The victories you speak of, Jill, are incremental victories. So while this would, in fact, be a wonderful thing if it had a chance of going through, Georgia Right to Life's approach has not been a purist path.

Pretty shameful to toss Planned Parenthood in the mix along with the pro-life groups that opposed the timing of the measure...

Jill, there is no need to accuse one side or the other of being pro-abortion when there is a disagreement of **strategy** (not principle) among pro-life groups. I expect that from the mainstream media, not of pro-life bloggers.

If you're going to do that, we can talk about certain pro-life groups that frequently side with Planned Parenthood, NARAL and other pro-abortion extremists against bills like parental notificaton or consent, unborn victims bills, and those requiring ultrasounds before an abortion.

I don't want to do down that road and neither should you.

Steven made the point that I forgot to make: purist/principled only groups often are with the pro-choice groups much more than NRLC.

Here what the catholic bishops say:

"After a period of lengthy research and consultation with experts in constitutional law as applied to abortion, the bishops came to the disappointing conclusion that the proposal cannot achieve its stated legal goal of providing a direct challenge to the central holding of Roe v. Wade."

..and I say to the Catholic Bishops; why are you consulting with lawers on an human life issue? why not just support what is right?

pussies. get a damn spine. ....I'm very close to leaving the Catholic church.

Steve, "Pretty shameful"? How about honest reporting. I simply listed the groups for and against the HLA, in alpha order, no less. How fair is that. Where did I err?

And I DID NOT call any on our side pro-aborts, Steve. Quote me accurately.

Finally, I have indeed noted when purist groups take the same side as pro-aborts. Ask them.

I'm a fair journalist, Steve.

Language, Jasper. You do realize that the word you used is a derogatory term that puts down women, using slang for a part of their body as an insult. Saying "get a damn spine" after using that term implies weakness for those whom you described with that swear word, further degrading women as "weak" and unequal. You're using a feminine term, albeit rude slang, as an insult for men, and that is unacceptable. Don't insult women by using them, or any rude word for their anatomy, to degrade men. It makes you look bad on two accounts.

"I'm very close to leaving the Catholic church."

Wait a sec jasper... Just because these bishops are bums does not nullify the fact that the Catholic Church is the Church that Jesus founded. Consider Romans 3:3-4

3For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

4God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

There will always be wheat among the chaff. One of Jesus' disciples betrayed him. Another denied him. These bishops are not being true to the teachings of the Catholic Church. Like our friend Father Corapi, we must stay true to Rome, and not abandon it because of some scum bags. God love you.

General Question:

Can the Supreme Court strike down a state amendment, but not a federal?

Jasper, you made a point proponents of the HLA amendment made in an open letter to the bishops. I'll add a link to that letter in the post.

Jill, it just appeared to me the be a smarmy inclusion at the end of a list of groups opposing the strategy. My apologies if taking a cheap shot wasn't your intent. I'm happy to see I assumed wrong.

Btw, the word "the" should be "to." Typing a little too fast as usual.

Jil, any word on a correction to a previous post about NRLC not supporting a Human Life Amendment? Perhaps I missed it but that should have been fixed since NRLC strongly supports a federal HLA.

Steve, apology accepted.

I ended my post that way because I have friends in the anti-GA/HLA group. I didn't want to editorialize. I just had to let the facts speak for themselves.

As for the NRLC, it dropped the HLA question off candidate questionnaires 11 years ago. It endorsed a presidential candidate opposed to the HLA. Can you demonstrate what the NRLC has done to "strongly support" a federal HLA lately?

Joe Scheidler wanted to know on Tuesday "at what point in the Bishop consecration ceremony do they suck out the spines?" He actually asked a friend who was a bishop at the time. Needless to say, the bishop was aghast.

While, as a Georgian Catholic Pro-life activist, I am very disappointed in our bishops, I'm not surprised. We know though that God is sovereign and He will use this as He will. We just will keep on working and being faithful.

I forgot I wanted to add a little history about federal HLAs. In 37 years, there have been 330 Human Life Amendments to the federal constitution proposed. ZERO have been brought for a vote. I think to continue to support the same tired strategy and expect different results is the very definition of insanity.

Lord, according to Thy promise that the Gospel should be preached throughout the whole world, raise up men fit for such work. The Apostles were but soft and yielding clay till they were baked hard by the fire of the Holy Ghost.

So, good Lord, do now in like manner with Thy Church militant. Change and make the soft and slippery earth into hard stones. Set in Thy Church strong and mighty pillars that may suffer and endure great labors -- watching, poverty, thirst, hunger, cold and heat -- which also shall not fear the threatenings of princes, persecution, neither death, but always persuade and think with themselves to suffer with a good will, slanders, shame, and all kinds of torments, for the glory and laud of Thy holy Name. By this manner, good Lord, the truth of Thy Gospel shall be preached throughout the world.

Therefore, merciful Lord, exercise Thy mercy, show it indeed upon Thy Church.

-St. John Fisher

Amen. And jasper, if you don't know who he is, look up St John Fisher. Very appropriate.

General Question:

Can the Supreme Court strike down a state amendment, but not a federal?

Posted by: Nathan Will Sheets at February 22, 2008 3:20 PM

The Amendments to the US Constitution are ratified by the same process as the Constitution itself and have the same status, therefore they cannot be struck down by the court. The Supreme Court is sworn to uphold them.

Amendments to state constitutions are lower status and if they conflict with the US constitution, can be nullified.

"pro-life groups that opposed the timing of the measure..."

It's never the wrong time to do the right thing.

Regarding the story of the Quote of the Day:

"Looking back, I wish I had picked a different plaintiff but you don't know all that about a person. I was young enough and naive enough that I really believed what she said."

When Faye Weddington, who argued Roe v. Wade, makes a comment like this, you can't help but wonder about the legal process.

Generally to have legal standing the plaintiff has to a have a real, not hypothetical grounds for the case. Clearly that test was not met.

If we are to believe that the lawyer was naïve, how can we not wonder about the plaintiff, who may simply have been solicited as a pawn in this game.

Gee Jill, seems a Protestant like you should be converting the millions of mainline Protestants, that made Jesus into a pro-murdering God of the fetus, instead of printing articles that divide pro lifers. Afraid to post about those millions of Protestants who made abortion legal and safe from thinking about Jesus, and deciding to turn him into a murdering God?
Such as the RCRC, formerly known as the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights, and funded by a born and raised Methodist, named Hugh Hefner.
Not Jill, she never writes about mainline Protestants who through bible interpetation/theology/Protestant philosophers, made Jesus into a God that murders his creation in the womb from studying the bible.
Hmm, can it be from not being able to get those pro-abort mainline Protestants to atone, be redeemed, converted, brought to the Truth of Jesus that sets you free of murdering his creation through abortion , by Jill?
Or is it, brought to the Truth of Jesus that sets you free to murder his creation in the womb?
And the reasons for allowing the murder of defenceless life by Protestants? Why your health, delaying of wealth, and the most true God of mainline Protestants, the power gained from such Earthly pursuits.
For they soo loved the creation, they made their God, into a God, that murders his creation in the name of their God.

Joe Scheidler wanted to know on Tuesday "at what point in the Bishop consecration ceremony do they suck out the spines?" He actually asked a friend who was a bishop at the time. Needless to say, the bishop was aghast.

Now there's a man with a spine! I just love Joe Scheidler. That man has so much spine he could lend it to all of the spineless bishops and STILL have some left!

Linda @3:54 regarding the 330 HLA....

I've got a question for you.

There was once a man who, through his life, listed these as his "accomplishments"

Lost his job '32
Defeated for the legislature '32
Lost his business '33
Sweetheart died '35
Nervous breakdown '36
Defeated for Speaker '38
Defeated for nomination for Congress '43
Elected to Congress '46
Lost renomination '48
Rejected for land officer '49
Defeated for Senate '54
Defeated for Vice President '56
AGAIN defeated for Senate '58

In '60 he decided to run for President. Based on WHAT? The guy was a loser and was a wash-out. Who was he?

Drum roll please.....

Abe Lincoln. Just goes to show no matter how many times you're defeated you CAN win and accomplish great things.

Once again the NRTL is in error. In times of gathering pro-life momentum such as what is occuring in Georgia all pro-lifers must unite and seize the opportunity to pass major pro-life legislation. As they have done before, the NRTL has baffled many in the pro-life movement with their stand. The most recent example is their poorly timed endorsement of Fred Thompson. Now, with their political capital spent they have zilch chance of influencing the McCain candidacy. The NRTL needs fresh leadership.

Bobby,

I just reacted a little after reading the post. I love the Catholic church, I just get frustrated sometimes with some of the Bishops.

all, sorry any bad language used...

J

Memo #1 to Bishops:

Matthew 19:26

But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

..but they already know this. They're bishops, of course!

Memo #2 to Bishops:

Mark 9:23

Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.

...and they believe, right????

Memo #3 to Bishops:

Mark 10:27

And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.

...followers of Christ's teachings, right?

Memo #4 to Bishops:

Philippians 4:13

I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.

...maybe it's not just a spine that's lacking here.

Memo #5 to Bishops:

Proverbs 16:25

There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

....self-explanatory.

Memo #6 to Bishops: (final memo)

Combine memo #'s 1-5, then reflect upon this:

Proverbs 3:5-7

5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

7 Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.

yllas: Gee Jill, seems a Protestant like you should be converting the millions of mainline Protestants, that made Jesus into a pro-murdering God of the fetus, instead of printing articles that divide pro lifers.

Yllas, this is just more lunatic ranting from you. You take and internalize what is bad about religion, and you leave behind all that is good about it.

Please add www.personhood.net to your list of links. It has exhaustive information about the Georgia Human Life Amendment concept, pro's, con's, history, and philosophy.

http://www.choicehotels.com/

Here is a write up of someone who attended the hearing in Georgia
http://talkaboutitcd.blogspot.com/

Nancy,
Thank you very much for the link. I read the entire story, and shook my head back and forth the entire time. Sounds like the topic got off track from the very beginning, and they did nothing to stop it. How terribly sad. I will pray that one day soon the state of Georgia will have their voices heard.

Keep up the good fight!

Your getting weaker, and weaker, and weaker, Doug.
I simply point out the pro-abortion Jesus of mainline Protestants and the fact that Jill doesn't touch that "sacred cow" of where,when and how, Jesus came to be a murdering Jesus.
Your hillarious, Doug, and I like you, because you are that perfect example of how Protestants have abandoned their religion for simple minded Hedonism, and it's philosophical brother, Atheism.
Every argument for abortion is based on health, wealth and the power to murder the lesser children of God.
And remember Doug, every person at this message board "thinks they have a good argument" against the abortion God, named Jesus, imagined into existence from bible study, "but they don't".
Fact is, mainline Protestants "internalized Jesus", and made him the eternal Jesus that
murders his babies in the womb,even before they were formed.
Now, you may argue against such a Protestant Jesus, Doug,or you may argue for some other Jesus, but what does it matter to you since your a atheist who has nothing to say about god, except that God is from the imagination............ is not morally needed for decision making..... and many other reasons atheist use to support the illogical concept of a internalized God that has no prove of existence.


If anybody "internalized" their God, Doug, it was you, and the God of your parent's, that made Jesus into a murdering God of his creation in the womb.
You just "think your free" of your parent's Protestant Jesus, "but your not", Doug.
Next thing I'll see written from Doug, is something about me being a blasphemer, heretic, anathema, or some psycho babble about something inside me being internal.
Stick you your expertise Doug, and the religion of your parent's which you never escaped from to this moment.

Yllas, I don't know what has gotten in to you, but knock off the Protestant bashing. We conservative Christians are fighting liberals in all our churches. A significant portion of Catholics are pro-abortion, just like Protestants. Imperfect Catholics have grievously cooperated with the taking of human life throughout history, just like Protestants.

Your accusation that I ignore Protestant pro-aborts/churches is simply ignorant. Two examples: 1) I have spent a vast amount of time shining the light on Obama and his pro-abort denomination, the United Church of Christ. 2) I have spent a vast amount of time shining the light on Christ Hospital and its pro-abort church affiliations. (UCC/Evangelical Lutheran Church of America.)

The current groups that are going to bypass National Right to Life and lead abolitionists to victory is led by a coalition of Catholics (American Life League) and Protestants (various). ALL has been leading in this direction for a long time, but now they're joined by American Right to Life which is both Protestants and Catholics who believe that it's never right to allow (or to write into law, no matter how many "babies will be saved") that it's okay to kill a baby.

In Colorado we had a bill the other day, run by a bunch of "pro-life" legislators (who all mean well, no doubt, but they're blind) that would have required an offer of an ultrasound before any abortion.

The problem with the bill was that it 1) acknowledged that abortion is okay in law (we should never lend credence to pro-abort concepts like that), and 2) was an affirmative defense of the "right" to an abortion, because it wrote into the law that it was okay to kill the baby if the mother signed a waiver saying she didn't want to see an ultrasound.

We should never pass laws that let the government think they have control over our "rights" of life or death. If we have a "right to life" then it's inviolable, and God-given, not government-given. Any law that argues otherwise doesn't help our cause. Any "right" that the government can say is all right, or can be taken away, isn't a right at all, but a "privilege".

We need to, everyday, be arguing to the public that life is not a privilege, to be determined by government laws (a little more today, a little less tomorrow). Life is a right, which all of us has, just like freedom. If we argue on this basis -- that abortion is to the right to life as slavery is the right to freedom -- then people will actually start to understand our principle and ethical basis, and will begin to agree. That's the only way we'll eventually end all abortions.

Oh, and btw, Steve Ertelt, who complained when Jill said NRTL was on the same side as NARAL, made that exact same claim last week about Colorado Right to Life -- that by opposing the ultrasound bill (which accepted a "right to abortion"), CRTL was "on the side of" NARAL. Hypocrisy?

Steve, I am glad you support personhood. But I hope you can come to recognize the clear evidence that NRTL is actively opposed to personhood amendments at the state AND the federal level. Since Personhood is the essence of the "right to life", and since NRTL doesn't support personhood, I propose they give up their name. National "Right to Life" doesn't support a right to life, so why should they get to use the name?

Robert,
Excellent posts! Thank you!

The Archdiocese went so far as to send a letter to Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life asking him not to come in support as planned. He complied.

Wow! Now that one really shocks me. Mr. Pavone has done tremendous work in the fight for life. I don't know his reasons for complying, but it really strikes me as odd that after all he has been fighting for, and VERY shortly after the March for Life, that he would comply. I have to wonder if he was threatened by the Archdiocese in some way. Oh, to be a fly on the wall!

He must be struggling something fierce. I will definately pray for him.

Steven Ertelt pointed out, "Jil, any word on a correction to a previous post about NRLC not supporting a Human Life Amendment? Perhaps I missed it but that should have been fixed since NRLC strongly supports a federal HLA."

Actually, Reagan wanted to sign a federal HLA but, NRLC said it was a state issue and defeated this measure. Now, NRLC says it can't be done state by state and it is a federal issue. Seems as if they can't decide....And the regulation continues....

Lolita,
Wow! The hypocrisy is killing me!

Lolita, Presidents do not sign Constitutional Amendments. In order to be enacted Constitutional Amendments need to recieve two-thirds support in both the House and Senate and then need to be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.

By the way (to an earlier poster) a Human Life Amendment has come up for a vote. In 1983 the Hatch Amendment which stated that "the right to an abortion is not found in the U.S. Constitution" was voted down by the U.S. Senate 49-50. This placed it 18 votes short of passage. As such, NRLC and other pro-life groups realized that passing a Human Life Amendment was not a politically realistic goal and began to pursue other strategies.

Personally, I think NRLC should continue to include the a question about the Human Life Amendment in their candidate questionnaire. It is still a worthwhile goal, even if it is unlikely in the short term.

Well Jill,
Abortion came from biblical studies,did it not?
Yes or no.
Through those "interpetations"(The Triune God allows abortion) came forth the abortion Jesus, and then into the secular laws of Christian nations. And interesting enough, not one militant atheist argues that legal abortion is actually a religious invention that broke through the wall of separation. Shhh, don't say a thing about that, Chrissy Hitchens. Wherever the denomination of Christians were Protestant, and dominant in culture, trend,population,etc, in those Western nations, abortion was easily made into secular law. Why is that Jill???? Eventually though, through appeals to so called secular reasoning for abortion, and Protestant theological arguments based in sola scriptura for abortion, Catholic nations in Europe bent to abortion on demand, also. Say what you want Jill, find the Catholics who disobey their church on abortion, but, you will not find Jesus being used to justify abortion and making Jesus a ally to murder. The essential word here is disobey. Although my knowledge of all things Catholic is willingly limited, ask Bobby Bambino about cannon law or something like that, Jill.
Do you see the fact that before there were secular laws for legal abortion, mainline Protestants had made their flock accept such a God?
Which is to say to you Jill, walk back the cat.
Write a article on who,how,when,why did the Protestant denominations either change Jesus into a God who allows his followers to willfully end the life, which Jesus knew before they were formed in the womb, or discovered they had missed such a abortion Jesus for 1900 some odd years.
As For Obama and his Christian God, that discovered Jesus gets rid of unwanted life by using his followers to do it for him, not one article in your search base is headlined with his form of Jesus worshiping known as UCC?? Obama worst or weak on abortion, Obama lie about Born Alive, Obama 10 reasons for supporting infanticide, 10 reasons voted against the Illinois BAIPA.
No mention about his Christian form of Jesus worship, that allows abortion for his followers of Christ. At least not in the headlines of your articles on Obama, Jill.
As for the article headlined, Rush Limbaugh,Christ Hospital, and Barrack Obama. Nothing there about his religion being united churches for Christ, being united in abortion is from studying the word of God, and making Jesus into the God that allows his followers to do his work of killing his creation in the womb of a women.
Behind the politics, is the belief in abortion being allowed by the Christ followers of Protestant denominations, which they appeal to in the end for justification of abortion.
Multi millions of Protestants were converted to believe in a Jesus that allows the willful killing of the flesh of his defenceless creation,which just happens to be growing in a female human being.
You call me a Protestant basher which is not true. Here is one for you Jill, Protestants invented the wide use of credit from appealing to their God that did not allow stealing or cheating another person. Tis the Scots that made loans, long term loans possible,which changed economics in the Christian nations forever. From which we got the old saying, penny pinching Scotchman. If you borrow a penny, pay it back, even if it takes your lifetime. Credit, based on honesty, and honesty was rooted in Jesus for Protestants in Scotland. See unrepentant thief in the life of Jesus!!! But, not the king, who never payed back a loan from bankers. And long term "full faith" borrowing of money, created the engine for millions of common people to uplift their life in England first and foremost in Western nations. The motivation to relieve suffering in matters of this life came from Protestants wanting to reduce suffering through thinking about Jesus and coming to the conclusion that Jesus didn't want you to suffer from such common thinking of "what comes around goes around" for people. No need to do anything that relieves suffering in others, since suffering is just another form of a person getting what is finally "coming around" for him/her. I didn't invent the caste system,based on that forementioned philosophy, so don't call me names FF, the queen of such thinking that has given up on the problem of suffering by making the victim of suffering, get what comes around for him/her. Hey, just why do you think Calcutta was a "black hole." That and Kali, the thugge of life and death. The God that thieves prayed to for millions in Calcutta's countryside. From which we get our word, "thug", So much for all paths lead to heaven PIP!!! Or PIP can join them in that heaven where throat slitting for gain of material things was elevated to a worshipped God. It's all the same path to Nirvana PIP. What a simple minded person who simply has never got a little background on non-Christian Gods of this world, unless a waterdowned version is given to her by some secular payed professor, making her not ever know exactly what is the difference in religions really is, from being affraid to be "bashed" by political correctness. You go girl, it feels so good to be for love with no idea what is being loved amongst those Gods such as Kali. Jesus is good for thieves since he forgives them. Kali is good for thieves since he loves them too. Ha, Ha. And PIP doesn't get the difference since she only knows love is love. I'm not bashing Protestants, if I'm giving you the truthful history about Protestant's making Jesus into a God that uses his followers to willfully murder what is from Jesus first and foremost, Jill.
But, until you get that cat back in the sack and understand exactly how that cat got out, for Protestants basically praying to Jesus for a right to murder his creation in the womb, no amount of name calling towards me Jill, being a Protestant bashers, is going to change the Jesus of abortion, for those multi million of mainline Protestant denominations.

Abortion came from biblical studies,did it not?
Yes or no.

No, absolutely not. It came from a lack of being willing to study the Bible, and "rightly divide" the Word.

The Bible warns us of those who would twist God's word:

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,

We are told to study the scriptures, to show ourselves approved- a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of God.

(If we can "rightly divide" the word, we can also "wrongly divide" it.)

Actually, Reagan wanted to sign a federal HLA but, NRLC said it was a state issue and defeated this measure. Now, NRLC says it can't be done state by state and it is a federal issue. Seems as if they can't decide....And the regulation continues....

Lolita, I did not know that! I am so disappointed.

What Reagan was all set to sign (had run for President on a promise to do so, and had reasonable support for it in the Congress) was an Executive Order, which would basically have made the Federal government act as if abortion were illegal. Granted, this would not have had much power over the courts, but it would have had tremendous impact on the minds of the American people. The President has great power to influence the minds of the people, and that's what Reagan was trying to do by this order. NRTL talked him out of it, to their enduring shame.

Cardinal, I understand that we don't have the votes to get an HLA passed in Congress. Nor, frankly, do we have the votes in the Supreme Court (we'd be lucky if even one of the current Supremes would support an HLA -- and therein lies our problem). Getting enough votes right now is not the issue.

The issue is that if we don't start fighting for an HLA -- raising public awareness, interest, and support for Personhood -- we'll never get there. We'll never get enough votes in Congress unless we set this as the standard, because most Republicans there now think it's okay to kill babies if their mother was raped. They just don't understand the concept of an HLA because the people (the pro-life people, especially NRTL) haven't been making it a major issue. It's been Partial Birth Abortion for 15 years, and that was our only goal. That's not the fault of the pro-life people -- voters, activists, etc. It's the fault of the leadership -- National Right to Life has sold us out!

And we don't have the votes in the Supreme Court either. We got 5 of them to sign on to an "end" to ONLY ONE WAY to partially abort kids, but the language of the ruling explicitly instructs how to kill a baby using ANOTHER partial birth abortion method! It didn't ban even PBA! Not only this, but Gonzales vs. Carhart specifically laid out that the "right" to an abortion through 9 months of pregnancy, and set a line which "will not be crossed" at abortion on demand -- the convenience of the mother. G vs. C basically said you can ban this tiny little corner of abortion, but we'll let you go no further!

Only two justices -- Thomas and Scalia -- wrote a separate opinion saying Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. Bush's Alito and Roberts didn't sign that, leaving the tacit (and reasonable) assumption that they support the reasoning of Roe v. Wade. And both Thomas and Scalia are on record as opposing a Human Life Amendment.

Which completely illustrates the point -- electing Republicans to Congress, or to the Presidency, hasn't given us pro-life judges either. Because the Republicans we've been electing don't understand the concept of Personhood, neither do the judges they appoint, and without support for Personhood in Congress, no judge who respects the God-given right to life will ever be approved.

Which means that our battle, right now, is outside of the courts, and outside of politics. It's a battle for the hearts and minds of the American people. Unless we can change the goal -- set our sights on something higher -- the people will never change, and if the people never change, neither will the Congress or the Courts.

A very similar process happened in the fight against slavery. Congress was fixated on regulating slavery -- keeping it out of certain states -- and would regularly make deals with the southern senators so "you take this state, and we'll take this state". That only perpetuated slavery.

It wasn't until William Lloyd Garrison, in 1830, started building support in the hearts and minds of the American people for a total abolition of slavery as a mockery of God's most enduring commands that the people finally started to conceive of the correct goal. No one had dared talk about it before Garrison. But, over a course of many years, the abolitionists convinced enough people they were right, and got politicians elected who supported that goal. Eventually, it meant war over slavery, but that war wouldn't have happened if northern minds hadn't as a goal the total abolition of slavery.

Abortion can end as a result of political and judicial changes brought about by the changing heart of America. Don't think it can't happen -- it's happened before. But it will never happen until we set abolition as the goal.

Oh, and I should add -- Garrison's new goal set him up as a gadfly against several existing anti-slavery societies, which viciously fought against him. There was turmoil in the anti-slavery movement, between the incrementalists on the one hand, and the abolitionists on the other hand. It meant argument and name-calling for many years, anti-slavery people refusing to sit with each other because of the division.

One anti-slavery society (the colonization effort, which was the chief anti-slavery coalition in 1830) sent envoys to Britain to get support from Wilberforce and the British anti-slavery societies. Garrison had to send an envoy (or maybe he went himself -- I don't remember) to contest against the colonizers, who had already secured Wilberforce's support. When the abolitionists reached Wilberforce, he was angry because he had been duped by the colonizers into thinking they wanted to end slavery. Wilberforce repudiated them, and supported Garrison's abolitionists.

The turmoil in those middle years of the anti-slavery movement was real, it was palpable, and it was personal at times. But the turmoil strengthened the movement, by giving it a principled goal. In the 60 previous years of fighting against slavery, nothing real had been accomplished toward the goal of ending it, because that, frankly, wasn't the goal. Regulation only perpetuated it, and left in the minds of the people that in some places it was "okay" to have slaves, just not here. Just not me (remind you of: if you don't like abortion, don't have one?). It was accepted, by the regulators, that as evil as it was, slavery must endure because it was the cement that held the Union together. They didn't have political support to end it. So why try? Garrison showed them why -- because it could be ended. It had to be ended. And it was, largely because of his efforts. Despite the turmoil and argument between people who more or less agreed that slavery should end, it was the concept of abolition which eventually ended slavery. In fact, it was the only concept that ever could end slavery.

this comment board shows just how much work there is to be done in the pro-life movement. educating on tactics, unifying on strategy, and not spilling out our dirty laundry all over the damn place.

If you don't acknowledge that you have dirty laundry, then what are the odds that the laundry will ever be washed?

yllas: I simply point out the pro-abortion Jesus of mainline Protestants and the fact that Jill doesn't touch that "sacred cow" of where,when and how, Jesus came to be a murdering Jesus.

No. you just make up silly stuff. All this "Protestant this, Protestant that..." baloney is just more whining and moaning and carrying on about a different tribe from your's, and some people will always do that - heck, people have been doing that for tens of thousands of years.
......

Your hillarious, Doug, and I like you, because you are that perfect example of how Protestants have abandoned their religion for simple minded Hedonism, and it's philosophical brother, Atheism. Every argument for abortion is based on health, wealth and the power to murder the lesser children of God.

Wrong. You have no proof of any god or gods in the first place. The argument for abortion is that people like to be free, and that we as a race and as a society like to be in total agreement or nearly so when it comes to taking away freedoms. Obviously, the abortion issue doesn't have anywhere near that kind of consensus. What we have is people like you thinking their desires should be enforced on pregnant women, and that's why you lose on that score.
......

If anybody "internalized" their God, Doug, it was you, and the God of your parent's, that made Jesus into a murdering God of his creation in the womb.

Nope - I'm agnostic. That said, there are logical arguments that can be made, taking the biblical god as a premise, i.e. the biblical god did not want all pregnancies to continue, and if there is an all-powerful god, then obviously that god allows miscarriages. Also, if there is an all-knowing god, then obviously that god knows who will have abortions and when - it's a done deal.
......

You just "think your free" of your parent's Protestant Jesus, "but your not", Doug.

Again, this is just silly baloney from you. You're making it up out of whole cloth.
......

Next thing I'll see written from Doug, is something about me being a blasphemer, heretic, anathema, or some psycho babble about something inside me being internal.

Heh - no yllas, I don't really see you being a blasphemer, etc., not that it'd be a big deal in the context of your rantings. My point is that your posts reflect the worst parts of religion without including the best parts.

Had you grown in in a different country, you could well be a Sunni muslim whining and carrying on about the Shiites, or vice-versa. There are always people like this in the world.

Aside from the religous stuff, I think you're just not gettin' any, and thus you're a grouch.

Doug

yllas: Abortion came from biblical studies,did it not?

:: laughing :: Dang.... where in the heck did that one come from?

Abortion has been known, desired, and practiced around the world for thousands and thousands of years. This was well before "biblical" times, during it, and afterwards.

There isn't much in the Bible about abortion, although in Numbers there is a description of priests giving a "test" to a pregnant woman suspected of infidelity where if guilty she'd have an abortion.

You call me a Protestant basher which is not true. Here is one for you Jill, Protestants invented the wide use of credit from appealing to their God that did not allow stealing or cheating another person. Tis the Scots that made loans, long term loans possible,which changed economics in the Christian nations forever. From which we got the old saying, penny pinching Scotchman. If you borrow a penny, pay it back, even if it takes your lifetime. Credit, based on honesty, and honesty was rooted in Jesus for Protestants in Scotland.

:: laughing ::

yllas, tell you what, girlfriend, your beany propeller was spinning at full speed today!

Georgia, along with South Dakota a couple of years ago, is bringing us as a pro-life movement back to discussions which overtook the movement in the earliest days of the Reagan administration. This time it looks as if we are really ready for the the discussion. The election of Reagan swept incredible hope, but also considerable naievete into the national movement and some of our supporters in Congress and the new administration. The problems no one wanted to look square in the eye eight years post Roe were the supermajorities in Congress and among the states necessary to amend the Constitution and a Supreme Court that at best had three votes to restrict abortion in any way other than not requiring the expenditure of tax dollars.
In addition to the possibility of an executive order and three distinct types of proposed constitutional amendments with both organizational and congressional support there was also the so-called Human Life Bill, a federal bill designed to rely on the post-Civil War civil rights amendments to such an extent that the Court would have to limit those amendments severely to distinguish the unborn and deny them protection. If I recall correctly this was Sen. Jesse Helms's, then ranking Republican or chairman of Judiciary, response to the realization on the part of the movement that any amendment declaring a right to life, and most likely a states' rights amendment was dead on arrival in Congress. This was another vehicle Reagan was willing to endorse. Many in the movement could not see how a Court little changed from the one that was willing to rewrite the Constitution to find for Roe would shy away from limited collataral damage to the Civil War amendments to protect its new-found right to privacy.
The strategy differences among groups and leaders committed to strongly interconnected, though not identical, principles were mind-boggling. Added to the differences over legislative strategy was the need to sort out where possible multiple cases based on state statutes and municipal regulations as well as attacks on the Hyde Amendment and similar federal language from all corners of the country attempting to limit Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton within their own language. Sometimes pro-life lawyers, most notably Americans United for Life, James Bopp (then either in-house general counsel at NRLC or servinging individually in that capacity from a small firm), a number of law professors including Prof. Charles Rice, and the staff counsel for the U.S. Catholic bishops, had input in which cases ought be advanced and other times they were shut out and had to deal with weak language or poor fact situations in tests pushed forward by loser courts themselves or pro-abortion interests. It is here that the roots of the present strategy differences can be found.
Pro-life lawyers generally and eventually many of those involved in many of the cases that advanced to the U.S. Supreme Court became quite concerned with three words that appeared time after time in the opinions whether we won or lost including the huge wins in the cases upholding the Hyde Amendment and state funding restrictions and, much later, the first hints at possible substantive restrictions on the right to abortion in Casey. Those words: "We reaffirm Roe."
Without the torrent of cases with every type of potential regulation that characterized the first twenty-five years post Roe, and especially the first ten years and then the immediate aftermath of Casey in 1992, many of the lawyers in the thick of the battle and the organizations they have represented have come to believe a frontal assault on Roe simply had to wait until there were five identifiable votes on the Court to overturn or totally gut Roe. This indeed corresponds with a more broad study of American case law and, in the eyes of most thoughtful analysts, the pro-life movement's current predicament with regard to major substantive restrictions on abortion or a legislative ban at the FEDERAL level. While both advise constituent pieces of their offices and local and state legislative bodies across the country the staff of the Catholic bishops conference and the NRTL national organization are both structured to be most adept at dealing with issues on Capitol Hill.
From historical background to the present: the movement is as confident as it could possibly be that it has four votes on the Court for anything that takes at least an option to limit abortion back into the hands of the states. Without the benefit of a complete formal legal education there isn't anything better I can imagine that MIGHT convince a fifth justice, Kennedy, to overturn Roe or gut its finding of a right to privacy than a state constitutional amendment overtly extending personhood to the unborn. it is clear that this is an essential step along the road given the present makeup of the Court and it is also clear

Weak Doug, and weaker.
Your parent's Protestant religion is totally based on sola scriptura. Don't play dumbo Doug, unless your going to actually be that ignorant of your parent's religion from being turned off so well, by that bible quoting Methodist, that you are now trying to turn the discussion/argument to your version of bible interpetation, without quoting a bible verse.
That brings a chuckle to me Doug, since your going to not use the old tradition of Protestants, who use the "bible quotes" for all matters of moral authority(and from Jesus authority of being totally, the truth), by trying to use a negative argument to proof a positive, by simply writing there is NO, NOTHING, NADA, in the bible about abortion.
Hmm, and this agnostic Doug, thinks that his mind does not wander about insulting himself again, by trying to make me proof a negative????
Hee, Hee, Doug, that's so rich, and typical of one who plays life out in bits and pieces of deconstruction, from being taught to reason in bits and pieces from such a early age of development by his parent's religion, built upon bits and pieces of the Word of God.
Meanwhile, the Quaker side of Doug's mind, sat quitely and then spoke of abortion being impossible to find in his silent prayer and meditation on Jesus, which was again nothing more then his own image of Jesus.
I love it, Doug is going to play bible games about not finding abortion in the bible, but God keeps track of dead sparrows and knows the amount of hair on your head. You know Doug, think, think, something about Matthew is coming back to ya Doug.
Hey, just the way your parent's wanted it to be in their version of the Jesus that allows his followers to murder his defenceless creation in the womb of his faithful female followers of the God they found in their picked apart bible. Mute is the word, little Doug.
So please Doug, I like you since you ran as far away as possible from such inventions of bible study for allowing abortion from the authority of Jesus, and became a invincible agnostic who absolutely believes in abortion.
Your propeller is spinning Doug, soon your going to realize that the only thing you carry from your parent's religion is what you wanted to keep.
And that was the God that murders unwanted life by having his faithful followers do it for him.
You go Doug, Jesus has a plan for you. To join him in heaven with all that dead flesh and bones from those who did his most sacred work for their health, wealth and power gained in giving up,sacrificing to him those unwanted bodies and souls created by Jesus.
See Doug, I agree with you, all cultures made up a God to have a sacrifice to that God. Afterall, your parent's were doing no different in making up a Jesus that does what all those previous God's asked of them, a sacrifice of unwanted life.

Robert, to be perfectly honest, I do not think that Reagan was ever interested in trying to restrict abortion (even symbolically) by an executive order.

I believe that Reagan expressed support for a Human Life Bill that was authored by Senator Jesse Helms. However, I think that it is extremely unlikley that the Supreme Court would allow any decision to be overturned by an Act of Congress. NRLC opted to pursue an Human Life Amendment instead of a Bill. Even though an Amendment would required a higher threshold of support (two-thirds instead of one half), it would have had the effect of overturning Roe. Besides, when the pro-life movement had political momentum in the early 1980s an Human Life Amendment did not seem that far out of reach.

Also it is not the role of the Supreme Court to approve (or disapprove) constitutional amendments. A properly written and ratified Human Life Amendment would have the practical effect of overturning Roe.

I also would not read too much into the unwillingness of Roberts and Alito to sign on to the decision authored by Scalia and Thomas on the Partial Birth Abortion ban case. Part of the reason they may not have publicy opposed Roe at this juncture might have been to take some of the controversy away from the next Supreme Court. Four clear votes in opposition to Roe, would have only worsened the firestorm.

Lastly, I do not think it is fair to call NRLC sellouts. Part of the reason why they aggresively pursued the partial birth abortion ban during the 1990s is because we had a pro-abortion Democrat in the White House which limited our options at the federal level. The debate over the partial birth abortion ban served a good educational purpose. It showed how permissive abortion policies really are in this country and it showed how radical many abortion rights supporters are. Public opinion did move in a pro-life direction during the 1990s and I think that the debate over the partial birth abortion ban had alot to do with that

Again, I am not here to defend everything that NRLC has done. They have certainly made some strategic mistakes over the years. However, alot of the criticism they receive is unwarranted.

Forgive me: I inadvertently posted my comments mid-sentence. I'll pick up from the beginning of the final paragraph above.

From historical background to the present: the movement is as confident as it could possibly be that it has four votes on the Court for anything that takes at least an option to limit abortions back into the hands of the states. Without the benefit of a complete formal legal education there isn't anything better I can imagine that MIGHT convince a fifth justice, Kennedy, to overturn Roe or gut its finding of a right to privacy than a state constitutional amendment overtly extending personhood to the unborn. It is clear that this is an essential step along the road given the present makeup of the Court and it is also clear given the calendar and the Democrat majority in the Seante, slim as it is, that George W. Bush is not going to have the opportunity to make another appointment to the Court akin to either Roberts or Alito (or Scalia or Thomas).

Personally I found the somewhat belated call for restraint from NRTL and some others at the national level as the proposed South Dakota ban progressed myopic and disingenious. I hope that call for restraint did not doom the defense against the ballot initiative in that state. Could you imagine the focus that would be provided on the choices for president this year if the Court were to be hearing that case this term or even if the case were to be accepted for the next term between now and November? A personhood-based state adaptation of the Paramount HLA is even more compelling. The time to act is NOW (and that DOESN'T stand for national organization for women!) even though there are unquestionably risks. Please recognize that those who differ as to the appropriate strategy in all cases with which I am personally familiar still hold the protection of life from conception to natural death as their true objective. At the same time, if you have not already read their opinions above, please look to two of my heroes and personal mentors in this battle: Charlie Rice is quoted extensively in GARTL's statement addressing the opposition of the Catholic bishops of Georgia and Joe Scheidler's comments have been quoted several times in the earlier comments.

Jill, you do a great service by laying the whole issue out there objectively -- phenomenal journalism. I try to be objective down to my conclusions, but they are overwhelming: THE TIME IS NOW!

Cardinal_Rules: Excelent points in your post between sections of my split post.

More fun with the agnostic.
" Nope I'm a Agnostic".
"The biblcal God did not want all pregnancies to continue" Which bible line Doug? Chapter and verse please Doug. Are you "absolutley sure" that bible line is in the bible and means exactly as your interpeting it Doug? Or are you making stuff up again Doug?
" If there is a all powerful God, then God allows miscarriages" Again this question must be asked of the agnostic to that statement; Are you ABSOLUTELY sure/proof/root/ that " If there is a all powerful God, then God allows miscarriages" Doug?
"IF there is a all knowing God, then that God will know who will have abortions and when".
Are you ABSOLUTELY sure about that statement Doug? Is that a absolute truth Doug?

And then accusing me of making god a murdering/killing, negative God, since your doing the same thing Doug. See those quotes Doug, it is your words making god into a all knowing death machine again, and accusing me of just picking the negative things about God . But, it gets better with Doug, and his statements about "god logic" from a agnostic mind of IF's.
Your a hoot of self contradictory agnosticism, and don't even get your now arguing against yourself again, Doug.
I'm agreeing with you Doug, and your trying to make me into some argument that doesn't exist.
God is a pre-destiny, murdering/killing God, and that God, is the mainline Protestant God of your youthful mind, which exist to this day. You learned it from your Methodist "methodology", and Quaker silence. Your the product of your parent's version of the murdering God, known as Jesus.
Say it Doug, Jesus is a murdering/killing God, as all man made gods have been from time immemorial.

And I have no doubt, Doug, that your absolutely truthful, totally correct, logical deduction God, has been a "murderer from the beginining", and as a child Doug, you wanted to "do the desires of your father's" version of Jesus, that allows murder of his creation in the womb, from his bible picking and chosing lines from the Word of his mainline Protestant, God.
Ain't it fun Doug, and those quotes in the above paragraph, come from the Word of God, Doug. Being raised in sola scriptura, care to send me back the whole verse that I just put in quotes???
That "picking and chosing" can make one end up a simple agnostic, who doesn't even know exactly what his father's Protestant version of Jesus, was putting in such a young child's head, named Doug.
Your a hugh doubt Doug,a big IF, but not when it comes to killing human life, which was created to be pre-destined to die by the mother of the child, by the act of abortion.
Your God is the orginal cause of abortion, Doug, and from there you wander about making abortion into a act of non-killing/murder to rise above even your self constructed agnostic God version that allows pre-destined murder of Lacy Peterson and her baby Conner.
Jesus is a murdering God, who knows all, and has pre-destined your life to become a silly agnostic who is filled with doubt and accuses me of "inner doubt". All from being raised in a house where God was a murderer from the beginning.
And that is a good thang Doug, knowing that you know, that God allows abortion, of that child in the womb, before the child was concieved.
Your going to get to heaven Doug, and Jesus is going to kiss you on the cheek from allowing his will to be done, by being a advocate for killing his creation in the womb. And the hundreds of gods before him that allowed the willful killing of human beings through the pre-destined act of abortion.
Fact is Doug, your a brave Hedonist doing what brave Hedonist have done for thousand of years, seeking health,wealth and power, while maximizing any chance for pleasure and reducing pain by avoiding pain at any cost.

"The biblical God did not want all pregnancies to continue" Which bible line Doug? Chapter and verse please Doug. Are you "absolutley sure" that bible line is in the bible and means exactly as your interpeting it Doug?

yllas - the part where the biblical god orders the unborn to be ripped from the women's wombs, etc. Yeah, no doubt about it. It's certainly not said that the unborn, there, were "guilty," but the command for their death is given.
......

" If there is a all powerful God, then God allows miscarriages" Again this question must be asked of the agnostic to that statement; Are you ABSOLUTELY sure/proof/root/ that " If there is a all powerful God, then God allows miscarriages" Doug? "IF there is a all knowing God, then that God will know who will have abortions and when". Are you ABSOLUTELY sure about that statement Doug? Is that a absolute truth Doug?

Sure - just think about it. If an entity knows everything, then that includes our future. Obviously, any all-powerful being could prevent miscarriages, as well. There, it's not the choice of people on earth, it's not due to their conscious input, it's out of their hands, in the control of any "all-powerful and knowing" being. Not hard to make a logical conclusion.
......

And then accusing me of making god a murdering/killing, negative God

You're just being silly. I did not do that. Have to laugh - you whine about people not responding to all of your posts, yet you just conjure imaginary stuff up, in the first place.
......

See those quotes Doug, it is your words making god into a all knowing death machine again, and accusing me of just picking the negative things about God.

Wrong again. You've no proof of any gods or god anyway - what I said is that you present the bad parts of religion, minus the good. And, no "death machine" is not what I said or implied. The point is that not every life was wanted in the Bible. That's it, just reading what is written.
......

God is a pre-destiny

Well yeah - if you go with the premise of "all-knowing" then that means we are predestined and that we do not have free will. This is just being logical. And of course while it's a point of argument, that premise is by no means proven. If we do go with free will, which many people accept, then it argues for there being no all-knowing gods, etc., no all-knowing entitites of any type. Makes sense to me.

Now Bethany,
How did the mainline Protestant Christians develop A God that allows abortion?
They weighed the women's health against the baby in the womb.
They weighed the act of rape against the right to life against the baby in the womb.
They weighed the fact of a father making a child from the daughter, and decided to allow the killing of the baby in the womb.
Are none of those decisions where the baby dies, not decided by the wisdom of the Word of God, expressed in the Bible?
I am not accusing you of such decisions from your bible studies Bethany, I am only asking if the bible is silent on such matters of life and death?
Being that Protestants are sola scriptura, one must assume the bible was mentioned as a right to abortion of the three problems mentioned above, where one lives, and one dies.
If you know the bible verses which allow abortion for the above reasons, care to share them Bethany?
Where did that common agreement for abortion of the baby in the womb come from Bethany for Protestants, without using the scripture as a basis for allowing abortion?
As silly Doug tryed to do with me, he is making the bible silent, on such matters of life and death. Another words, a action of ommision is a reason for abortion being allowed by the Son Of God.

yllas: Your God is the orginal cause of abortion, Doug, and from there you wander about making abortion into a act of non-killing/murder

Nonsense. I don't believe in a sentient god, in the first place. Abortion is not murder, no, of course not, but the unborn are killed in an abortion, yes.
......

And that is a good thang Doug, knowing that you know, that God allows abortion, of that child in the womb, before the child was concieved.

Again, just think about it. If we begin with the premise of "all-knowing" and "all-powerful," then yes - while "child" is subjective and not material to the debate (say anything you want, for that matter) - then the inaction, if nothing else, of such an entity can be clear.
......

Fact is Doug, your a brave Hedonist doing what brave Hedonist have done for thousand of years, seeking health,wealth and power, while maximizing any chance for pleasure and reducing pain by avoiding pain at any cost.

Nah - I don't even have a dime in it, so to speak, going that way. The point is that I am telling the truth here - that bitter, hateful and jealous people such as yourself are not frequently seen to be good judges nor even commentators upon the actions of other people.

Should you have input into the decisions of a pregnant woman? The answer from vast numbers of people will be a resounding "no," and thank goodness for that.

Doug

yllas, the Bible doesn't prohibit abortion. Abortion has been done for thousands and thousands of years, even before "biblical" times.

Given the amount of rules and laws presented in the Bible, it's silly to think that somehow the writers just "forgot" to mention abortion if they were against it.

Uh, Doug, can you quote the line in the bible dealing with this " god orders the unborn be ripped from the womb".
Being raised as a Protestant, one might try and use that knowlege for more then "sure and yea, it's there", Doug.
Doug, your getting mighty dense denying the fact you just wrote about a God that is nothing more then a sanctioning, pre-destined, murderering God.
Plus the fact that your a agnostic, and are trying to make a God out of your IF's and THEN's contained in your statements about your version of God.
Your not getting it Doug, your not answering my simple question to you. Is your If a absolute truth Doug? Your whole theology is based on the very first word in your statement about your version of the murdering God you have created from a, IF.
That is what is being asked when you made your statment about this "all knowing God", and this leading to knowing all events, before they happen.
You really don't understand your agnosticism and the fact that your using your own doubt in youself to try and construct a logical statement of truth by you Doug, based on a IF.
You really are dense Doug. Your not getting it from either being incapable of understanding that a IF statement does not hold one once of truth in it. It is nothing more then a doubt Doug.
Are you absolutely sure Doug "there is a all powerful God" Doug? No IF, there Doug. See it?
Are you absolutely sure Doug, "that god will know who will have abortions and when"? Yes or no Doug.
Your whole attempt at making a argument is based on if and then, and you do this cheap trick to others at this board too change your argument to your advantage in your mind Doug.
Your doing it with me Doug, and your not answering a simple question to you, which is what you get from many poster here Doug.
I really do think this problem began in your childhood Doug, where pick and chose bible lines began your lack of answering simple questions to you Doug.
You really can't follow the logic of stating that the only thing a agnostic knows is that he absolutely knows, that he does not know or know anything absolutely. But, knowing Doug, a new self definition of agnostic is coming once he begins to understand the fact that a agnostic is a contradiction in terms or truth.

Now Bethany,
How did the mainline Protestant Christians develop A God that allows abortion?

Every religion, every faith, every individual decides to go against God and against the Bible when they claim -incorrectly- that the Bible -or Jesus- allow abortions.

It isn't a protestant thing. It's not because of protestantism that people have clung to this belief. Take this site for instance:
http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/

How did these Catholics turn Jesus into someone who allows abortion, Yllas? How did these Catholics turn their God into one that allows abortion? Simply put- they didn't. No one can turn Jesus or God into anything.
They can, however, pervert scripture, and their doctrines, and turn them into a lie.

Let GOD be true, but every MAN a liar.

They weighed the women's health against the baby in the womb.
They weighed the act of rape against the right to life against the baby in the womb.
They weighed the fact of a father making a child from the daughter, and decided to allow the killing of the baby in the womb.

As did these Catholics for Choice.

Are none of those decisions where the baby dies, not decided by the wisdom of the Word of God, expressed in the Bible?

Absolutely not. They completely pervert the scripture when they claim, falsely, that it allows abortion. Their version of the Bible is not accurate just because they "say so".

I am not accusing you of such decisions from your bible studies Bethany, I am only asking if the bible is silent on such matters of life and death?

No, I really don't believe it is. The entire Bible is life affirming. God chooses when conception occurs. God is the author of life. We are commanded not to kill. We are commanded to love our children, to be fruitful and multiply. The entire Bible is FILLED with life affirming passages which in principle go 100 percent against abortion.

Being that Protestants are sola scriptura, one must assume the bible was mentioned as a right to abortion of the three problems mentioned above, where one lives, and one dies.
If you know the bible verses which allow abortion for the above reasons, care to share them Bethany?

There are none, Yllas. There are those that people like Doug would twist out of context and use in their deceitful ways to make it "seem" as though it supports abortion. But anyone who has fully read the Bible and understands the context of any of those passages, understands that they do NOT SUPPORT ABORTION.

Where did that common agreement for abortion of the baby in the womb come from Bethany for Protestants, without using the scripture as a basis for allowing abortion?

From Satan's deceitful lies, Yllas. The devil even quoted scripture to try to deceive Jesus, didn't he? If the devil can quote scripture incorrectly, why can't another human who is misled by the devil do so?

As silly Doug tryed to do with me, he is making the bible silent, on such matters of life and death. Another words, a action of ommision is a reason for abortion being allowed by the Son Of God.

No, it is not omitted, Yllas. My next post will be a copy and paste from one that I posted to SOMG And Doug a few months ago, about verses which are life affirming and NOT supportive of abortion.

I like you Doug, your "If God" creates murder and abortion and you are trying to make me into the guy who is making god into some negative god.
Doug, all gods allowed murder and abortion, I agree, and the Protestant version of God is no different. Is that not true Doug? Simple Question Doug. Yes or no.
Were you raised in a atmosphere of superstitions and rituals of the Methodist and silent Quakers Doug?
Methodist allowed the murder of babies in the womb for rape,incest and abortion.
Did you not agree with that version of Jesus,who weighed the child and allows his faithful followers the authority to sacrifice the creation of Jesus, for nothing more then health,wealth, and power gained by having the freedom to abort their creation, Doug?
Yes or no.

From here:
http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2007/12/mitt_romney_jus.html

In response to SOMG's claim about Exodus "supporting" abortion:

SOMG, actually, I think that "fruit departs from her" does not necessarily indicate death. It simply means "child brought forth". Which means that the child may or may not have died through this event. The "if mischief follows" in my opinion, means that "if death follows" during the "fruit departing", which would mean, the baby and/or the woman dies during the process. Whatever life is shed, a life will be shed in return.

Either way, I believe the Bible is absolutely clear about it. It is not okay for an unborn child to be killed in the womb.

The other line RTLs quote is "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you." But that line doesn't prohibit abortion because it does not refer to the time after you were formed in the womb, but rather to a time before conception.

In Genesis 25, Rebecca's children struggled within her. This specifically addresses the fact that they are already babes in the womb:
"Gen 25:22
And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If [it be] so, why [am] I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD."

In Luke 1:36, Elizabeth's child is specifically mentioned as her "son" before birth:
Luk 1:36
And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

The word "son" HUIOS in Greek, (in the context of offspring of humans) always means that that person is separate- an individual- from it's parents.

" a son

1. rarely used for the young of animals
2. generally used of the offspring of men
3. in a restricted sense, the male offspring (one born by a father and of a mother)
4. in a wider sense, a descendant, one of the posterity of any one,
1. the children of Israel
2. sons of Abraham
5. used to describe one who depends on another or is his follower
1. a pupil
"
http://www.searchgodsword.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5207

The word "son" in that above passage, is the same "son" that is in this passage:

"Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son (HUIOS), and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins."

Women are still considered "mothers" when their child dies before being born:

Num 12:12
Let her not be as one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he cometh out of his mother's womb.

Not only this, but time and time again, the Bible refers to "children" as a Blessing.

If God creates children as a "blessing" to their parents, does it make sense that He would desire their parents to refuse his blessing on them by killing it? If you were to want to "bless" someone, by giving them, say, a house, would you be equally happy if they chose to destroy their house as you would if they decided to enjoy and appreciate their house? How does this make sense? Yet, you expect God to be equally happy with us destroying what He has made CLEAR is a GIFT and a BLESSING to us!

3 Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.

4 As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth.

5 Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.

What do you imagine the word "blessing" means? If children were a curse, then God would have made that abundantly clear. Or even that children "could EVER" be a curse. But the Bible NEVER calls children a curse, under any circumstances. He always calls them a blessing. So this means that God intends for people to have children, because they are a gift to us from Him. See what I'm saying?

Here's another verse:

Pro 6:16 These six [things] doth the LORD hate: yea, seven [are] an abomination unto him:
Pro 6:17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,

The unborn obviously have blood. They are considered "children", "babes", and "sons" (and daughters) in the Bible. If one sheds their blood, they are an abomination to God, according to the Bible.

Luk 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

How would the babe leap in her womb for joy, if it was not an individual human being?

Here's another couple of verses:

Psa 106:37 Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils,

Psa 106:38 And shed innocent blood, [even] the blood of their sons (HUIOS) and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood.

If the unborn are defined as "sons", "children" and "babes" in the womb, then how do you imagine that this verse does not specifically address abortion as well as murder of older children? It obviously addresses any murder of innocent children, born or unborn.

Another point. If the unborn children were not individuals, God would have listed them as a part of the woman. "What was within the womb of the mother", or something to that effect. But God clearly calls them "children", "babes", "sons and daughters" time and time again in the Bible.
This, to me, makes it absolutely clear. If it doesn't for you, well, that's your problem. Your opinion really has no bearing on what the Bible actually says.

And from the same link, this is my response to Doug's assertion that "if it happened in Biblical times, God must have condoned it":

**************************

Many born children died in the Bible. Does that mean that God does not view children positively?

"Suffer the little children to come to me, for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven"
That sounds very positive to me. So do hundreds of other verses which speak of children.

"[Jesus] said to the disciples, It is impossible that no stumbling blocks should come, but woe to him through whom they do come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones." (Luke 17:1-2)

"Behold, children are an heritage of the Lord, and the fruit of the womb is His reward."

You obviously do not have a clear understanding of many things in the Bible. The most important being, God created life, and God takes away life. There is nothing wrong with this.

God has determined a life span for each individual. "Show me, O LORD, my life's end and the number of my days; let me know how fleeting is my life."

"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:"

Some people are meant to naturally live on this earth for a very short period of time. Some are meant to naturally live to 100.

When a human being tries to alter God's plan and take innocent lives away before their appointed time, God is displeased with this, which is why the Bible says "thou shalt not kill".

As for your idea that children aren't all ordained before birth for some purpose, you are wrong about what the Bible says:

Before Esau's birth, God told Rebekah that her older son would serve the younger son. And the Bible makes mention of the "older child serving the younger"

When Jesus and John the baptist were still in the womb, the Bible specifically mentions that John was a "babe" who leaped in the womb for joy.
How could one who was not a child in God's eyes, leap for joy, in recognition of his Saviour?

Unborn children are regarded in the Bible in the same way as other human beings.

Their growth and formation is in the hands of God:
Job 10:8-11
8 "Your hands shaped me and made me.
Will you now turn and destroy me?

9 Remember that you molded me like clay.
Will you now turn me to dust again?

10 Did you not pour me out like milk
and curdle me like cheese,

11 clothe me with skin and flesh
and knit me together with bones and sinews?

Psalm 139:13-16
13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.

14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.

15 My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,

16 your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.

Jeremiah, Paul, the servant in Isaiah, and Samson were all called by God BEFORE birth for a specific purpose:

Jeremiah 1:5
5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew [a] you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
Galatians 1:15
15But when God, who set me apart from birth[a] and called me by his grace, was pleased.

Isaiah 49:1-5
1 Listen to me, you islands;
hear this, you distant nations:
Before I was born the LORD called me;
from my birth he has made mention of my name.

2 He made my mouth like a sharpened sword,
in the shadow of his hand he hid me;
he made me into a polished arrow
and concealed me in his quiver.

3 He said to me, "You are my servant,
Israel, in whom I will display my splendor."

4 But I said, "I have labored to no purpose;
I have spent my strength in vain and for nothing.
Yet what is due me is in the LORD's hand,
and my reward is with my God."

5 And now the LORD says—
he who formed me in the womb to be his servant
to bring Jacob back to him
and gather Israel to himself,
for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD
and my God has been my strength-

Judges 13:7
7But he said unto me, Behold, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and now drink no wine nor strong drink, neither eat any unclean thing: for the child shall be a Nazarite to God from the womb to the day of his death

Bethany, a simple question.
How did abortion become acceptable/approved for mainline Protestants in the case of rape,incest, and the health of the mother?
Please do not mention any other denominations of Christians, and walk the cat back in Protestant history, where it began to believe that abortion is allowed for the three before mentioned reasons.

How did abortion become acceptable/approved for mainline Protestants in the case of rape,incest, and the health of the mother?

I've already explained this. ANYONE who believes abortion is acceptable for rape, incest, etc are going AGAINST the Bible. Anyone who believes that Jesus would condone it is clearly calling God a liar.

Satan can work lies through protestants. I never said he couldn't. He can also work lies through Catholicism, Judaism, and any other category you can think of. The root of ALL of it, is the decision to follow satan and not to follow God.
The root of all of it is satan's deception and trickery.

How did abortion become acceptable/approved for mainline Protestants in the case of rape,incest, and the health of the mother?

Another thought.

This question you ask is like asking "How did the fruit of the tree become acceptable/approved for Eve to eat?"

See, the reason that Eve found the fruit acceptable is because 1.) she desired it 2.) Satan worked with her desires and deceived her into believing that it was acceptable to eat it
and 3.) She decided God didn't mean what He said after all

Likewise, the reason that some people find allowing abortion in certain cases acceptable, is because 1.) They desire abortion to be legal in those cases.
2.) Satan worked with those desires and deceived them into believing it was acceptable to abort for those reasons after all and
3.) They decided that God didn't really mean what He said (thou shalt not kill) after all.

Do you see what I am saying?

In my short time as a prolife activist, I've seen more damage done to the prolfie movement by it's own members than by the opposition. What amazes me is that many of us don't seem to realize that we can work towards our individual goals without attacking others who have different goals, or at least different ways of getting there. There is no authority vested in any prolife organization to be the overall guardian of the interests of the unborn, therefore there is no valid reason to work against another group's goals for "practical" reasons. The very idea strikes me as an ego trip, not an action to help the unborn.

When the James Bopp memo is circulated with the intent to kill support for human life amendments, it MUST be called out. American Right to Life is doing that - calling out what is being done in the shadows.

Uh, Doug, can you quote the line in the bible dealing with this " god orders the unborn be ripped from the womb". Being raised as a Protestant, one might try and use that knowlege for more then "sure and yea, it's there", Doug.

Oh come on, yllas. Sheesh. Hosea 13:16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

The unborn were not "guilty," there.
......

Doug, your getting mighty dense denying the fact you just wrote about a God that is nothing more then a sanctioning, pre-destined, murderering God.

You're just making things up again. The point is that not every unborn life was wanted. That's all. "Murder" does not come into it.
......

Plus the fact that your a agnostic, and are trying to make a God out of your IF's and THEN's contained in your statements about your version of God.

No, the ifs and thens come from your version of God. As I said, I'm agnostic.
......

Your not getting it Doug, your not answering my simple question to you. Is your If a absolute truth Doug? Your whole theology is based on the very first word in your statement about your version of the murdering God you have created from a, IF.

yllas, there is logic outside of faith and the unprovable beliefs that some people have. We can take a premise, even though unprovable, and make logical statements about it.
......

That is what is being asked when you made your statment about this "all knowing God", and this leading to knowing all events, before they happen.

It's quite simple - if our future is already known, then it cannot be changed.
......

You really don't understand your agnosticism and the fact that your using your own doubt in youself to try and construct a logical statement of truth by you Doug, based on a IF.

Nope, not at all. Again, logic can be applied regardless of the provability of a premise. The premise is simply accepted, and that's saying nothing about the reality of the premise. It's an idea, and we go from there.
......

You really are dense Doug. Your not getting it from either being incapable of understanding that a IF statement does not hold one once of truth in it. It is nothing more then a doubt Doug.

Wrong. The truth or not of the premise does not matter. It is logic that is applied after accepting the premise. Personally, I do think we have free will, and that there is not an all-knowing god.
......

Are you absolutely sure Doug "there is a all powerful God" Doug? No IF, there Doug. See it?

Of course not - nobody can be truly "sure" of such an unprovable thing. The "if" is what we get if we accept your premise. If you don't think there's an all-knowing god, fine with me.
......

Are you absolutely sure Doug, "that god will know who will have abortions and when"? Yes or no Doug.

If it's all-knowing, then of course.
......

Your whole attempt at making a argument is based on if and then, and you do this cheap trick to others at this board too change your argument to your advantage in your mind Doug.

Baloney. If our future is known, then it's one way. If it's not, then the door is open for free will.
......

Your doing it with me Doug, and your not answering a simple question to you, which is what you get from many poster here Doug.

No,. you're just pretending again. Again, either our future is known or not.
......

You really can't follow the logic of stating that the only thing a agnostic knows is that he absolutely knows, that he does not know or know anything absolutely.

Wrong again. A consciousness knows of itself. That is all that it can be truly sure of, and that applies for the religious, the non-religious, etc. Everything after that requires some assumptions.
......

But, knowing Doug, a new self definition of agnostic is coming once he begins to understand the fact that a agnostic is a contradiction in terms or truth.

yllas, that wasn't too bad a post from you, considering.

I see an agnostic as someone who realizes both that there is no proof of any gods, and also that the negative cannot be proven. An atheist asserts there is no god, but how can that be proven? It can't, any more than the existence of supernatural deities can be.

I like you Doug, your "If God" creates murder and abortion and you are trying to make me into the guy who is making god into some negative god.

yllas, that's really not true. Being logical, given certain premises, is not saying the god is "negative."
......

Doug, all gods allowed murder and abortion, I agree, and the Protestant version of God is no different. Is that not true Doug?

No - I don't agree that there are supernatural deities in the first place.
......

Simple Question Doug. Yes or no. Were you raised in a atmosphere of superstitions and rituals of the Methodist and silent Quakers Doug?

No - my dad didn't start going to a Methodist church until I was around 25 or 26 years old. Quakers are not "superstitious" and don't really have "rituals" like that. They also don't see "God" as you do. It is said that "There is that of God in every person."
......

Methodist allowed the murder of babies in the womb for rape, incest and abortion.

Just more anti-Protestant ranting from you. Has nothing to do with anything I've said.
......

Did you not agree with that version of Jesus,who weighed the child and allows his faithful followers the authority to sacrifice the creation of Jesus, for nothing more then health,wealth, and power gained by having the freedom to abort their creation, Doug? Yes or no.

No. I don't know what Jesus would have said and felt. I don't know what the reality of Jesus was. I've seen it argued that there was no Jesus, but there are some good arguments that there was, too. The divinity, if any, is a question, beyond that.

And from the same link, this is my response to Doug's assertion that "if it happened in Biblical times, God must have condoned it":

Many born children died in the Bible. Does that mean that God does not view children positively?

Bethany, don't know if we went over this before, but it's not all one way or the other. I don't dispute your quotes, but no, the unborn were not always viewed positively, and that's all I've said. Of course kids weren't seen as a "curse" in the Bible - I've never said that nor have even seen anybody say it, but again "not always wanted" applies.
......

God has determined a life span for each individual. "Show me, O LORD, my life's end and the number of my days; let me know how fleeting is my life."

It may just end up with us going around in circles, but if the hour of death is appointed, then wouldn't the biblical god know of the death, even if during gestation?

It may just end up with us going around in circles, but if the hour of death is appointed, then wouldn't the biblical god know of the death, even if during gestation?

He knows the naturally appointed time of death. He also knows whether someone will choose to go against His will and take the life of someone prematurely, before his naturally planned time. Just as, if you murdered me. I would have had a natural death eventually, but you would have taken my life early, and God would judge you after you died, accordingly. There is always a penalty when we hinder God's plan. God knows whether we will hinder it or not in advance, however He does not interfere because if He did, then we wouldn't be doing it on our own.

And yes, the children are ALWAYS considered a blessing in the eyes of God. There were people in Biblical times who did not consider children a blessing, but those people were going against God.
And anytime that God allowed children to die or people to be barren, it was a curse and a punishment, not a blessing.

This will obviously seem foolish to you, Doug. I'm not expecting you to agree.

And yes, the children are ALWAYS considered a blessing in the eyes of God.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Funny. Someone dug up a lot of scripture about just how much your god cares about fetuses and children:

Abortion:

Hosea 9:11-16 Hosea prays for God’s intervention. “Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.” Clearly Hosea desires that the people of Ephraim can no longer have children. God of course obeys by making all their unborn children miscarry. Is not terminating a pregnancy unnaturally “abortion”?

Numbers 5:11-21 The description of a bizarre, brutal and abusive ritual to be performed on a wife SUSPECTED of adultery. This is considered to be an induced abortion to rid a woman of another man’s child.

Numbers 31:17 (Moses) “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.” In other words: women that might be pregnant, which clearly is abortion for the fetus.

Hosea 13:16 God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and the “their women with child shall be ripped up”. Once again this god kills the unborn, including their pregnant mothers.

2 Kings 15:16 God allows the pregnant women of Tappuah (aka Tiphsah) to be “ripped open”. And the Christians have the audacity to say god is pro-life. How and the hell is it that Christians can read passages where God allows pregnant women to be murdered, yet still claim abortion is wrong?

Infanticide:

1 Samuel 15:3 God commands the death of helpless “suckling” infants. This literally means that the children god killed were still nursing.

Psalms 1 35:8 & 136:10 Here god is praised for slaughtering little babies.

Psalms 1 37:9 Here god commands that infants should be “dashed upon the rocks”.

The murdering of children:

Leviticus 20:9 “For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.”

Judges 11:30-40 Jephthah killed his young daughter (his only child) by burning her alive as a burnt sacrifice to the lord for he commanded it.

Psalms 137:8-9 Prayer/song of vengeance “0 daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.”

2 Kings 6:28-29 “And the king said unto her, What aileth thee? And she answered, This woman said unto me, Give thy son, that we may eat him today, and we will eat my son tomorrow. So we boiled my son, and did eat him: and I said unto her on the next day, Give thy son, that we may eat him: and she hath hid her son.”

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 “If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.”

Judges 19:24-29 “Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go. Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man’s house where her lord was, till it was light. And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold. And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place. And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel.” To put it very bluntly this poor, young lady was murdered by her mate for being raped.

Exodus 12:29 God killed, intentionally, every first-born child of every family in Egypt, simply because he was upset at the Pharaoh. And god caused the Pharaoh’s actions in the first place. Since when is it appropriate to murder children for their ruler’s forced action?

Exodus 20:9-10 God commands death for cursing out ones parents Joshua 8 God commanded the deaths of 12,000 men, women, and children of Ai. They were all slain in the ambush that was planned by god.

2 Kings 2:23-24 The prophet Elisha, was being picked on by some young boys from the city because of his bald head. The prophet turned around and cursed them in the Lords name. Then, two female bears came out of the woods and killed forty-two of them. You would think that God could understand that sometimes the youthful make childish jokes. Calling someone “bald head” is far from being worthy of death.

Leviticus 26:30 “And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat.”

1 Samuel 15:11-18 God repents of having made Saul king since Saul refused to carry out God’s commandments (i.e., Saul refused to murder all the innocent women and children.) At least god realizes what an immoral, murderous pig he is on this one.

I Kings 16:34 Laying the foundation for a city using your firstborn child and using your youngest son to set up the gates.

Isaiah 13:15-18 If God can find you, he will “thrust you through,” smash your children “to pieces” before your eyes, and rape your wife.

Jeremiah 11:22-23 God will kill the young men in war and starve their children to death.

Jeremiah 19:7-9 God will make parents eat their own children, and friends eat each other.

Lamentations 2:20-22 God gets angry and mercilessly torments and kills everyone, young and old. He even causes women to eat their children.

Child abuse:

Genesis 22:9 & 10 “And they came to the place which God had told him of and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.” It matters not that god let Abraham get out of murdering Isaac. To put a knife up to your son’s throat is child abuse.

I Kings 3:24-25 “And the king said, Bring me a sword. And they brought a sword before the king. And the king said, Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other. “This test was of course given to see who the real mother of the child was. Christians view this king as a wise man. I look upon his suggestion with far more revulsion then I give accredit to Susan Smith.

Proverbs 13:24, 19:18, 22:15, 23:13-14 & 29:15 God commands repeatedly that you beat your children.

Matthew 19:29 If you really loved Jesus then he insists that you abandon your wife and children for him. Only that way will he allow you to go to heaven. (That is if you meet his other hefty requirements, don’t slip through the loopholes, and ignore the contradictions.)

Mark 7:9 Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law.

Uh, Laura, I think you may have missed this part:
"And anytime that God allowed children to die or people to be barren, it was a curse and a punishment, not a blessing."

Genesis 22:9 & 10 “And they came to the place which God had told him of and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.” It matters not that god let Abraham get out of murdering Isaac. To put a knife up to your son’s throat is child abuse.

Really? According to the laws and customs of that day, or just according to you?
I thought that things are only right or wrong because of society's perception of it, Laura.

I Kings 3:24-25 “And the king said, Bring me a sword. And they brought a sword before the king. And the king said, Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other. “This test was of course given to see who the real mother of the child was. Christians view this king as a wise man. I look upon his suggestion with far more revulsion then I give accredit to Susan Smith.

oh good grief, he was making a point. He didn't ever cut the child in two or have any intent to do so. Get your facts straight.

Matthew 19:29 If you really loved Jesus then he insists that you abandon your wife and children for him. Only that way will he allow you to go to heaven. (That is if you meet his other hefty requirements, don’t slip through the loopholes, and ignore the contradictions.)

This is one of the most widely taken out of it's intended meaning verses in the Bible.

The meaning of the verse is actually that you should love God above your mother, father, etc.
If you want me to explain it to you, I can.

Mark 7:9 says Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law.

Uh, no it doesn't.

Hosea 9:11-16 Hosea prays for God’s intervention. “Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.” Clearly Hosea desires that the people of Ephraim can no longer have children. God of course obeys by making all their unborn children miscarry. Is not terminating a pregnancy unnaturally “abortion”?

When God terminates pregnancy, got news for ya, it's natural.

Numbers 5:11-21 The description of a bizarre, brutal and abusive ritual to be performed on a wife SUSPECTED of adultery. This is considered to be an induced abortion to rid a woman of another man’s child.

This has nothing to do with abortion, the woman doesn't even conceive.

Numbers 31:17 (Moses) “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.” In other words: women that might be pregnant, which clearly is abortion for the fetus.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/midian.html

Ugh, all of them are taken out of their intended context and on their own imply what is not intended to be implied. Maybe you could try actually reading the context and understanding what you're talking about next time.

Cardinal Rules said, "As such, NRLC and other pro-life groups realized that passing a Human Life Amendment was not a politically realistic goal and began to pursue other strategies."

That is the problem, NRLC does not think it is a politically realistic goal. NRLC is on a secular humanist foundation. Their leadership stands behind one rule, do not mention God. Where in secularism does one find the right to life? The strong kill the weak, the useless eaters, the elderly and on it goes.

God does not call us to be successful just to do what is right. God does not and did not give us the authority to determine who lives and who dies via laws/rules/regulations.

If NRLC does not feel it is the time for a HLA why work actively against those who disagree and believe it is time to at least try?

Those of us who want to uphold God's standard of Do Not Murder are constantly maligned for not getting along, causing dissension or airing dirty pro-life laundry but, why can't we try a different tactic?

I am just bewildered at why after so many years, so much blood, that there is only one way to fight this battle. And, if you don't tow that line you are just causing the pro-life movement to be unsuccessful.

And anytime that God allowed children to die or people to be barren, it was a curse and a punishment, not a blessing.

This will obviously seem foolish to you, Doug. I'm not expecting you to agree.

Bethany, no - that sounds right on to me. Yeah, the biblical god was bummed out at some people and gave such-and-such orders, with punishment, etc., in mind.

The point about the unborn, there, being killed and obviously not being "guilty" stands.

Its not even about God or religious reasoning to fight for preborn personhood. The very concept that life should be protected from the moment of fertilization JUST MAKES SENSE. That's why this non-religious/non-theist is supportive of it. It is much easier to defend at totally pro-life position than it is to make arguments for a position you've already weakened. Political expediency doesn't get you home...haven't we learned anything from Legally Blonde 2?

It is my position Doug, that your father's Methodist denomination allowed abortion from rape,incest, and the health of the mother.
Being raised in that denomination Doug, is it TRUE that your father's Christian denomination believed in a Jesus that allowed the murder/killing of his creation in the womb of a female, for the above stated reasons? Simple YES OR NO. Doug.
Gee Doug, if your father preached abortion, and you preach abortion, your the fruit of his mind on the Jesus that murders his creation by setting his followers free, by the power of free will, to abort human beings in the mother.
What's your problem Doug?
I agree with you that all cultures and religions made god allow them to murder/kill their creations on this Earth, and you think I'm bashing Protestants. I'm just including Protestants in your theory of all religions/cultures allowing abortion and your trying to make me, into a Protestant basher.!!!! Abrortion is universal, so sayeth the agnostic Doug, and I include his father's absolutist all knowing, Methodist denomination within that universal abortion realm, which includes the Jesus god, and Doug is still trying tomake me into something I'm not.
Answer the question Doug, and drop that silly attempt to make me into a bad person Doug, when all I'm doing is asking you if my position that Methodist allow abortion for rape,incest, and health of the mother is true or not.

Its not even about God or religious reasoning to fight for preborn personhood. The very concept that life should be protected from the moment of fertilization JUST MAKES SENSE. That's why this non-religious/non-theist is supportive of it. It is much easier to defend at totally pro-life position than it is to make arguments for a position you've already weakened. Political expediency doesn't get you home...haven't we learned anything from Legally Blonde 2?

Posted by: Colorado pro-lifer at February 26, 2008 1:47 AM

A totally pro-life position is definitely easiest to defend. It has a nice ring to it also. "Totally pro" (or "all pro"), "pro-life" (for the middle-of-the-roaders), and pro-choice, actually make more accurate labels, in my opinion.

Doug,

In general, a miscarriage is also known as a spontaneous abortion, which is a "natural abortion" (you could also say it is "God's will", if you believe in God). That is completely different morally from an induced abortion (abortion as we know it). Miscarriage is never wrong morally because it is a natural occurrence, not willfully caused by man.

yllas: Answer the question Doug, and drop that silly attempt to make me into a bad person Doug, when all I'm doing is asking you if my position that Methodist allow abortion for rape,incest, and health of the mother is true or not.

yllas, you give evidence of your jealously, bitterness, etc. (if not outright insanity) right on these message boards. I don't say you really are "a bad person," but I certainly don't want people like you being able to tell pregnant women what to do.

I don't really know what the "Methodist position" is on abortion. It may be just as you say. Is there really a fairly uniform feeling there, or some stated dogma about it?

Neither my dad nor any of my family was "raised Methodist" - you're just so far off base on so many things - I wonder if you can distinguish fact from the fancies of your own mind.

Doug