abortions after that. As it turned out, for many years, state laws that were enacted to regulate such later-term abortions were found by federal appeals courts to be unconstitutional using Roe as justification.
Now, however, there is a movement gaining steam across the country to legally recognize the personhood of each individual from conception. This derives from Justice Harry Blackmun's note in his Roe opinion that if the foetus were ever recognized as a person, his decision would be obviated.
Considering your stated opinion, Wchan22, when the Personhood Amendment movement comes to your state, you should support it wholeheartedly. The pro-abortion side will let loose a flood of lies calculated to make the Amendment look like a terrible idea. Don't believe them, they are just lies.
May God bless and keep you.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 7/1/2008
Posts: 757
|
wchan22 wrote:I am as much for womens rights as anybody else, but roe vs wade is highly misinterpretaded. A woman has the right to get pregnant and have another child.She does not have the right of life or death of a fetus,thats GODS job,not a womans. I agree wchan! WELCOME, you and I have exchanged opinions at Copper, nice to see you here.:)
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 9/29/2011 Posts: 24
|
4petasake wrote:wchan22 wrote:I am as much for womens rights as anybody else, but roe vs wade is highly misinterpretaded. A woman has the right to get pregnant and have another child.She does not have the right of life or death of a fetus,thats GODS job,not a womans. I agree wchan! WELCOME, you and I have exchanged opinions at Copper, nice to see you here.:) I was at copper,but I don't remember you. you must have changed names also.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 8/1/2011
Posts: 82
|
In my small litle world, I think laws are kinda like the stripes on the highway. The law was passed to paint the lines as guidelines. That is how most of our laws was passed as a concern for safety (for ourselves, children or the elderly) which impeded on the way we raise our children, and each individual right on the choices we make for ourselves and the elderly. Everyone should be accountable for their mistakes! Their community should help them find it not our goverment
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 6/26/2010
Posts: 82
|
I am sure, gentlegiant, that you are suggesting only that Man's laws should be treated as guidelines, and not God's laws, which are Commandments. Man's basic laws, those which are intended to establish or complement the principles of the Commandments, certainly ought not to be treated as guidelines.
That said, every law takes away some measure of personal freedom, a necessity in a "free" society, since unlimited personal freedom would mean chaos, a destruction of God-given fundamental rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, to cite the examples from the Declaration of Independence.
Lately, especially in 2009 and '10, our Congress seems to have gone crazy, passing law after law 1000, 2000, even one (so I heard) that was 3000 pages long! One law! And of course, each of those laws gives authority to one department of government or another to devise regulations that consist of thousands and thousands more pages. And yet "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" still applies.
Roe vs. Wade is not a "law" per se. It is a Supreme Court expansion of an earlier decision, Doe vs. Bolton, that found that Massachusetts could not outlaw contraceptives because of a citizen's Fourth Amendment right to be secure in one's home and personal effects. (The right to "privacy".) How on earth Harry Blackmun reasoned his way from "it's OK to not conceive a child" to "it's OK to kill a child that has been conceived" is something for Constitutional scholars to discuss. My common sense tells me it's just nuts.
And all the supportive feminist rhetoric ("It's my body", "Men are all just bastards who will abandon you", etc.) is nuts, too.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 8/1/2011
Posts: 82
|
I would never tread on The Ten Commandements as they are the law for all the land, I also do not try to interfer with laws of nature as it will bite you in the butt. But to pass a tax on an animal for passing gas from an Okla. legislature is nuts as is alot of the man made laws that takes thousands of lawyers to defend and support. Everything seems to be about the almighty dollar which is also replusive to me. I served in our military and the laws being passed today (in my opinion ) is just more constraints over our God given rights as his people.
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 9/29/2011 Posts: 24
|
gentlegiant wrote:I would never tread on The Ten Commandements as they are the law for all the land, I also do not try to interfer with laws of nature as it will bite you in the butt. But to pass a tax on an animal for passing gas from an Okla. legislature is nuts as is alot of the man made laws that takes thousands of lawyers to defend and support. Everything seems to be about the almighty dollar which is also replusive to me. I served in our military and the laws being passed today (in my opinion ) is just more constraints over our God given rights as his people. I agree,but now the almighty dollar can buy the pen or sword.
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member  Joined: 10/27/2009 Posts: 62
|
This all goes back to idiot know-nothing theologians. They said the foetus/baby was not human until it drew it's first breath. The Bible says: The life of the flesh is in the blood and whosoever sheddeth man's blood by man shall his blood be shed. The foetus has it's human blood three days after conception. God will require a life for a life in this matter. The guilty will pay to God through the lives of themselves, their children, grand children, etc. Be not deceived, whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 7/1/2008
Posts: 757
|
GOOD TO HAVE YOU BACK LR:O) 
|
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member
Joined: 8/1/2011
Posts: 82
|
loneranger47 wrote:This all goes back to idiot know-nothing theologians. They said the foetus/baby was not human until it drew it's first breath. The Bible says: The life of the flesh is in the blood and whosoever sheddeth man's blood by man shall his blood be shed. The foetus has it's human blood three days after conception. God will require a life for a life in this matter. The guilty will pay to God through the lives of themselves, their children, grand children, etc. Be not deceived, whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap. I agree on the fetus, but am baffled by whosoever sheddeth man's blood by man shall his blood be shed. We have young and old men that has both took and shed blood for the opportunity of better life, is all these young, nieve, people also guilty as they preserved their Freedom or way of life?
|
|
|