Alabama Senate approves measure to ban all abortions


That’s so twisted, it really doesn’t deserve a response. It proves one thing though. People can convince themselves of just about anything.


Let’s face it, I don’t know of any conservatives who support abortion. Yet many, if not most, democrats favor abortion. Why? Because they want to appease the women’s vote. There are a few dems who are against abortion, but not many, and they will traditionally vote the party line when pushed.


I agree with you.

Our government doesn’t exist to enforce the protection of innocent life. Our government exists to protect our rights – which includes your right to your own life. And if a right to life is a right, then it’s yours to do with as you see fit as long as you do not violate the rights of another – and that includes sins and abominations. Please allow me to quote Thomas Jefferson and please note the bold:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men

To deny this arrangement is to deny the founding philosophy of our nation as does CSB. That’s fine, but it’s a different discussion. It introduces the government as the authority on your rights as opposed to a guardian of your rights, and you open the path to CSB’s view of rights and society, which, well, can lead anywhere as we’ve been discussing.

Another thought from 1 Samuel 8 (NIV):

4 So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. 5 They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead[b] us, such as all the other nations have.”

6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”

Why was Rev. Phelps a Democrat?

Who’s a segregationist?

Who? David Duke?


I know that this is a very old post (but this is the first I have seen it). About the artificial womb - I’ve had that idea (and hope somewhere someone is working on it) for a long time - but my thoughts were in the case of ectopic pregnancies. (Is that spelled correctly? FF’s spellcheck doesn’t recognize it.).


You can quote him, but I doubt he’d have agreed with the application to assisted suicide. I do believe there is a place for government to oppose abominations, because some are simply too big for individuals (and yes, some are too big for governments, and thus, we need God).


Hey Susanna! So glad to “see” you! Hope to see you around a little more. :+1:

I doubt very much that there will ever be a thing called an artificial womb. God has provided the PERFECT place for human babies to grow. Unfortunately many women decide to abort these babies as a way to get out of a mistake they made. That is, making another human being pay for her mistake. Yes, you spelled ectopic correctly.


I didn’t quote it in support of assisted suicide. I quoted it to criticize the value of government in determining and enforcing morality, the authority of government, and to warn against the “rights” the king demands.


What is the PRIMARY function of any government? It’s to keep the population safe and secure insofar as that’s possible. “Legalizing” baby killing doesn’t fulfill that function of government. Neither does ok-ing euthanasia, assisted suicide or gradual suicide by drugs.


The founders signed this statement as to the PRIMARY function of any government:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men

The fact that few of them lived up to that statement and even fewer still in the subsequent two centuries does not refute the claim they made.

Keeping the population “safe and secure” is not the PRIMARY purpose. The government’s PRIMARY purpose from the founding fathers’ perspective is specifically about protecting rights not general safety. It does not justify preventing people from undertaking risky activities that are deemed unsafe by the masses and their representatives. The willing are well within their rights to engage in risky and self-destructive – even potentially fatal – activity.

It is fitting to ban abortion based on the PRIMARY purpose of government, to secure these rights, to secure the baby’s right to life.


What is more inimical to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” than lack of safety and security OF that population?


I presume that you do not support a nanny state. But if the government’s primary purpose includes “safety.” how can you not?


Safety from the outside, RWNJ. I thought you’d understand that easily.


I agree. But suicide is not an outside threat.


Suicide also requires no doctor acting as an executioner.


No kidding. Your point?


You seemed to be saying that you saw a defensible foundation for laws prohibiting abortion but not necessarily for the laws which prohibit physician assisted suicide.

Laws prohibiting assisted suicide target the executioner, (not the one who wants to kill themselves) they are designed to protect the Right to life; just as abortion prohibitions are designed to preserve the Rights of the baby.

No law against suicide matters because you cannot prosecute the dead.


I’m willing to bet that the same states also have the highest unmarried teen pregnancy rate.

Last time I checked the same people that don’t support “killing babies” support abstinence before marriage. We see how that works out.

In reality, teen birth rates track pretty well against poverty and health and sex education (or lack thereof).


And I am willing to bet that every one of those children born to an unmarried mother is glad they weren’t slaughtered in the womb.

I never meant to imply that your side does not attempt to justify their bloodlust with the “they are all better off dead” argument; I was actually pointing out the moral bankruptcy of that argument.


I was and am. On the one hand, the victim is innocent, and it is involuntary. On the other hand, the victim is a willing participant. None of my business. That’s between the victim and God.

I also recognize that suicide does not require an executioner. I also think, from a legal perspective that getting a hand in killing yourself is your right and not just from a doctor. Now I see your point. I certainly was not saying that a doctor is required as an executioner in order to commit suicide, so your post was confusing.


There seems to be an ironic correlation between states with conservative politics around sex education and contraception and high rates of teen pregnancy and birth. Some research suggests that U.S. states whose residents have more conservative religious beliefs on average tend to have higher rates of teenagers giving birth.