One might say that this is way above a federal issue, as both the decision to create an individual human person or to kill it in the womb is an individual one through God-given free will. And absent any government interference in either punishing it with criminal penalties or encouraging it through government funding, the incidence of this barbaric practice is more likely to diminish rather than increase. The personal participation of fathers in protecting the lives of their unborn progeny and supporting the mothers who carry them to term would be the more proper and Christian solution to this decidedly pagan and inhumane practice.
Ohio screwed up with the abortion issue, we lost the fight because the republicans wanted it all at once. The left came out in HUGE numbers to defeat us....and they did. Vance is trying to take it a step at a time because he knows the opposition, I agree with him, one step at a time to reach our goal is a lot better than humiliation at the ballot box, and a constitutional amendment!
Skeptical > ilona TrommlerJanuary 23, 2024 at 2:16am
Not being a creature given to political pragmatism in fundamental principles, I cannot go along with Mr. Vance.
But if I were tempted to, I would have to ask the nature of the compromises cost.
Just how many innocent unborn lives are worth spending to gain a hope of abortions eventual elimination?
All for the best, if I understand the proposition....
You see, that awkward pause leaves me tottering on a knifes edge.
I cannot answer that question. Even horrible chattel slavery, as a historical suffered evil, lacked the finality of an abortion death.
But God forbid I should rabidly turn activist agitator as the abolitionists did, and indignantly spur the Nation to Civil war, in a self-justified form of
Unfortunately, regardless how you feel about it, the left came out and made sure we move toward to change the Ohio constitution to kill babies. Vance didn't do that....the people did! The GOP finally did what many of us want to see, and their strong stance brought us just the opposite result we were hoping for.
I drove two hours to vote and make sure babies aren't murdered........but many more voted to kill them!
The precedent for law not based on morality was set here-- SCourt Justice Robert Holmes statements below were absorbed by subsequent courts as the ideal:
"The Path of the Law," his "classic essay" stated "Every word of moral significance could be banished from the law altogether," followed by "Moral rights, if there are any-----These are for the philosopher. Not the lawyer or the judge."
A scholar around that time, James Herget, wrote, "Moralists were not interested in law and lawyers were not interested in morality."
Does that show how we got to where we are?
Later, a judge from the side of morality, Judge Newman put it (abortion) this way.
"Abortion and childbirth, when stripped of sensitive moral arguments surrounding the abortion controversy, are just 2 alternative methods of dealing with pregnancy. Just like, (stripped of the morality of it), a fireplace and arson are just two ways of heating a house.
What a difference the moral law makes.
This is how we got to where we are.This is why the Declaration matters just as much as the Constitution. It's a fool's errand to think they are not equally important. The above statements by influencers of the court prove it. They took the wrong path and the rest of the jurists followed like sheep falling off the cliff. Except they took this country with them.
Even cases about racial discrimination in one form or another never were decided as clearly as Abraham Lincoln could see it----which was right through to the underlying central moral principle.
It is true that the spirit of the Constitution found in the Declaration, and the actual catechism of the Constitution, are inseparable.
If they were, then the Constitution is rendered a laundry list of moral relativism, a perfect medium for Progressive Socialist activism.
(the French Directorate period of those damn Jacobites was a fine example needed just once, thank you)
By relegating the inalienable right to innocent life as subject to Soveriegn state discretion, the state is elevated to godhood. Intolerable.
To gain U.S. statehood, the territorial bodies politic subordinated themselves to acceptance of the inalienable individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The State determination gambit reveals itself to be a 50 theatre fallback for abortionism, to regroup and contend another day.
This abomination should never have gained a foothold to begin with, in our beautiful Nation. Just like slavery.
But unlike slavery, which had utility as a then nessesary evil, abortions finality eliminates even the promise of emancipation.
Abortion is state execution of the innocent, with divine condemnation to follow. Have we not seen this now in its sufferage?
I beg pardon, but severity of this amongst other fundamentalities of our political nature bring out the heavyweight response in me.
This issue should fully bring out the "heavyweight" response, as every moral issue is the fruit that grows or dies. Life is life and "it" is alive, made in the image and likeness of our Creator. But our courts continue with blindfolds to reject the moral premise, which is the core of the issue. If life is not valued at the beginning, then it is not valued at the end. Nor in- between, and that the c stage that we are on. Note how the evil fruit has dimished parental rights in the multiple wakes of this eclipse of morality. When -WILL- we see morality again...? I am looking, and it is not in the schools, hard to find in the churches, not in my field of design, not in business and not in govco, and long gone in the courts. It's not at the borders. It's not in the elections. It's not in the House and it's not in the Senate. I'm still looking. Maybe I need glasses.
Our founding father John Adams said, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Morality and virtue are the foundation of our republic and necessary for a society to be free.
Onlinedoc, you are so right! That is why I think our great forefathers made a mistake when they decided that any religion was protected in America! The Muslim religion has no place in the USA because it is in direct opposition to Judea-Christian beliefs, and wishes to destroy them! Islam is not moral and while Muslims are very religious, no matter what they claim, theirs is the religion of Satan, not God!
Replies
J.D. Vance is compromising for a better political stance, the lives of the unborn up to 15 weeks.
Yet the thumbprint identifier of individual personhood is the occurant recombinant DNA formed in conception.
This is a federal issue, not the perview of the Sovereign States. LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, remember?
One might say that this is way above a federal issue, as both the decision to create an individual human person or to kill it in the womb is an individual one through God-given free will. And absent any government interference in either punishing it with criminal penalties or encouraging it through government funding, the incidence of this barbaric practice is more likely to diminish rather than increase. The personal participation of fathers in protecting the lives of their unborn progeny and supporting the mothers who carry them to term would be the more proper and Christian solution to this decidedly pagan and inhumane practice.
Ohio screwed up with the abortion issue, we lost the fight because the republicans wanted it all at once. The left came out in HUGE numbers to defeat us....and they did. Vance is trying to take it a step at a time because he knows the opposition, I agree with him, one step at a time to reach our goal is a lot better than humiliation at the ballot box, and a constitutional amendment!
Not being a creature given to political pragmatism in fundamental principles, I cannot go along with Mr. Vance.
But if I were tempted to, I would have to ask the nature of the compromises cost.
Just how many innocent unborn lives are worth spending to gain a hope of abortions eventual elimination?
All for the best, if I understand the proposition....
You see, that awkward pause leaves me tottering on a knifes edge.
I cannot answer that question. Even horrible chattel slavery, as a historical suffered evil, lacked the finality of an abortion death.
But God forbid I should rabidly turn activist agitator as the abolitionists did, and indignantly spur the Nation to Civil war, in a self-justified form of
", ...by any means".
Unfortunately, regardless how you feel about it, the left came out and made sure we move toward to change the Ohio constitution to kill babies. Vance didn't do that....the people did! The GOP finally did what many of us want to see, and their strong stance brought us just the opposite result we were hoping for.
I drove two hours to vote and make sure babies aren't murdered........but many more voted to kill them!
"The Path of the Law," his "classic essay" stated "Every word of moral significance could be banished from the law altogether," followed by "Moral rights, if there are any-----These are for the philosopher. Not the lawyer or the judge."
A scholar around that time, James Herget, wrote, "Moralists were not interested in law and lawyers were not interested in morality."
Does that show how we got to where we are?
Later, a judge from the side of morality, Judge Newman put it (abortion) this way.
"Abortion and childbirth, when stripped of sensitive moral arguments surrounding the abortion controversy, are just 2 alternative methods of dealing with pregnancy. Just like, (stripped of the morality of it), a fireplace and arson are just two ways of heating a house.
What a difference the moral law makes.
This is how we got to where we are.This is why the Declaration matters just as much as the Constitution. It's a fool's errand to think they are not equally important. The above statements by influencers of the court prove it. They took the wrong path and the rest of the jurists followed like sheep falling off the cliff. Except they took this country with them.
Even cases about racial discrimination in one form or another never were decided as clearly as Abraham Lincoln could see it----which was right through to the underlying central moral principle.
It is true that the spirit of the Constitution found in the Declaration, and the actual catechism of the Constitution, are inseparable.
If they were, then the Constitution is rendered a laundry list of moral relativism, a perfect medium for Progressive Socialist activism.
(the French Directorate period of those damn Jacobites was a fine example needed just once, thank you)
By relegating the inalienable right to innocent life as subject to Soveriegn state discretion, the state is elevated to godhood. Intolerable.
To gain U.S. statehood, the territorial bodies politic subordinated themselves to acceptance of the inalienable individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The State determination gambit reveals itself to be a 50 theatre fallback for abortionism, to regroup and contend another day.
This abomination should never have gained a foothold to begin with, in our beautiful Nation. Just like slavery.
But unlike slavery, which had utility as a then nessesary evil, abortions finality eliminates even the promise of emancipation.
Abortion is state execution of the innocent, with divine condemnation to follow. Have we not seen this now in its sufferage?
I beg pardon, but severity of this amongst other fundamentalities of our political nature bring out the heavyweight response in me.
This issue should fully bring out the "heavyweight" response, as every moral issue is the fruit that grows or dies. Life is life and "it" is alive, made in the image and likeness of our Creator. But our courts continue with blindfolds to reject the moral premise, which is the core of the issue. If life is not valued at the beginning, then it is not valued at the end. Nor in- between, and that the c stage that we are on. Note how the evil fruit has dimished parental rights in the multiple wakes of this eclipse of morality. When -WILL- we see morality again...? I am looking, and it is not in the schools, hard to find in the churches, not in my field of design, not in business and not in govco, and long gone in the courts. It's not at the borders. It's not in the elections. It's not in the House and it's not in the Senate. I'm still looking. Maybe I need glasses.
Our founding father John Adams said, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Morality and virtue are the foundation of our republic and necessary for a society to be free.
Onlinedoc, you are so right! That is why I think our great forefathers made a mistake when they decided that any religion was protected in America! The Muslim religion has no place in the USA because it is in direct opposition to Judea-Christian beliefs, and wishes to destroy them! Islam is not moral and while Muslims are very religious, no matter what they claim, theirs is the religion of Satan, not God!
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next