Judge blocks Indiana abortion ban on religious freedom grounds

mikeT

Well-known member
Interesting twist...

(Reuters) - A second Indiana judge on Friday blocked the state from enforcing its law banning most abortions after Jewish, Muslim and other non-Christian women challenged it in a lawsuit.

Marion County Superior Court Judge Heather Welch issued a preliminary injunction against the Republican-backed law, which prohibits abortions with limited exceptions for rape, incest, lethal fetal abnormalities or a serious health risk to the mother. The plaintiffs have argued that the measure infringes on religious freedom protected by another state law.

The law had already been on hold, as another judge in September blocked Indiana from enforcing it while Planned Parenthood and other healthcare providers challenge it in court.

Indiana became the first state to pass a new law banning abortion after the U.S. Supreme Court in June overturned its landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that had legalized the procedure nationwide. Other Republican-led states quickly began enforcing older bans.

Welch issued her injunction after a group called Hoosier Jews for Choice and five individual women challenged the abortion law under Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act in a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU said the plaintiffs represented religions including Judaism and Islam as well as "independent spiritual belief systems."

"The Court finds that S.E.A. 1 substantially burdens the religious exercise of the Plaintiffs," Welch wrote, using the formal name of the law, in granting the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction while the challenge to its legality proceeds.

"Although some religions believe that human life begins at conception, this is not an opinion shared by all religions or all religious people," the ACLU said in a statement.
Reuters story

To the untrained eye, they're using the differences in religious belief to argue that the anti-abortion bill infringes on their religious freedom - to have an abortion when they choose to.

As the story notes, this bill was already put on hold in September, so this ruling doesn't change much. Nonetheless, I'll be curious to see how this injunction shakes out...
 
Interesting twist...


Reuters story

To the untrained eye, they're using the differences in religious belief to argue that the anti-abortion bill infringes on their religious freedom - to have an abortion when they choose to.

As the story notes, this bill was already put on hold in September, so this ruling doesn't change much. Nonetheless, I'll be curious to see how this injunction shakes out...
Pro-lifers, me being one, put all our eggs in one basket. We focused so much on the SCOTUS and getting that elusive fifth vote to overturn Roe. We foolishly thought that if Roe was overturned, states would be allowed to restrict abortion. It never occurred to us that state judges would just pick up where the SCOTUS left off and insert themselves into the debate--and take it upon themselves to pass laws overturning the Democratic process.

At least we get to elect state judges, however. We do not get to elect SCOTUS justices. That is the one silver lining.
 
Pro-lifers, me being one, put all our eggs in one basket. We focused so much on the SCOTUS and getting that elusive fifth vote to overturn Roe. We foolishly thought that if Roe was overturned, states would be allowed to restrict abortion. It never occurred to us that state judges would just pick up where the SCOTUS left off and insert themselves into the debate--and take it upon themselves to pass laws overturning the Democratic process.

At least we get to elect state judges, however. We do not get to elect SCOTUS justices. That is the one silver lining.
Kudos on the public introspection. I guess I agree that some pro-lifers seemed to feel a conservative SCOTUS would be the magic bullet; a solution to the abortion problem.

That aside, state judges are no more inserting themselves into the debate than any SCOTUS justice. Would you make the same complaint if a state judge ruled that abortion is against the state constitution?
 
Kudos on the public introspection. I guess I agree that some pro-lifers seemed to feel a conservative SCOTUS would be the magic bullet; a solution to the abortion problem.

That aside, state judges are no more inserting themselves into the debate than any SCOTUS justice. Would you make the same complaint if a state judge ruled that abortion is against the state constitution?
On the important cases involving national social policy, cases that matter to the common person, and not just people in the legal profession, the justices tend to line up according to the ideology of the party that appointed them.

On any case involving important matters of social policy--gay marriage, abortion, free speech, religion, the death penalty, take your pick------you already know how three of the 9 justices are going to vote. You already know that the three liberals on the court will cast their vote on whatever the liberal expectation is on that issue. The conservatives on the other hand----do not always line up according to ideology. Many times they do, but not always.

The point is that if the courts were apolitical, you should not so easily be able to predict the votes of the justices--yet on important issues of social policy you already know how the liberal justices will vote. Why is that?

In any case, the courts were not intended as another legislative branch. In modern times, in essence, liberals especially love to use the courts to get things they can't get through the Constitutional, Democratic Process. The courts, then, have become an end run around the Constitution and the Democratic Process. Want gay marriage but can't get a law passed recognizing it? Just get the courts to hand it to you on a silver platter. Want abortion but can't get a law passed legalizing abortion? Just get the courts to hand it to you on a silver platter. Until recently, the courts were happy to play along with this becasue there were enough votes to allow this. Now that the make-up of the SCOTUS has changed, liberals can no longer rely on the SCOTUS to give them what they cannot get through the Democratic process.

Was the SCOTUS activist when it threw out Roe? Perhaps. But no one seems to get that they were just as activist when they conjured the right to abortion in the first place.

My point? When any court, state or otherwise takes it upon themselves to project rights into the Constitution that simply aren't there, the court is inserting themselves into debates they have no business getting involved in.

You want abortion? Fine. Get it through the Constitutional Democratic process. If abortion is as popular as abortion supporters claim, they should not need the courts to conjure rights that are non-existent.
 
They are not overturning anything, as long as what they do is Constitutional.
Yeah---and WHO determines whether what the court did is in and of itself constitutional? That's right--the very same court. I'd say--that is a conflict of interest if I ever saw one. The court can assume the power to do what it wants and then turn around and decide that the Constitution grants them the power to do whatever they want. This is the whole problem with the courts today. They insert themselves into the political process and then complain when people accuse the court of partisan politics. Had the SCOTUS stayed out of the abortion debate and left that to the political process, had the court stayed out of gay marriage and left that to the political process, we wouldn't have these problems. We have the problems we have today becasue the courts cannot seem to mind their business and stay out of things that do not concern them.

So the court gets to determine whether laws passed by congress are constitutional---and the exact same court gets to determine whether its actions are constitutional.

The judicial branch-----thought by the founding fathers to be the WEAKEST of all branches, is actually the strongest. They can overturn pretty much anything the other two branches do--based on nothing but the ideology of the majority of the justices who make up the court. I would say that is pretty problematic. Of course---the liberals loved it when the courts were advancing their leftist agenda. Now that they can't use the courts as an end run around the Constitutional Democratic process--all of a sudden they whine about activist courts. Yeah--we are supposed to believe that the court was NOT activist when it conjured the right to abortion in 1972, but WAS activist when they overturned that decision.

Here is the reality: if the left wants to use the courts as a super legislature, fine. But they cannot complain when conservatives follow their example. This is what happens when the courts insert themselves into debates they have no business getting involved in.
 
Last edited:
Yeah---and WHO determines whether what the court did is in and of itself constitutional? That's right--the very same court. I'd say--that is a conflict of interest if I ever saw one.
Then, since it was the court that overturned Roe v Wade in the first place, can we question the constitutionality of that ruling?
 
Then, since it was the court that overturned Roe v Wade in the first place, can we question the constitutionality of that ruling?
You are missing the point.

The SCOTUS never should have been in the position to have to overturn Roe in the first place.

Had the courts minded their business and stayed out of the issue in 1973, there would have been nothing to overturn in 2022. But no. In 1973, the SCOTUS inserts itself into the debate on abortion and up and legalized abortion based on nothing but the ideology and whims of the 7 justices who created abortion rights. The Court brought it on themselves the minute they involved themselves in something they had no business involved in.

The problem is that the weakest branch of government is overpowering the other two branches. As I said, the left essentially was able to get their agenda passed through judicial fiat. They were singing the praises of the courts then. Now all of a sudden the left complains that the courts are activist when the courts are no longer packed with judges sympathetic to their pet causes?
 
Interesting twist...


Reuters story

To the untrained eye, they're using the differences in religious belief to argue that the anti-abortion bill infringes on their religious freedom - to have an abortion when they choose to.

As the story notes, this bill was already put on hold in September, so this ruling doesn't change much. Nonetheless, I'll be curious to see how this injunction shakes out...
It's a curious thing about this issue.
There are many things in history that were legalized by the government.
That doesn't mean they were morally right.


FB_IMG_1649527618339.jpg
 
It's a curious thing about this issue.
There are many things in history that were legalized by the government.
That doesn't mean they were morally right.


View attachment 3640
Many of these things were supported by Christians.

None of these things are now legal.

No-one claims that being legal makes things right. Being legal means that a majority of those responsible for making laws think these things are right. When these things were legal, the majority of lawmakers were avowed Christians.

The objections put forward when these things were made illegal, bear a striking resemblance to the objections made about gender identity legislation, abortion legislation and climate change legislation.

The population of fifty years hence will see the views that you currently espouse with the same distaste with which we now look at these horrors from the past.
 
Many of these things were supported by Christians.
Yes they were. Just like abortion is also supported by people claiming to be Christian and or Catholic.
None of these things are now legal.
Correct, nor should they be. This is just like abortion is now legal, even though it should not be--and the hope is that someday, just as the masses recognized the horrors of slavery, racism, the Holocaust, etc, so people will recognize the horror of abortion.
No-one claims that being legal makes things right.
The point is that many people often appeal to the majority as evidence that what is legal is correct and right. In other words--the implication seems to be that if the majority support it, and it is legal, it may be wrong, but probably isn't wrong.

Our point is to show that in many cases, the majority were on the wrong side of the issue.
Being legal means that a majority of those responsible for making laws think these things are right. When these things were legal, the majority of lawmakers were avowed Christians.
Correct. Just like avowed Christians and Catholics, sadly, support abortion.
The objections put forward when these things were made illegal, bear a striking resemblance to the objections made about gender identity legislation, abortion legislation and climate change legislation.
No they don't. Any similarity is only apparent.

Give some examples please.
The population of fifty years hence will see the views that you currently espouse with the same distaste with which we now look at these horrors from the past.
The hope is that in 50 years, people will open their eyes as to the horrors of abortion.
 
Many of these things were supported by Christians.
So, followers of the God who created humans in his own likeness and image, and said murder is wrong, and those who murder would be held to account for doing so supported the death of his gifts......
I'm curious if you understand the irony of this.

We read in 1 John 3 that those who murder, hate, and no one who hates has eternal life dwelling in them.

Furthermore, in psalm 127, children are a gift and blessing from God.

So I'm finding the idea that Jesus followers support for the murder of the unborn children antithetical to their profession of love for him.

You too should read the bible for the purpose of understanding and learning.

None of these things are now legal.
Because Jesus followers and those in whose hearts dwells truth, fought against them and stood up to oppose unrighteousness and evil.
This is exactly what we're doing with abortion today.
120 to 150 million humans have been slaughtered over the past 3 years.
At what point does this become genocide?
2 million Rwandan/tutsis refugees were a genocide in the early 90's.
Armenian genocide was only 1.5 million.
So, I'm glad you think that those things are wrong, but your silence is consent to the wholesale slaughter of the most innocent people on earth.

As deitrich bonhoeffer said,
Silence in the face of evil is itself evil!
No-one claims that being legal makes things right.
Pro 31:8-9 WEB 8 Open your mouth for the mute, in the cause of all who are left desolate. 9 Open your mouth, judge righteously, and serve justice to the poor and needy.”

Psa 94:3-13 WEB 3 Yahweh, how long will the wicked, how long will the wicked triumph? 4 They pour out arrogant words. All the evildoers boast. 5 They break your people in pieces, Yahweh, and afflict your heritage. 6 They kill the widow and the alien, and murder the fatherless. 7 They say, “Yah will not see, neither will Jacob’s God consider.” 8 Consider, you senseless among the people; you fools, when will you be wise? 9 He who implanted the ear, won’t he hear? He who formed the eye, won’t he see? 10 He who disciplines the nations, won’t he punish? He who teaches man knows. 11 Yahweh knows the thoughts of man, that they are futile. 12 Blessed is the man whom you discipline, Yah, and teach out of your law, 13 that you may give him rest from the days of adversity, until the pit is dug for the wicked.

Believe me, this is not something you want to experience.
YHVH does indeed delight in mercy, and compassion. But those who refuse to engage him on his terms will indeed experience the full brunt of his judgment.



Being legal means that a majority of those responsible for making laws think these things are right. When these things were legal, the majority of lawmakers were avowed Christians.
If they actually were following Jesus, they would not have done so, for the reasons stated above.



The objections put forward when these things were made illegal, bear a striking resemblance to the objections made about gender identity legislation, abortion legislation and climate change legislation.
And?
As I recall history, 650,000 American citizens gave their lives to rother support or oppose the government's efforts to free slaves.
Then, in world war 2, several thousand people either supported or opposed the slaughter of Jews in Europe.

So, that you think it's eerily reminiscent isn't a concern to me.

I'm thinking that human beings are of greater value than their mental health issues that others with even greater mental health problems and they're bringing on themselves.

People having a twisted perspective of themselves has been a problem with the human race since the fall in the garden of eden.

Jesus came to save us from our twisted perspective and our sin. He came to restore us to a right relationship with God and to restore a correct perspective to us, so we can see God rightly, along with ourselves and our fellow humans rightly.

It's the whole point of the gospel of Jesus.

We screwed up and God values us enough that he gave us his own son to restore us.


The population of fifty years hence will see the views that you currently espouse with the same distaste with which we now look at these horrors from the past.
At the present rate, I'd say that the human race will have destroyed themselves by destroying the unborn children, and warfare.

70 years ago, Europe and the United states fought to oppose the nazi regime and their slaughter of 12 million people who didn't fit their biases on Jews, gays, gypsies and disabled people.
In like manner, I'm thinking that people from another nation will stand up to oppose the wholesale slaughter of innocent children and others.
 
Yes they were. Just like abortion is also supported by people claiming to be Christian and or Catholic.
Just as it opposed by people claiming to be Christian, including Catholics.
Correct, nor should they be. This is just like abortion is now legal, even though it should not be--and the hope is that someday, just as the masses recognized the horrors of slavery, racism, the Holocaust, etc, so people will recognize the horror of abortion.
Your hope does not equate to THE hope. The hope of many people is the opposite of yours

The point is that many people often appeal to the majority as evidence that what is legal is correct and right. In other words--the implication seems to be that if the majority support it, and it is legal, it may be wrong, but probably isn't wrong.
Since right or wrong are personal and individual calls, the notion you are postulating is clearly nonsense. The most that can be said is that a majority of people have a common idea of what is right or wrong. "Actually right or wrong" is meaningless.

Our point is to show that in many cases, the majority were on the wrong side of the issue.
In your opinion. In the opinion of the majority, they were on the right side. The majority view has changed, as views on moral issues tend to do. At no time was any particular view right or wrong objectively. It's always a matter of opinion. Sometimes we as individuals agree with that opinion. Sometimes we do not.

Correct. Just like avowed Christians and Catholics, sadly, support abortion.
Opinions differ amongst all Christians, including Catholics, on this and other moral issues.

The hope is that in 50 years, people will open their eyes as to the horrors of abortion.
No, that's your hope. Other hopes are available. And they are more numerous, and the direction of travel is against you. Which, as discussed doesn't make anything actually right or wrong. But it does mean that those who find your hope to be horribly flawed morally, are more likely to prevail legally.

Which I personally am content about.
 
Many of these things were supported by Christians.

None of these things are now legal.

No-one claims that being legal makes things right. Being legal means that a majority of those responsible for making laws think these things are right. When these things were legal, the majority of lawmakers were avowed Christians.

The objections put forward when these things were made illegal, bear a striking resemblance to the objections made about gender identity legislation, abortion legislation and climate change legislation.

The population of fifty years hence will see the views that you currently espouse with the same distaste with which we now look at these horrors from the past.
But the point remains, doesnt make them morally right either by law or God's purposes.
 
Just as it opposed by people claiming to be Christian, including Catholics. Your hope does not equate to THE hope. The hope of many people is the opposite of yours

Since right or wrong are personal and individual calls, the notion you are postulating is clearly nonsense. The most that can be said is that a majority of people have a common idea of what is right or wrong. "Actually right or wrong" is meaningless.

In your opinion. In the opinion of the majority, they were on the right side. The majority view has changed, as views on moral issues tend to do. At no time was any particular view right or wrong objectively. It's always a matter of opinion. Sometimes we as individuals agree with that opinion. Sometimes we do not.

Opinions differ amongst all Christians, including Catholics, on this and other moral issues.


No, that's your hope. Other hopes are available. And they are more numerous, and the direction of travel is against you. Which, as discussed doesn't make anything actually right or wrong. But it does mean that those who find your hope to be horribly flawed morally, are more likely to prevail legally.

Which I personally am content about.
According to us believers we are quite clear on who is and who isnt in line with Christ's teaching. That we still have distinct and strongly argued differences these tend to be interpretations and emphasis in the true sense of the word.. What you cant discern is 'interpretation' as opposed to 'denial'
 
So, followers of the God who created humans in his own likeness and image, and said murder is wrong, and those who murder would be held to account for doing so supported the death of his gifts......
I'm curious if you understand the irony of this.

We read in 1 John 3 that those who murder, hate, and no one who hates has eternal life dwelling in them.

Furthermore, in psalm 127, children are a gift and blessing from God.

So I'm finding the idea that Jesus followers support for the murder of the unborn children antithetical to their profession of love for him.
Whereas I'm finding it typical of any moral question addressed by Christians. There is no common agreed Christian line, just a lot of Bible quotes, condemnation and in-fighting.

You too should read the bible for the purpose of understanding and learning.
Abortion is not a religious or a Biblical issue. It's a secular, public policy issue. When all Christians agree on what their faith position is, then you can bring it to the table and say " Christians believe this". At the moment all you can say is "Those Christians who agree with me, believe this. The Christians who don't agree with me, don't count."

Because Jesus followers and those in whose hearts dwells truth, fought against them and stood up to oppose unrighteousness and evil.
This is exactly what we're doing with abortion today.
There were non-Christians and Christians on both sides of all these issues. You can claim a victory for righteous Christianity, in fact I expect you to do so, but the claim is false.
120 to 150 million humans have been slaughtered over the past 3 years.
At what point does this become genocide?
Never. For two reasons. Firstly because genocide is an attempt to eradicate a particular ethnic and religious group, whereas every case of abortion, no matter how many of them, is an individual case with unique circumstances. And secondly, because no people are killed in an abortion. The whole essence of genocide is people being killed because of who they are. That's precisely what abortion is not.
2 million Rwandan/tutsis refugees were a genocide in the early 90's.
Armenian genocide was only 1.5 million.
So, I'm glad you think that those things are wrong, but your silence is consent to the wholesale slaughter of the most innocent people on earth.
No people, no innocence and not wholesale. Nor am I silent. You could not misrepresent me or the situation more if you tried.

As deitrich bonhoeffer said,
Silence in the face of evil is itself evil!
As I have said, evil is a hugely over used word. It certainly doesn't apply to abortion. Nor, as I say again, am I silent.

Pro 31:8-9 WEB 8 Open your mouth for the mute, in the cause of all who are left desolate. 9 Open your mouth, judge righteously, and serve justice to the poor and needy.”

Psa 94:3-13 WEB 3 Yahweh, how long will the wicked, how long will the wicked triumph? 4 They pour out arrogant words. All the evildoers boast. 5 They break your people in pieces, Yahweh, and afflict your heritage. 6 They kill the widow and the alien, and murder the fatherless. 7 They say, “Yah will not see, neither will Jacob’s God consider.” 8 Consider, you senseless among the people; you fools, when will you be wise? 9 He who implanted the ear, won’t he hear? He who formed the eye, won’t he see? 10 He who disciplines the nations, won’t he punish? He who teaches man knows. 11 Yahweh knows the thoughts of man, that they are futile. 12 Blessed is the man whom you discipline, Yah, and teach out of your law, 13 that you may give him rest from the days of adversity, until the pit is dug for the wicked.

Believe me, this is not something you want to experience.
Believe me, it's not something I will experience. I hope you cut and pasted your Bible quotes with a minimum of effort, because every key stroke was wasted.
YHVH does indeed delight in mercy, and compassion. But those who refuse to engage him on his terms will indeed experience the full brunt of his judgment.
Or not.

If they actually were following Jesus, they would not have done so, for the reasons stated above.

And?
As I recall history, 650,000 American citizens gave their lives to rother support or oppose the government's efforts to free slaves.
Then, in world war 2, several thousand people either supported or opposed the slaughter of Jews in Europe.

So, that you think it's eerily reminiscent isn't a concern to me.
And? I'm not obligated to consult you before submitting a post, or to be bothered by your lack of concern.
I'm thinking that human beings are of greater value than their mental health issues that others with even greater mental health problems and they're bringing on themselves.
I'm thinking that this sentence makes no sense. I can't even guess what you are trying to say.

People having a twisted perspective of themselves has been a problem with the human race since the fall in the garden of eden.
It's part of human nature. We see through a glass, darkly. And doubtless this pre dated the invention of the garden of Eden story by a considerable distance.

Jesus came to save us from our twisted perspective and our sin. He came to restore us to a right relationship with God and to restore a correct perspective to us, so we can see God rightly, along with ourselves and our fellow humans rightly.

It's the whole point of the gospel of Jesus.

We screwed up and God values us enough that he gave us his own son to restore us.
. This is your belief, which you are entitled to. It doesn't actually cut any ice in the real world where collective decisions are actually made.

At the present rate, I'd say that the human race will have destroyed themselves by destroying the unborn children, and warfare.
. Not just a bizarre view, but totally deluded. The human race is multiplying at an unsustainable rate, the highest ever. "We need more people" is nobody's campaign slogan, for good reason.

70 years ago, Europe and the United states fought to oppose the nazi regime and their slaughter of 12 million people who didn't fit their biases on Jews, gays, gypsies and disabled people.
In like manner, I'm thinking that people from another nation will stand up to oppose the wholesale slaughter of innocent children and others.
Completely irrelevant. Unborn children are not killed because they are unborn children, but because the unique circumstances that the mother finds herself in, mean that a legal abortion is possible. Comparisons with the Holocaust etc, are just bonkers. The nations that are completely opposed to abortion can be counted on two hands. If you are looking for relief from abortion brought by an invasion from Iran, Malta and Nicaragua, you are more deluded than I thought.
 
Since right or wrong are personal and individual calls, the notion you are postulating is clearly nonsense.
He were go with "Morality is relative."

As I have said to you before: the relativist always attempts to argue that there is no moral truth until you offend them in some way. Then you find out just out "relative" they believe moral truth to be.
The most that can be said is that a majority of people have a common idea of what is right or wrong.
And as I have shown, they are usually on the wrong side of the issue when it comes to that. In other words----history would seem to suggest that if you want to know what moral truth is--it is the opposite of what the majority say! (On controversial issues)
"Actually, right or wrong" is meaningless.
No, not at all.
In your opinion. In the opinion of the majority, they were on the right side. The majority view has changed, as views on moral issues tend to do. At no time was any particular view right or wrong objectively. It's always a matter of opinion. Sometimes we as individuals agree with that opinion. Sometimes we do not.
Good. Tell a minority that the idea we should not be racist is "just an opinion." See how much they think it is only an opinion. Tell a Jewish person that the idea that Hitler should not have done what he did--is just an opinion. See how much they agree with you.

Everything is only an opinion until it is your proverbial ox that is getting gored.
Opinions differ amongst all Christians, including Catholics, on this and other moral issues.
Yes, many Catholics think they can support abortion and still be Catholic. They are wrong, but they do have an opinion.
 
Whereas I'm finding it typical of any moral question addressed by Christians. There is no common agreed Christian line, just a lot of Bible quotes, condemnation and in-fighting.
Ok not bothered that there's no common ground on this.

We who follow Jesus have to decide if we're going to learn, and then obey the bible or if we're going to agree with the way the world wants us to think.

As a follower of Jesus and in my life before I came to Jesus, I've learned that the way people think in the world, it's destructive and self-centered.

This is by no means easily explained. Which is part of why I keep asking you guys to read the bible for the purpose of understanding.

If you don't actually want eternal life, that's a you thing. Jesus said that a lot of people would prefer their own ways over God's ways.

Psa 94:20-21 WEB 20 Shall the throne of wickedness have fellowship with you, which brings about mischief by statute? 21 They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blood.

It's a curious thing that this is an extremely ancient issue that is described in the bible.

As we read in Ecclesiastes....
There's nothing new under the sun.
What was, is.


Abortion is not a religious or a Biblical issue. It's a secular, public policy issue.
Curious how that works.

Psa 94:20-21 WEB 20 Shall the throne of wickedness have fellowship with you, which brings about mischief by statute? 21 They gather themselves together against the soul of the righteous, and condemn the innocent blood.

Sounds like you're looking to justify murder.

Ironically, the people who were slave owners used the same language you just used, to justify slavery.

As I recall, there were those in Germany who tried to do that too, with respect to the Jewish people and others who were slaughtered by the nazis.



When all Christians agree on what their faith position is, then you can bring it to the table and say " Christians believe this".
What do you think the word, Christian means?
Are you aware that it actually has a first century origin, and definition?

At the moment all you can say is "Those Christians who agree with me, believe this.
Actually, those christ-followers who study, and are learning to obey the bible think like this.

We're acutely aware that we are not among the popular crowds.
Anti-slavery people were in the minority too. Do you realize that one man, Wilberforce, stood against the British parliament to oppose slavery?
The abolition movement started with a handful of people who followed Jesus.

800 pastors in Germany opposed Hitler's efforts to destroy the Jews and others who were slaughtered.

Deitrich Bonhoeffer was among a very small group of people who realized that they had to stop Hitler at all costs. It cost him his life, at the end of a rope.

Jesus stood firm against the tyranny of sin and unrighteousness and those political power brokers killed him for it.

So, telling me that it's a political issue.... that just demonstrates that you really need to learn history.

Sin is always justified by political brokers.

The Christians who don't agree with me, don't count."
The religious beliefs that disagree with YHVH'S written word are those who will answer to YHVH.
They're entitled to their own beliefs, as are you.
Sure hope you're satisfied with the consequences of your choices, should you oppose what YHVH has explicitly stated.

I.e., if you really want to run off a Cliff, I'll try to warn you of the consequences and dangers associated with it, but in the end, you'll have to decide for yourself and then live with the consequences.

I don't wish them on anyone.


There were non-Christians and Christians on both sides of all these issues.
Indeed.
Ask the ones who support the right to murder unborn children what is the basis for their beliefs.

According to Genesis 1:26-27, God created us in his own likeness and image.
According to Genesis 9:5-6, those who commit murder will be held accountable.
According to psalm 94, those who are silent about it will give an account to God.
According to Proverbs 31:8-9, we're to give a voice to the voiceless and stand up for those who are being delivered to death.

Ask those who support abortion to read those passages and explain their support in light of them.


You can claim a victory for righteous Christianity, in fact I expect you to do so, but the claim is false.
Christ won the war at his resurrection.
Life ever since is about saving as many lives as possible, giving everyone the opportunity to engage YHVH on his terms and experience eternal life following death. So, I suppose the idea today is that there are many different skirmishes, and battles between people who love their sin and those whom God has saved from their sin, to give them enough information so they won't run off the cliff and destroy themselves.


Never. For two reasons. Firstly because genocide is an attempt to eradicate a particular ethnic and religious group, whereas every case of abortion, no matter how many of them, is an individual case with unique circumstances.
So, the destruction of hundreds of millions of a particular class of humans, from all over the world, isn't genocide...

I'm sure that the billion or so humans whose lives were stolen from them, and who were denied life, liberty and the pursuit of their own respective happiness would appreciate your opinions on that.
Perhaps you should explain it to them.
Oh.... wait.... I forgot.
You're not actually able to.
They're all dead. Their bodies were dismembered and dismantled by medical professionals.


And secondly, because no people are killed in an abortion.
Ah yes, as long as they're not actually identified as human beings.
Yep. Eerily reminiscent of the black slaves, the Jewish people, gypsies LGBTQ and disabled people in nazi Germany.

Congratulations! If you ever actually wondered if you would have complied with the nazis or slave owners, you have just given us your answer!

Isn't it nice to know that you're a perfect example of what slavers, and nazis were thinking about when it came to this question of whether or not people who are not in your clan/class/perspective are human.




The whole essence of genocide is people being killed because of who they are.
Yep.
The unborn children are being slaughtered because of who they are.

Perfect! You're catching on!
That's precisely what abortion is not.
Really? So because you, and your fellow citizens who have decided that unborn children aren't actually people, genocide isn't really happening....
Curious.
You just got done saying it's because of who they are.

Who the unborn children are....

Is unborn.
Yet, they've been alive for a few days to 9 months. The only difference is their location.
Inside the womb, instead of outside the womb.
What's the distance between the two?
Millimeters? Not even a single centimeter?
Imagine if you're leaning against a wall, and the construction worker on the other side shoots a nail or a long screw through.
Mere millimeters separate you from death.

No people, no innocence and not wholesale. Nor am I silent. You could not misrepresent me or the situation more if you tried.
No... you're quite clear about what you think.
As long as you're able to disconnect them from their humanity, they are able to be slaughtered without any reasoning.
No more than an ant or cockroach being stepped on.

It's always a great thing to see people who have no respect for human life. After all, it's not like they're actually human beings. Not really people.

At what point do you think the unhuman become people?

Birth, days, weeks, months or years after birth?
How about when they cease to be people?
70, 80, 90 years of age?
When they're no longer able to afford to live, because they didn't have enough money?
Or, maybe it's when their mental faculties fail?


As I have said, evil is a hugely over used word. It certainly doesn't apply to abortion. Nor, as I say again, am I silent.
Yet, you are silent.
You have no problem whatsoever with killing the unborn, simply because they're not actually people.
Just like black slaves, and Jewish, gypsies, LGBTQ, and disabled.... weren't people in nazi Germany and antebellum America.
Believe me, it's not something I will experience.
So you hope.

I hope you cut and pasted your Bible quotes with a minimum of effort, because every key stroke was wasted. Or not.
Not according to YHVH.
His word always achieves the purpose for which he gave it. Even if you disdain and disregard it as garbage, and insignificant.

<blame it on the 10,000 character limit>
you are more deluded than I thought.
Well, since you have made it clear that your beliefs are the only valid beliefs, I won't waste your obviously far more important time.

Have as good a life as you can now.
The day is coming when you'll beg for another chance.
 

Attachments

  • FB_IMG_1537583499917.jpg
    FB_IMG_1537583499917.jpg
    67.3 KB · Views: 0
He were go with "Morality is relative."

As I have said to you before: the relativist always attempts to argue that there is no moral truth until you offend them in some way. Then you find out just out "relative" they believe moral truth to be.
Untrue. Then you find out just what their personal opinion is. It is my opinion that your opinion on abortion is a grotesquely offensive moral outrage. It's not an objective fact, just my opinion. That doesn't make it any less strong or any less important to me.

And as I have shown, they are usually on the wrong side of the issue when it comes to that. In other words----history would seem to suggest that if you want to know what moral truth is--it is the opposite of what the majority say! (On controversial issues)
No Sunshine. All you have shown is that on controversial moral issues, you are out of step with majority opinion. And also that you have the hubris to believe that you are the custodian of moral right and wrong

Good. Tell a minority that the idea we should not be racist is "just an opinion." See how much they think it is only an opinion. Tell a Jewish person that the idea that Hitler should not have done what he did--is just an opinion. See how much they agree with you.
Why should I lie to people about my moral beliefs? As I said, being an opinion doesn't devalue a moral view in any way. What does devalue it is outsourcing your morality to a false set of moral standards, totally divorced from the context of modern life and insisting without evidence that this is the only possible moral standard to live by.

Yes, many Catholics think they can support abortion and still be Catholic. They are wrong, but they do have an opinion.
Yes, many Catholics think if others support abortion then they cannot still be Catholic. They are wrong, but they do have an opinion.

Incidentally, you just turned the Republic of Ireland into a non-Catholic country, which will come as a surprise to all the millions of Catholics who live there and voted for the legalization of abortion.
 
Back
Top