Government’s primary purpose is to protect our natural rights. The right to life is the most important right because all other rights depend on it. Any candidate/party who uses their political power to allow some mothers to legally murder their own children in utero is not fit for public office and should never receive our vote. As a form of murder, abortion is the greatest injustice possible, and to vote for a candidate/party who has told you in advance that they will use their political power to ensure that this injustice continues and expands, is morally unconscionable.
For those of you who say you are personally opposed to abortion but think it should be legal, think with me for a bit. Why is it that you think abortion is wrong and would never obtain one yourself? Presumably it’s because you think abortion is an act of murder against an innocent and defenseless human being. So why would you think that it should be legal for someone to choose to murder an innocent and defenseless human being? That’s like saying, “I personally think rape is wrong, but I don’t think it should be illegal. The government doesn’t have the right to make that choice for men.” Or, “I personally think killing toddlers is wrong. I know I would never kill my toddler, but I don’t think the government has the right to tell other mothers what they can and cannot choose.” Arguing this way would be ludicrous, so what’s different about abortion? Nothing, other than the location and size of the human being, which features are morally irrelevant to its identity and value.
Here’s why the government must make abortion illegal: All human beings have a natural right to life. The government’s job is to protect that right, which is why they do not allow citizens to choose to murder other people. If all human beings have the right to life and the government is obligated to protect that right for all humans, then to determine whether abortion is morally wrong and should be illegal, we just need to determine if the unborn are just as human as the born. If they are not human beings – but just part of a woman’s body like her appendix or liver – then I would agree that the government should not be making these decisions for women. On the other hand, if the unborn are just as human as we are then they have the same right to life that we do, and that right must be protected by the government in the same way the government protects that right for us. So what are the unborn? That’s the issue.
The science is clear on the matter: the unborn are not part of their mother’s bodies, but are whole, distinct human beings from the very moment of conception. They have their own unique human DNA separate from the mother’s, and have all they need from the one-cell stage to develop themselves into a mature adult. The unborn only differ from us in their size, location, and level of development, but none of these differences carry moral significance. Where you are doesn’t determine what you are, and your size doesn’t determine your value. It’s true that they don’t look like us in their earliest stages of development, but they look exactly like humans are supposed to look at that stage of development, and exactly like we did when we were their age.
Since science proves that the unborn are just as human as you and I, they have the same right to life and the government has the same responsibility to protect that right. That’s why the government must outlaw abortion. A woman should no more be allowed to make the choice to murder her unborn child than she should be allowed to make the choice to kill her 1 year old child. There is simply no biological or moral difference between the human in the womb and the human outside of the womb. And since the government’s fundamental responsibility is to protect our fundamental rights, any government that uses their power to allow this form of murder is an immoral government, and should not receive the vote of Christians.
Thinking to Believe 
October 28, 2016 at 10:37 am
Well said. There is no gray area here.
LikeLike
October 28, 2016 at 9:46 pm
Charlie:
If you believe your statement holds true it deserves two replies to consider:
The first is
“if you are a man”
and the second is
“unless you are a woman”.
The reproductive rights of a woman have never been taken in account in our patriarchal history by religious authorities at any time. That is why men have always controlled sexual activity, have treated women like filthy rags in societies and still do in other parts of the world where they wrap them up in tarpaulins as though there is something wrong with a woman’s body and beauty and face that renders men to their knees for the opportunity to adore and love them and to have their way with them.
Since the record of mankind women have never been allowed to be part of the society the live in and why in this civilized society that women did not have the rights to participate in democracy, government rules, laws and regulations, it has always been decided for them by men.
IN fact since the dawn of civilization (so called) this has been a fact and you don’t have to go back very far to discover that women could not even vote in the USA. Read this simple Constitutional Fact:
Ratified on August 18, 1920, the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution granted American women the right to vote—a right known as woman suffrage. At the time the U.S. was founded, its female citizens did not share all of the same rights as men, including the right to vote.
Now do the math……….. how many millions of years have human men been dominant on the planet compared to right of women to participate in societal life outside the kitchen and the bedroom? Do the math: since 1920 when the 19th Amendment to the U.S Constitution was ratified: 96 years…..it will only be 100 years in the year 2020! Men have had their way with women until that time and now that women have had a voice in government; imagine, for less than 100 years, we have become much more civilized in the western world. Much more civilized since the realization that men were neglecting half of the country’s population worldwide. That must have been one heck of a shock to suddenly realize that!
Personally I am not in favour of abortion and we need to have this conversation but some of us men cannot have that discussion when the table is surrounded by a panel of men only and until we include women in that discussion we are not there yet.
You are not solely in charge anymore Charlie; face it, the patriarchal hierarchy has been falling exponentially like the patriarchal religious institutions that spawned the hierarchy since the year dot. And we are not listening to their rhetoric any longer. We are individual, exercise common sense and decency, have moral values equal to any member of any religious organization and that includes our women because, the Women of the World are the Mothers of Mankind and where would you be if that were not so true?
There is no grey area here.
Now I’ve heard there was a secret chord
That David played, and it pleased the Lord
David in 1 Samuel 16:23
But you don’t really care for music, do you?
It goes like this
The fourth, the fifth
The minor fall, the major lift
The baffled king composing Hallelujah
Your faith was strong but you needed proof
You saw her bathing on the roof
Her beauty and the moonlight overthrew you
David in 2 Samuel 11:2
She tied you
To a kitchen chair
She broke your throne, and she cut your hair
Samson in Book of Judges
And from your lips she drew the Hallelujah
It is very much a religious song. Rufus Wainwright said “The melody is almost liturgical and conjures up religious feelings. It’s purifying.”
You say I took the name in vain
I don’t even know the name
But if I did, well really, what’s it to you?
There’s a blaze of light
In every word
It doesn’t matter which you heard
The holy or the broken Hallelujah
I did my best, it wasn’t much
I couldn’t feel, so I tried to touch
I’ve told the truth, I didn’t come to fool you
And even though
It all went wrong
I’ll stand before the Lord of Song
With nothing on my tongue but Hallelujah
LikeLike
October 28, 2016 at 9:54 pm
Published on Oct 21, 2016
A PENTATONIX CHRISTMAS VERSION NOW OUT NOW! ITUNES
OFFICIAL VERSION HERE:
LikeLike
October 28, 2016 at 10:23 pm
And then there’s the perfect religious version of this song. Singing priest’s Hallelujah wows wedding guests
LikeLike
October 28, 2016 at 10:45 pm
Son of Man, your argument is sexist and hypocritical. It’s sexist because it is based on sex. But you should no, arguments don’t have testicles. So you’re argument is just a red herring fallacy.
As for being hypocritical, does anyone say to men who oppose rape, “You don’t experience rape, so how dare you say it’s wrong. It’s a woman’s issue”? Of course not! And given your logic, no man should support abortion either. After all, it’s not his issue to comment on. In fact, the Supreme Court should not have legalized it since it was a group of 9 men.
And while men may not have to carry the baby, they do face unplanned pregnancies, and they do face the consequences (raising the child, paying for the child). So this is not just a woman’s issue. And men ought to have a say so as to whether or not their children are murdered!
LikeLike
October 29, 2016 at 12:48 am
Jason:
Your reply is too emotional and lacking logic. The treatment of women by men such as rape, is comparing bananas to orangutans.
sexist – is a man with a chauvinistic belief in the inferiority of women. That is the definition of patriarchal hierarchy of men fostered by religion in general and Christianity in particular; after all, it says so in your New Testament bible. It certainly does not promote gender equality. But I grant you, that is changing because of secularism which is against gender bashing in spite of Religion and Christianity:
a mild example:
1 Corinthians 14:34 women are to be silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35 If they wish to inquire about something, they are to ask their own husbands at home; for it is dishonorable for a woman to speak in the church.…
Hypocritical is someone behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case; or, one who preaches one thing and practices another. That again is the patriarchal hierarchy of men amply substantiated in the Record of Mankind.
“……..men face unplanned pregnancies, and they…. face ….consequences (raising the child, paying for the child)”
No they don’t. Those are the consequences women face especially from unwanted sexual activity, for example rape
Would you argue against a woman if she wanted to abort an unplanned pregnancy because she was violently raped? What man has a right to expect a woman to capitulate to such a demand? Would you be against abortion in that case?
It is just as wrong to legislate that a woman carry to term an unplanned pregnancy by a rape as it is for a man to rape a woman. A woman cannot take the rape from her experience but she sure as heck can spit his seed back to the ground where it belongs. Just because you say abortion is murder does not add one bit to the cause of the unborn because a woman is not just a man’s incubator. Patriarchal hierarchy thinks that way but not modern man, modern man can discern with discretion when to yes and when to no without the morality of the self righteous being shoved down their throats.
Moral of the story:
Millennials have progressed to the point where s/he can comfortably shove common sense down the throats of fools instead of blindly accepting the dictates of the ancients from modern pulpits.
LikeLike
October 30, 2016 at 12:55 pm
A well-organized, concise, data resource for the topic at hand:
Abortion – Just Facts
http://www.justfacts.com/abortion.asp#Constitution
Several points of information that prove instructive from this site:
* At any point prior to birth, according to the Supreme Court’s rulings in Roe v. Wade, Doe v. Bolton, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a pregnant woman can abort to preserve her “health.” One example from Roe v. Wade of what may be considered harmful to a mother’s health is the work of caring for a child. (More details in the section on Constitution and Law.)
Constitution and Law
Roe v. Wade
* In March of 1970, a pregnant woman by the name of Norma McCorvey sued the state of Texas to challenge the constitutionality of a state law that prohibited abortion except to save the life of the mother. McCorvey wanted to keep her identity secret and assumed the fictitious name Jane Roe. The name of the Dallas County district attorney responsible for enforcing the law was Henry Wade. Thus, the case was entitled Roe v. Wade.[412] [413] [414]
* Before the United States Supreme Court, the attorney for Roe argued that the Texas law was unconstitutional because it violated the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.[415] The Ninth Amendment reads:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[416]
The clause of the Fourteenth Amendment relevant to the argument reads:
No State shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law….[417]
* In support of this view, the attorney for Roe stated that “liberty to these women would mean liberty from being forced to continue the unwanted pregnancy.”[418]
* During oral arguments, one of the judges asked the attorney for Roe if her case was dependent on the assertion that pre-born humans have no Constitutional rights. After some back and forth, the attorney for Roe responded:
Even if the Court at some point determined the fetus to be entitled to constitutional protection, you would still get back into the weighing of one life against another.
After more back and forth, another judge said to Roe’s attorney:
[To take this position], you’d have to say that this would be the equivalent after the child was born if the mother thought it bothered her health any having the child around, she could have it killed. Isn’t that correct?
The attorney for Roe responded:
That’s correct. That …
At this point, the Chief Justice cut her off and started to ask another question. He then interrupted himself and asked:
Did you want to respond further to Justice Stewart? Did you want to respond further to him?
The attorney for Roe stated:
No, Your Honor.[419]
* The attorney for the State of Texas argued that preborn humans are protected under the Fifth Amendment.[420] The portion relevant to the argument states:
No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law….[421]
* During oral arguments, one of the judges contested this viewpoint by asserting that the Fourteenth Amendment defined what the term “person” meant, and that it did not include preborn humans.[422] The relevant clause reads:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.[423]
* After some back and forth, the judge retreated from this position and said:
[I suppose] that’s not the definition of a person but that’s the definition of a citizen.[424]
* The attorney for the State of Texas responded that the only way to understand what the Constitution means by the word “person” was to go to “the teachings at the time the Constitution was framed.” He then quoted from William Blackstone, who is described in Simon & Shuster’s New Millennium Encyclopedia as a “British jurist and legal scholar, whose work Commentaries on the Laws of England was used for more than a century as the foundation of all legal education in Great Britain and the U.S.”[425] In this work, Blackstone wrote that life is a “right” that:
is inherent by nature in every individual, and exists even before the child is born.[426]
* To further support his position, the attorney for the state of Texas appealed to the Declaration of Independence and started to quote the following sentence from it, but he was cut off by one of judges: [427]
WE hold these [cut off] Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.[428]
* On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court released its ruling. Seven of the judges ruled in favor of Roe and two of the judges opposed the ruling. The ruling overturned the laws of 30 states that generally prohibited abortion except to save the life of the mother.[429]
* The majority ruled these laws unconstitutional on the basis that they violated the Fourteenth Amendment, stating that it protects “the right to privacy,” and that this includes “a woman’s qualified right to terminate her pregnancy.”[430] The relevant portion of the Fourteenth Amendment reads:
No State shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law….[431]
* The Fourteenth Amendment does not contain the word “privacy” or any synonym for it.[432] [433] It was adopted in 1868 to address a number of issues relevant to the Civil War, such as ensuring constitutional rights for black people.[434]
* The majority wrote that they were “not in a position to speculate” as to “when life begins” and criticized the State of Texas for “adopting one theory of life,” namely, that life begins at conception.[435]
* They also:
Used the term “potentiality of human life” in reference to preborn humans who are capable of living outside the mother’s womb.[436]
Ruled that preborn humans have no Constitutional rights.[437]
* The majority created rules regarding the types of abortion legislation that states could enact based upon the three trimesters of a typical pregnancy:
First trimester: States cannot prohibit abortions. They can require that abortions be done by licensed physicians, but other than this, they cannot regulate the manner in which they are performed.[438] In an internal court memo written before the ruling was issued and made public 15 years later, the author of the decision (Justice Harry Blackmun) wrote that the ruling contains “dictum,” and this first trimester timeframe is “arbitrary.”[439] [440] (Click for full text of letter.)
Second trimester: States cannot prohibit abortions. They can regulate the manner in which they are performed for the purpose of protecting the mother’s health. The ruling cites examples of the types of regulations that are permissible. These include establishing “qualifications [for] the person who is to perform the abortion” and setting rules regarding “the facility in which the procedure is to be performed.”[441]
Third trimester: States can prohibit abortions after “viability” (meaning the point where a preborn human is capable of living outside their mother’s womb), but they cannot prohibit abortions “where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.”[442] The ruling cites examples of what may be considered harmful to a woman’s health. These include the “stigma of unwed motherhood,” the work of caring for a child, and the “distress” “associated with the unwanted child.”[443] [444]
After listing these examples and others, the majority wrote that this portion of their ruling does not permit abortions “at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason” a woman chooses.[445] They repeated this assertion four times using varying words but listed no example of a circumstance where abortion could be prohibited.[446]
* * * * *
The advances made in medical science since 1973 thoroughly invalidates:
“The majority wrote that they were “not in a position to speculate” as to “when life begins” and criticized the State of Texas for “adopting one theory of life,” namely, that life begins at conception.”
LikeLike
October 30, 2016 at 7:24 pm
The Truth About Sex: Facts You Won’t Believe Are True!
Stefan Molyneux
Published on Mar 7, 2015
Some shocking trends regarding sexual activity and life outcomes – including the alarming reason why you haven’t already heard this information. There is a mind-blowing correlation in this presentation that you’ve never seen before – and it’s important that you know about it!
In the first part of “The Truth About Sex” series, Stefan Molyneux looks at first age of sexual activity, the number of sexual partners, single mothers, abortion, sexually transmitted diseases, stable marriage, child maltreatment, divorce, crime and happiness statistics.
What is the truth about sex – and what information do you need to know before playing the big person’s game which makes real people? Upcoming “The Truth About Sex” presentations will include a look at r/k reproductive strategies, polyamory/monogamy, porn, the impact of fatherlessness and much much more!
LikeLike
October 30, 2016 at 11:40 pm
FA
Nobody knows what your opinion is unfortunately………….and nobody is going to go scouring to some video, irrelevant to the topic at hand..
LikeLike
October 31, 2016 at 5:39 pm
Re: post # 6.
“sexist – is a man with a chauvinistic belief in the inferiority of women. That is the definition of patriarchal hierarchy of men fostered by religion in general and Christianity in particular; after all, it says so in your New Testament bible. It certainly does not promote gender equality. But I grant you, that is changing because of secularism which is against gender bashing in spite of Religion and Christianity:”
* * * * *
“WIVES SUBMIT” – What it REALLY means! Bible Study
Mike Winger
Published on Dec 5, 2015
An unashamed teaching on this controversial and often misunderstood passage.
What submission is/isn’t, how to submit and when not to.
1 Peter 3:1-6
LikeLike
October 31, 2016 at 5:54 pm
Re: post # 6.
“Millennials have progressed to the point where s/he can comfortably shove common sense down the throats of fools instead of blindly accepting the dictates of the ancients from modern pulpits.”
* * * * *
At least I’m accurate.
Pew Research Center
JUNE 27, 2016
5 facts about abortion
BY MICHAEL LIPKA
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/06/27/5-facts-about-abortion/
From the above article:
5. Roughly six-in-ten Americans (62%) know Roe v. Wade was a decision about abortion, but among adults under 30 years old, only 44% know. Younger adults also are less likely to view abortion as an important issue: 62% of Americans ages 18 to 29 say it is “not that important” compared with other issues, while 53% of adults overall say this.
LikeLike
October 31, 2016 at 6:20 pm
List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is a list of decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States that have been explicitly overruled, in part or in whole, by a subsequent decision of the Court. It does not include decisions that have been abrogated by subsequent constitutional amendment or by subsequent amending statutes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions
LikeLike