Donny's Ramblings

Roe V Wade: Then and Now

60 Comments

With the 35th anniversary of Roe-v-Wade coming January 22nd, I’m bringing it up again in relationship to the coming elections. It seems that so many decide which candidate they’ll vote for based on where that candidate stands on abortion.

Since only the Supreme Court can overturn Roe-Vs-Wade I figured I’d post an article as to the makeup of the Supreme Court, then vs now.

THEN:

Chief Justice:

Warren E. Burger – Appointed by Nixon (R)

Associate Justices:

William O. Douglas – Appointed by F.D. Roosevelt (D)
William J. Brennan, Jr. – Appointed by Eisenhower (R)
Potter Stewart – Appointed by Eisenhower (R)
Byron White – Appointed by Kennedy (D)
Thurgood Marshall – Appointed by L.B. Johnson (D)
Harry Blackmun – Appointed by Nixon (R)
Lewis F. Powell, Jr. – Appointed by Nixon (R)
William Rehnquist – Appointed by Nixon / Reagan (R)

When the Supreme Court ruled FOR abortion, 6 out of the 9 Justices who made that decision were appointed by Republicans.

NOW:

Of the 9 Justices currently serving:

1 was appointed by President Ford (R),
2 were appointed by President Reagan (R),
2 were appointed by President Clinton (D),
2 were appointed by George Bush Senior (R),
2 were appointed by George Bush Junior (R).

So with 7 out of 9 current Justices appointed by Republicans I ask you, has abortion gone away? Nope.

So, kids, will voting Republican in this coming election MAKE it go away? Highly unlikely (see the two examples above).

My point: vote for a candidate based on other issues besides their views on abortion. The candidate you elect can’t/won’t do much about that issue anyway.

———-

TO RECAP:

then:
VOTED FOR ABORTION IN 1973
:
6 OUT OF 9 REPUBLICAN APPOINTED JUSTICES

now:
HAVEN’T DONE A DAMN THING TO OVER RULE IT:
7 OUT OF 9 REPUBLICAN APPOINTED JUSTICES

(For the record: I hate abortion, and I’ve been a registered Republican since I was old enough to register)

60 thoughts on “Roe V Wade: Then and Now

  1. I pretty much agree. There are bigger things going on in the world, and it’s doubtful that any one person, even the President of the United States, is going to alter current abortion laws.

    Now, if you could just convince some of the more influential Christian leaders of this…

  2. I pretty much agree. There are bigger things going on in the world, and it’s doubtful that any one person, even the President of the United States, is going to alter current abortion laws.

    Now, if you could just convince some of the more influential Christian leaders of this…

  3. I think that voting for a pro-life candidate could at least serve to limit abortion. I don’t pretend to be highly informed about how it all works; but I imagine that if, for instance, Hillary Clinton is elected president, the national ban on partial birth abortion will be in danger.

    I just see this as such a non-debatable issue. I could not, in good conscience, vote for a candidate that offers no hope of opposition to abortion.

  4. I think that voting for a pro-life candidate could at least serve to limit abortion. I don’t pretend to be highly informed about how it all works; but I imagine that if, for instance, Hillary Clinton is elected president, the national ban on partial birth abortion will be in danger.

    I just see this as such a non-debatable issue. I could not, in good conscience, vote for a candidate that offers no hope of opposition to abortion.

  5. Tracy,

    The Supreme Court ruled against Partial Birth Abortions, too. That means only the Supreme Court can overrule to allow them. No matter who is in office, partial birth abortions aren’t going to be made legal.

    Also think of this:

    In Iraq we are killing both born and unborn children in a needless war. Why are our unborn more valuable than Iraqi unborn? Can you vote for a candidate who may indeed be against abortion in our country, yet totally fine with killing the innocent in other countries?

  6. Tracy,

    The Supreme Court ruled against Partial Birth Abortions, too. That means only the Supreme Court can overrule to allow them. No matter who is in office, partial birth abortions aren’t going to be made legal.

    Also think of this:

    In Iraq we are killing both born and unborn children in a needless war. Why are our unborn more valuable than Iraqi unborn? Can you vote for a candidate who may indeed be against abortion in our country, yet totally fine with killing the innocent in other countries?

  7. Thanks for sharing this over at my blog, too. I agree with you pretty much on spot.

    ~Anna

  8. Thanks for sharing this over at my blog, too. I agree with you pretty much on spot.

    ~Anna

  9. In no way are any of my comments meant to indicate who I plan to vote for this coming November. My only point is that we should consider a big picture before placing our votes. Even if a candidate is a radical pro-Choice advocate, they have very little say over the way our country will head in regards to abortion. We are blessed with a great checks and balances system. Ultimately, our Supreme Court decides.

    Again: an overwhelmingly Republican appointed Supreme Court ruled FOR Roe v Wade in 1973. Keep that in mind. Always.

    All of us fall prey to putting levels on sin. We want to think of all the unborn babies who have been killed due to that (Republican) Supreme Court decision. We ignore other matters that are just as important.

    What if a pro-Life candidate wants to rape our environment for profit? What if, as I just stated in a former comment, a pro-Life candidate wants to justify killing innocents in other countries, and calls that justification “defense” of our country or a “war on terror” (and just who is “terrified” when our bombs are dropping on their roof tops?) ?

    Sin is sin is sin. We won’t find a candidate without sin.

  10. In no way are any of my comments meant to indicate who I plan to vote for this coming November. My only point is that we should consider a big picture before placing our votes. Even if a candidate is a radical pro-Choice advocate, they have very little say over the way our country will head in regards to abortion. We are blessed with a great checks and balances system. Ultimately, our Supreme Court decides.

    Again: an overwhelmingly Republican appointed Supreme Court ruled FOR Roe v Wade in 1973. Keep that in mind. Always.

    All of us fall prey to putting levels on sin. We want to think of all the unborn babies who have been killed due to that (Republican) Supreme Court decision. We ignore other matters that are just as important.

    What if a pro-Life candidate wants to rape our environment for profit? What if, as I just stated in a former comment, a pro-Life candidate wants to justify killing innocents in other countries, and calls that justification “defense” of our country or a “war on terror” (and just who is “terrified” when our bombs are dropping on their roof tops?) ?

    Sin is sin is sin. We won’t find a candidate without sin.

  11. Not that I’m that knowledgable about politics or the Supreme Court system, but my guess is that regardless of who’s there (Supreme Court justices) and how they’d vote on a topic such as this, I don’t think that they can arbitrarily vote to over turn the decisions on matters in prior cases, without there being a new case to deal with, for which they could bring to light the past decisions and how they were derived and review all of the nuances of the differences in those decisions in light of the new issues of a current case.

    Could be completely wrong about this, but that to me would be the understanding I have about why “nothing” has been done.

    Likewise, for any who would take the stand your speaking of, I’d propose this scenario: What if none of the candidates were against abortion in any of its manifestations, would you not vote at all. Certainly as Donny suggests and urges, consider the many other issues they stand on over all, and the best one who holds the most in your favor should be the one to consider as well as whether or not they even have a chance, so that your vote is not lost. In the real scenario however, none of the liberal candidates generally support conservative views about anything, regardless of how much they may wow with their rhetoric, especially those “for the poor” or middle class, or a particular race or what have you. Definitely pray because we could be seeing this new President as one who would usher in the beginning of the end…but don’t let that stop you…because whether we want it or not, the Bible says it’s on it’s way, one way or another…

    God bless you all

  12. Not that I’m that knowledgable about politics or the Supreme Court system, but my guess is that regardless of who’s there (Supreme Court justices) and how they’d vote on a topic such as this, I don’t think that they can arbitrarily vote to over turn the decisions on matters in prior cases, without there being a new case to deal with, for which they could bring to light the past decisions and how they were derived and review all of the nuances of the differences in those decisions in light of the new issues of a current case.

    Could be completely wrong about this, but that to me would be the understanding I have about why “nothing” has been done.

    Likewise, for any who would take the stand your speaking of, I’d propose this scenario: What if none of the candidates were against abortion in any of its manifestations, would you not vote at all. Certainly as Donny suggests and urges, consider the many other issues they stand on over all, and the best one who holds the most in your favor should be the one to consider as well as whether or not they even have a chance, so that your vote is not lost. In the real scenario however, none of the liberal candidates generally support conservative views about anything, regardless of how much they may wow with their rhetoric, especially those “for the poor” or middle class, or a particular race or what have you. Definitely pray because we could be seeing this new President as one who would usher in the beginning of the end…but don’t let that stop you…because whether we want it or not, the Bible says it’s on it’s way, one way or another…

    God bless you all

  13. Donny I’m posting here what I posted on my Dad’s blog, (gmkeck.wordpress.com)

    Donny, you may be right, but I could not in good conscience ever vote for a candidate who says he believes a woman should have the legal right to kill her child.
    I know that even changing the laws won’t stop abortion completely, and I also agree that some who say they’re pro-life don’t really have this issue as a high priority.
    The fact is, something is horribly wrong with the human race. And all the laws in the world won’t change it. It has to come from inside. So prayer is really the answer. But we also have to fight for and stand for what we believe is right.

    I do not understand how a medical doctor can kill a child.

    I don’t vote solely on a person’s opinion on this issue- but, if they are not pro-life, they don’t have my vote. Maybe that makes no difference, but I still think it does.

    And I will add, that my personal opinion is that going into Iraq was a big mistake and that the troops should immediately be withdrawn.

  14. Donny I’m posting here what I posted on my Dad’s blog, (gmkeck.wordpress.com)

    Donny, you may be right, but I could not in good conscience ever vote for a candidate who says he believes a woman should have the legal right to kill her child.
    I know that even changing the laws won’t stop abortion completely, and I also agree that some who say they’re pro-life don’t really have this issue as a high priority.
    The fact is, something is horribly wrong with the human race. And all the laws in the world won’t change it. It has to come from inside. So prayer is really the answer. But we also have to fight for and stand for what we believe is right.

    I do not understand how a medical doctor can kill a child.

    I don’t vote solely on a person’s opinion on this issue- but, if they are not pro-life, they don’t have my vote. Maybe that makes no difference, but I still think it does.

    And I will add, that my personal opinion is that going into Iraq was a big mistake and that the troops should immediately be withdrawn.

  15. I probably should stay out of this one but can’t help it.

    Abortion is the modern-day genocide that far outweighs any other issue in my mind. The slaughter of innocent, precious image-bearers of Christ is perhaps one of the biggest affronts to the very nature of the Father I can think of.

    McCain has indicated that overturning Roe v. Wade is high on his priority list, and as a voter, that is well worth considering for me. I think that creating a culture where we do not slaughter the most precious and defenseless among ourselves would go a long way in how we regard the lives of the innocents abroad as well.

    I love and respect you and your opinions, but on this one (“My point: vote for a candidate based on other issues besides their views on abortion. The candidate you elect can’t/won’t do much about that issue anyway”) I have to emphatically disagree with you.

  16. I probably should stay out of this one but can’t help it.

    Abortion is the modern-day genocide that far outweighs any other issue in my mind. The slaughter of innocent, precious image-bearers of Christ is perhaps one of the biggest affronts to the very nature of the Father I can think of.

    McCain has indicated that overturning Roe v. Wade is high on his priority list, and as a voter, that is well worth considering for me. I think that creating a culture where we do not slaughter the most precious and defenseless among ourselves would go a long way in how we regard the lives of the innocents abroad as well.

    I love and respect you and your opinions, but on this one (“My point: vote for a candidate based on other issues besides their views on abortion. The candidate you elect can’t/won’t do much about that issue anyway”) I have to emphatically disagree with you.

  17. I happen to be pro-choice but I’m not interested in getting
    into a debate on abortion itself. What I will say is that the
    Republicans who oppose abortion, don’t care about what happens to
    people after they’re born. In Congress they vote against and Bush
    vetoes the expansion of health care for children. The “pro-life” Republicans oppose spending more money for education. One could go on and on. They support the death penalty and war, so they are
    hypocrites when they say that they are “pro-life.” I’d say that they
    are simply PRO BIRTH. I said here before that I’m for more programs to
    prevent pregnancies for people who are not ready or perhaps never will
    be ready to have children. I support teaching family life courses in
    the schools at the earliest possible ages. Youngsters should be taught
    BOTH about the use of birth control AND abstinence. These courses
    would be mandatory. No notes from parents who don’t want their kids to
    take the course. I also think that there should be a birth control
    pill for men.

    Now regarding the Supreme Court, you must understand that we now have
    4 justices that oppose abortion and are ready to overturn Roe vs Wade.
    They are Scalia appointed by Reagan, Thomas appointed by George H.W.
    Bush, and Alito and Roberts appointed by the current Bush. We don’t
    know how Justice Anthony Kennedy would vote as he has ruled both ways
    on the issue in the past. The current Bush and all of the Republicans
    who are hoping to replace him, are pledged to appoint justices that
    will repeal Roe vs Wade. Nixon didn’t give a darn about this issue.
    Gerald Ford who appointed John Paul Stevens, was pro-choice.
    When George H.W. Bush appointed Souter, apparently he was in error and
    thought that Souter was for repealing R v Wade. So it will definitely
    make a difference who the next President is on who gets appointed to
    the Supreme Court, and abortion is not the only issue that there will
    be consequences on. Nevertheless as I said before, the Republicans
    don’t really care about life for the reasons I mentioned above.

  18. I happen to be pro-choice but I’m not interested in getting
    into a debate on abortion itself. What I will say is that the
    Republicans who oppose abortion, don’t care about what happens to
    people after they’re born. In Congress they vote against and Bush
    vetoes the expansion of health care for children. The “pro-life” Republicans oppose spending more money for education. One could go on and on. They support the death penalty and war, so they are
    hypocrites when they say that they are “pro-life.” I’d say that they
    are simply PRO BIRTH. I said here before that I’m for more programs to
    prevent pregnancies for people who are not ready or perhaps never will
    be ready to have children. I support teaching family life courses in
    the schools at the earliest possible ages. Youngsters should be taught
    BOTH about the use of birth control AND abstinence. These courses
    would be mandatory. No notes from parents who don’t want their kids to
    take the course. I also think that there should be a birth control
    pill for men.

    Now regarding the Supreme Court, you must understand that we now have
    4 justices that oppose abortion and are ready to overturn Roe vs Wade.
    They are Scalia appointed by Reagan, Thomas appointed by George H.W.
    Bush, and Alito and Roberts appointed by the current Bush. We don’t
    know how Justice Anthony Kennedy would vote as he has ruled both ways
    on the issue in the past. The current Bush and all of the Republicans
    who are hoping to replace him, are pledged to appoint justices that
    will repeal Roe vs Wade. Nixon didn’t give a darn about this issue.
    Gerald Ford who appointed John Paul Stevens, was pro-choice.
    When George H.W. Bush appointed Souter, apparently he was in error and
    thought that Souter was for repealing R v Wade. So it will definitely
    make a difference who the next President is on who gets appointed to
    the Supreme Court, and abortion is not the only issue that there will
    be consequences on. Nevertheless as I said before, the Republicans
    don’t really care about life for the reasons I mentioned above.

  19. “The Supreme Court ruled against Partial Birth Abortions, too. That means only the Supreme Court can overrule to allow them. No matter who is in office, partial birth abortions aren’t going to be made legal.”

    Actually there is something that congress and the president can do about abortion that wouldn’t require the court to sign off on any changes. That solution is both Constitutional and not all that hard to accomplish. All Congress must do (and the president sign off on) is remove abortion review from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. [All-be-it this doesn’t seem likely with Republican minorities in the House and Senate.]

    Since the Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction with regards to abortion cases, Article III, Section II applies and allows congress to limit the jurisdiction of both the Supreme Court and the remaining federal courts. Effectively, this would leave the abortion issue in the hands of state courts.

    There is a bill currently in Congress [H.R. 2597] that proposes just such a thing. How is it doing? I don’t know, I haven’t checked up on it in a while.

    Otherwise interesting post. It shows you how unpredictable a Supreme Court nod can be. Well, except for Ginsburg, no one ever expected her to be anything other than a complete 100% left wing member of the court. 😉

  20. “The Supreme Court ruled against Partial Birth Abortions, too. That means only the Supreme Court can overrule to allow them. No matter who is in office, partial birth abortions aren’t going to be made legal.”

    Actually there is something that congress and the president can do about abortion that wouldn’t require the court to sign off on any changes. That solution is both Constitutional and not all that hard to accomplish. All Congress must do (and the president sign off on) is remove abortion review from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. [All-be-it this doesn’t seem likely with Republican minorities in the House and Senate.]

    Since the Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction with regards to abortion cases, Article III, Section II applies and allows congress to limit the jurisdiction of both the Supreme Court and the remaining federal courts. Effectively, this would leave the abortion issue in the hands of state courts.

    There is a bill currently in Congress [H.R. 2597] that proposes just such a thing. How is it doing? I don’t know, I haven’t checked up on it in a while.

    Otherwise interesting post. It shows you how unpredictable a Supreme Court nod can be. Well, except for Ginsburg, no one ever expected her to be anything other than a complete 100% left wing member of the court. 😉

  21. Donny,
    As a black 26 year old inner-city pastor, I have stood by and witnessed violent devastations for too long . The issue I would like to speak on in light of your question is the culture of death that we find ourselves living in here in America. Label me what you will..radical, overspiritual, close-minded, etc. But the issue of abortion is not a Republican/Democrat issue. To think of it in that manner is to approach it from a completely humanistic viewpoint. The murder rate in my city (A major one) has been at an all time high in the past two years, and with 9 or 10 homicides in the past 17 days, we are averaging a murder every 36 hours. Just this week, two 24 year old mothers were savagely murdered by gunmen, while clutching their infant babies who were also shot in the head. . As barbaric and evil as this is, the city is awakening to the spirit of murder that has been released in the streets and are especially outraged at the killing of two innocent babies. God is using murder to awaken the church to do what she was commanded to do in the first place. Prayer vigils have sprung up all across the city, businesses and churches alike, are uniting in prayerful petition. But, my first thought was…”this is happening every day at the planned parenthood buildings on our street corners!” Worldwide, approximately 46 million infants are brutally murdered every year…that’s 126,000 per day! Yet we remain silent and say “there are other, more important issues.” As a christian we cannot separate the supernatural realities and implications of our activities, with those in the natural realm. Abortion is a justice and righteousness issue. Throughout humanity, Satan has systematically hardened the hearts of people through an unending, consistent, daily dose of evil to shift our focus to other things so that his agenda can be accomplished. 100 years ago, abortions happened. But I’m sure that if a public official would have stood upon a public platform and announced openly “LET’S GIVE WOMEN THE RIGHT TO KILL THEIR BABIES!” He would have been hanged. However, with the free love movement of the 1960’s where sex, drugs, and a reckless lifestyle were the mantra of a generation..legalizing abortion almost became necessary as an evil answer to the overwhelming increase of pregnancies that were inevitably happening with such an increase of sexual activity. It’s a systematic, satanic, hardening of our hearts to the point that evil becomes entertainment (much like porn and the recent Hollywood upsurge in murder and violent horror films) and to the point that murder becomes a non-issue. We boldly call anti-abortionists PRO-LIFER’S..but why is the alternative called Pro-Choice? Choice sounds so ideal…so less abrasive and neutral…commendable even. But if the term for those in the choice camp was openly called PRO-DEATH…NO ONE WOULD WANT TO IDENTIFY WITH IT! Satan is much more cunning than that. But let me get to the meat of why I’m writing this to you.

    It is written THROUGHOUT THE BIBLE that for the shedding of innocent blood, Man’s blood must be shed.

    5 Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man. 6 “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man. (Gen. 9:5-6)

    So you shall not pollute the land where you are; for blood defiles the land, and no atonement can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it. (Num. 35:33)

    They even sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons, 38 and shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; and the land was polluted with blood….40 Therefore the wrath of the LORD was kindled against His people, so that He abhorred His own inheritance. (Ps. 106:37-40)

    To me it is no coincidence that this 35th anniversary occurs one day after Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birth. God challenges our generation by saying, “Why do you memorialize the prophets of old?

    Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, 30 and say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’ (Mt. 23:29-30)

    We say, “If we were alive in his day, we wouldn’t participate in racism…we would stand beside him and fight with him…” AND YET the greatest civil rights issue in the earth today is at our very doorstep? We participate by our very silence.
    I believe that the murder in the streets of America,and world death culture are a direct representation of the murder that we’ve tolerated and even encouraged behind the closed doors of our religious, education, and social institutions. For fear of being labeled a “close-minded radical playing the abortion card when there are more important issues” we’ve remained silent while those with no voice are dying. The church has negated her voice in the culture by not dealing with the sexual immorality first within the walls of the church. But there is hope if we repent.

    23 Therefore He said that He would destroy them, Had not Moses His chosen one stood before Him in the breach, to turn away His wrath, lest He destroy them. (Ps. 106:23

    Is there a people? Can we be the movement, the intercessors, to stand before the courts of heaven for God to end abortion and have mercy on our nation. We know that Jesus (the HEAD) is the Great Intercessor by whose shed blood, is the redemption and sacrifice to hold back the judgement of God for our sins. However, that in and of itself is not enough. WE (HIS BODY) MUST PARTICIPATE WITH HIM in prayer for mercy…applying the finished work of his atonement sacrifice to our ongoing works of sin. We must repent or turn, part of that act is by who we put in the places of authority. God has given man authority to govern the Earth. Those rulers in high places, release and lead us into greater blessings or curses. In God’s sight there is no in between..He has always just rulers as evil or righteous. Hot or cold…the lukewarm he spits out. As Christians, we have beseech the Lord for wisdom and ask for His heart…”God, there are many issues..but what are the issues of your heart in this hour?”

    Therefore, I cannot righteously participate in the murder of babies by voting into place, someone who will not actively seek to close the gateways of death.

  22. Donny,
    As a black 26 year old inner-city pastor, I have stood by and witnessed violent devastations for too long . The issue I would like to speak on in light of your question is the culture of death that we find ourselves living in here in America. Label me what you will..radical, overspiritual, close-minded, etc. But the issue of abortion is not a Republican/Democrat issue. To think of it in that manner is to approach it from a completely humanistic viewpoint. The murder rate in my city (A major one) has been at an all time high in the past two years, and with 9 or 10 homicides in the past 17 days, we are averaging a murder every 36 hours. Just this week, two 24 year old mothers were savagely murdered by gunmen, while clutching their infant babies who were also shot in the head. . As barbaric and evil as this is, the city is awakening to the spirit of murder that has been released in the streets and are especially outraged at the killing of two innocent babies. God is using murder to awaken the church to do what she was commanded to do in the first place. Prayer vigils have sprung up all across the city, businesses and churches alike, are uniting in prayerful petition. But, my first thought was…”this is happening every day at the planned parenthood buildings on our street corners!” Worldwide, approximately 46 million infants are brutally murdered every year…that’s 126,000 per day! Yet we remain silent and say “there are other, more important issues.” As a christian we cannot separate the supernatural realities and implications of our activities, with those in the natural realm. Abortion is a justice and righteousness issue. Throughout humanity, Satan has systematically hardened the hearts of people through an unending, consistent, daily dose of evil to shift our focus to other things so that his agenda can be accomplished. 100 years ago, abortions happened. But I’m sure that if a public official would have stood upon a public platform and announced openly “LET’S GIVE WOMEN THE RIGHT TO KILL THEIR BABIES!” He would have been hanged. However, with the free love movement of the 1960’s where sex, drugs, and a reckless lifestyle were the mantra of a generation..legalizing abortion almost became necessary as an evil answer to the overwhelming increase of pregnancies that were inevitably happening with such an increase of sexual activity. It’s a systematic, satanic, hardening of our hearts to the point that evil becomes entertainment (much like porn and the recent Hollywood upsurge in murder and violent horror films) and to the point that murder becomes a non-issue. We boldly call anti-abortionists PRO-LIFER’S..but why is the alternative called Pro-Choice? Choice sounds so ideal…so less abrasive and neutral…commendable even. But if the term for those in the choice camp was openly called PRO-DEATH…NO ONE WOULD WANT TO IDENTIFY WITH IT! Satan is much more cunning than that. But let me get to the meat of why I’m writing this to you.

    It is written THROUGHOUT THE BIBLE that for the shedding of innocent blood, Man’s blood must be shed.

    5 Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man. 6 “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man. (Gen. 9:5-6)

    So you shall not pollute the land where you are; for blood defiles the land, and no atonement can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it. (Num. 35:33)

    They even sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons, 38 and shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan; and the land was polluted with blood….40 Therefore the wrath of the LORD was kindled against His people, so that He abhorred His own inheritance. (Ps. 106:37-40)

    To me it is no coincidence that this 35th anniversary occurs one day after Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birth. God challenges our generation by saying, “Why do you memorialize the prophets of old?

    Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, 30 and say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’ (Mt. 23:29-30)

    We say, “If we were alive in his day, we wouldn’t participate in racism…we would stand beside him and fight with him…” AND YET the greatest civil rights issue in the earth today is at our very doorstep? We participate by our very silence.
    I believe that the murder in the streets of America,and world death culture are a direct representation of the murder that we’ve tolerated and even encouraged behind the closed doors of our religious, education, and social institutions. For fear of being labeled a “close-minded radical playing the abortion card when there are more important issues” we’ve remained silent while those with no voice are dying. The church has negated her voice in the culture by not dealing with the sexual immorality first within the walls of the church. But there is hope if we repent.

    23 Therefore He said that He would destroy them, Had not Moses His chosen one stood before Him in the breach, to turn away His wrath, lest He destroy them. (Ps. 106:23

    Is there a people? Can we be the movement, the intercessors, to stand before the courts of heaven for God to end abortion and have mercy on our nation. We know that Jesus (the HEAD) is the Great Intercessor by whose shed blood, is the redemption and sacrifice to hold back the judgement of God for our sins. However, that in and of itself is not enough. WE (HIS BODY) MUST PARTICIPATE WITH HIM in prayer for mercy…applying the finished work of his atonement sacrifice to our ongoing works of sin. We must repent or turn, part of that act is by who we put in the places of authority. God has given man authority to govern the Earth. Those rulers in high places, release and lead us into greater blessings or curses. In God’s sight there is no in between..He has always just rulers as evil or righteous. Hot or cold…the lukewarm he spits out. As Christians, we have beseech the Lord for wisdom and ask for His heart…”God, there are many issues..but what are the issues of your heart in this hour?”

    Therefore, I cannot righteously participate in the murder of babies by voting into place, someone who will not actively seek to close the gateways of death.

  23. Walter- I am a Republican (but thinking of changing to an Independent.) I am pro-life, also pro teaching both abstinence AND birth control, pro generous funding for education, anti-war, and pro gun control.
    Also I believe most pro-choice people don’t really like the idea of abortion at all. It is a messy fix to the “problem.” Also I was a young pregnant teenager who gave up a child for adoption. This child, when a grown man, looked me in the face and said “I’m so glad you didn’t have an abortion. I like my life and I like who I am.”
    There’s no easy answer to this problem, but education can help.
    As a Christian I cannot impose my moral beliefs on others, especially since I have not always lived by them myself, so I am definitely in favor of effective birth control- which should not be solely the woman’s responsibility!! Birth control pills for men- great idea.

  24. Walter- I am a Republican (but thinking of changing to an Independent.) I am pro-life, also pro teaching both abstinence AND birth control, pro generous funding for education, anti-war, and pro gun control.
    Also I believe most pro-choice people don’t really like the idea of abortion at all. It is a messy fix to the “problem.” Also I was a young pregnant teenager who gave up a child for adoption. This child, when a grown man, looked me in the face and said “I’m so glad you didn’t have an abortion. I like my life and I like who I am.”
    There’s no easy answer to this problem, but education can help.
    As a Christian I cannot impose my moral beliefs on others, especially since I have not always lived by them myself, so I am definitely in favor of effective birth control- which should not be solely the woman’s responsibility!! Birth control pills for men- great idea.

  25. Nancy, I think that you are correct that most pro-choice people don’t like the idea of abortion, or at prefer least the measures we mentioned to prevent pregnancies when the mother is not ready to have children, teaching of birth control and abstinence. I respect people like you who are consistent. I don’t see how abortion can simply be outlawed as it once was, as those who seek it and have money will get it somewhere else, and others will get unsafe abortions in back alleys. I think that the position that most Democrats are now taking that abortion must be safe, legal, and rare is the best position. This is the position that Bill Clinton had when he ran for President in 1992, although I’m for Obama this time.

  26. Nancy, I think that you are correct that most pro-choice people don’t like the idea of abortion, or at prefer least the measures we mentioned to prevent pregnancies when the mother is not ready to have children, teaching of birth control and abstinence. I respect people like you who are consistent. I don’t see how abortion can simply be outlawed as it once was, as those who seek it and have money will get it somewhere else, and others will get unsafe abortions in back alleys. I think that the position that most Democrats are now taking that abortion must be safe, legal, and rare is the best position. This is the position that Bill Clinton had when he ran for President in 1992, although I’m for Obama this time.

  27. Well, I think I should note something very important that explains why a Republican-controlled Supreme Court was most likely in 1973 to rule as they in fact did, and why a Republican-controlled supreme court is the only one that has a chance of undoing it.

    If you go back in the history books, you will note that something happened in the late 60’s and early 70’s to the Democratic Party that led to a dramatic change in the Republican Party.

    You see, pre-hippies and the whole revolution of Woodstock and whatnot, the Democrats were the conservative party with regard to social policy and the Republicans were the liberal (aka “progressive”) one with regard to social policy. You can go back to Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt to see this, with almost no exceptions that I know of. Of course, the Dems have always been economically liberal and the Republicans economically conservative, but social policy was different for the two parties before the revolution of the1960s and 1970s.

    What happened to cause this change over was that the kids who had grown up under the wealth and conservatism of the Dems as a result of the Baby Boom of the 1960’s had a hayday with their parents money after JFKs time, a consequence of the inspriation of the Civil Rights era and the wonderful social work of Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    And so, these kids of their parents hijacked their parent’s party – the Democratic Party – and in the 1970’s a major reshuffling occurred as the conservatives left the Dems and headed for the Republican Party, which the conservatives hijacked with the leadership of Ronald Regan who united the social conservatives in the Democratic Party with the economic conservatives in the Republican Party. What happened in the late 1980’s and the mid-to-late 1980’s and early 1990’s was that the Evangelical Movement became political and in genreal turned the Republican Party into a totally conservative party and, having abandoned the Democratic Party, turned that party into the totally liberal party.

    And so the 1973 Supreme Court, which had been appointed by the previously socially liberal Republican presidents, was the one that was handed the social policy question of Roe vs. Wade. And now, with the great reshuffling complete, it will take a now socially conservative Republican Supreme court to overturn it.

    It seems to me pure irony that the upheval in this nation is the reason that the same party that created the problem must be the one to undo ithe mistakes of its fathers, isn’t it?

  28. Well, I think I should note something very important that explains why a Republican-controlled Supreme Court was most likely in 1973 to rule as they in fact did, and why a Republican-controlled supreme court is the only one that has a chance of undoing it.

    If you go back in the history books, you will note that something happened in the late 60’s and early 70’s to the Democratic Party that led to a dramatic change in the Republican Party.

    You see, pre-hippies and the whole revolution of Woodstock and whatnot, the Democrats were the conservative party with regard to social policy and the Republicans were the liberal (aka “progressive”) one with regard to social policy. You can go back to Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt to see this, with almost no exceptions that I know of. Of course, the Dems have always been economically liberal and the Republicans economically conservative, but social policy was different for the two parties before the revolution of the1960s and 1970s.

    What happened to cause this change over was that the kids who had grown up under the wealth and conservatism of the Dems as a result of the Baby Boom of the 1960’s had a hayday with their parents money after JFKs time, a consequence of the inspriation of the Civil Rights era and the wonderful social work of Dr. Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    And so, these kids of their parents hijacked their parent’s party – the Democratic Party – and in the 1970’s a major reshuffling occurred as the conservatives left the Dems and headed for the Republican Party, which the conservatives hijacked with the leadership of Ronald Regan who united the social conservatives in the Democratic Party with the economic conservatives in the Republican Party. What happened in the late 1980’s and the mid-to-late 1980’s and early 1990’s was that the Evangelical Movement became political and in genreal turned the Republican Party into a totally conservative party and, having abandoned the Democratic Party, turned that party into the totally liberal party.

    And so the 1973 Supreme Court, which had been appointed by the previously socially liberal Republican presidents, was the one that was handed the social policy question of Roe vs. Wade. And now, with the great reshuffling complete, it will take a now socially conservative Republican Supreme court to overturn it.

    It seems to me pure irony that the upheval in this nation is the reason that the same party that created the problem must be the one to undo ithe mistakes of its fathers, isn’t it?

  29. Pretty interesting read and I agree with the post. I’ve always been amazed when I see people vote for a candidate simply because he is pro-life. They could be horrible for this country on every issue but people flock to them because of one social issue.

    Even if you are passionate about the issue, there is little to no guarantee anything will change. Even if a Republican puts in another judge or two, it would still be difficult to overrule a 25 year old landmark decision. Roe vs Wade has become embedded in society, and changing it would cause a lot of havoc. I believe it was Justice Roberts who said in an interview that it is tough to overturn old decisions that had become the norm of our society despite being a strict constitutionalist. The Civil Rights Act was used as an example. If you are a strict constitutionalist who believes the Supreme Court should overturn Roe vs. Wade, you also would believe that the Civil Rights Act should be overturned.

    If Roe vs. Wade is overturned, it doesn’t mean abortion would be illegal. There are many states that would legalize it. I think you’d find fewer abortions as a country, but it would cause a lot of underground abortion clinics and those who simply try and do it themselves. The potential health risks would be staggering there. Not to mention a lot of people who would travel to states that allow it. I’m not saying it to discourage people who are passionately pro-life, just that this Supreme Court decision won’t fix all the problems you see with abortion in this country.

    Nonetheless, I’m not for abortion in any sense and am torn on the issue. I guess the biggest issue in my mind is when is it a life. Is every time you masturbate killing a potential life? Is it only when the sperm and egg meet? If so, would a miscarriage constitute involuntary manslaughter in your mind? Is a life a life when it has a nervous system and can comprehend to an extent its life? I guess what I’m saying is that I would feel more comforable coming to a conclusion with a precise answer on when a life is a life.

  30. Pretty interesting read and I agree with the post. I’ve always been amazed when I see people vote for a candidate simply because he is pro-life. They could be horrible for this country on every issue but people flock to them because of one social issue.

    Even if you are passionate about the issue, there is little to no guarantee anything will change. Even if a Republican puts in another judge or two, it would still be difficult to overrule a 25 year old landmark decision. Roe vs Wade has become embedded in society, and changing it would cause a lot of havoc. I believe it was Justice Roberts who said in an interview that it is tough to overturn old decisions that had become the norm of our society despite being a strict constitutionalist. The Civil Rights Act was used as an example. If you are a strict constitutionalist who believes the Supreme Court should overturn Roe vs. Wade, you also would believe that the Civil Rights Act should be overturned.

    If Roe vs. Wade is overturned, it doesn’t mean abortion would be illegal. There are many states that would legalize it. I think you’d find fewer abortions as a country, but it would cause a lot of underground abortion clinics and those who simply try and do it themselves. The potential health risks would be staggering there. Not to mention a lot of people who would travel to states that allow it. I’m not saying it to discourage people who are passionately pro-life, just that this Supreme Court decision won’t fix all the problems you see with abortion in this country.

    Nonetheless, I’m not for abortion in any sense and am torn on the issue. I guess the biggest issue in my mind is when is it a life. Is every time you masturbate killing a potential life? Is it only when the sperm and egg meet? If so, would a miscarriage constitute involuntary manslaughter in your mind? Is a life a life when it has a nervous system and can comprehend to an extent its life? I guess what I’m saying is that I would feel more comforable coming to a conclusion with a precise answer on when a life is a life.

  31. All I have to say is that there is currently a candidate in the Republican Presidential Primaries that is pro-life and against the war in Iraq. So, for those that say something about saving our children here but killing those in Iraq, considering doing a little research and vote for the candidate that is against the war and abortion. I’ll give you a head start. His initials are R.P.

  32. All I have to say is that there is currently a candidate in the Republican Presidential Primaries that is pro-life and against the war in Iraq. So, for those that say something about saving our children here but killing those in Iraq, considering doing a little research and vote for the candidate that is against the war and abortion. I’ll give you a head start. His initials are R.P.

  33. Dusty, First I will say that Ron Paul is an honest and honorable man, unlike the current occupant of the White House. However while Paul is against war and states his pro-life position on abortion, he is still one of those politicians whom I mentioned who don’t care about what happens to people after they are born. He opposes government programs like Social Security and Medicare. He voted against expanding health care for children. He doesn’t believe in spending more money for education, and the list goes on and on.

  34. Dusty, First I will say that Ron Paul is an honest and honorable man, unlike the current occupant of the White House. However while Paul is against war and states his pro-life position on abortion, he is still one of those politicians whom I mentioned who don’t care about what happens to people after they are born. He opposes government programs like Social Security and Medicare. He voted against expanding health care for children. He doesn’t believe in spending more money for education, and the list goes on and on.

  35. This is just a comment to Sean’s questions about when life begins- it begins when the sperm fertilizes the egg.

    Miscarriage is in no way involuntary manslaughter.

    A sperm has the potential to fertilize an egg, but it is not a human life by itself.

  36. This is just a comment to Sean’s questions about when life begins- it begins when the sperm fertilizes the egg.

    Miscarriage is in no way involuntary manslaughter.

    A sperm has the potential to fertilize an egg, but it is not a human life by itself.

  37. Sean: You have brought up a thought that has brought me into this discussion – when is a life a life? It doesn’t seem to me there is a living soul out there who would think abortion is great, let’s keep it! So, of course, there’s going to be as variable a conclusion on the subject as there are people interested in expressing their opinions. I’m sure the Supreme Court 35 years ago had nine different slants as well. However, I do believe they had to make a federal decision to unite American states, even if it was the wrong one. Read Norma McCorvey’s thoughts on this now.

    When is life a life, though? Before conception? At conception? After conception? After three, six, nine months? After a live birth? There are a myriad of thoughts out there, even among the Christians who hold the Bible as the infallible Word of God and have verses to “prove” their point of view.

    Yes, Donny, sin is sin and I believe we should face that issue first before trying to “solve” all the results of sin. It isn’t “fair” to expect a President or Supreme Court to come up with the “answer” for this problem, unless they believe it’s Jesus Christ! Then, they’re going in the right direction! Morality just can’t be legislated. We should be wise voters and trust solely in the sovereignty of God – His Providence.

  38. Sean: You have brought up a thought that has brought me into this discussion – when is a life a life? It doesn’t seem to me there is a living soul out there who would think abortion is great, let’s keep it! So, of course, there’s going to be as variable a conclusion on the subject as there are people interested in expressing their opinions. I’m sure the Supreme Court 35 years ago had nine different slants as well. However, I do believe they had to make a federal decision to unite American states, even if it was the wrong one. Read Norma McCorvey’s thoughts on this now.

    When is life a life, though? Before conception? At conception? After conception? After three, six, nine months? After a live birth? There are a myriad of thoughts out there, even among the Christians who hold the Bible as the infallible Word of God and have verses to “prove” their point of view.

    Yes, Donny, sin is sin and I believe we should face that issue first before trying to “solve” all the results of sin. It isn’t “fair” to expect a President or Supreme Court to come up with the “answer” for this problem, unless they believe it’s Jesus Christ! Then, they’re going in the right direction! Morality just can’t be legislated. We should be wise voters and trust solely in the sovereignty of God – His Providence.

  39. Nancy, thank you for responding. I guess my question is how do you come to that determination of when life begins? Why at that particular point? Some would argue a life isn’t technically a life until that life has cognition and a semi-functioning nervous system. I would feel more comfortable coming to a decision on this issue if there was a consensus on when a life is a life. While you say it is when a sperm and egg meet, a doctor who has dedicated his life to child development might say it doesn’t really begin until the 12th week. I just don’t know how society can ever truly come to an answer on this without major arguments.

    In my opinion that is the cornerstone issue on this matter. I don’t think you’d find anyone who would kill a life if they truly felt it was a life. I think those that do get abortions simply don’t believe that whatever is inside of them is a life at that time. If scientists got together and came up with a consensus that life begins when the egg and sperm meet, I think you’d see a sharp drop in abortions.

    Nonetheless, I think the point on involuntary manslaughter is valid. If you consider it a life at that point, shouldn’t that life be given the exact same rights as any other life? If an accident causes a miscarriage, shouldn’t the person responsible for the death be charged? I just don’t see how you can say that it’s a life on one hand, but not open to the same laws that everyone else has. Note: There is a big difference in a miscarriage that just happens vs a miscarriage caused by a fall, accident, etc. I am talking about the latter.

  40. Nancy, thank you for responding. I guess my question is how do you come to that determination of when life begins? Why at that particular point? Some would argue a life isn’t technically a life until that life has cognition and a semi-functioning nervous system. I would feel more comfortable coming to a decision on this issue if there was a consensus on when a life is a life. While you say it is when a sperm and egg meet, a doctor who has dedicated his life to child development might say it doesn’t really begin until the 12th week. I just don’t know how society can ever truly come to an answer on this without major arguments.

    In my opinion that is the cornerstone issue on this matter. I don’t think you’d find anyone who would kill a life if they truly felt it was a life. I think those that do get abortions simply don’t believe that whatever is inside of them is a life at that time. If scientists got together and came up with a consensus that life begins when the egg and sperm meet, I think you’d see a sharp drop in abortions.

    Nonetheless, I think the point on involuntary manslaughter is valid. If you consider it a life at that point, shouldn’t that life be given the exact same rights as any other life? If an accident causes a miscarriage, shouldn’t the person responsible for the death be charged? I just don’t see how you can say that it’s a life on one hand, but not open to the same laws that everyone else has. Note: There is a big difference in a miscarriage that just happens vs a miscarriage caused by a fall, accident, etc. I am talking about the latter.

  41. Walter – I am not one of the fanatic Ron Paul supporters but feel I need to defend him here since you are mislabeling libertarians.

    It’s not a matter of “not caring”. I’m sure Ron Paul isn’t a sociopath who doesn’t feel bad when a child can’t get proper medical attention. Or doesn’t feel sad when everyone doesn’t get the same education. He believes, along with other libertarians, that society needs to put more emphasis on the individual. That people need to stop relying on the government for their every need. It’s a unique concept these days when everyone wants to sue their local restaurant when they spill coffee on themselves.

    But the argument is whether our government can do a better job than individuals. He believes a lot of our systems are completely screwed up, and I agree. If you never paid a dime in to social security and used that money to privately invest, you’d retire with a lot more money. If your taxes were cut in half, you’d be able to send your kid to a private school. If you didn’t have to pay 25% of your income to the government, you’d be able to pay for health care to some extent.

    Remember that giving less out to people means everyone has more money. It means people have to take control of their own lives. They can’t sit on the coach cashing checks from the government. They can’t be stupid with their money and spend it on IPODs when they should have an IRA. If they do, they get burned, learn a valuable lesson, and move on.

    I still think people who are in dire need would be helped. If you had 35% more money, would you not donate a little more? Would you not become more proactive in charity? So what I’m saying is that it’s not about him “not caring”, it’s about him telling people that it’s time they started taking responsibility for themselves and not sitting around waiting for the government to come fix all their problems.

  42. Walter – I am not one of the fanatic Ron Paul supporters but feel I need to defend him here since you are mislabeling libertarians.

    It’s not a matter of “not caring”. I’m sure Ron Paul isn’t a sociopath who doesn’t feel bad when a child can’t get proper medical attention. Or doesn’t feel sad when everyone doesn’t get the same education. He believes, along with other libertarians, that society needs to put more emphasis on the individual. That people need to stop relying on the government for their every need. It’s a unique concept these days when everyone wants to sue their local restaurant when they spill coffee on themselves.

    But the argument is whether our government can do a better job than individuals. He believes a lot of our systems are completely screwed up, and I agree. If you never paid a dime in to social security and used that money to privately invest, you’d retire with a lot more money. If your taxes were cut in half, you’d be able to send your kid to a private school. If you didn’t have to pay 25% of your income to the government, you’d be able to pay for health care to some extent.

    Remember that giving less out to people means everyone has more money. It means people have to take control of their own lives. They can’t sit on the coach cashing checks from the government. They can’t be stupid with their money and spend it on IPODs when they should have an IRA. If they do, they get burned, learn a valuable lesson, and move on.

    I still think people who are in dire need would be helped. If you had 35% more money, would you not donate a little more? Would you not become more proactive in charity? So what I’m saying is that it’s not about him “not caring”, it’s about him telling people that it’s time they started taking responsibility for themselves and not sitting around waiting for the government to come fix all their problems.

  43. Sean,

    Well if that’s what you believe. I believe that the government does need to be active and see to it that people can get a good education, have the opportunity to have a decent job at a living wage, that everyone is entitled to health care and so on and so on. Notice that I mentioned people having a job. I don’t believe that one who is fully able to work should sit on their duff and collect a check. I think that we had the type of system that Paul advocates before the 1930’s and it didn’t work. Now as far as less government goes, it’s actually inconsistent to advocate less involvement of the government in our lives, and then to say that Roe VS Wade should be overturned or that abortion should be illegal. That’s getting the government involved in peoples personal business, something that Libertarians should be opposed to. Now, I said that I prefer measures such as the encouragement of birth control to prevent pregnancies that should not be occuring.

  44. Sean,

    Well if that’s what you believe. I believe that the government does need to be active and see to it that people can get a good education, have the opportunity to have a decent job at a living wage, that everyone is entitled to health care and so on and so on. Notice that I mentioned people having a job. I don’t believe that one who is fully able to work should sit on their duff and collect a check. I think that we had the type of system that Paul advocates before the 1930’s and it didn’t work. Now as far as less government goes, it’s actually inconsistent to advocate less involvement of the government in our lives, and then to say that Roe VS Wade should be overturned or that abortion should be illegal. That’s getting the government involved in peoples personal business, something that Libertarians should be opposed to. Now, I said that I prefer measures such as the encouragement of birth control to prevent pregnancies that should not be occuring.

  45. Walter, I’m not saying I agree with evertying Paul says or wants. I’m just saying that I think it’s wrong to say “he doesn’t care about kids”. He just has different ideas for how to run this country.

    I like some of his ideas though. I think we are taxed far too much and waste money on far too much. I agree with him a lot on foreign policy. I think he goes overboard on other issues, but I still respect a small government guy and feel that voice has been lost in our government.

    As for abortion, I don’t think his vote is based on personal preference. He feels the States should decide and that they should have more power. He feels the Supreme Court doesn’t have the right to make it a “right”. Essentially, he wants the lawmakers to decide the laws instead of the courts.

    I would also encourage more education on sex and birth control. Many of our kids lack any understanding of the realities of the world. But remember, there are a lot of Christians who fight to not have sex and birth control taught in our schools. They fight not to have condoms passed out. Those who are ignorant to sex are what causes a lot of unnecessary pregnancies and abortions.

  46. Walter, I’m not saying I agree with evertying Paul says or wants. I’m just saying that I think it’s wrong to say “he doesn’t care about kids”. He just has different ideas for how to run this country.

    I like some of his ideas though. I think we are taxed far too much and waste money on far too much. I agree with him a lot on foreign policy. I think he goes overboard on other issues, but I still respect a small government guy and feel that voice has been lost in our government.

    As for abortion, I don’t think his vote is based on personal preference. He feels the States should decide and that they should have more power. He feels the Supreme Court doesn’t have the right to make it a “right”. Essentially, he wants the lawmakers to decide the laws instead of the courts.

    I would also encourage more education on sex and birth control. Many of our kids lack any understanding of the realities of the world. But remember, there are a lot of Christians who fight to not have sex and birth control taught in our schools. They fight not to have condoms passed out. Those who are ignorant to sex are what causes a lot of unnecessary pregnancies and abortions.

  47. I would say that a true libertarian(using a small ‘l’ or conservative position on abortion would be that the government stays out of this. So basically, that’s what the Supreme Court ruled in 1973. That’s a conservative position. Were that to be overturned, many states would pass laws severely restricting or banning abortion. So Pauls’ position which would even allow states to enact such laws is not a conservative or libertarian one.

    You are right that there are Christians and perhaps some other people who oppose having sex education and birth control taught in our schools, and like you said at least many of those parents and their youngsters are the most ignorant. They are the ones who need this most. When the off spring of those parents produce more children, the rest of society pays for this in the form of welfare, juvenile delinquency, gang problems, crime, etc.

  48. I would say that a true libertarian(using a small ‘l’ or conservative position on abortion would be that the government stays out of this. So basically, that’s what the Supreme Court ruled in 1973. That’s a conservative position. Were that to be overturned, many states would pass laws severely restricting or banning abortion. So Pauls’ position which would even allow states to enact such laws is not a conservative or libertarian one.

    You are right that there are Christians and perhaps some other people who oppose having sex education and birth control taught in our schools, and like you said at least many of those parents and their youngsters are the most ignorant. They are the ones who need this most. When the off spring of those parents produce more children, the rest of society pays for this in the form of welfare, juvenile delinquency, gang problems, crime, etc.

  49. Well, however you may want to look at it… I will never vote for someone that favors something I don’t agree with.

    Hence, why I hate the Democratic party. I don’t agree with any of them and pretty much cannot stand one thing about that party.

    In addition, I hate John McCain, so I cannot vote for him either, even thought I am a republican. The only person running that I have any respect for is Alan Keyes and he will not win, but I vote for him anyway. I have to vote for someone I can support wholeheartedly.

    So, I for one, could never over look something that is near or dear to me, and vote for someone because I like other things they stand for. That would be ludicrous and hypocritical. It would also be devaluing of my own beliefs.

  50. Well, however you may want to look at it… I will never vote for someone that favors something I don’t agree with.

    Hence, why I hate the Democratic party. I don’t agree with any of them and pretty much cannot stand one thing about that party.

    In addition, I hate John McCain, so I cannot vote for him either, even thought I am a republican. The only person running that I have any respect for is Alan Keyes and he will not win, but I vote for him anyway. I have to vote for someone I can support wholeheartedly.

    So, I for one, could never over look something that is near or dear to me, and vote for someone because I like other things they stand for. That would be ludicrous and hypocritical. It would also be devaluing of my own beliefs.

  51. Wow, nice break down. I knew there was something a little backwards about voting GOP in regards to Roe V. Wade. I hadn’t before considered the Supreme Court Justices, but I am away that over the past 35 years, 5 of the 7 presidents have been Republicans.
    It’s hard voting for a candidate who doesn’t share my views on abortion, but I’m doing it anyway because the same candidate does share my views on so many other issues. We don’t live in a black and white society. There are no perfect candidates. It makes more sense to vote for the candidate who stands for the majority of the issues in which we believe, not just one or two pet issues.

  52. Wow, nice break down. I knew there was something a little backwards about voting GOP in regards to Roe V. Wade. I hadn’t before considered the Supreme Court Justices, but I am away that over the past 35 years, 5 of the 7 presidents have been Republicans.
    It’s hard voting for a candidate who doesn’t share my views on abortion, but I’m doing it anyway because the same candidate does share my views on so many other issues. We don’t live in a black and white society. There are no perfect candidates. It makes more sense to vote for the candidate who stands for the majority of the issues in which we believe, not just one or two pet issues.

  53. I wanted to make two comments for those reading this post and wanting more information:

    1. Anyone who votes Republican with the belief that GOP appointments to the SC will overturn Roe v. Wade should read about Stare Decisis. It is one of the principles that the Court views as a foundation for all decisions. Almost every Federal Judge (on the Supreme Court and Appellate Courts) clearly and unequivocally rejects the notion that the Supreme Court would EVER revisit a previous case and rule the opposite way. This would delegitimate all prior Court decisions and make any other opinion up for grabs if the justices change. The Court is supposed to be apolitical (the reason for lifetime appointments) and as such if it allowed decisions to be switched because of new appointments to the bench it would serve to politicize (to an even greater degree) the Court.

    Regardless of whether you agree with the decision, Roe v. Wade is a clear and decisive decision interpreting the constitution to give women the right to have an abortion. The only way to change that law is with a constitutional amendment. And if that is the goal the President is the least important political position to do it. And more importantly as long as Abortion remains a partisan issue a constitutional amendment is out of the question.

    2. On the subject of abortion, Pro-Life is the liberal position, Pro-Choice is the conservative position. I know for most who have grown up observing the American political system this seems counter intuitive because the democrats are Pro-Choice and the GOP is Pro-Life. But actually, Pro-Life is the position that advocates a bigger tax burden, increased government involvement in citizens lives, would require extensions of welfare, health care, and other gov’t service (for the unborn). The most conservative position on Abortion would technically be for the gov’t to be completely hands off on the subject, in other words, Pro-Choice. There are a number of policy oriented journals that have commented on this apparent contradiction (for both parties). How each party’s position on abortion is in conflict with the rest of their platform. For instance, how can the Republicans support lowering the age an individual gains his/her rights under the law (from birth to conception) without coupling it with an extension of welfare and adoption law extensions to include those new citizens (the unborn) in basic protections? The same logic applies to why both parties commonly point out the hypocrisy in the other party’s position on the death penalty and abortion.

  54. I wanted to make two comments for those reading this post and wanting more information:

    1. Anyone who votes Republican with the belief that GOP appointments to the SC will overturn Roe v. Wade should read about Stare Decisis. It is one of the principles that the Court views as a foundation for all decisions. Almost every Federal Judge (on the Supreme Court and Appellate Courts) clearly and unequivocally rejects the notion that the Supreme Court would EVER revisit a previous case and rule the opposite way. This would delegitimate all prior Court decisions and make any other opinion up for grabs if the justices change. The Court is supposed to be apolitical (the reason for lifetime appointments) and as such if it allowed decisions to be switched because of new appointments to the bench it would serve to politicize (to an even greater degree) the Court.

    Regardless of whether you agree with the decision, Roe v. Wade is a clear and decisive decision interpreting the constitution to give women the right to have an abortion. The only way to change that law is with a constitutional amendment. And if that is the goal the President is the least important political position to do it. And more importantly as long as Abortion remains a partisan issue a constitutional amendment is out of the question.

    2. On the subject of abortion, Pro-Life is the liberal position, Pro-Choice is the conservative position. I know for most who have grown up observing the American political system this seems counter intuitive because the democrats are Pro-Choice and the GOP is Pro-Life. But actually, Pro-Life is the position that advocates a bigger tax burden, increased government involvement in citizens lives, would require extensions of welfare, health care, and other gov’t service (for the unborn). The most conservative position on Abortion would technically be for the gov’t to be completely hands off on the subject, in other words, Pro-Choice. There are a number of policy oriented journals that have commented on this apparent contradiction (for both parties). How each party’s position on abortion is in conflict with the rest of their platform. For instance, how can the Republicans support lowering the age an individual gains his/her rights under the law (from birth to conception) without coupling it with an extension of welfare and adoption law extensions to include those new citizens (the unborn) in basic protections? The same logic applies to why both parties commonly point out the hypocrisy in the other party’s position on the death penalty and abortion.

  55. 1. On the current court (and one in place during the Clinton Administration) only Republican-appointed judges have voted pro-life directions on landmark abortion decisions. None of the Dem-appointed judges have done this. If we extrapolate, voting for Republicans may produce a court that will overturn Roe v. Wade, but voting Democrat will certainly not.

    2. Bush, Jr. said the same thing as McCain (both pro-life), but Bush was even less promising on pro-life campaign promises. Bush repeatedly said “no litmus test” on judges. His appointee, Alito, is widely believed to have a judicial philosophy that will lead him against Roe v. Wade and has voted pro-life in other abortion-related decisions. “No litmus test” became pro-life judges; Bush said he was pro-life and a pro-life person will likely appoint pro-life judges when given the power to do that.

    3. When we’re voting, it’s not just for a “Republican” president or a “Democrat” president. We’re voting for McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden. Extrapolating to say that they’ll do the same thing as Eisenhower and Nixon in appointing judges (when abortion was probably completely off their radar given the history of its prohibition), especially after the change in how nomination is done after Bork, is probably outweighed by the evidence in item #2.

    4. Aaron, a liberal position (in the classical sense) could very easily couple free-market positions (e.g. no welfare state) with granting individual rights. The question is which individual’s rights (does the child have rights or just the mother)? In the event the unborn child is recognized as fully human, even a very strict libertarian will leave room for government to protect the lives of its citizens (in this case, unborn children) from murderers and punish criminals accordingly. On most issues (though far from all with “big government conservatism”), the Republicans are liberals in the classical meaning of the word (minimal government intervention, rights of individuals).

  56. 1. On the current court (and one in place during the Clinton Administration) only Republican-appointed judges have voted pro-life directions on landmark abortion decisions. None of the Dem-appointed judges have done this. If we extrapolate, voting for Republicans may produce a court that will overturn Roe v. Wade, but voting Democrat will certainly not.

    2. Bush, Jr. said the same thing as McCain (both pro-life), but Bush was even less promising on pro-life campaign promises. Bush repeatedly said “no litmus test” on judges. His appointee, Alito, is widely believed to have a judicial philosophy that will lead him against Roe v. Wade and has voted pro-life in other abortion-related decisions. “No litmus test” became pro-life judges; Bush said he was pro-life and a pro-life person will likely appoint pro-life judges when given the power to do that.

    3. When we’re voting, it’s not just for a “Republican” president or a “Democrat” president. We’re voting for McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden. Extrapolating to say that they’ll do the same thing as Eisenhower and Nixon in appointing judges (when abortion was probably completely off their radar given the history of its prohibition), especially after the change in how nomination is done after Bork, is probably outweighed by the evidence in item #2.

    4. Aaron, a liberal position (in the classical sense) could very easily couple free-market positions (e.g. no welfare state) with granting individual rights. The question is which individual’s rights (does the child have rights or just the mother)? In the event the unborn child is recognized as fully human, even a very strict libertarian will leave room for government to protect the lives of its citizens (in this case, unborn children) from murderers and punish criminals accordingly. On most issues (though far from all with “big government conservatism”), the Republicans are liberals in the classical meaning of the word (minimal government intervention, rights of individuals).

  57. well said jeremy

  58. well said jeremy

  59. yeah….donny, your examples are fairly weak as you can’t merely say that because many of the Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republicans we shouldn’t still aim for pro-life Republicans……heck, let me reverse the question. how many of the justices appointed by Democrats have EVER voted pro-life in the past 40 years? i think you will find VERY VERY few if any.

    make no mistake, this issue is VERY important and the president has MUCH to say and do about it. look how short Obama’s tenure has been and yet he has already issued executive orders that will release monies to overseas abortion providers. yet many of my Christian friends have lied to themselves and said “it doesn’t matter.” it matters very much….

    I wish very much that some prominent Dem candidate would be pro-life, but i don’t ever remember seeing that (do you?)….

  60. yeah….donny, your examples are fairly weak as you can’t merely say that because many of the Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republicans we shouldn’t still aim for pro-life Republicans……heck, let me reverse the question. how many of the justices appointed by Democrats have EVER voted pro-life in the past 40 years? i think you will find VERY VERY few if any.

    make no mistake, this issue is VERY important and the president has MUCH to say and do about it. look how short Obama’s tenure has been and yet he has already issued executive orders that will release monies to overseas abortion providers. yet many of my Christian friends have lied to themselves and said “it doesn’t matter.” it matters very much….

    I wish very much that some prominent Dem candidate would be pro-life, but i don’t ever remember seeing that (do you?)….

Leave a Reply to Nancy Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.