How can you be Christian and be Pro Choice?

Still it is an important document and one that lends insight into the intentions of the constitution. Certainly the framers never intended for anyone to be deprived of life without good cause.

 

cool. so there's a constitutional right to "be happy". does that include gay folk?

 

It's a pharisee spirit to judge.. you can only love in Christ.

 

The government is not to interfere in the pursuit of happiness so that applies to gays as well. The government should not tell them they can not be gay.

 

.

 

.

 

so its impossible that two of the single celled organisms merged back then?? Or there was a catalyst that caused them to?? Not saying they did or didn't but realistically the two arguments are on par.

 

actually, you suggest that a "right to life" implies not that the government can't "tell somebody" they must die, rather, that the gov't will actively protect that right and prevent people from infinging upon it.

so a "right to happiness" would also mean that the government not only will not make people unhappy, but also actively protect their right to be happy and prevent people from infringing upon it as well -- or punish those who do.

hmm... dunno how they'd do that. any thoughts?

 

It is not the "right to happiness" it is the right to "pursue happiness". I think that the government should protect that right. Like all rights the enforcement of it should be reasonable and limited in certain areas when it affects the rights of others but it is a valid function of government. I think this language goes back to the old europe days when people were cast into a certain role in life and could not break free. If you were born to a blacksmith then you became a blacksmith. In this country you are free to do what you want for a living and live where you want in the country. You are only limited by your own ability to support yourself.

 

From my co-worker

I read the 1st page of the trail with a little interest and found that the common thread was “I feel” or “I believe.” Very little thought has been given to what the Word of God says about this issue. I suspect that it is because there is a fundamental lack of knowledge of His Word and a purposeful desire to not know what His Word has to say on the issue specifically and our lives in general. Doing so would bring our life into focus and display the sharp contrast with what God demands and how we live our lives. With that said here are a couple of thoughts:

While many current translations do say “thou shalt not kill” Ex 20:13 (KJV) - the original Hebrew states that you shall not “murder.” For those who do not know Hebrew, this can be born out using observation, i.e. many instances in the Scriptures contain God’s command to “utterly destroy” a people, city, or nation (Num 21:2, Deut 7:2, Josh 11:20 et al.). Therefore, since God cannot violate His Word and remain God, He must mean, in Ex 20:13, murder and not kill. Murder is defined as killing an innocent person. This of course would exclude those intent upon violence toward you (self defense) and those convicted of crimes in which the government has determined that the proper punishment is death. Romans 13:4 is clear that the government is an establishment of God and states in part:”for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil” (NKJV).

Therefore, the debate revolves around innocent life. One cannot, nor should not, argue that an unborn child is guilty of any crime in which the punishment is death. Even the rape argument shifts the punishment from the criminal alone and makes culpable the unborn child along with the rapist. Is this the intent? The rape argument is a straw man anyway and is used by those in a weak position. Therefore the argument devolves to the question of life and more specifically, when does life begin. To say that the unborn child is not alive is to miss the point. That point being “time.” What separates the 8 year old boy from an 80 year old man… time? Time is the only thing that separates the embryo from the new born. The womb is a closed system, meaning that once established the embryo needs nothing but nourishment and time to develop into an 80 year old person.

Scientist now concede this point and try to shift the argument to one of the “quality” of life. This brings up several questions on who gets to decide the acceptable standard of the quality of life, you, me? Do we apply this standard to the already living, i.e. the poor, homeless, or the disabled, how about the unemployed? Is it acceptable to nuke a country because they do not meet this standard? Most often in any argument, when emotion steps in logic and reason depart. This, I am afraid, is the case with this argument and it will not be settled as long as our desire to live our lives as if there is no God causes us to live as if there is not.