PDA

View Full Version : Pro-Life flowers on the steps of the Supreme Court



chivalrous
Sep 12th 2008, 04:53 AM
If you are pro-life, you may wish to leave flowers on the steps of the Supreme Court. (or send flowers)

Roe v. Wade pushes frivolous and unneeded abortions on all 50 states.

The flowers on the steps would be like it's the grave site of the unborn.

Thank You for your time.

thestarofthesea
Sep 13th 2008, 04:52 AM
Is this an organized campaign going on, or just a suggestion?

Luke34
Sep 14th 2008, 03:53 AM
Didn't we just have a thread about this (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?t=126627)?

chivalrous
Sep 16th 2008, 11:20 AM
Is this an organized campaign going on, or just a suggestion?

It's all over the internet and a number of Senators know about it.

chivalrous
Sep 18th 2008, 11:23 AM
The Roe v. Wade decision incited intense public controversy over whether abortion is such a "fundamental right" that it overrides the right of a child to live, the right of a father to prevent the abortion of his child, and the right of states to legislate the issue in accord with the will of the people.

http://www.maps4.com/united_states_map.gif

DavidK
Sep 18th 2008, 02:06 PM
I think the ones who are for abortion should change their name from "pro choice" to "PRO DEATH" because if you are not for LIFE then you are for death.

thestarofthesea
Sep 18th 2008, 03:23 PM
I think the ones who are for abortion should change their name from "pro choice" to "PRO DEATH" because if you are not for LIFE then you are for death.

I think that is misunderstanding the issue. Nobody is "for" abortion; there are simply many people who believe that option should remain open and that it is for the individual herself to decide how to handle an unwanted pregnancy. Many people don't believe that life is formed at the moment of conception and that life is best understood as occurring when the embryo becomes a viable baby, not before. If you don't believe that a cluster of cells several weeks old is "life", then naturally you would not see abortion as "death" but as a simple medical procedure. Many people who are personally against abortion for themselves still support the woman's right to choose whether or not to give birth, but nobody is pro-death.

chivalrous
Sep 21st 2008, 12:42 AM
Open Question To All:

If Roe v. Wade was removed, do you think the people in your state would vote to make some unneeded abortions illegal?

IPet2_9
Sep 21st 2008, 03:20 AM
I think the ones who are for abortion should change their name from "pro choice" to "PRO DEATH" because if you are not for LIFE then you are for death.

Likewise. I think those who consider themselves "pro-life" should actually call themselves "anti-choice". Because that's exactly what you are advocating: no choice for parents over their own families. Admit it.

Big T
Sep 21st 2008, 07:50 PM
Likewise. I think those who consider themselves "pro-life" should actually call themselves "anti-choice". Because that's exactly what you are advocating: no choice for parents over their own families. Admit it.
Really? So you think that just because people are against aborton, they're against all choices? What a broad brush you paint with.

AngelAuthor
Sep 21st 2008, 08:43 PM
Likewise. I think those who consider themselves "pro-life" should actually call themselves "anti-choice".
PROUDLY!!

That's right! I'm AGAINST people having the CHOICE to MURDER.

You are too, actually. I don't recall seeing you at the last rally to overturn homicide laws.

Cloudwalker
Sep 21st 2008, 09:48 PM
Mod. hat on. Things are starting to get a little heated in here. We need to cool down.

Cloudwalker
Facilitator for Anything Goes

IPet2_9
Sep 23rd 2008, 04:10 PM
That's right! I'm against people having the choice to murder.

Angyl,

I appreciate your honesty.



You are too, actually. I don't recall seeing you at the last rally to overturn homicide laws.

The two are not analogous. However, I have never been to pro/anti-euthanasia rallies, either. And that's more analogous. I see lots of hand-waving saying euthanasia is murder, too--but really, the whole realm of living wills, when are they "dead", etc., is a gray area and a family matter. The *LAST* thing I want for a family during this extremely difficult time is a bunch of governmental regulations, and authorities in the hospital interviewing everybody, making the determination on the family's behalf when/when it's not murder. I have seen this before (in a child abuse case). In the end, all the bureaucratic red tape on a family matter stemming from these two controversies benefits nobody.

chivalrous
Sep 25th 2008, 11:25 PM
However, I have never been to pro/anti-euthanasia rallies, either. And that's more analogous. In the end, all the bureaucratic red tape on a family matter stemming from these two controversies benefits nobody.

Euthanasia is legal in 1 state. (Oregon)

"bureaucratic red tape"
That sounds like Roe v. Wade.

Did the people vote for Roe v. Wade?
No.

Did the people elect the justices ?
No.

Luke34
Sep 26th 2008, 02:51 AM
Did the people elect the justices ?
No. Part of the point of the judicial branch is that it is not directly elected, because the government needs a branch that does not have to worry about re-election every four years and thus does not have to slavishly follow the majority opinion all the time.

chivalrous
Sep 26th 2008, 03:52 AM
Part of the point of the judicial branch is that it is not directly elected, because the government needs a branch that does not have to worry about re-election every four years and thus does not have to slavishly follow the majority opinion all the time.

Supreme Court justices have the power to remove laws in all 50 states, they should be elected by the people.

State Supreme Court justices are elected by the people.
Judges are also elected by the people.

Luke34
Sep 26th 2008, 04:07 AM
Supreme Court justices have the power to remove laws in all 50 states, they should be elected by the people. Then they'd be no different from Congress. The U.S. system is set up so that the laws will be created by an elected body, Congress (and approved by another, the executive), and will then be reviewed and subjected to Constitutional scrutiny by another organization which is less subject to political whims. This makes sense, if you think about it: The people decide which laws to make, but also giving them the power to decide which are constitutional or un- would run into "tyranny of the majority" territory. The Supreme Court acts as a check on public opinion--you know, as in "and balances."

thepenitent
Sep 26th 2008, 06:14 PM
But unfortunately there are absolutely no "checks" on the unelected SC Justices. Since there is nothing in the Constitution which would prohibit elections for the retention of said Justices I would prefer to see them face the ballot box to keep their jobs. Better they are motivated by the voting public than their own transitory fancies.

Luke34
Oct 2nd 2008, 05:29 PM
But unfortunately there are absolutely no "checks" on the unelected SC Justices. Since there is nothing in the Constitution which would prohibit elections for the retention of said Justices I would prefer to see them face the ballot box to keep their jobs. Better they are motivated by the voting public than their own transitory fancies. What makes you think that the "voting public" is automatically more correct on legal matters than are nine legal scholars? Just because something is the "will of the people" doesn't mean it's Constitutional, or not a mere whim, or even best for the country. And the Constitution (Article III) states that judges shall retain their offices during "good behavior," which cannot be construed to mean "whenever 51% of the country wants a new judge." Allowing justices to be elected would make them just another tool of whatever ideology happens to be supported by more than half the people of the country, and not a relatively impartial* third party. There would be basically no point in having them, since they'd just support whatever the majority-elected Congress put through.


*I am certainly aware that S.C. Justices are not entirely impartial, but they are certainly more so than are members of Congress.

chivalrous
Oct 5th 2008, 10:57 PM
Part of the point of the judicial branch is that it is not directly elected, because the government needs a branch that does not have to worry about re-election every four years and thus does not have to slavishly follow the majority opinion all the time.

So, you would support them if they made the opposite law ?

Elective abortions illegal in all 50 states.

Luke34
Oct 6th 2008, 11:32 PM
So, you would support them if they made the opposite law ? As a matter of fact, I don't agree with the Roe v. Wade decision, and would be happy if it were reversed. But although I obviously don't always agree with the Court, I recognize that it's a vital part of the U.S. system of government and cannot be abolished without resulting in a wildly unchecked Congress and president. Not agreeing with one decision is no reason to wreck a system that's more or less worked for 250+ years.

chivalrous
Oct 10th 2008, 02:12 AM
Not agreeing with one decision is no reason to wreck a system that's more or less worked for 250+ years.

The justices are imagining extra rights in the constitution,
that just aren't there.


The right to an abortion for any reason ?

Not in the constitution.

apothanein kerdos
Oct 10th 2008, 02:21 AM
The only thing worse than the way the current court is set up is if they were elected to those positions.

chivalrous
Oct 14th 2008, 06:23 AM
States could succeed, and then they would no longer be under
Roe v. Wade.
It is an extreme solution, but it would get the job done.

chivalrous
Oct 17th 2008, 03:15 PM
The Roe v. Wade decision incited intense public controversy over whether abortion is such a "fundamental right" that it overrides the right of a child to live, the right of a father to prevent the abortion of his child, and the right of states to legislate the issue in accord with the will of the people.

larry2
Oct 17th 2008, 04:59 PM
Hopefully this response does not set me up as being against anything any want to do as regarding serving the Lord according to His word and their conscience, but I have never received what I consider an answer in scripture to these questions.

We are told in Hebrews 4:16. "Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." If we're told this, why is sending flowers going to be a better method of doing the will of God, or is it to satisfy man's way of doing things? I have seen some stand in front of abortion clinics and harass others; is that the way to stop sin? Don't you believe that when God has had enough of it He can and will do what is needed? Why don't we just pray that all sin be judged as it was in Sodom?

thanks

chivalrous
Oct 18th 2008, 12:32 AM
Hopefully this response does not set me up as being against anything any want to do as regarding serving the Lord according to His word and their conscience, but I have never received what I consider an answer in scripture to these questions.

We are told in Hebrews 4:16. "Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." If we're told this, why is sending flowers going to be a better method of doing the will of God, or is it to satisfy man's way of doing things? I have seen some stand in front of abortion clinics and harass others; is that the way to stop sin? Don't you believe that when God has had enough of it He can and will do what is needed? Why don't we just pray that all sin be judged as it was in Sodom?

thanks

Why send flowers ?
Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.(Matthew 5:4)

Why don't we just pray that all sin be judged as it was in Sodom?
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.(Matthew 5:7)

But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, (Luke 6:27)

But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;(Matthew 5:44)

winwun
Oct 18th 2008, 10:59 PM
To me, the question of abortion goes far deeper than the comission of the act.

I cannot imagine a woman having to make a more traumatic decision than that of terminating a pregnancy.

A woman's whole life, her being, her reason for existence, is to bring forth life, and when she finds her part in this great act at odds with the dictates of society and its self-imposed strictures, and she feels that the only option left to her is to terminate the life of her child, I don't believe there could be any worse suffering than for her to decide to abort her child.

People talk of abortion as if the woman is treating it with the same aplomb and lack of care as if she were tossing out a three-day-old casserole.

Can all of you not see that it is more, FAR more than that ?

Rather than castigate her at this traumatic moment, I would think it far better for us to fall to our knees and tearfully beg God to ease the burden in the young girl's heart.

Another thing that bothers me is that the "anti" forces are predominantly men, who haven't the faintest concept of what the poor woman is going through, and in their smugness take the moral high ground to condemm her.

This doesn't represent a hundredth of the anomaly of this conundrum, but visualize the hue and cry that would emanate from men if a group of women tried to tell them what to do with their prostate gland.

A little compassion here, guys, would not be out of order.

Oh, FWIW, I condemm the PBA, which is nothing short of murder, and both the doctor who perpetrates it and the person who seeks it are, IMO, equally guilty.

The courts have long recognized and affirmed that an attack on a pregnant woman carries the double charge of being against the fetus also, so one would think that since the fetus enjoys legal protection in certain instances, that it could be extended to other areas.

I am arguing both sides of the issue, I know, but the problem is NOT a simple one.

chivalrous
Oct 18th 2008, 11:33 PM
Another thing that bothers me is that the "anti" forces are predominantly men, who haven't the faintest concept of what the poor woman is going through, and in their smugness take the moral high ground to condemm her.

Now that you bring it up, the father has no right to save his child from abortion.

The father is not even given any notification.
So, that he might talk the mother out of it.