Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
William

There Is No Christian Argument Against Overturning Roe v Wade

Recommended Posts

Staff

The news that Supreme Court justice Anthony Kennedy will retire next month has immediately conjured up images of a pro-life judge’s taking his place and becoming the crucial fifth piece to strike down Roe v. Wade, the Court’s 1973 affirmation of a universal right to abortion. For pro-life activists and observers, this is a historic opportunity to challenge the bloodiest injustice in America for the past 50 years. While overturning Roe would not itself criminalize abortion, it would blow away the barrier against state-based laws and almost certainly result in at least 20 states outlawing abortion in most circumstances. All it takes is five justices to intervene on behalf of the lives of millions of unborn Americans. It is very close.

 

It is close because Donald Trump won an astonishing election the same year that Justice Antonin Scalia astonishingly died, denying the Democratic Party an opportunity to solidify Roe via President Hillary Clinton. It is close because then-candidate Trump said onstage during a presidential debate that he would seek to overturn Roe if given the opportunity to appoint justices. It is because of the relationship between the judiciary and the executive, a relationship crafted by the men on our dollars and coins, that this opportunity has come. And it is also because of Donald Trump.

This is a hard saying. Who can bear it?

 

In our current age, we are given to making value judgments by association. Because Donald Trump is a man of vice whose administration has pursued some cruel policies (and whose rhetoric tends to exult in such cruelty), some evangelicals will struggle with feeling joy at this vacant Court seat. “I’m personally pro-life,” they might say, “but I just don’t trust Trump, and I don’t like it that people who voted for him seem happy about this.” Thus, they might try to reason themselves into the belief that Roe ought not be overturned, that a pro-life justice ought not be appointed, all because Donald Trump ought not be president and evangelicals ought not be feeling victorious right now.

 

The frustration is understandable, but the logic is not. Evangelicals don’t have to set aside their convictions about race, immigrants, women, or the Religious Right in order to perceive a moral mandate when it comes to abortion. There is no Christian case against overturning Roe. None.

 

Once upon what seems now like a lifetime ago, pro-life evangelicals were united in horror and imprecatory prayer at the undercover videos of Planned Parenthood released by the Center for Medical Progress. Those videos have been legally prosecuted and forgotten, but they have not been unmade. There are many of us who vividly remember where we were when we watched a physician “harvest” the tiny anatomy of an aborted boy (yes, “it’s a boy”), or when we listened to Planned Parenthood reps talk about the money and humor in the trafficking of babies. While these videos were being released, there was no question amongst most evangelicals whether abortion was a cause worth engaging at the highest possible level. There was no Donald Trump and no morally compromised Religious Right to complicate things.

 

Three years later, the producers of those videos are fighting litigation, and many of us who watched and cried and prayed are fighting ourselves. The illusion of virtue in our tribe was dismantled by 2016, by #MeToo, by the children of refugees in prison-like holding cells. It has been terrible. But evangelicals cannot allow the hypocrisy of their elders to blind them to the innocence of their infants. It is not remotely unreasonable or incoherent to stand as far away as possible from the rot of God and country Republicanism while charging alongside it against Roe v. Wade. In fact, it is the only option we have.

 

In a now-deleted tweet, a prominent progressive evangelical writer said though she was “convictionally pro-life” (those slippery adverbs!), she could not support the overturning of Roe v Wade due to all the “effects” it would have. After deleting the tweet, she said that Twitter was obviously not the right place to talk about abortion. Nothing more than a 2 minute perusal of her Twitter account reveals dozens of impassioned threads about everything from gun control to immigration to policing. This sort of double dealing has become rampant among younger, socially conscious evangelicals in the aftermath of Trump’s election. While abortion is a “complex conversation” that requires nuance instead of activism, the issues that the Republican Party morally fails on are apparently no-brainers.

 

I don’t think this attitude necessarily comes from apathy about unborn babies or rank partisanship. I think it mostly comes from fear—fear of becoming the wrong kind of person in the wrong kind of tribe. Again, the fear is understandable, but the rationalization seen above is not. To act as if morally upright Christians cannot support President Trump’s appointment of a justice who would tip the scales against Roe is to prioritize political consistency and tribal identity over human life itself. It is the literal opposite of a Christ-honoring public theology.

 

Martin Luther King famously said that laws could not make white people love black people, but they could keep white people from lynching black people. In other words, a law that doesn’t address the deepest problems but still preserves life is a worthy law. Evangelicals who say that overturning Roe would not destroy back alley abortions need to ponder the truth in King’s statement. The possibility that a law will be broken and that people will suffer is not an argument against a moral law. It’s an argument against us sinful people.  The overturning of Roe would allow states to codify the sanctity of unborn life, and laws do teach. We may not be able to change hearts, but we can shape them as they grow…but only if they’re allowed to beat.

 

Roe v. Wade is a legal catastrophe. It is Constitutional soothsaying. It’s a decision based on discredited scientific claims and cartoon philosophy. Worst of all, it has been the death sentence of over 60 million Americans. Worrying about whether its reversal will register as a win for a president who is unworthy of it is not a competing interest to its destruction. This should not, must not, and cannot be a “white Republican Christian” issue. It’s everyone’s issue. There is no Christian case for keeping Roe. None.

 

Source:

There Is No Christian Argument Against Overturning Roe v Wade – Letter & Liturgy

 

  • Like 4
  • Best Answer 1

Share this post


Link to post

Susan Collins, Republican Senator from Maine would not vote for a nominee who shows hostility to Roe v. Wade because she believes SCOTUS should respect precedent.

For those who are interested, here is a list of SCOTUS decisions that have been overturned/over-ruled/annulled by later SCOTUS decisions:

List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions - Wikipedia

 

It is by no means unusual.........

Share this post


Link to post

Abortion can be ended without overturning Roe v Wade. All that is necessary is that Congress pass a law declaring that life begins at conception.

 

Quote

Working from what the Supreme Court ruled in Roe, pro-life lawmakers can pass a Life at Conception Act and end abortion by using the Constitution instead of amending it.

A simple majority vote in both houses of Congress is all that is needed to pass a Life at Conception Act as opposed to the two-thirds required to add a Constitutional amendment.

When the Supreme Court handed down its now-infamous Roe v. Wade decision, it did so based on a new, previously undefined "right of privacy" which it "discovered" in so-called "emanations" of "penumbrae" of the Constitution.

Of course, as constitutional law it was a disaster. But never once did the Supreme Court declare abortion itself to be a Constitutional right.

Instead the Supreme Court said:

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins . . . the judiciary at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

Life at Conception Act Would Dismantle Roe Using the Supreme Court's Own Language

Then the High Court made a key admission:

"If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case [i.e. "Roe" who sought the abortion], of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."

That's exactly what a Life at Conception Act would do.

Legislative Action

 

However this would not be a good as overturning the ruling because any law passed by Congress can be repealed.

  • Best Answer 1

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
5 minutes ago, theophilus said:

Abortion can be ended without overturning Roe v Wade. All that is necessary is that Congress pass a law declaring that life begins at conception.

Unless the Supreme Court were to decide that law was unconstitutional.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
7 minutes ago, Origen said:

Unless the Supreme Court were to decide that law was unconstitutional.

Is it me or will this open a can of worms? If such law passed would every child be an American citizen if conceived in the United States? Can a child conceived in the United States then be denied Constitutional rights?

 

I'd think that this would satisfy Liberal/Democrats and bring Republicans onboard (bi-partisan) to accept certain immigration reconsideration.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
16 minutes ago, William said:

Is it me or will this open a can of worms? If such law passed would every child be an American citizen if conceived in the United States? Can a child conceived in the United States then be denied Constitutional rights?

 

I'd think that this would satisfy Liberal/Democrats and bring Republicans onboard (bi-partisan) to accept certain immigration reconsideration.

William to tell you the truth I believe we are only kidding ourselves.  I truly think that people are being way too optimistic.  I don't believe for one minute that Roe v Wade will be overturn anytime soon.  And even if that were to happen, that would not put any end to abortion.  Then it would be up to the States to decide, and there is no doubt how states like New York,  California, and Washington would come down on the issue.

 

While I am at it, I don't believe the Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage will be overturned.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
58 minutes ago, Origen said:

William to tell you the truth I believe we are only kidding ourselves.  I truly think that people are being way too optimistic.  I don't believe that for one minute that Roe v Wade will be overturn anytime soon.  And even if that were to happen, that would not put any end to abortion.  Then it would be up to the States to decide, and there is no doubt how states like New York,  California, and Washington would come down on the issue.

 

While I am at it, I don't believe the Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage will be overturned.

Just thinking it through.

 

If an unborn child is declared a person at conception then the child must be protected under the Constitution. The person was conceived and originated in the United States. Unless it is decided that the child is under the providence and/or jurisdiction of the mother which leads back to the mother's right to abortion. Is she given some kind of maritime law where she's the captain of her vessel lol?

 

God bless,

William

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Origen said:

William to tell you the truth I believe we are only kidding ourselves.  I truly think that people are being way too optimistic.  I don't believe for one minute that Roe v Wade will be overturn anytime soon.  And even if that were to happen, that would not put any end to abortion.  Then it would be up to the States to decide, and there is no doubt how states like New York,  California, and Washington would come down on the issue.

 

While I am at it, I don't believe the Supreme Court's decision on gay marriage will be overturned.

It appears that political analyst expect 20 conservative States to immediately ban abortion as soon as the conservative justice is confirmed?

 

There were 13 States that had banned same sex marriage by constitutional amendment when it was overturned by SCOTUS in Obergefell V Hodges?

 

California in 2008 voted to ban same sex marriage in Prop (8), it passed by a 53/47 popular vote, and was stopped by a homosexual judge (Vaughn R. Walker)

 

I believe we will see Roe V Wade and Obergefell V Hodges overturned in the next two years, political analyst state it could be sooner?

Edited by Truth7t7
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

The conservatives are already at work as we speak, introduced 3 days before president Trump took the oath of office, we pray they will have enough votes to pass the bill?

 

H.R.586 — 115th Congress (2017-2018)

 

Introduced in House (01/17/2017)

 

By Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia (for himself, Mr. Allen, Mr. Carter of Georgia, Mr. Collins of Georgia, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Duncan of South Carolina, Mr. Farenthold, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Graves of Georgia, Mr. Grothman, Mr. Johnson of Ohio, Mr. Latta, Mr. Long, Mr. Loudermilk, Mr. Olson, Mr. Roe of Tennessee, Mr. Russell, Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, and Mr. Woodall), H552 [17JA]

 

Sanctity of Human Life Act

 

This bill declares that: (1) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human and is a person's most fundamental right; (2) each human life begins with fertilization, cloning, or its equivalent, at which time every human has all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (3) Congress, each state, the District of Columbia, and each U.S. territory have the authority to protect all human lives.

Edited by Truth7t7
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
40 minutes ago, Truth7t7 said:

It appears that political analyst expect 20 conservative States to immediately ban abortion as soon as the conservative justice is confirmed?

 

There were 13 States that had banned same sex marriage by constitutional amendment when it was overturned by SCOTUS in Obergefell V Hodges?

 

California in 2008 voted to ban same sex marriage in Prop (8), it passed by a 53/47 popular vote, and was stopped by a homosexual judge (Vaughn R. Walker)

 

I believe we will see Roe V Wade and Obergefell V Hodges overturned in the next two years, political analyst state it could be sooner?

I have no doubt some believe it will happen, perhaps within two years.  I for one see no reason to believe it.  If we are still here two years from now, we shall see.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
41 minutes ago, Truth7t7 said:

The conservatives are already at work as we speak, introduced 3 days before president Trump took the oath of office, we pray they will have enough votes to pass the bill?

 

H.R.586 — 115th Congress (2017-2018)

 

Introduced in House (01/17/2017)

 

By Mr. JODY B. HICE of Georgia (for himself, Mr. Allen, Mr. Carter of Georgia, Mr. Collins of Georgia, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Duncan of South Carolina, Mr. Farenthold, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Graves of Georgia, Mr. Grothman, Mr. Johnson of Ohio, Mr. Latta, Mr. Long, Mr. Loudermilk, Mr. Olson, Mr. Roe of Tennessee, Mr. Russell, Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, and Mr. Woodall), H552 [17JA]

 

Sanctity of Human Life Act

 

This bill declares that: (1) the right to life guaranteed by the Constitution is vested in each human and is a person's most fundamental right; (2) each human life begins with fertilization, cloning, or its equivalent, at which time every human has all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and (3) Congress, each state, the District of Columbia, and each U.S. territory have the authority to protect all human lives.

I like the way it is worded.

 

Thanks for sharing!

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, William said:

If an unborn child is declared a person at conception then the child must be protected under the Constitution. The person was conceived and originated in the United States. Unless it is decided that the child is under the providence and/or jurisdiction of the mother which leads back to the mother's right to abortion. Is she given some kind of maritime law where she's the captain of her vessel lol?

It is an interesting question but you would have to be able to prove time & location of conception.....something tells me SCOTUS might want to punt on that and use the 14th Amendment as the standard.......

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, Origen said:

I have no doubt some believe it will happen, perhaps within two years.  I for one see no reason to believe it.  If we are still here two years from now, we shall see.

Please explain how you believe we will no be here in two years?

 

You can PM me with your views?

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
7 hours ago, Truth7t7 said:

Please explain how you believe we will no be here in two years?

 

 

What?  I did not say I believe we will not be here in two years or anything close to that.

 

Quote

You can PM me with your views?

You want me to PM you concerning my views on things I never said.  Don't read into comments things that are not there.

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/2/2018 at 12:04 PM, Origen said:

I have no doubt some believe it will happen, perhaps within two years.  I for one see no reason to believe it.  If we are still here two years from now, we shall see.

I apologize for inferring you suggested the end of the world, possibly you were considering #1 below?

 

One of two suggestions?

 

1. Possibly we could die before two years?

 

2. The world will end?

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Truth7t7 said:

I apologize for inferring you suggested the end of the world, possibly you were considering #1 below?

 

One of two suggestions?

 

1. Possibly we could die before two years?

 

2. The world will end?

3.  We could get raptured?

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
15 minutes ago, Truth7t7 said:

I apologize for inferring you suggested the end of the world, possibly you were considering #1 below?

 

One of two suggestions?

 

1. Possibly we could die before two years?

 

2. The world will end?

Or If "we" as in a group on this website are here in two years, then "we" shall see together.

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
6 minutes ago, William said:

Or If "we" as in a group on this website are here in two years, then "we" shall see together.

 

God bless,

William

CORRECT!  We have a winner!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Staff

-Supplies Gossip phrases on slips of paper Instructions Explain to the players that there won’t be any winners or losers in this game. It’s just for fun. Tell the players to form a line. Hand the first player a slip of paper with a gossip phrase or sentence written on it. This player reads the phrase but doesn’t show it to anyone else. He or she whispers the phrase to the next person in line, who whispers what she thought she heard to the next person, and so on down the line. The last person repeats what he/she heard to the entire group. The first person then tells the group what the phrase actually was. You can play this for as long or short a time as you like. As a variation, you can also have players come up with their own phrases. Use the Alice Franklin sentence for the last round of the game. At the end of the game, explain that the point of the game is to demonstrate how information gets distorted as it passes from person to person. Just like in The Truth about Alice, gossip warps the truth into exaggerations or even lies.

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/2/2018 at 12:03 PM, Origen said:

Unless the Supreme Court were to decide that law was unconstitutional.

The People of this nation have for to long been absent.  President Trump is the first Peopleś's President since Ronnie Reagan and it is past time for the Executive and the Congressional Branches to drop weights on the heads of the Liberal Baboons on SCOTUS to bring them back int ocompliance with the Lawful Constitution of this nation .

  • Best Answer 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Becky said:

-Supplies Gossip phrases on slips of paper Instructions Explain to the players that there won’t be any winners or losers in this game. It’s just for fun. Tell the players to form a line. Hand the first player a slip of paper with a gossip phrase or sentence written on it. This player reads the phrase but doesn’t show it to anyone else. He or she whispers the phrase to the next person in line, who whispers what she thought she heard to the next person, and so on down the line. The last person repeats what he/she heard to the entire group. The first person then tells the group what the phrase actually was. You can play this for as long or short a time as you like. As a variation, you can also have players come up with their own phrases. Use the Alice Franklin sentence for the last round of the game. At the end of the game, explain that the point of the game is to demonstrate how information gets distorted as it passes from person to person. Just like in The Truth about Alice, gossip warps the truth into exaggerations or even lies.

No gossip?

 

It's a fact that justice Kennedy retired and a conservative will fill the spot, announcement will be June 9th 2018 who Trumps nominee is.

 

It's a fact that overturning Roe v Wade is a #1 priority, even the liberals agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
2 hours ago, Bill Taylor said:

the Executive and the Congressional Branches to drop weights on the heads of the Liberal Baboons on SCOTUS 

There is little if anything they can do.  Supreme Court justices are appointed for life.  Unless a justice retires\resigns or dies that justice is there to stay.    Of course a justice could be impeached.  That has happen only once (i.e. Samuel Chase).  It went nowhere.

 

When you say, "drop weights on their heads" how would that work?  What is the method?  If the Executive and the Congressional Branches forces judges to conform,  then the court is no longer a separate and equal branch of government.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
1 hour ago, Truth7t7 said:

It's a fact that overturning Roe v Wade is a #1 priority, even the liberals agree.

What do you expect them to say?  I see no reason to accept what the liberals says as truth.  Everything Trump does or says, according to them, will bring about the end of the world.  That claim by them is nothing more than an example of their fear and hate tactics.  As I said above, I doubt it will happen but time will tell.  All we have to do is wait and see.

Share this post


Link to post
Staff
1 hour ago, Truth7t7 said:

No gossip?

 

It's a fact that justice Kennedy retired and a conservative will fill the spot, announcement will be June 9th 2018 who Trumps nominee is.

 

It's a fact that overturning Roe v Wade is a #1 priority, even the liberals agree.

I hope you understood my little joke was about how we were taken up in Origen's words . 

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, Becky said:

I hope you understood my little joke was about how we were taken up in Origen's words . 

No problem, thanks for the response.

  • Best Answer 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • Why Aren’t Christian Leaders More Discerning?

      by John MacArthur   Pastor/Teacher John MacArthur Jr.I’ve been all over the world, as you know, and have had lots of discussions with lots of Christian leaders and I’ve read lots of things about the church and the history of the church and the theology of the church. I’ve been all over everywhere and I can just tell you this. Right now in this day, and it’s been this way for a long time through this twentieth century, THE biggest problem in the church is its inability and unwillingness to

      in General Faith

    • Confused Joel Osteen Book Unsure What It's Doing In Christian Section

      CLARKSBURG, WV—A confused copy of Joel Osteen's book The Power of I Am was unsure what it was doing in the Christian Living section of the book department at a local Walmart Supercenter, sources confirmed Wednesday. The post Confused Joel Osteen Book Unsure What It's Doing In Christian Section appeared first on The Babylon Bee. View the original full article

      in Christian Satire

    • How Should We Treat New Challenges to the Christian Faith?

      by Gary R. Habermas   It seems every year during the Easter season the popular press boldly announces new claims troubling to Christians. Stories emerge, often as if breaking news, promising exciting new evidence contrary to the Bible in the form of scholarly research, archaeological discovery, or scientific breakthrough.   In recent years believers have been challenged with questions such as: Was Jesus married to Mary Magdalene? Did Jesus father one or more children? Was Mary supposed

      in Apologetics and Theology

    • Can a Christian sing secular songs?

      I know that a Christian can listen to secular music cz jesus says what goes inside, doesn't defile you. And paul says that eating meat at the temples of unbelivers is not a sin.  So not only these verses go with food but everything.   But what if a Christian wants to sing secular music?    Not the one which goes against the law of god, for example , which has profane lyrics and promotes adultary, homosexuality , drug abuse and all that.   But the one which is g

      in Morality and Laws

    • Christian Bookstore Employee Tasked With Rotating Out Expired Prophecy Books

      MOBILE, AL—New LifeWay Christian Stores employee Aimee Bryer was tasked with rotating out last week's prophetic books and replacing them with a fresh, just-off-the-truck shipment, sources confirmed Friday. The post Christian Bookstore Employee Tasked With Rotating Out Expired Prophecy Books appeared first on The Babylon Bee. View the original full article

      in Christian Satire

×
×
  • Create New...