|
|
Post by deadon on Oct 18, 2010 19:55:06 GMT -5
The husbands were silent but the wives had plenty to say. I ask." Do you think abortion would be legal if Women had never been allowed to vote? What about it? What do you think? Rusty
|
|
|
|
Post by cfvickers on Oct 18, 2010 20:07:38 GMT -5
My answer, I doubt it. Not that I have ANY problem with women voting, just don't think it would be legal. You are a brave man asking that question in church among women. I bet you got an ear full even if it wasn't directed completely at you.
|
|
|
|
Post by tdillinger on Oct 18, 2010 20:11:10 GMT -5
seperation of church and state. enough said  |
|
|
|
Post by ozark on Oct 19, 2010 6:43:35 GMT -5
Duplexing church and state creates a load that sours quickly.
|
|
|
|
Post by dougedwards on Oct 19, 2010 16:21:50 GMT -5
The phrase "separation of church and state" never appears in the US Constitution but does appear in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to Danbury, Connecticut Baptists in 1802. The purpose of this letter was to assure the Baptist that the state would NOT interfere or attempt to control the church's business or affairs. The obvious intention of this Founding Father who actually was instrumental in constructed the wording for the US Constitution was NOT to keep the affairs of the church out of government but to keep the government out the affairs of the church.
The actual document reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That's it!! But as we have witnessed reading how the US Constitution actually reads does not prevent those from slanting their interpretations to fall in line with their particular beliefs.
There is no mention in the Declaration of Independence or anywhere in the US Constitution that a woman has the right to terminate the life that resides within her. Murder has always been against the law......unless you twist the interpretation of the law to fit a particular need. What could that need be? It is obvious that the force behind this Supreme Court decision to allow a woman to elect to terminate her pregnancy is the inequity between the sexes. When a man and a woman agree to have sex it isn't the man who is risking pregnancy and that is not fair!!! Therefore to even things up the woman must be able to make a decision to discard this potential burden that lives within.......or not.
Women, in general, tend to like it when things are evened up because women have been a source of bias and discrimination for centuries. So here you have it. Fairness to those who can now vote! It's about time right? But.......but what about the child? Is it only that the unborn child is not able to vote that we give it no consideration at all? Doesn't seem quite fair does it? It doesn't matter what is fair really. All that matters is POWER! 40 million unborn fetuses that were once moving in the womb and sucking their thumbs just don't have the power and they are gone forever. If this were happening to the Native Americans or the Jews we would be crying foul but as it stands it is sufficient to say that those people of faith should keep their noses and opinions out of government.
Even a cave man could understand, right??
Doug
|
|
|
|
Post by ozark on Oct 19, 2010 17:05:37 GMT -5
It isn't how WE interpreate the constitution, bill of rights or declaration of independence...It is how the appointed Judges wants it. Even hillbillies like myself understands that. In our country at least, unwanted pregnancies or to have a child is a choice. On the other side of the coin is the more babies the more welfare money. I am not anti church but I am against churches investing in property and becoming wealthy due to the fact that they are not taxed on their property. I have some difficulty with one way sepration. But I also have difficulty with breathing and chances are good that my blood doesn't have the correct amount of oxygen.
|
|
|
|
Post by dougedwards on Oct 19, 2010 18:37:23 GMT -5
Appointed judges are influenced by academia and by the prevailing wind of power. Hillary Clinton, Pelosi, Obama, Reed and a host of others have chosen to interpret our Constitution in a way that suits their power structure.
I would gladly trade having churches to be taxed in lieu of saving the lives of millions of innocent babies.
Doug
|
|
|
|
Post by deadon on Oct 19, 2010 19:13:02 GMT -5
The phrase " separation of church and state" never appears in the US Constitution but does appear in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to Danbury, Connecticut Baptists in 1802. The purpose of this letter was to assure the Baptist that the state would NOT interfere or attempt to control the church's business or affairs. The obvious intention of this Founding Father who actually was instrumental in constructed the wording for the US Constitution was NOT to keep the affairs of the church out of government but to keep the government out the affairs of the church. The actual document reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That's it!! But as we have witnessed reading how the US Constitution actually reads does not prevent those from slanting their interpretations to fall in line with their particular beliefs. There is no mention in the Declaration of Independence or anywhere in the US Constitution that a woman has the right to terminate the life that resides within her. Murder has always been against the law......unless you twist the interpretation of the law to fit a particular need. What could that need be? It is obvious that the force behind this Supreme Court decision to allow a woman to elect to terminate her pregnancy is the inequity between the sexes. When a man and a woman agree to have sex it isn't the man who is risking pregnancy and that is not fair!!! Therefore to even things up the woman must be able to make a decision to discard this potential burden that lives within.......or not. Women, in general, tend to like it when things are evened up because women have been a source of bias and discrimination for centuries. So here you have it. Fairness to those who can now vote! It's about time right? But.......but what about the child? Is it only that the unborn child is not able to vote that we give it no consideration at all? Doesn't seem quite fair does it? It doesn't matter what is fair really. All that matters is POWER! 40 million unborn fetuses that were once moving in the womb and sucking their thumbs just don't have the power and they are gone forever. If this were happening to the Native Americans or the Jews we would be crying foul but as it stands it is sufficient to say that those people of faith should keep their noses and opinions out of government. Even a cave man could understand, right?? Doug Whooooowe what a post, wish I woudda said that!!!!!!! Rusty |
|
|
|
Post by deadon on Oct 19, 2010 19:13:51 GMT -5
Appointed judges are influenced by academia and by the prevailing wind of power. Hillary Clinton, Pelosi, Obama, Reed and a host of others have chosen to interpret our Constitution in a way that suits their power structure. I would gladly trade having churches to be taxed in lieu of saving the lives of millions of innocent babies. Doug +1 to that ;D |
|
|
|
Post by deadon on Oct 19, 2010 19:36:57 GMT -5
My answer, I doubt it. Not that I have ANY problem with women voting, just don't think it would be legal. You are a brave man asking that question in church among women. I bet you got an ear full even if it wasn't directed completely at you. Oh but it was directed at me and my wife did not speak to me for days. If ya want some piece and quiet at home something like I ask will get it for you.  Rusty |
|
|
|
Post by ozark on Oct 19, 2010 19:53:30 GMT -5
We have the privledge of discussing it but no authority to change it. We get to vote, to gripe and to voice our opinions. This they give us for the privledge of running things the way they want to. It starts with two or more canidates criticizing eachoth for being the lowest of low down useless citizens. Someone comes out on top and that is the end of you say in the whole affair. I don't think women or men should be allowed to vote except when they are able to write in the canidates of their choice and position for which they are running. Running is a great term. That is what they would be doing if the people knew the truth about them. May the least crooked in the barrel of snakes win.
|
|
|
|
Post by deadon on Oct 19, 2010 20:37:04 GMT -5
We have the privledge of discussing it but no authority to change it. We get to vote, to gripe and to voice our opinions. This they give us for the privledge of running things the way they want to. It starts with two or more canidates criticizing eachoth for being the lowest of low down useless citizens. Someone comes out on top and that is the end of you say in the whole affair. I don't think women or men should be allowed to vote except when they are able to write in the canidates of their choice and position for which they are running. Running is a great term. That is what they would be doing if the people knew the truth about them. May the least crooked in the barrel of snakes win. +1 Ozark If i could change the Constitution or amend it as I see fit, the first thing I would do is make it unconstitutional for lawyers to be elected. If they were ,Them and all who voted for them would go to jail  well maybe not jail but be outlawed to vote for ten years.. The second amendment would be every who votes would have to take, an awareness test.., Rusty |
|
|
|
Post by smokepole50 on Oct 20, 2010 18:14:24 GMT -5
INHO I think you should be 25 years old, a natural born US citizen and have a job to be allowed to vote. A lot of the problems we have in this country have been caused by uneducated people voting idiots into office that promised them the moon to get their vote.
As far as the original question goes, if it was offered up today and men were the only ones that could vote I believe it would still end up the same way. Our country has been going down the wide path for a long time and I believe there are many men out there today that could care less about abortion and consider it a blessing when their girl friend decides to have one. Add in the pressure of their girl friends and I think most single men would say yes to a abortion vote. Who was it that said....."If Mama is not happy, no ones happy"........ they were right.
Smokepole
|
|
Rusty
well maybe not jail but be outlawed to vote for ten years.. The second amendment would be every who votes would have to take, an awareness test.., Rusty