In his book How to Stop Dialogue In Its Tracks, Sacha Baron Cohen provides three awkward statements for guys that can be employed to bring a lousy date to a quick conclusion; “I just believe that environmentalists should mind their own business.”  Or, 2. “Don’t you find the obsolescence of the slide rule to be terribly regrettable?”  And, 3. “Does the Roe versus Wade decision trouble you as much as it does me?”

In recognition of the 39th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade ruling this week, I am going to jump right on topic number three.  OK, there is no such book calledHow to Stop Dialogue In Its Tracks.  But if there were, Sacha Baron Cohen surely would have been the author.

In spite of there having been a Supreme Court ruling in 1973, the pro-life versus pro-choice political debate remains unsettled in America after all these years.  There are three good reasons for this.
Mark Baisley

Mark Baisley

Mark Baisley is CEO of Slipglass, a cyber security product and services firm.

Most Recent Articles

Join the Debate
172 Comments So Far
Login in to Post Your Comments
« Previous12Next »
Daughter of liberty Wrote: Jan 18, 2012 4:44 PM
Until the fetus can exist seperately from its mother, it is an obligate parasite. Most of the time people on this site argue against allowing extra-uterine human parasites from enslaving us. Why should fetuses be a special class allowed to enslave their hosts by govt decree. You need to use persuasive argument to stop people from having abortions, not force of govt.
Flag as Offensive
Maureen116 Wrote: Jan 18, 2012 7:37 PM
Why does that determine person hood. After a child is born it can't live on it's own. It must be fed, changed, dressed, covered up for warmth. Many babies have been delivered alive during an abortion and have been put on a shelf to die. People who allow that are barbarians.
Flag as Offensive
Bill110 Wrote: Jan 18, 2012 9:19 PM
What a novel idea! lets use "persuasive argument instead of government" to end all crimes against humanity. No more government courts, no more law enforcement officers (police), no more jails or prisons, no more government restraint against murderers, thieves, sex predators, just "persuasive argument". Do you work for a living, or are you an obligate parasite?
Flag as Offensive
genya2 Wrote: Jan 16, 2012 9:13 PM
Look ,what would happen today if OBAMAS mother would have an abortion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wouldn't this save AMERICA!
Flag as Offensive
poorgrandchildren.com2 Wrote: Jan 16, 2012 9:57 PM
Is it too late for a late term abortion on them?
Flag as Offensive
USNbubblehead Wrote: Jan 16, 2012 4:17 PM
I accept the philosophy that from the moment of conception onward, if nature takes its normal course, the fertilized egg WILL become a human being. A seedling doesn't become something else as it develops into a full grown tree, it progresses naturally from one stage of development to another, all the while remaining the product of the pollinated blossom.

Flag as Offensive
Bill110 Wrote: Jan 16, 2012 8:29 PM
But at what time in its development does it attain "treehood"? Sure it has life. Sure it will become a tree. But how can you determine when it has genuine treeness?
Flag as Offensive
Mark in CA Wrote: Jan 17, 2012 1:13 AM
You are using a false analogy, Bill110. Trees and humans share, at best, limited characteristics. I can accept USNbubblehead's analogy because it uses one characteristic that humans and trees do have in common; a lifespan with different developmental stages ranging from fertilized seed/egg to adulthood. You, however, are trying to make the case that a human being's intrinsic value is based upon his/her developmental level by using full grown trees as an analogy. While a full grown tree may have more value as a lumbar resource than a seedling, there is no moral equivalence between the life of a tree and a human life. And if anyone thinks there is, they are out to lunch.
Flag as Offensive
Mark415 Wrote: Jan 17, 2012 11:00 AM
Would you then support the right of land owners to destroy the eggs of a spotted owl on their property?
Flag as Offensive
Blair31 Wrote: Jan 16, 2012 3:58 PM
What does our "favorite" troll RayRay Anklebiter think? We don't know. He loves hiding behind his
aliases and forgetting to put his tin foil hat on.
Flag as Offensive
Bill110 Wrote: Jan 16, 2012 8:32 PM
He has a brain cramp in his left cheek and can't sit down.
Flag as Offensive
Judgementday Wrote: Jan 16, 2012 3:46 PM
In most ancient culturers when a person is born they are 1 year old. That would mean that a person becomes a person at conception. Intellectuals can't decide when life begins. The majority of humans in this world do agree that abortion is murder, the shedding of innocent blood. These same people also believe that a woman has the right to commit murder of her unborn because its her body. According to Holy Scripture "the shedding of innocent blood" is an unforgivable sin. I would contend that those who support the shedding of blood through abortion would shed your blood also.
Flag as Offensive
Debbie335 Wrote: Jan 16, 2012 5:54 PM
I am opposed to abortion because I believe that an unborn baby is an innocent human life. However, I take exception to your claim that "the shedding of innocent blood" is an unforgivable sin. Please cite chapter and verse to back up that claim. If the shedding of innocent blood is an unforgivable sin, how do you explain the Apostle Paul?
Many women who have had an abortion have asked God for forgiveness. I have never seen anything in the Bible that would lead me to believe that God won't forgive them. Read John 3:16, WHOSOEVER is an all-encompassing word.

Flag as Offensive
Bill110 Wrote: Jan 16, 2012 7:42 PM
I agree, all sin is "forgivable", including abortion. However, under a just civil law, crimes against humanity must be punished. We would be outraged if a Judge let a murderer go free because he (the Judge) forgave him. At the present time abortion is sin but it is not a crime. It should be a crime. It is murder and murder should have a penalty.
Flag as Offensive
annfan6 Wrote: Jan 16, 2012 3:33 PM
Shove a sock in his mouth?
Flag as Offensive
RichardSays Wrote: Jan 16, 2012 3:17 PM
Nothing new here with respect to Big Govt. and their putting themselves above God. That's what Big Brother is all about. Too much power and money buys a lot of laws.

We've gone so far down the path of who gives us our rights, our Creator or govt.? Well, we know what the govt. thinks. It's past time that we, the American citizen, who still honors and agrees with our Constitution and Rule of Law, to upend and oust these immoral politicians and judges who've put themselves above our Creator. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes come judgement day!
Flag as Offensive
Bryan55 Wrote: Jan 16, 2012 2:48 PM
I don't know what these latest comments have to do w/ Roe v Wade, but I believe the question should be "When does personhood begin?, not when does life begin? I'm not so sure the constitution inferred, or conferred personhood until later in life than birth. In that sense the constitution does not apply to the abortion issue at all. It should be left to the states, or individuals, as stated in the document.
Flag as Offensive
Mother of 4 -- the original Wrote: Jan 16, 2012 7:32 PM
Personhood is a nonsense concept.

All human beings are inherently "persons" by virtue of their humanity. Any other definition of the term means that no human beings have any rights whatsoever but, rather, they have only privileges granted at the whim of human governments.
Flag as Offensive
Bill110 Wrote: Jan 16, 2012 7:50 PM
You scare me. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution established the inalienable right to life, NOT PERSONHOOD. If the courts are to determine who is a person, then we are no better than NAZI Germany. Mentally challenged, physically handicapped, unwanted children, the aged, and how about Jews, Blacks and Indians. Under your interpretation they could all be determined to be non-persons. Give me a break,----you are an idiot.
Flag as Offensive
Mark in CA Wrote: Jan 17, 2012 1:30 AM
That's easy to answer.

From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/personhood: per·son·hood (pûrsn-hd) n.
The state or condition of being a person, especially having those qualities that confer distinct individuality.

So personhood begins when life begins since each zygote has its own distinct genetic make up.

I know, I know. There are those diehard abortionists who want to define personhood so as to be able to exclude from this category persons they want to be able to murder. But they are just engaging in semantic games.
Flag as Offensive
InsightingTruth Wrote: Jan 16, 2012 1:42 PM
John765:

Please tell me the difference between being able to hold your personal documents in a private state, and enjoying privacy for your personal documents?
Flag as Offensive
castyourvote2012 Wrote: Jan 16, 2012 1:29 PM
Have you voted in the poll yet? Ron Paul has taken the lead as of 10:00 am this Monday morning with votes rolling in. Who do you think the next President should be? Participate in the 2012 Ebay United States Presidential Election Poll and cast your vote. Go to Ebay and Search for 2012 Ebay Poll, support your candidate and vote. Proceeds now benefit the Wounded Warriors Project. Please, make a difference!
Flag as Offensive
Nate121 Wrote: Jan 16, 2012 12:07 PM
After watching Obama nominate not one but two undesirable Supreme Court justices with questionable credentials I realize that the Supreme Court is filled with partisan puppets and no longer serves the people but only the political party that appoints them.
Flag as Offensive
InsightingTruth Wrote: Jan 16, 2012 11:54 AM
The author writes, "The problem is that the Burger court forgot that the Supreme Court is an instrument of the government, instituted by the people and deriving their just powers from the consent of those people. A branch of that government should not even entertain the idea that they are in the position of the Creator."

Finally, a TH columnist who knows the SC is not the final arbiter of what is or is not lawful. This is progress.

The next step is to discover a TH columnist who recognizes that the right to privacy is an assumed unalienable right, derived directly from our Creator, which preexists the Constitution. This fact is noted in the 4th amendment.
Flag as Offensive
Thomas2124 Wrote: Jan 16, 2012 12:17 PM
There is no right to privacy granted by our Creator. Nor is there any Constitutional basis for a right to privacy.
Flag as Offensive
InsightingTruth Wrote: Jan 16, 2012 12:39 PM
Thomas:

Why then did the framers conclude that we had a right to be secure in our private papers and our persons?

Where does the tradition of doctor/patient confidentiality come from?

Why does the government need a warrant to search your home?

Why must documents be subpoenaed?
Flag as Offensive
John765 Wrote: Jan 16, 2012 1:02 PM
My private papers are personal property. The Constitution was founded upon personal property rights, not privacy rights.
Flag as Offensive
Ron5487 Wrote: Jan 16, 2012 1:29 PM

>
King James Version
1 O LORD, thou hast searched me, and known me.
2Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off.

3Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways.

4For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether.

5Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me.

6Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.

7Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?

8If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.

9If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;
Flag as Offensive
Raymond, (Ret) Wrote: Jan 16, 2012 9:25 AM
Even then 'personhood' of the fetus is not the question from which the debate evolves. That question, indirectly asked by the pro-abortionists, is 'are we to be held accountable for the consequences of our actions.' In fact, to a large extent, that is the question that Liberalism itself proposes their answer to which is always 'no'. Kind of a convenient 'I won't hold you responsible for your actions if you don't hold me responsible for mine' pact.
Flag as Offensive
Nate121 Wrote: Jan 16, 2012 12:11 PM
Good post, I feel the same way. Liberals and as of late the entire democrat party is the party of no responsability.
Flag as Offensive
Jim69 Wrote: Jan 16, 2012 9:05 AM
The preeminent constitutional scholar Robert Bork? No, wait, the rejected judge seeking a seat on the Supreme Court, wrote a book which criticized a supreme court decision...shocking!
Flag as Offensive
SterCrazy Wrote: Jan 16, 2012 11:02 AM
Robert Bork was not rejected for a Supreme Court seat because he was not qualified. The actions of the Senate Judiciary Committee and statements by the Democrats on that committee, and their supporters, made it very clear that they were rejecting his judicial philosophy. They proved their own "qualifications" to judge him by spouting outrageous lies about his positions and what would happen if he were on the court - thus the invention of the term "Borking". It was an episode that any clear thinking, neutral person should regard with abject shame that our elected representatives could act in the way they did.
Flag as Offensive
Jim69 Wrote: Jan 16, 2012 12:59 PM
Let's see: final tally 58-42 including 6 Republicans voting nay. Yes, clearly the Senate was woefully misled.
Flag as Offensive
David1763 Wrote: Jan 16, 2012 12:59 PM
Bork was rejected for political reasons as the personal attacks proved unfounded. Not having the liberal viewpoint on legal matters was cause enough for the democrat and Rino's to reject him. But, "the times, they are a changing" and the sharp mind of Robert Bork is starting to be appreciated. Stalin, the liberal hero, would have understood, even borking a man, won't destroy his ideas. His time is coming.
Flag as Offensive
silentCalfan Wrote: Jan 17, 2012 12:29 AM
The foul and false attack on Bork by the loathsome and morally bankrupt Ted Kennedy set the standard for putrid partisan demagoguery.
Flag as Offensive
Jim69 Wrote: Jan 17, 2012 1:40 PM
58-42, live with it.
Flag as Offensive
Jim69 Wrote: Jan 17, 2012 1:40 PM
I will be here waiting.
Flag as Offensive
annfan6 Wrote: Jan 16, 2012 5:29 AM
Good questions, and of course the answer is that all members of the human family, regardless of age, size, location or level of development, should be protected under law.
Flag as Offensive
Stephen - East Coast Wrote: Jan 15, 2012 11:45 PM
(To the left, this issue is just as ambiguous as "global warming".) Your assertion that the matter is "disconcerting" to persons that may or may not have qualms about abortion is correct - "love" and "sex" are the paragons of diverging feelings that humankind displays, as a rule. "Do I love her/him, or do I not?" "Do I lust her/him, or do I not?" Books and philosophies have been written and created on the subject. The answer is found in the one source that modern society avoids, but "render unto Caesar ... " prevails now, as always. It is far easier to sin than to be true to God and to oneself. That is a universal given. Where one goes, after that realization (if it occurs), determines the individual.
Flag as Offensive
Andy440 Wrote: Jan 15, 2012 10:23 PM
"For You have possessed my reins; You have covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows right well. My substance was not hid from You, when I was made in secret, and skillfully formed in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in Your book all my members were written...when as yet there was none of them." Psalm 139:13-16. God, the Creator, is involved in our creation and forming from CONCEPTION. A nation that kills unborn babies has blood on its hands...
Flag as Offensive
wbliss Wrote: Jan 16, 2012 3:09 PM
So true. An even worse travesty of justice is that it is government funded using tax dollars against the will of the majority of people.
Flag as Offensive
John4602 Wrote: Jan 15, 2012 3:40 PM
Slavery was NOT the CAUSE of the Civil War! No one ever addresses the fact that the founders ALLOWED the slave-holding states to enter the Union! They recognized that it was NOT the job of the federal government to provide social justice, or to be involved with social engineering. Each state had and still has their own constitution, and retain the right to run their own affairs. Lincoln destroyed the protections of the U.S. Constitution. Slavery was morally wrong, but all he did was to turn physical slavery into political repression....and not just for blacks. Fedzilla needs to be put back into its cage (see the enumerated powers listed in Article 1, Section 8). Read "NULLIFICATION, Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century", by Thomas E. Woods.
Flag as Offensive
Mark in CA Wrote: Jan 15, 2012 4:03 PM
Re read history if you think slavery was not the cause of the Civil War.
Flag as Offensive
John4602 Wrote: Jan 15, 2012 4:57 PM
That is not an answer. Go read the above referenced book and get an education about the fact that the colonial states CREATED the federal government, not the other way around. The states DEMANDED sovereignty over their own affairs, or there never would have been a Union. The southern states would certainly NOT have joined the compact without assurances that the Union would respect their rights of self government. States rights was made crystal clear by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in their Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798-99. Within about 10 years, all the states were nullifying federal breaches of the Constitution. It is called "interposition", state authorities standing between the people and a tyrannical government.
Flag as Offensive
Earl29 Wrote: Jan 15, 2012 6:25 PM
Slavery was a horror and an abomination, but that is not the issue. You are right, John. Lincoln did not save the union, he destroyed it as a union of sovereign states. A state without the right to secede is a state with no real rights at all.
Flag as Offensive
Bill110 Wrote: Jan 15, 2012 6:51 PM
So your pointjQuery15205307872566815529_1326671288838??---Slavery should have continued???
Flag as Offensive
Earl29 Wrote: Jan 15, 2012 7:02 PM
No, I do not believe horrors and abominations should continue, Bill, which is why I oppose abortion. What I am saying is that the Civil War effectively ended states' right, which, since it ended slavery, was not altogether bad. Ironically, it eventually led to nationwide abortion, which is very bad indeed.
Flag as Offensive
John4602 Wrote: Jan 15, 2012 7:24 PM
Bill, you are missing the point. All nations have immorality. Most of the founders hated slavery, but had the wisdom to know that a strong central government is the nursery of tyranny, and the end of personal freedom. They were intimately familiar with the religious states of Europe and the resultant reigns of terror and oppression. No government should micro-manage our lives. Most tyrannical leaders start out as Utopians whose ideas always degenerate into the most inhumane systems imaginable. That’s why our founders put check and balances into the Constitution to PREVENT people like Lincoln from recruiting 75,000 volunteers to invade the South to enforce a federal edict over the southern states. A right thing done in a wrong way is WRONG.
Flag as Offensive
Mark in CA Wrote: Jan 15, 2012 7:42 PM
Pontificate all you like about nullification. The fact remains the fight over slavery was the main catalyst for the Civil War.
Flag as Offensive
Reed42 Wrote: Jan 15, 2012 8:54 PM
John,
The original constitution did not allow for slavery. The issue almost prevented our country from even forming at all. The great compromise on slavery allowed the country to form, but kicked the can down the road to be settled in blood in the Civil War. Yes there were many causes and slavery was not the kick off, but ending it was the only thing the North would rally around to continue the fight to its ultimate conclusion. Try looking at history for the big picture and the details to get a full understanding.
Flag as Offensive
John4602 Wrote: Jan 15, 2012 9:38 PM
If you repeat it enough, MSNBC might like an interview with you. They specialize in historical revisionism.
Flag as Offensive
Reed42 Wrote: Jan 15, 2012 9:54 PM
What part of this do you not understand? Most of what you say is correct, and the civil war was the start of way too much federal power, but the only way, let me repeat it for you, the only way to keep the volunteers from North in the fight was to make it a moral issue of eradicating the evil of slavery from the southern states. Without making slavery the central issue, the government would not have had nearly enough volunteers to wage any kind of war. This is historical fact, without the slightest bit of revision. I can recommend any number of good history texts for you, some dating back to almost the time of the war itself.
Flag as Offensive
John4602 Wrote: Jan 15, 2012 9:57 PM
Reed, the south produced 80% of the tax revenues, yet were being abused economically and politically by the Republican majority in the Congress, the judiciary and executive branch. The checks and balances had failed. The North "kicked the can down the road" until Lincoln and company concocted/fabricated the perception of a moral high ground that gave them the audacity to violate the hands-off agreement that states had with the federal government concerning state sovereignty, spelled out in the U.S. Constitution__ in plain english! Revisionists paint the "big picture" in terms that ignore the original intent of the founders. Lincoln created the problem of federal intervention that has all but destroyed this nation.
Flag as Offensive
Bill110 Wrote: Jan 15, 2012 10:12 PM
You say, "The southern states would certainly NOT have joined the compact without assurances that the Union would respect their rights of self government." And there right to keep slaves. Slaves were property.
Flag as Offensive
John4602 Wrote: Jan 15, 2012 10:39 PM
Bill, the colonial states had been self-governing for 180 years prior to joining the Union. They were VERY afraid that what they were creating might become a strong central government, so they created redundant constitutional limits, including checks and balances, plus the right to override all three branches if Fedzilla got too big for its britches and started to RULE instead of SERVE! They had seen the power lust of English rule, and knew the history of the tyrants of Europe. So, YES the slave-states enterred the Union, WARTS and ALL...just like all the others, but on the condition that the feds remember their place at the table. The feds were to be the SERVANT!
Flag as Offensive
Bill110 Wrote: Jan 16, 2012 6:54 AM
That is a quantum leap in logic to conclude that the Civil War ended slavery, and ending slavery led to nationwide abortion.
Flag as Offensive
Bill110 Wrote: Jan 16, 2012 6:58 AM
I don't buy into your revisionist history. If the Civil War had not occurred, we would be a divided nation with slavery in the Confederate States.
Flag as Offensive
John4602 Wrote: Jan 16, 2012 10:27 AM
Bill, the Civil War began the era of government oppression and segregation. In the 1850's the Blacks had formed the Republican Party and were on the rise politically and socially. After Lincoln's assassination, the embittered southern AND northern Democrats joined the KKK and took over the Democrat Party. They controlled U.S. political life until there were enough Republicans in Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights law during Lyndon Johnson's Democrat administration. Political slavery to our tyrannical federal government after the war has been far worse than the treatment blacks received prior to the War. Most slave owners treated their slaves very kindly, and slavery would eventually have been phased out on its own.
Flag as Offensive
Blair31 Wrote: Jan 16, 2012 11:47 AM
Earl, that was the decision handed down in Virginia v. United States, 1870. Here's the backstory. In 1870, Virginia sued the United States to get West Virginia, (which illegally
seceded from Virginia in 1863), back. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court.
Basically, the Supreme Court said that states don't have the right to secede, case closed.
Flag as Offensive
horatio6 Wrote: Jan 15, 2012 3:16 PM
"The Supreme Court does not endow us with our rights. They merely secure the rights already endowed to us by our Creator."

I'm rather curious about this.

Slaves clearly did not always have 'inalienable rights', nor did women, and currently gays. If it weren't for government interaction, rich white men would be the only enfranchised.

Stop being intellectually dishonest/dumb, Mark.
Flag as Offensive
Bill110 Wrote: Jan 15, 2012 3:43 PM
It is NOT the Supreme Court that secures our rights. If they do, then why was the Civil War fought. Our inalienable rights can only be secured, with God's help, by we the people. "Government interaction" has disenfranchised the "rich white male". Socialism, redistribution of wealth, affirmative action.
Flag as Offensive
Mark415 Wrote: Jan 15, 2012 4:59 PM
Your understanding is exactly the opposite of what is factual, horatio6.

When the U.S. Government determined in 1787 that blacks were not fully persons, it was legal to enslave them. When the government determined that women were not fully equal with men, they were not allowed to vote or hold property. When the government of Germany defined Jews as being less than humans, it was acceptable to slaughter them.

The Creator endowed His creation with their rights - inalienable. When people use government to endow citizens with their rights, we get the worst mix of church and state.
Flag as Offensive
Earl29 Wrote: Jan 15, 2012 6:32 PM
People who were enslaved had inalienable rights. Those rights were simply violated by the governments under which they lived. That, in general, is the nature of government, horatio.
Flag as Offensive
wbliss Wrote: Jan 16, 2012 3:17 PM
Gays have all the same rights as everyone else at present. The problem is they want special rights. Also they demand more than just tolerance while at the same time they are some of the most intolerant people on planet earth.
Flag as Offensive
t252 Wrote: Jan 16, 2012 7:23 PM
horatio,
stop with the "gays have no rights" nonsense. they have all the same rights everyone else has. what the "gays" want are MORE rights than everyone else. "special" rights.
Flag as Offensive
dahni Wrote: Jan 15, 2012 2:51 PM
Am I totally alone in thinking that at some point we are incapable of putting into written law the requirements for the behavior of every individual on earth? At some point the majority just have to say 'common sense rules here'. Maybe the letters CSR should be applied openly to the majority of cases finding their way to the courts to provide jobs for lawyers and points of argument for fanatics (that to me is any one or group who first believes and then acts only on those beliefs).

Someone brilliant said something like "We become what we pretend to be; so we need to be careful when we are pretending".
Flag as Offensive
greenkansas2 Wrote: Jan 15, 2012 2:42 PM
Also, to note on what Mark wrote: "So, when does life begin? Interesting conversation for a good date, but not the business of government employees; even those employed as Supreme Court Justices."

If it is indeed not the business of government to determine this, then there can be no legal standing in which to deny a woman of this medical proceedure.

In order to gain a legal basis to do you, you would first need government employees to make that distinction legal.

Flag as Offensive
greenkansas2 Wrote: Jan 15, 2012 2:45 PM
Woops, lots of typos. I meant to say “legal basis to do so” and I misspelled procedure… sorry.
Flag as Offensive
Mark415 Wrote: Jan 15, 2012 4:52 PM
When the U.S. Government determined in 1787 that blacks were not fully persons, it was legal to enslave them. When the government determined that women were not fully equal with men, they were not allowed to vote or hold property. When the government of Germany defined Jews as being less than humans, it was acceptable to slaughter them.

Please re-read my quote from the Declaration in the article. Looking to government to endow citizens with their rights is the worst mixing of church and state.

Thank you for asking, Greenkansas2.

-Mark
Flag as Offensive
greenkansas2 Wrote: Jan 15, 2012 2:24 PM
You missed it, Mark.

LIBERTY: 1.The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life.

The Feds, or local governments telling someone they can not have a medical proceedure is an oppressive restriction.

The way it reads is totally consistent with Roe v Wade.
Flag as Offensive
Ron-CA Wrote: Jan 15, 2012 2:50 PM
GreenKansas2,

You missed it....
Murder is against the law, even if it is a fetus (as recognized in a number of states). A medical procedure which results in the murder of a fetus therefore seems like a reasonable restriction does it not?
Flag as Offensive
Earl29 Wrote: Jan 15, 2012 6:43 PM
So, if my way of life is killing people, the government should just butt out, green.
Flag as Offensive
John4602 Wrote: Jan 15, 2012 1:47 PM
LIFE BEGINS AT THE POINT THAT GOD SAYS IT BEGINS !!!
Neither the pro-life crowd nor the Supreme Court knows when life begins because both groups are INCOMPETENT in exegesis of Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The pro-life crowd is emotionally driven and the Supreme Court is politically driven. Both are ignorant and have stirred the pot of alienation and confusion among a population that is already destroying itself by its ignorance of Biblical concepts that can only be discovered by a serious study of the Word of God. So today we have TWIST & SHOUTchurches presided over by feel-good, light & bright incompetent/ignoramus pastors who have failed to do their job, which is to be prepared academically BEFORE trying to teach the Word of God.
Flag as Offensive
Earl29 Wrote: Jan 15, 2012 6:53 PM
Well, John, since God has not seen fit to inform me when that is. I am forced to rely on science. When an egg from a woman is fertilized by a sperm cell from a man, a genetically complete, living member of the human species comes into existence. Down through the ages, that reality has been denied. If you were of the wrong tribe, the wrong color, or, latest, had not emerged into the atmosphere, you did not qualify, but I see no reason for that to continue, do you?
Flag as Offensive
John4602 Wrote: Jan 15, 2012 10:22 PM
Earl, secular humanism uses rationalism and/or the empirical approach to understand life's mysteries, one of which is to figure out at what point life begins. Why would you rely on science, since all science is theoretical, and has no non-dogmatic absolutes to answer questions like "why man," why sin," and "why suffering"? Every human being that reaches the point of God-consciousness must make a decision to either pursue the knowledge of God by faith using Scripture as his guide, or to wing it by using human viewpoint with its endless, hopeless pursuit of answers that only God can provide.
Flag as Offensive
Charles SWVA Wrote: Jan 15, 2012 12:58 PM
Mark in CA and Mother of Four: Does embryology address whether the soul enters at the zygote moment or the phenotype moment (or are they the same moment), some other fetal development moment, or maybe not at all (resulting in still birth).

This is a huge question to me, when does the soul enter?

Flag as Offensive
Mark in CA Wrote: Jan 15, 2012 1:12 PM
Interesting question, Charles. I believe that since life begins at conception the human soul is present at that moment as well.

Exodus 21:22-23 from the NIV states: "If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life,"

This indicates that a person in the womb is fully human.
Flag as Offensive
greenkansas2 Wrote: Jan 15, 2012 2:26 PM
What it indicates is that at the time of birth it is determined if there was injury.
Flag as Offensive
Bill110 Wrote: Jan 15, 2012 1:36 PM
The answer to your question is found in Genesis 2:7. When God created man, he breathed life into him, and he (man) became a living soul. Human life and the human soul are inseparable, even after life on earth there is a "connection" to certain elements of the former living body, i.e. the mind, memory, spirit. Just as human life is "in the seed", so is the embodiment of the soul. "Procreation" is the term used to describe this phenomenon of conception, life and soul. No one can fully understand the development of the soul. That's why you and I are NOT God, or gods.
Flag as Offensive
Mother of 4 -- the original Wrote: Jan 15, 2012 5:30 PM
Ensoulment is a theological question, not a legal question.

A human being is a human being. Period.
Flag as Offensive
Earl29 Wrote: Jan 15, 2012 6:41 PM
Charles, since when is it the business of government to determine whether or not there is such a thing as a soul?
Flag as Offensive
Earl29 Wrote: Jan 15, 2012 7:17 PM
Government has no business in religious questions. However, if a soul is an inherent part of you as an individual, it might reasonably be supposed the soul is present when you become an individual member of the human species, Charles. That is at conception.
Flag as Offensive
Blair31 Wrote: Jan 15, 2012 11:10 AM
Mug him and turn him into a conservative. :)
Flag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »
New comments on this article - click to refresh