07 June 2008
Personhood Colorado
People are finally taking on the bogus ruling in Roe v. Wade. Personhood Colorado, has added an amendment up for vote on the November ballot that would state; "The term "Person" or "Persons" shall include any human from the time of fertilization." This would rule out all abortions in the state of Colorado and while it will certainly be challenged by some activist judge, there is a conservative majority on the US Supreme Court. Let's pray and hope that the Colorado voters don't give in to the inevitable bombardment by the pro-abortion lobby which is estimated to be spending $10,000,000 to sway Colorado voters on this amendment. (Far more than Personhood Colorado has) If this goes through, more and more states are likely pursue similar amendments and appeals to the Supreme Court may eventually overturn Roe v. Wade. The website is: http://www.coloradoforequalrights.com/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Abortion is a subject I struggle w/. I've looked (some) in the Bible for guidence w/out much luck. There is the part where John the Baptist acknowledges Christ from the womb (leaps for joy). I probably need someone to point me to Scripture here.
One thing tho (regardless of when life becomes life), who are we to deny a birth when the potential is there? What I mean is, if a woman IS pregnant, we know at some point that a person will be born. How can we deny them that?
Reck,
I'll try to go in more detail later, but here's two scriptures really quick which I think show God's heart toward unborn children.
"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
(Exodus 21:22-25)
"This is what the LORD says:
"For three sins of Ammon,
even for four, I will not turn back {my wrath}.
Because he ripped open the pregnant women of Gilead
in order to extend his borders," (Amos 1:13)
I think these scriptures show God's heart. To God, unborn children are just as important as children who are born. The Exodus scripture especially. God is saying that if you injure a child in the womb, your punishment should be the same as if you injured a child who was already born.
Let us know how this turns out, eh Nestor?
That passage in Exodus is very clearly speaking of harm to the pregnant woman, not the fetus. That's why the DEATH of the fetus via miscarriage only warrants a FINE -- not the eye-for-eye justice due to the woman.
While I'm in Exodus, to you regard the prior passage as morally authoritative? It reads: "20 When a slave-owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. 21 But if the slave survives for a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property."
Diana,
No, I think you need to look at the Exodus scripure more clearly. It is talking about the fetus not the pregnant mother, which is why if the child survives there is a fine and if the child dies, the punishment is death.
I'll touch on the slavery issue later. It will take a little more time than I have right now.
One more point on the scripture before I go to work. If God wasn't concerned about the fetus it wouldn't say pregnant, it would just say woman.
Nestor, Y do you hate America so much that you would cheer the changing of a word (funny, you mind it when the word is "marriage") in order to bypass the Constitution?
I don't cheer the changing of the word person. I think this amendment is defining the word person as what it should truly be defined as.
Nestor my friend, I don't happen to care what you *THINK* a word should be defined as. I care about the *ACTUAL* definition of the word in question.
PING Nestor: Is there a release date set for 'Nestor's Dictionary: Edition I'?
I asked Nestor this -
>> ... Y do you hate America so much that you would cheer the changing of a word ...
He didn't deny my claim (since of course I'm correct that he hates America), he said this instead in response -
> ... I don't cheer the changing of the word person. ...
Stan,
I didn't comment on that because that is the biggest Straw Man I've ever heard. It didn't really justify answering. You know how I feel about this country. Do you want me to post my credentials?
IMHO, it's not a straw man.
It's not about credentials, Nestor. It's about what's in your heart.
If you don't hate America, then Y are you trying to rewrite the Constitution?
Happy Ind. day, BTW.
Stan,
When the Constitution was written, there was a beef between two groups. The Anti-Federalists who wanted the Bill of Rights (among other things) to protect those freedoms they had just fought the Revolutionary War for, and the Federalists, who thought that was stupid, because all of the powers of the Federal government were already outlined in the Main Body of the Constitution. This group was afraid that if we added amendments, then the only rights we would have would be those in the amendments, and the government would have the power to take away all other rights.
The founding fathers certainly wouldn't have imagined that abortion would be practiced. If they did, I'm sure they would have defined the term "person" more clearly. However, they trusted in the intellect of the American people that some things are obvious, like the fact that when you abort a child, it is murder. Apparently, they thought too highly of us.
Nestor -
> When the Constitution was written, there was a beef between two groups. ...
And the two beefs still exists today.
What two do about it? Maybe we should allow in 3rd. party beefs.
Yes there are two beefs still today, however both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists were far more conservative than either party of today.
Just curious, Nestor. How do you (supposedly) know that?
mpc, I can't wait to hear Nestor's response to your question.
Post a Comment