Abortion has to end now, pro life and right to life groups are for slow incrementalism.
The goal is to slowly change the laws state by state all the while change the hearts and minds of humans that abortion is wrong.
I completely understand this but logically this form of action makes no sense.
For one point of logic the right to kill an unborn child with the idea that the baby is not a real human these days is antiquated and out dated at best.
In an age of 3D sonograms and medical sonograms that show at 5 weeks (one month) this is a baby and we are still saying “yes you can kill that child”.
Interesting note do a web search on sonograms and just about every medical site uses the term baby not globs of cells.
It took one day in 1973 for unelected judges to legalize killing our offspring yet we are expected to be patient and allow smart guys using the political process to slowly change the law through court cases one at a time. In the meantime millions of babies are being killed each year, in this country alone over a billion world wide since 1973.
The logical option is to end abortion now, every state needs to end abortion now today not tomorrow.
So what if the federal government says its legal, each state can still end abortion now.
Plenty of states have laws that are contrary to federal law yet they choose not to follow or the Feds choose not to prosecute so the precedent has been set many years ago, we don’t need judges to tell our states what kind of killing is right and wrong we need to end abortion now.
The logic is today all states make abortion illegal and criminal.
Now that it is illegal then pro life, right to life and all the good men and women everywhere can start explaining why killing your child is wrong. Why life is important, we educate people we educate our children why life is better alive than dead.
It is easier to explain to somebody why somethings is wrong to do when it’s wrong to do it.
When something is against the law you have a precedence on your side, you have the the legal right to explain why it’s wrong, the morality of the issue makes more sense because the law states this is wrong.
The ethics and philosophy of the law makes more sense and scientifically it confirms that yes there is a baby in that belly yes there is life living here.
Pro life and pro choice cannot be a preference, it cannot be an opinion abortion has to end now we owe this to our children and to the human race.
Logic demands we end abortion now
The problem is not that we do not have good laws on liberty much less religious laws of liberty. The problem is we don’t enforce laws of liberty in favor of political correctness.
The problem is we allow bad statesmen to create or reinterpret laws to favor political correctness in the name of tolerance and equality all the while not tolerating the original law, the how and why those laws were written.
The problem can be solved by society electing good statesmen that design good laws and appoint good moral and just judges.
The blame lays with us the society that refuses to take a risk in favor of their pocket books or any other material idem that we accumulate.
The blame lies in our insatiable appetite for material things over righteous and just things.
The blame lies on us when the statesmen we elect and who they appoint turn on us so they can keep themselves in power because of their increased appétite for power and material things over righteous and just things.
We are to blame, we picked out the rope, found the tree and had the statesmen put the noose over our necks and they grabbed our material chair out from under us.
Matthew 6:19-21 Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust[e] destroy and where thieves break in and steal, 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
Time to go to war with Islam or with those evil sects that Islam breads”, this is the easy way for people, heads of states and leaders of countries to say yet most never attempt.
It’s a complete symptom of when people and countries that deny God in order to maintain that it is fair and just for everyone all the while allowing sects of religions and beliefs that has no real regard to humanity just its own to grow and live unassimilated and in contempt of lives and countries that all the while have taken them in, fed them and protected them.
The easy way out is “let’s go to war” but how many times has mankind done this. How may people have shed blood over and over to beat back evil but never confront and deal with evil.
Because if they confront one form of evil they will have to eventually confront another from, a form that is much closer to home. A form of evil they themselves have taken in, fed and protected all the while that evil has had no regard for them and their families and is in contempt of their lives, their states and their countries
The hard way that few, if any want to try will requires people to admit secularism, humanism and naturalism and all the idols of their personal lives have failed. The hard way is for people to say “it’s time we repent” and start converting them to follow Jesus.
It’s interesting to me how now doctrines and theology constantly debate on how bad or not so bad hell will be.
We have doctrine that uses a annihilation that those going to hell will just stop being, Satan will bear the sins and those who do believe in Christ; where that is scripture I have no clue.
I get it Hell is scary, I saw a blog from a fellow Christian blogger that wanted Christians to stop scaring the hell out of people, is that opposite of let us put hell in people nicely?
The meme that goes if you need the threat of eternal torture to be a good person you are not a good person has validity to it and I would agree humans are not good, it takes God to be good.
Realistically when was the last time you heard your pastor preach on hell, when was the last time you heard a megachurch pastor preach on hell. When was the last time you attended a Biblestudy that studied hell. I have rarely heard any pastor or church leader spend much time on the subject of hell but every liberal Christian seems to think it happens way too much and is afraid it will scare the unbeliever away.
Openbible.info counts about 100 references on hell in the ESV translation of the Holy Bible. So hell is in the scriptures it does exsist and it is a part of our lives whether we want it or not.
In Matthew Jesus talks or uses hell 17 times, and describes it 8 times as being a furnace of fire and weeping and gnashing of teeth, eternal torture.
So why are some churches and Christians afraid to talk about hell maybe the same reason they want people to stop judging and have some tolerance for sin.
Not sure about you but you but hell scares me strait, yes I sin daily but daily I repent. 1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
Now I’m not saying that the message of hell should be the focal point of the Gospel. Salvation and Gods free gift of grace that he gives us is always the front and center subject to new believers but we ought not to leave hell out of the full message.
Understanding why God created hell and why he sent his son Jesus is important to know and understand. As a believer hell never inters my mind, getting closer to Jesus and trying to share that faith with others is always my intentions.
The unbeliever on the other hand knows there is a God, they might try and convince themselves there is no God but it is written on their hearts there is a God but even with that the heart can deny the mind. One wonders why Jesus talked about hell if it was not an important part of knowing God personally.
We can only conjecture why God created a hell but scriptures states it is real, Jesus talks about the realness of hell and the Holy Spirit continues to talk about it in the New Testament. Hell is real and I believe we are doing a disservice to our fellow man by just pushing it under the carpet like it was a bad dream.
If we accept the notion that America should not be or is not a Christian national we fail to see the consequences that could have been and will be.
The founding framers attempted to design the constitution with the adaptation of natural law. They were of course a few ticks off but still maintained the importance of the need of The God of the Bible essence to be an integral part of the framework.
A strong percentage of our framers belonged to one church denomination or another, whether they were truly saved is not ours to judge but we have to know this affiliation to a Judeo-Christian church had to influence their judgment when creating a country such as America.
If we take Christianity away then we need only to take away some of our founding fathers like George Washington wondering would we have won the revolution without him and his Christian influence. Would a country full of atheist, Islamism, Buddhist and Hindus could have challenged the crown.
Would we still have a two party political system with the democrats and the Wigs parties? One could argue there would be no need for a man like Abraham Lincoln and how long would America continue slavery without the objection of the Christians.
In 1821 Benjamin Lunday, a Quaker from Ohio, started an anti-slavery newspaper “The Genius of Universal Emancipation.” 1830: The Plantation Mission Movement began. Methodist chapels were constructed on many plantations. 1959 John Brown raid on Haper’s ferry are just a few of the many Christian movements that combated slavery in America.
Christian missionaries moved in to helping the Native Americans, Christianizing many tribes over the years one notable being the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.
As America became more prosperous missionary work flourished, one can easily criticize America’s greed but one cannot take away from prosperous people that gave and continue to give for and to missionaries to help the poor and disadvantaged in this country and abroad with privet contributions.
Much of our colleges we have today started out as Christian based education, Harvard, Yale, Princeton to name a few.
Civil rights movement of the 1960’s was heavily Christian with Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King and seminary students like John Lewis
We can argue and debate on this issue but it’s fairly easy to see the Christian influences in this country are huge. Can we say we are not a Christian nation well I guess one can make the case but we have to say we are a nation of Christian’s and a nation that has been impacted by Christianity. Can you make a case that our government should be secular, yes you can but we must then demand or statesmen and women to be Godly?
Our government functionality should be unbiased to everyone but the people that fill those positions in government should be Godly good statesmen.
If we have bad statesmen then we have bad government, ungodly statesmen ungodly government. In past it was important that anyone serving the public have some ties to a Judeo-Christian believing church of some kind. You can argue this is not fair for a county that embraces all religions all faiths but I’m not sure your argument would be valid.
Go back to the founding framers and their original intentions of natural law, this requires a statesman to know and understand moral law to govern. Can men and women of other faith know and understand good and bad and how morality plays out in a society; to an extent they can but they will fail to grasp why and who set these laws in motion thus the slow migration from a good and moral set of rules to a mixture of moral relativism.
I suspect the last few sentences will enrage some people, we can say America was not intended to be a Christian only nation but we have to admit it is a nation of Christians that have impacted society and helped design country based on a rule and law held on a notion of a creator and one God. A country based on a God with a moral law to protect and govern all that live in this great nation.