In response to Caroline Arnold's Jan. 12 column: Jesus' purpose was to bring "Peace on Earth" between humankind and God spiritually. Sin made humans enemies of God so Jesus lived a righteous life and voluntarily paid the sacrifice of physical death and separation from God to satisfy God's wrath and bring reconciliation and peace between humankind and God. However, this does not apply to all humankind but only those who through faith and repentance accept the payment of Jesus on their behalf and live eternally.
Ms. Arnold stated, "Human societies can't offer all the privileges of society tounborn humans." Human societies must, though, offer the right of life to unborn humans. She wrote, "No society can thrive that does not take care of its young, elderly and sick."
I would say that no society can thrive that fails to protect the life of unborn humans. It is their right, not their privilege, to live. Is it good to stop the natural progression of an unborn human towards taking a breath? Should a thriving society only be concerned with those who have life and not with those who have the possibility of life? Would the conclusion then be to determine which seriously infirm individuals would be deemed beyond the possibility for life and left for dead?
Yes, I am willing to impose my view on the mother to remain pregnant for 10 months, a short time compared to the potential years of life of the child, in order to protect the life of the innocent unborn human.
Ms. Arnold is likewise willing to impose her view on the innocent unborn human because he or she lacks a voice. Let us be their voice.
Mike Martin, Mantua
How else might you justify law?
"Are the values we hold dear and guide our lives by mere social conventions akin to driving on the left versus right side of the road or mere expressions of personal preference akin to having a taste for certain foods or not? Or are they valid independently of our apprehension of them, and if so, what is their foundation? Moreover, if morality is just a human convention, then why should we act morally, especially when it conflicts with self-interest? Or are we in some way held accountable for our moral decisions and actions?"
Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/can-we-be-good-without-god#ixzz2qWzMDrZh
Please understand I am concerned for the life and health of the mom as well as her child. I am so thankful for organizations such as http://www.pregnancychoice.net here in Ohio and others like it not to mention the many churches that help mothers in need. I cannot begin to imagine the emotions and thoughts that consume a mom who discovers she is pregnant and is truly terrified. It is with this concern in mind that I maintain my belief that the rights of the mother must be subordinate to the rights of the child. Will this inevitably lead to heartache and pain for some mothers? That is very likely, either by choices they make or just by the circumstances themselves, which may be very tragic. The decision boils down to whether or not one believes the unborn human deserves inalienable rights or not. If not than the mother’s rights and choices are more important. People will refer to the mother’s reproductive rights or the health or body of the mother. If the child does have rights than it is the child’s reproductive rights, health and body that must be protected.
In most circumstances today, if a person breaks a law and suffers life-threatening injuries while doing so, they will be treated. I do not know of any special funds set aside for these situations. Would that type of fund encourage the individual to break the law knowing that somebody else will pay if anything goes wrong? Is that something you support?
"However, this does not apply to all humankind "
Precisely why "God ~ Jesus Arguments" should always fail when trying to justify Law.
If abortions are banned, will there be a fund set up to care for the women who are maimed and bloodied by some backroom abortion doctor? Illegal abortions will continue, who will clean up when things go bad? Maybe they will show up at the emergency room and strain our health care system even more.
woops...forgot to add three zeros...$1650 per abortion.
Hummm...planned parenthood's founding objective to eliminate the black race and other undesirables only costs taxpayers $1.65 per aborton.
~~CNSNews.com) – "Planned Parenthood’s net revenue increased 5% to total of $1.21 billion in its organizational fiscal year ending on June 30, 2013, according to its new Annual Report 2012-2013, and about 45% of that revenue--$540.6 million--was provided by taxpayer-funded government health services grants. In the same report, Planned Parenthood said that in the year that ended on Sept. 30, 2012 it did 327,166 abortions. - "
The Supreme Court has chosen not to hear the state of Arizona’s appeal that their state law banning abortion after 20-weeks is constitutional. The liberal lower courts have consistently attacked the will of the people and states’ rights by overturning lawfully passed bans and even voter referendums on abortion. And the seemingly “balanced” Supreme Court has repeatedly refused to hear the cries of the people on the issue.
Arizona, Georgia and Idaho have all had similar bans struck down by the liberal lower courts in obvious indifference to the will of the people and the truth of the Constitution."
“The fact that taxpayers have spent more than a quarter of a billion dollars over the past decade on penis pumps via Medicare is obscene and insulting – even more so when you consider that this is an arena of Medicare expenditures rife with fraud and where the government doesn’t even bother to assess medical necessity,” said Ben Domenech, a senior fellow at the Heartland Institute.
apumps“This is a perfect example of what happens when government becomes the be all and end all of human existence – a system where everyone has a right to a taxpayer-funded penis pump.”"
Well put and stated. I also believe the unborn has rights too. Our courts and the Bible both acknowledge the recompensation of the loss of the unborn if they die at the hands of another before they are born. Man should never change God's laws to fit their own agenda; nothing good will come from it, though they may seem to have no ill effects in the beginning. Just because man says it is OK does not change God's opinion, His laws, or His judgement.
Excellent letter. I agree completely.