voting democrat?
- Thread starter FlSnookman7
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I just found out this morning 
There are no words for how I feel about this. However if you are insinuating that all of the other candidates are prolife or have pro- women's/children's health, you would be wrong. The only truly pro-life candidate is Castle (Constitution Party). All the others, even Trump, are pro-choice.
Ugh! so frustrating! I hate that abortion clinics get free passes on everything! They could kill hoards of women and they'd still get away with it!
There are no words for how I feel about this. However if you are insinuating that all of the other candidates are prolife or have pro- women's/children's health, you would be wrong. The only truly pro-life candidate is Castle (Constitution Party). All the others, even Trump, are pro-choice. Ugh! so frustrating! I hate that abortion clinics get free passes on everything! They could kill hoards of women and they'd still get away with it!
We as a Church, I believe, have responsibilities though and not just sit back and think 'God will take care of it'...
Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute. Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.
(Pro 31:8-9)
He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then it was well. Is not this to know me? declares the LORD.
(Jer 22:16)
Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute. Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.
(Pro 31:8-9)
He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then it was well. Is not this to know me? declares the LORD.
(Jer 22:16)
V
Here is the thing I hope people understand about the Supreme Court: They have to decide what is and isn't constitutional to existing laws/legislation. Now, whether they do a great or terrible job is an entirely different discussion.
The law of the land pertaining to abortion had a precedent set in the Roe v. Wade SC decision. The current precedent does give leneancy towards states to require certain standards to permit abortion. However, all 50 states have to allow abortion during the first trimester.
What conservative states (like Texas) has done, was make it excruciatingly difficult and tiresome for women to have abortions. If we ask why they want to make it difficult, the answer is quite simple: They want to deter women from having abortions. This really shouldn't be the mindset of a state... This is a form of manipulation that is unconstitutional in my honest and objective opinion. The Supreme Court got this decision right on a civil level, but of course I believe they got it wrong when it comes to God's law (but this is a different conversation).
Look at it from a different point of view for a second: The US didn't allow African-Americans to vote (neither were women at the time). When the US passed the 15th amendment which granted every citizen the right to vote, racist state legislators decided to make strict voting requirements for voter eligibility. The constitution does give some leniency to the states to implement some minor requirements, but almost all of the confederate states manipulated the system to disenfranchise African Americans from voting.
How did they do this? They had a poll tax, literacy requirements, length of residency requirements, and some states you had to own property (there were many more, these are just a few). Were African Americans rich once they were free? Did their White masters teach them to read? Were they given land upon their release of captivity?
Isn't it safe to say that manipulating the law of the land should not be done, even when the cause might be righteous? Does the end justify the means?
The law of the land pertaining to abortion had a precedent set in the Roe v. Wade SC decision. The current precedent does give leneancy towards states to require certain standards to permit abortion. However, all 50 states have to allow abortion during the first trimester.
What conservative states (like Texas) has done, was make it excruciatingly difficult and tiresome for women to have abortions. If we ask why they want to make it difficult, the answer is quite simple: They want to deter women from having abortions. This really shouldn't be the mindset of a state... This is a form of manipulation that is unconstitutional in my honest and objective opinion. The Supreme Court got this decision right on a civil level, but of course I believe they got it wrong when it comes to God's law (but this is a different conversation).
Look at it from a different point of view for a second: The US didn't allow African-Americans to vote (neither were women at the time). When the US passed the 15th amendment which granted every citizen the right to vote, racist state legislators decided to make strict voting requirements for voter eligibility. The constitution does give some leniency to the states to implement some minor requirements, but almost all of the confederate states manipulated the system to disenfranchise African Americans from voting.
How did they do this? They had a poll tax, literacy requirements, length of residency requirements, and some states you had to own property (there were many more, these are just a few). Were African Americans rich once they were free? Did their White masters teach them to read? Were they given land upon their release of captivity?
Isn't it safe to say that manipulating the law of the land should not be done, even when the cause might be righteous? Does the end justify the means?
V
If you want to get rid of abortion, it's not by having the states rebel against existing legislation. It's changing it on the federal level. The only way the can be done is to revisit Roe v. Wade and get a majority ruling in favor of no abortions. A state going rogue against abortion is hardly putting a band-aid over a gunshot wound. Having the SC overturn their Roe v. Wade decision is the true fix to abortion.
Until then, states should be held accountable to their actions when they try to manipulate the law of the land to cater to their personal ideals.
Until then, states should be held accountable to their actions when they try to manipulate the law of the land to cater to their personal ideals.
Last edited by a moderator:
M
I think abortion is a horrible crime...just to be clear. But I also think that if my mother didn't want me, I would have wanted her to abort me. What kind of a life is that? Where your mother wants to kill you but because of a law she can't, and now you're stuck with her for the next 18 years...
It's sad that so many young women are ruining their lives with decisions like these. But for the babies' sake, I think they are better off. They go straight to heaven instead of having to endure a tough life with a would be murderer. I'm sure it's painful for them but like I said, the life they would live on earth would've probably been worse.
I know adoption is an option but most women just keep the baby and then treat it like ****.
I say this because a friend of mine from high school wanted to abort, but she couldn't afford it. Now the little girl is being raised by an alcoholic mom who brings home different men every weekend. I see it on facebook. It's really sad.
I hate abortion just as much as any other Christian or Republican but then I see that little girl and think, "would she be better off?"
It's sad that so many young women are ruining their lives with decisions like these. But for the babies' sake, I think they are better off. They go straight to heaven instead of having to endure a tough life with a would be murderer. I'm sure it's painful for them but like I said, the life they would live on earth would've probably been worse.
I know adoption is an option but most women just keep the baby and then treat it like ****.
I say this because a friend of mine from high school wanted to abort, but she couldn't afford it. Now the little girl is being raised by an alcoholic mom who brings home different men every weekend. I see it on facebook. It's really sad.
I hate abortion just as much as any other Christian or Republican but then I see that little girl and think, "would she be better off?"
Last edited:
Excruciatingly??? Hardly. What Texas did, for whatever reason, was insist that abortion clinics meet a certain standard of medical quality and safety..
Basically doing what the original abortion activists were fighting for..... safer conditions for women who have decided to abort their babies.
SLIGHTLY more difficult? Perhaps.... I think that around 20 clinics statewide closed, because they couldn't meet the safety/quality standards. It just means that women might have to drive slightly farther to abort their child. Doesn't stop them from doing it, just makes it more difficult than running down to the 7-11 on the corner for a pack of cigs....
Basically doing what the original abortion activists were fighting for..... safer conditions for women who have decided to abort their babies.
SLIGHTLY more difficult? Perhaps.... I think that around 20 clinics statewide closed, because they couldn't meet the safety/quality standards. It just means that women might have to drive slightly farther to abort their child. Doesn't stop them from doing it, just makes it more difficult than running down to the 7-11 on the corner for a pack of cigs....
V
You can't say "for whatever reason". I think the "whatever reason" is the biggest variable to look at to see if it is constitutional or not. Sort of like when we read a man killed another man... It's not "for whatever reason he killed a man..." because the reason could either give him life in prison or justification for defending himself.
As for states (including Texas) that have implemented restrictions, it's more than just "insist" on having a higher standard facility that meets medical conditions of hospitals. An overwhelming amount plastic surgeons aren't even certified to do their surgeries within a hospital. Their workplace doesn't come near the standards already demanded (not insisted) on pertaining to current abortion clinics. Furthermore, you left out all the other current prereq's that are in place to deter women from having an abortion. This goes outside the scope of what state government should do.
Don't misunderstand me though, I think the cause is righteous, but this is the wrong way to go about undoing a wrong. It can only be made right by the SC.
As for states (including Texas) that have implemented restrictions, it's more than just "insist" on having a higher standard facility that meets medical conditions of hospitals. An overwhelming amount plastic surgeons aren't even certified to do their surgeries within a hospital. Their workplace doesn't come near the standards already demanded (not insisted) on pertaining to current abortion clinics. Furthermore, you left out all the other current prereq's that are in place to deter women from having an abortion. This goes outside the scope of what state government should do.
Don't misunderstand me though, I think the cause is righteous, but this is the wrong way to go about undoing a wrong. It can only be made right by the SC.
Last edited by a moderator:
V
If we allow a few states to manipulate current legislation, then we ignore the true problem, that being, abortion is legal under certain conditions. We feel a victory for the state rebelling against the bigger machine, the federal government. If states followed the law of the land, perhaps then people will have enough outrage over the SC decision to want to do something about it rather than just be appeased that "... at least they are making it more difficult to get an abortion..."
I don't often vote deathocrat.
Few are pro-life...except when it comes to capital punishment for those determined to be guilty of heinous crimes. Then they are pro-life.
Be unborn...unable to speak for yourself...unable to defend yourself...not guilty of a crime...97%-98% of the time a result of intended sexual decisions...you must - by deathocrat standards - die!
Few are pro-life...except when it comes to capital punishment for those determined to be guilty of heinous crimes. Then they are pro-life.
Be unborn...unable to speak for yourself...unable to defend yourself...not guilty of a crime...97%-98% of the time a result of intended sexual decisions...you must - by deathocrat standards - die!
V
It's interesting you say that. I'm pro-life when it comes to the unborn and the guilty people who committed heinous crimes.
I'm reminded of when Christ stopped a capital offense and said, "Let any of you who are without sin cast the first stone." It's a clear precedent of the sanctity of life. If even the most guilty person, justifiably executed in old covenant standards, is worth saving... how much more justifiable is it to proclaim the worth of an unborn child of God? Sadly, not many people are consistently pro-life.
I'm reminded of when Christ stopped a capital offense and said, "Let any of you who are without sin cast the first stone." It's a clear precedent of the sanctity of life. If even the most guilty person, justifiably executed in old covenant standards, is worth saving... how much more justifiable is it to proclaim the worth of an unborn child of God? Sadly, not many people are consistently pro-life.
A liberal friend of mine uses a similar argument.
I remind him that, after the offense is acknowledged, Jesus lets the accused woman go.
Straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more.” -John 8:10-11
I remind him that, after the offense is acknowledged, Jesus lets the accused woman go.
Straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more.” -John 8:10-11