When America started, the founders believed that the Creator conferred human rights. They weren't granted by the government or the individual. It was much higher than that. After the Civil War, the nation approved the position that all persons had equal protection under the law, regardless of sex or race. Why? Because rights are conferred by the Creator, not by government or the individual.
In 1973 the courts ruled otherwise. The 14th Amendment insured that all persons had equal protection of the law, but the courts decided that there was another category of humans -- the non-person human. That person, the courts said, had no intrinsic rights. And the government had become the dispenser of human rights. "If we grant it to you, it's yours. If we do not, it's not."
We are now at a new place. In this battle against the unborn as humans with God-given human rights, it is no longer the Creator nor the government that grants rights. It is the mother. She alone decides if this particular baby has any rights at all. If the mother chooses to disregard the safety of her baby and drinks and smokes, it's no one's business. The mother decides the rights for that child. If she decides to end the child's life, it's no one's business. She decides what rights that baby gets. And if she decides that baby has all the rights of other humans, then you'd better watch out because now killing that child is murder.
On what basis have we decided that mothers now have the role of God in dispensing human rights?
11 comments:
Dan Trabue curses those who would "tear a baby from its mother's breast" down on the US/Mexico border. So we can only imagine how incensed he gets over abortion being legal.
It’s ok for a mother to separate her children from their family permanently...
A most significant point in this day of "ripping children from their mother's breasts". It's apparently OK if the mother decides to do that. She is the supreme judge over the lives and existence of her children. It's good to be Queen.
I guarantee Dan T is completely for abortion. He's so far left on the scale of "Christian" he's off the chart. Society wants it, so it must be good and the Bible was wrong all along.
Dans religion is the Democrat Party, no matter what religious sign he hangs on his door. You can tell what he’s gonna be upset about by looking at what the DNC says to be upset about.
Just so you guys know it and repent, Dan is complaining that you guys aren't following the rules of Scripture (about gossip and slander) which, apparently are actual biblical rules in what he says is not a book of rules. He wants you to know that if you gossip and slander about him you are not part of the kingdom. Just be warned.
That's interesting. Dan's been slandering me...and the entire conservative population...quite a bit lately. Or is it libel? I think libel, since he's typing it out on a blog. Though, he's virtually saying it, isn't he, so...
Is it gossip when everyone knows the person is there? We're not saying anything behind his back. And is it really slander if it's true?
I was unaware that Dan had that kind of power. I was also unaware that Dan acknowledges the existence of any actual rules in the Bible. Given his level of vitriol, and hatred, expressed in his expletive laden comments, I find it the whole thing rather strange.
As usual, anytime he has issues with anything I have said he is more than welcome to copy paste my words and provide proof that I am wrong in what I have said. If he would do so I would actually welcome it.
Dan has been on a bit of a tear recently about human rights, I wonder where he thinks those rights come from.
I couldn't guess at his answer.
Post a Comment