Would you support a Constitutional ammendment making abortion illegal?

Constitutional ammendment banning all abortions except when medically necessary to save the mother?

  • Yes

    Votes: 17 50.0%
  • No

    Votes: 17 50.0%

  • Total voters
    34

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,329
47
Florida
✟117,927.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
If you're read the actual decision, you'll realize that the constitutional right isn't for abortion. It against governments making laws imposing the majority's philosophical or religious beliefs on the minority.

In today's climate of social change, conservatives should not want this right to be weakened.

All of the websites I have looked at specifically state it was about a woman's right to have an abortion if a fetus is not "viable" outside her body. Where did you ge4t the relligious part from?
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,567
New Jersey
✟1,148,608.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
All of the websites I have looked at specifically state it was about a woman's right to have an abortion if a fetus is not "viable" outside her body. Where did you ge4t the relligious part from?
I’m looking at the justification.
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Because some people have this strange notion that there is a "Constitutional right" for abortion. It is ironic because no such right exists in the Constitution and it is the same people who don't even know what rights are actually included in the Constitution.

Hi NUF,

I'm not sure that the issue is as black and white as some people thinking that they have a constitutional right to abortions. I believe that the real argument made before the Supreme Court in the matter, and other lower courts, is that an individual should have the right to handle most all medical conditions as they see fit for themselves. If I don't want to have cancer treatment after my doctor has told me that I have evidence of cancer growth in my body, then I have the right to look my doctor in the eye and say, "Thanks for the information. How long do you think I have? I'll see you around." Similarly with a woman who has conceived a child within her body, some people hold that she does hold some personal and constitutionally guaranteed right to tell a doctor that she'd like the fetus removed. That it is not within the power and scope of any state or national government to tell us how we have to handle such matters. Especially when it's a matter of such magnitude.

Having a baby is not something to be taken lightly for a young person who is single. It's a biiiiiiig financial and career drain for most. Yes, they absolutely shouldn't have gotten themselves into the situation to start with, but now there is this reality and it must be dealt with. We can certainly outlaw abortions, but history has proven that such an act doesn't actually get rid of abortions, it just forces them under ground to less safe environments where more lives are put at stake. It means that a doctor who once got $500 for an abortion, can now charge $5,000 for an abortion. People will pay that because even $5,000 is less than the cost of raising a child. Especially a child that no one wants and may not be cared for or about.

A woman who is married and having an affair and winds up pregnant will find a way, either from her own financial resources or to coerce such resources out of her partner of infidelity to pay for the procedure. So, you still have abortions. Now they are more dangerous and more expensive, but they aren't going to go away just because you've made them illegal any more than murder is going to stop because that's illegal.

Just as happened with the abolition of alcohol, it didn't go away. It just went under ground and made it more expensive and more dangerous. People would cook up batches of alcohol in their homes, much like we do meth today, and it could be deadly. There were quite a few cases of poisonings from bad alcohol during the years of prohibition. Abortion will be handled exactly the same way.

So, my personal encouragement is that we leave legalized abortion on the books and spend more time teaching others the gospel of salvation to build up the kingdom of God. The truth for all the law enforcing bible thumpers out there is that you could get rid of every abortion procedure in the world and you wouldn't add a single soul to the kingdom of God unless you convinced them of the truth of who Jesus is. If you convince them of the truth of who Jesus is, and then follow the rest of Jesus example to teach them all that he has taught us, then the abortion issue will go away pretty much on it's own. However, don't any of us be naive. We're not ever getting rid of abortions. We can holler and stomp about on the courthouse steps and march around with placards until the cows come home and we won't rid the country of abortions.

God bless,
In Christ, ted
 
Upvote 0

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 14, 2015
6,132
3,089
✟405,713.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
No, that is not the basis for how I value human life. I just think if one of two people must die the lesser of two evils (who dies) would be the fetus because its life has not begun yet.
Again, if you had read the OP you would have seen that an exception was made in the extremely rare case that the life of the mother was at risk. So I really don't understand why it would matter what is "the lesser of the two evils" if one has to die.

Is it un-Christian to believe if a baby is still in the mother's body, even though it is alive, it has not starting living? I mean you do not say your life began 9 months before your birthdate.
Yes, that is a very "un-Christian" point of view to have because it disregards scripture that demonstrates that the life in the womb is as precious as any other human life. Furthermore, with that moral standard for abortion, you would then have to support late term abortions. Meaning, as long as the fetus did not actually have a chance to "live," its okay to kill it even if it is fully developed and "viable."

The problem with a Constitutional amendment was explained in my first reply. It would prevent doctors in America from researching biotechnology to move up the point of "viability" during pregnancy. There can't be a consensus among obstetricians and medical researchers on the definition of viability and that will not be the same forever.
So now you are using "biotechnology research" as your justification for supporting the very thing you called "not moral" and "not approved by the Lord"? Why on earth would abortions on demand be required for "researching biotechnology"? It seems as though that morality and the Lord's "approval" are not things that you really are concerned about if you are willing to toss them aside for the sake of research. It really blows my mind how much you are trying to justify abortion with so many excuses. Again, I will ask you a very basic question, at what point would you actually support the life in the womb? Is there anything that will change your mind?
 
Upvote 0

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,329
47
Florida
✟117,927.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
So now you are using "biotechnology research" as your justification for supporting the very thing you called "not moral" and "not approved by the Lord"? Why on earth would abortions on demand be required for "researching biotechnology"? It seems as though that morality and the Lord's "approval" are not things that you really are concerned about if you are willing to toss them aside for the sake of research. It really blows my mind how much you are trying to justify abortion with so many excuses. Again, I will ask you a very basic question, at what point would you actually support the life in the womb? Is there anything that will change your mind?

It is not my personal opinion that technology should determines when a fetus is vuabke. God decides that for each baby. The problem is the inbility of scientists and doctors to agree on when a fetus is viable. The world loves technology, so the world will use it, and this complicates matters for deciding when babies do not need to live inside their mothers anymore. In a nutshell, if you ask 10 people when a fetus is viable, I bet you would get 10 different answers. The Constitution needs to be objective, not subjective.
 
Upvote 0

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 14, 2015
6,132
3,089
✟405,713.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Hi NUF,

I'm not sure that the issue is as black and white as some people thinking that they have a constitutional right to abortions. I believe that the real argument made before the Supreme Court in the matter, and other lower courts, is that an individual should have the right to handle most all medical conditions as they see fit for themselves. If I don't want to have cancer treatment after my doctor has told me that I have evidence of cancer growth in my body, then I have the right to look my doctor in the eye and say, "Thanks for the information. How long do you think I have? I'll see you around." Similarly with a woman who has conceived a child within her body, some people hold that she does hold some personal and constitutionally guaranteed right to tell a doctor that she'd like the fetus removed. That it is not within the power and scope of any state or national government to tell us how we have to handle such matters. Especially when it's a matter of such magnitude.

Having a baby is not something to be taken lightly for a young person who is single. It's a biiiiiiig financial and career drain for most. Yes, they absolutely shouldn't have gotten themselves into the situation to start with, but now there is this reality and it must be dealt with. We can certainly outlaw abortions, but history has proven that such an act doesn't actually get rid of abortions, it just forces them under ground to less safe environments where more lives are put at stake. It means that a doctor who once got $500 for an abortion, can now charge $5,000 for an abortion. People will pay that because even $5,000 is less than the cost of raising a child. Especially a child that no one wants and may not be cared for or about.

A woman who is married and having an affair and winds up pregnant will find a way, either from her own financial resources or to coerce such resources out of her partner of infidelity to pay for the procedure. So, you still have abortions. Now they are more dangerous and more expensive, but they aren't going to go away just because you've made them illegal any more than murder is going to stop because that's illegal.

Just as happened with the abolition of alcohol, it didn't go away. It just went under ground and made it more expensive and more dangerous. People would cook up batches of alcohol in their homes, much like we do meth today, and it could be deadly. There were quite a few cases of poisonings from bad alcohol during the years of prohibition. Abortion will be handled exactly the same way.

So, my personal encouragement is that we leave legalized abortion on the books and spend more time teaching others the gospel of salvation to build up the kingdom of God. The truth for all the law enforcing bible thumpers out there is that you could get rid of every abortion procedure in the world and you wouldn't add a single soul to the kingdom of God unless you convinced them of the truth of who Jesus is. If you convince them of the truth of who Jesus is, and then follow the rest of Jesus example to teach them all that he has taught us, then the abortion issue will go away pretty much on it's own. However, don't any of us be naive. We're not ever getting rid of abortions. We can holler and stomp about on the courthouse steps and march around with placards until the cows come home and we won't rid the country of abortions.

God bless,
In Christ, ted
I think that the intent of the OP needs to be clarified. Perhaps I will edit it so that it is more clear. The intent of the OP is not about actually creating a Constitutional amendment to legalize abortion bans. Rather, because their is no biblical justification for abortion, the common response that many Christians have in supporting abortion is on secular law and constitutionality. They say, "Yes, I believe abortion is immoral and sinful and that the life in the womb is precious. But even though I do not support abortion, I support the right of others to make that decision." So I would expect that if given the opportunity to support what they claimed to be both "biblically moral" and legally grounded, I would expect such an individual to support such legislation. However, surprisingly that isn't the case. Instead, I find some people making more excuses to justify their support for something they confess to be "immoral" and "unbiblical". This of course leads me to conclude that constitutionality is not the real reason for supporting abortion but something else. It appears that some Christians acknowledge the immorality but willfully disregard it. They support abortions because they want it in spite of God's word.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: StillGods
Upvote 0

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 14, 2015
6,132
3,089
✟405,713.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It is not my personal opinion that technology should determines when a fetus is vuabke. God decides that for each baby. The problem is the inbility of scientists and doctors to agree on when a fetus is viable. The world loves technology, so the world will use it, and this complicates matters for deciding when babies do not need to live inside their mothers anymore. In a nutshell, if you ask 10 people when a fetus is viable, I bet you would get 10 different answers. The Constitution needs to be objective, not subjective.
First, you said that human life begins at fertilization, but as long as the life is terminated before it has a chance to "live" it wouldn't be murder. Then you say that viability is what determines when a the unborn is terminated, but only God makes that decision. If God decides that the unborn is "viable" at fertilization, how would you or scientists know? Furthermore, what does abortion have to do with scientists determining when a baby is viable? Last year there were between 40-50 million babies killed by abortion. How closer are we today to discovering true "viability" as a result of the almost 50 million deaths? How many more millions of babies need to die before scientists discover that "live begins at conception"? If scientists determine that "viability" begins at conception, would that be enough to change your position of abortion?
 
Upvote 0

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,329
47
Florida
✟117,927.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
I don't try to make excuses for women who just want to end their pregnancies because they did not want kids. If a woman says she wants an abortion because otherwise the baby would be given up for adoption, I despise that. I just happen to have a longer list of reasons abortion should be allowed for more than six weeks under the word MEDICAL than what state governments want to include and also believe forcing an unmarried incest or rape victim to carry her baby to term is immoral.
 
Upvote 0

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,329
47
Florida
✟117,927.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
First, you said that human life begins at fertilization, but as long as the life is terminated before it has a chance to "live" it wouldn't be murder. Then you say that viability is what determines when a the unborn is terminated, but only God makes that decision. If God decides that the unborn is "viable" at fertilization, how would you or scientists know? Furthermore, what does abortion have to do with scientists determining when a baby is viable? Last year there were between 40-50 million babies killed by abortion. How closer are we today to discovering true "viability" as a result of the almost 50 million deaths? How many more millions of babies need to die before scientists discover that "live begins at conception"? If scientists determine that "viability" begins at conception, would that be enough to change your position of abortion?

By God making the decision I was referring to labor. Who else could decide when the contractions start or the mother's water breaks? Only God can. Scientists and doctors can figure out what viable means but no one determines this baby will be born that day if nature runs its course.

Where did you get 40-50 million abortions from?
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think that the intent of the OP needs to be clarified. Perhaps I will edit it so that it is more clear. The intent of the OP is not about actually creating a Constitutional amendment to legalize abortion bans. Rather, because their is no biblical justification for abortion, the common response that many Christians have in supporting abortion is on secular law and constitutionality. They say, "Yes, I believe abortion is immoral and sinful and that the life in the womb is precious. But even though I do not support abortion, I support the right of others to make that decision." So I would expect that if given the opportunity to support what they claimed to be both "biblically moral" and legally grounded, I would expect such an individual to support such legislation. However, surprisingly that isn't the case. Instead, I find some people making more excuses to justify their support for something they confess to be "immoral" and "unbiblical". This of course leads me to conclude that constitutionality is not the real reason for supporting abortion but something else. It appears that some Christians acknowledge the immorality but willfully disregard it. They support abortions because they want it in spite of God's word.

Hi NUF,

Look that same argument holds for murder and stealing and lying. They are all immoral and unbiblical. However, we don't have constitutional amendments to address those issues. Perhaps you should change the title and your opening post on the thread. After all, the title says, "Would you support a constitutional amendment making abortion illegal?" Then you say that the 'intent of the OP is not about actually creating a Constitutional amendment to legalize abortion bans." Huh? My answer to both the title question, and what I understood of your opening post, is no. I think that I have given fairly concise reasons as to why I wouldn't support such a ban. So, if you really want to ask a different question and posit a different approach on how our nation handles the abortion issue, then feel free to make whatever changes you feel are necessary. After all, it's your thread.

God bless,
In Christ, ted
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FEZZILLA

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2003
1,031
131
53
Wisconsin
✟16,495.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I couldn't take the poll because I believe the baby's life is just as important as the mother's life. Most women would rather die than not see the baby born. Rebekah in the Bible died in child birth and she was the wife of Isaac.

I believe only exception that should be made is in rape cases. The women who is the rape victim has a right to choose.

Overall I will go along with whatever Trump decides on the matter.
 
Upvote 0

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,329
47
Florida
✟117,927.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Look that same argument holds for murder and stealing and lying. They are all immoral and unbiblical. However, we don't have constitutional amendments to address those issues.

In fact we even have a constitutional protection for lying (unless those lies (except for false witnessing, of course). If you lie on CF, that is your legal right, even though it is a sin, What we must do is learn how to separate God's law and man's law.
 
Upvote 0

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,329
47
Florida
✟117,927.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
I couldn't take the poll because I believe the baby's life is just as important as the mother's life. Most women would rather die than not see the baby born. Rebekah in the Bible died in child birth and she was the wife of Isaac.

I believe only exception that should be made is in rape cases. The women who is the rape victim has a right to choose.

Overall I will go along with whatever Trump decides on the matter.

Trump will not make the decision. It falls on the two justices he appointed for the Supreme Court. Trump himself hates the Alabama law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FEZZILLA
Upvote 0

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 14, 2015
6,132
3,089
✟405,713.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
By God making the decision I was referring to labor. Who else could decide when the contractions start or the mother's water breaks? Only God can. Scientists and doctors can figure out what viable means but no one determines this baby will be born that day if nature runs its course.

Where did you get 40-50 million abortions from?
So you are then in favor of all abortions as long as they are aborted before the water breaks naturally?
Abortion Statistics - Worldometers
 
Upvote 0

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 14, 2015
6,132
3,089
✟405,713.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I couldn't take the poll because I believe the baby's life is just as important as the mother's life. Most women would rather die than not see the baby born. Rebekah in the Bible died in child birth and she was the wife of Isaac.

I believe only exception that should be made is in rape cases. The women who is the rape victim has a right to choose.

Overall I will go along with whatever Trump decides on the matter.
I personally believe that rape is not a justifiable reason for an abortion. There is no reason why an innocent baby should die because of the sins of the father. The mother can choose to give the baby up for adoption.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FEZZILLA

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2003
1,031
131
53
Wisconsin
✟16,495.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Trump will not make the decision. It falls on the two justices he appointed for the Supreme Court. Trump himself hates the Alabama law.
I support Trump's view because he's a man chosen of God to make common sense decisions in a place where common sense is dead.
 
Upvote 0

FEZZILLA

Well-Known Member
Jun 24, 2003
1,031
131
53
Wisconsin
✟16,495.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I personally believe that rape is not a justifiable reason for an abortion. There is no reason why an innocent baby should die because of the sins of the father. The mother can choose to give the baby up for adoption.
Good luck with that one. It will never win. Forcing a rape victim to have the baby is the same thing as raping her twice.
 
Upvote 0

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 14, 2015
6,132
3,089
✟405,713.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Hi NUF,

Look that same argument holds for murder and stealing and lying. They are all immoral and unbiblical. However, we don't have constitutional amendments to address those issues. Perhaps you should change the title and your opening post on the thread. After all, the title says, "Would you support a constitutional amendment making abortion illegal?" Then you say that the 'intent of the OP is not about actually creating a Constitutional amendment to legalize abortion bans." Huh? My answer to both the title question, and what I understood of your opening post, is no. I think that I have given fairly concise reasons as to why I wouldn't support such a ban. So, if you really want to ask a different question and posit a different approach on how our nation handles the abortion issue, then feel free to make whatever changes you feel are necessary. After all, it's your thread.

God bless,
In Christ, ted
The difference is that Christians are not murdering and stealing in the name of constitutionality (of course with the exception of murdering the life in the womb). Nobody is claiming that their is a constitutional right to murder (except the unborn) and stealing.
 
Upvote 0

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,329
47
Florida
✟117,927.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
So you are then in favor of all abortions as long as they are aborted before the water breaks naturally?
Abortion Statistics - Worldometers

No and I have said it before. If the mother has a chronic medical condition and either it or a drug to treat it harms the baby, who has no body autonomy before birth, that women needs the right to privacy as she makes her decision and only decide what to do based on personal information, not legal information.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 14, 2015
6,132
3,089
✟405,713.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
In fact we even have a constitutional protection for lying (unless those lies (except for false witnessing, of course). If you lie on CF, that is your legal right, even though it is a sin, What we must do is learn how to separate God's law and man's law.
Cite where the constitution provides protection for lying. If that were true, lying under oath would be a constitutional right and prosecuting someone for perjury would be in violation of the constitution. What constitution are you reading?
 
Upvote 0