TheologyOnline, religion, politics, forum
Go Back   Theology Online | Christian Forums & More > Politics, Religion, And The Rest > Politics
Reload this Page if this nation had listened to Jefferson... No Roe v Wade??
Politics Current Events, Abortion, homosexuality, gun control, public schools, welfare, taxes, government etc.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  (#1) Old
TruthSetsFree TruthSetsFree is offline
TOL Subscriber
 TruthSetsFree's Avatar

 


Reputation:
TruthSetsFree will become famous soon enoughTruthSetsFree will become famous soon enoughTruthSetsFree will become famous soon enoughTruthSetsFree will become famous soon enough
if this nation had listened to Jefferson... No Roe v Wade?? - May 5th, 2012, 01:47 PM

I think this is rather interesting:

a few yrs ago, i began to wonder why the Supreme Court has so much power... so much that 7 MEN (!) could decide that the state of Texas (or any other) had no right to outlaw abortion... uh... i mean KEEP it outlawed. Up to '73, as we all know there was no legalized abortion (a right to it)

The founders of this country, Jefferson in particular, wanted as little gov as possible... and they put it into the Constit. that whatever powers were not explicitly the US gov's province, belonged to the states...

So anyhow, i thought that the Supreme Ct having FINAL say in how something is judged (Constitutional or not) was weird and not very republican (small r)... meaning it was un-American. I thought that for things to be more American... more in line w/ what the founders taught (seemed to teach... since i had not, at that time, read that much about them) there should be some way of countering the Sup Ct's decisions... some way of overseeing them... or what have u. i thought about a change where it would take something 3/4 of the states to ratify the Sup Ct's decision b4 it was law... But since i wasn't thoroughly educated in politics and / or history, i figured... dont know enough to say...

But then I read something (recently) that said Thomas Jefferson said the same thing... (!) whoa... Blow me away... I'm not an idiot after all.. (Dont even go there, Tedium Hereticum... or HisS)

anyway... now i find out that some states are thinking of getting an Amendment going to correct this problem... Wow... totally cool... going to find out which states.

What Jefferson wrote on this subject is... beautiful to read...

i will find it and print it...



   
Reply With Quote
  (#2) Old
TruthSetsFree TruthSetsFree is offline
TOL Subscriber
 TruthSetsFree's Avatar

 


Reputation:
TruthSetsFree will become famous soon enoughTruthSetsFree will become famous soon enoughTruthSetsFree will become famous soon enoughTruthSetsFree will become famous soon enough
May 5th, 2012, 01:52 PM

Wow... What a disappointment!!!

found this at the cite mentioned below:


Jefferson's mistake was ignoring the Court and brushing off Marbury's case as too unimportant to bother with. In fact, he never sent an attorney to represent the government's interests before the Court. This error in judgment made Jefferson appear to agree with Marshall that the purpose of the Judicial branch (more specifically the Supreme Court) was to interpret the Constitution and ensure laws adhered to its principles. Jefferson became an accomplice in strengthening the power of the Judicial branch, a role he would never have accepted willingly.




http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_T...._Madison_case



   
Reply With Quote
  (#3) Old
TruthSetsFree TruthSetsFree is offline
TOL Subscriber
 TruthSetsFree's Avatar

 


Reputation:
TruthSetsFree will become famous soon enoughTruthSetsFree will become famous soon enoughTruthSetsFree will become famous soon enoughTruthSetsFree will become famous soon enough
May 5th, 2012, 01:53 PM

weird... the way the devil works...

but not all is lost if we can get an Amendment passed...

and it seems to me that if we did

we could get rid of R v Wade that way....



   
Reply With Quote
  (#4) Old
Letsargue Letsargue is offline
TOL Subscriber
 Letsargue's Avatar

 


Reputation:
Letsargue is well respected by his peersLetsargue is well respected by his peersLetsargue is well respected by his peersLetsargue is well respected by his peersLetsargue is well respected by his peersLetsargue is well respected by his peersLetsargue is well respected by his peersLetsargue is well respected by his peersLetsargue is well respected by his peersLetsargue is well respected by his peersLetsargue is well respected by his peers
May 5th, 2012, 02:06 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthSetsFree View Post
I think this is rather interesting:

a few yrs ago, i began to wonder why the Supreme Court has so much power... so much that 7 MEN (!) could decide that the state of Texas (or any other) had no right to outlaw abortion... uh... i mean KEEP it outlawed. Up to '73, as we all know there was no legalized abortion (a right to it)

The founders of this country, Jefferson in particular, wanted as little gov as possible... and they put it into the Constit. that whatever powers were not explicitly the US gov's province, belonged to the states...

So anyhow, i thought that the Supreme Ct having FINAL say in how something is judged (Constitutional or not) was weird and not very republican (small r)... meaning it was un-American. I thought that for things to be more American... more in line w/ what the founders taught (seemed to teach... since i had not, at that time, read that much about them) there should be some way of countering the Sup Ct's decisions... some way of overseeing them... or what have u. i thought about a change where it would take something 3/4 of the states to ratify the Sup Ct's decision b4 it was law... But since i wasn't thoroughly educated in politics and / or history, i figured... dont know enough to say...

But then I read something (recently) that said Thomas Jefferson said the same thing... (!) whoa... Blow me away... I'm not an idiot after all.. (Dont even go there, Tedium Hereticum... or HisS)

anyway... now i find out that some states are thinking of getting an Amendment going to correct this problem... Wow... totally cool... going to find out which states.

What Jefferson wrote on this subject is... beautiful to read...

i will find it and print it...


If your nation had listened to God, there would be no Illegal Alien, without a birth certificate even elected as dog catcher in your country.

Come to think of it, I'll bet that there's not one anywhere.

Paul -- 050512





---Gal. 4:16.
---"Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth"???
   
Reply With Quote
  (#5) Old
The Horn The Horn is offline
Over 750 post club
 The Horn's Avatar

 


Reputation:
The Horn is an unknown quantity at this point
May 5th, 2012, 03:25 PM

It's not "limited" government when it declares that all women who are pregnant must give birth or else. This is the ultimate violation of human rights.
Conservatives who are so opposed to "statism" don't realize that
lack of reproductive freedom is the ultimate form of statism.
Some "limited " government. When the government has the power to pry into women's reproductive organs, there is no freedom .



   
Reply With Quote
  (#6) Old
Eeset Eeset is online now
.
 Eeset's Avatar

 



Reputation:
Eeset is well respected by his peersEeset is well respected by his peersEeset is well respected by his peersEeset is well respected by his peersEeset is well respected by his peersEeset is well respected by his peersEeset is well respected by his peersEeset is well respected by his peersEeset is well respected by his peersEeset is well respected by his peersEeset is well respected by his peersEeset is well respected by his peersEeset is well respected by his peers
May 5th, 2012, 05:48 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Horn View Post
It's not "limited" government when it declares that all women who are pregnant must give birth or else. This is the ultimate violation of human rights.
This.



   
Reply With Quote
  (#7) Old
quip quip is offline
Over 3000 post club
 quip's Avatar

 


Reputation:
quip is well respected by his peersquip is well respected by his peersquip is well respected by his peersquip is well respected by his peersquip is well respected by his peersquip is well respected by his peersquip is well respected by his peersquip is well respected by his peersquip is well respected by his peersquip is well respected by his peersquip is well respected by his peers
May 5th, 2012, 09:15 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthSetsFree View Post
weird... the way the devil works...

but not all is lost if we can get an Amendment passed...

and it seems to me that if we did

we could get rid of R v Wade that way....
Don't hold your breath. Any state amendment must pass scrutiny of the 14th et al. None of them have thus far.



   
Reply With Quote
  (#8) Old
aCultureWarrior aCultureWarrior is offline
LIFETIME MEMBER
 aCultureWarrior's Avatar

 


Reputation:
aCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peersaCultureWarrior is well respected by his peers
May 6th, 2012, 07:28 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthSetsFree View Post
Wow... What a disappointment!!!

found this at the cite mentioned below:


Jefferson's mistake was ignoring the Court and brushing off Marbury's case as too unimportant to bother with. In fact, he never sent an attorney to represent the government's interests before the Court. This error in judgment made Jefferson appear to agree with Marshall that the purpose of the Judicial branch (more specifically the Supreme Court) was to interpret the Constitution and ensure laws adhered to its principles. Jefferson became an accomplice in strengthening the power of the Judicial branch, a role he would never have accepted willingly.




http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_T...._Madison_case
Just so that you don't look too foolish when you run up against a God-hating ACLU'er that tries to point out that all of the Founding Fathers were either deists or atheists, instead of using wiki as your source of information, try using Wallbuilders.

http://wallbuilders.com/





Satan's biggest lie is trying to convince the world he doesn't exist. The Homosexual Movement's biggest lies are that they're not a threat to freedom of speech and religion, and that they're not after our children.
   
Reply With Quote
  (#9) Old
The Horn The Horn is offline
Over 750 post club
 The Horn's Avatar

 


Reputation:
The Horn is an unknown quantity at this point
May 6th, 2012, 08:03 AM

Any one who believes anything on the wallbuilders site is pathetically naive and ignorant. Wallbuilders wants to TEAR DOWN the separation of church and state and turn America into an evangelical Christian theocracy which would be little better than the Islamic theocracies of the middle east.
It's founder, the odious and moronic pseudo historian David Barton,
does nothing but spread all manner of lies and distortions about the constitution and the founding fathers, making them out to be
the same kind of fanatical evangelical Christian theocrat he is.



   
Reply With Quote
  (#10) Old
Nick M Nick M is offline
Carpet Bagger
 Nick M's Avatar

 



Reputation:
Nick M is well respected by his peersNick M is well respected by his peersNick M is well respected by his peers
Nick M is well respected by his peersNick M is well respected by his peersNick M is well respected by his peersNick M is well respected by his peersNick M is well respected by his peersNick M is well respected by his peersNick M is well respected by his peersNick M is well respected by his peersNick M is well respected by his peersNick M is well respected by his peersNick M is well respected by his peersNick M is well respected by his peersNick M is well respected by his peersNick M is well respected by his peers
May 6th, 2012, 08:17 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by TruthSetsFree View Post
The founders of this country, Jefferson in particular, wanted as little gov as possible... and they put it into the Constit. that whatever powers were not explicitly the US gov's province, belonged to the states...
I guess you missed the 14th amendment and the civil war. And I partially fixed your misrepresentation of history.





Jesus saves completely.

Titus 1:10-11

For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

http://www.climatedepot.com/
   
Reply With Quote
  (#11) Old
jgarden jgarden is offline
Over 500 post club
 jgarden's Avatar

 


Reputation:
jgarden is making a name for themselvesjgarden is making a name for themselvesjgarden is making a name for themselvesjgarden is making a name for themselvesjgarden is making a name for themselvesjgarden is making a name for themselvesjgarden is making a name for themselvesjgarden is making a name for themselves
May 6th, 2012, 08:22 AM

What "TruthSetsFree" conveniently forgets to mention is that the only way to enforce any anti-abortion law is through "government intervention," whether it be federal or state.

The attempt to appeal to Jefferson's "as little gov as possible" is entirely misleading, true "as little gov as possible" would ultimately leave the decision as whether to abort /or not to abort up to the individual citizen.

Roe v Wade gurantees the individual the right to make that decision without government intervention - but "TruthSetsFree" wants the state government to make it for them!



   
Reply With Quote
  (#12) Old
WizardofOz WizardofOz is offline
TOL Legend
 WizardofOz's Avatar

 


Reputation:
WizardofOz is well respected by his peersWizardofOz is well respected by his peers
WizardofOz is well respected by his peersWizardofOz is well respected by his peersWizardofOz is well respected by his peersWizardofOz is well respected by his peersWizardofOz is well respected by his peersWizardofOz is well respected by his peersWizardofOz is well respected by his peersWizardofOz is well respected by his peersWizardofOz is well respected by his peersWizardofOz is well respected by his peersWizardofOz is well respected by his peers
May 6th, 2012, 10:12 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Horn View Post
It's not "limited" government when it declares that all women who are pregnant must give birth or else. This is the ultimate violation of human rights.
If a woman is 8 months pregnant should she be legally able to obtain an abortion? Is it the "ultimate violation of human rights" to force her to give birth?

Even you don't believe what you're peddling.





Remember, you cannot be both young and wise. Young people who pretend to be wise to the ways of the world are mostly just cynics. Cynicism masquerades as wisdom, but it is the farthest thing from it. Because cynics don't learn anything. Because cynicism is a self-imposed blindness, a rejection of the world because we are afraid it will hurt us or disappoint us. Cynics always say no. But saying "yes" begins things. Saying "yes" is how things grow. Saying "yes" leads to knowledge. "Yes" is for young people. So for as long as you have the strength to, say "yes."
- Stephen Colbert

For anti-theists / militant atheists Warning: some profanity
   
Reply With Quote
  (#13) Old
The Horn The Horn is offline
Over 750 post club
 The Horn's Avatar

 


Reputation:
The Horn is an unknown quantity at this point
May 6th, 2012, 03:28 PM

If she is 8 months pregnant and it's a normal pregnancy, no.
But if her life and health are at stake, YES !!!!!!!
Situations like htis DO happen. Sometimes pregnancies go terribly wrong at a late stage, and if the doctor does not perfom an emergency abortion, neither the woman or the fetus will survive .
To deny women the right to abortions in emergency situations is absolutely barbaric. No woman should have to die because of a pregnancy.
Anti-choice women here, would YOU want to die if you were pregnant and a situation like this happened ?
And men- if YOUR wife were in an emergency situation like this, would you want her to die. And suppose you already had other children.
Would you want them to be left motherless ?
Furthermore, women in the 8th month of a pregnancy don't just arbitrarily and capriciously decide to have an abortion this late in the game. This just doesn't happen .



   
Reply With Quote
  (#14) Old
ebenz47037 ebenz47037 is offline
Proverbs 31:10
 ebenz47037's Avatar

 






Reputation:
ebenz47037 is well respected by his peers
ebenz47037 is well respected by his peersebenz47037 is well respected by his peersebenz47037 is well respected by his peersebenz47037 is well respected by his peersebenz47037 is well respected by his peersebenz47037 is well respected by his peersebenz47037 is well respected by his peersebenz47037 is well respected by his peersebenz47037 is well respected by his peersebenz47037 is well respected by his peersebenz47037 is well respected by his peersebenz47037 is well respected by his peersebenz47037 is well respected by his peersebenz47037 is well respected by his peersebenz47037 is well respected by his peers
May 6th, 2012, 09:23 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Horn View Post
Anti-choice women here, would YOU want to die if you were pregnant and a situation like this happened ?
If I was 8 months pregnant and a life-threatening situation occurred, I would demand that my doctor give me a C-section so that both I and my child had a chance at survival.





June is Gay Pride Month. Tolerance and diversity? More like tolerate perversity.

Vegetarian - Indian word for lousy hunter


   
Reply With Quote
  (#15) Old
Eeset Eeset is online now
.
 Eeset's Avatar

 



Reputation:
Eeset is well respected by his peersEeset is well respected by his peersEeset is well respected by his peersEeset is well respected by his peersEeset is well respected by his peersEeset is well respected by his peersEeset is well respected by his peersEeset is well respected by his peersEeset is well respected by his peersEeset is well respected by his peersEeset is well respected by his peersEeset is well respected by his peersEeset is well respected by his peers
May 6th, 2012, 09:51 PM

I trust God not the government.



   
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
Copyright ©1997-2014 TheologyOnLine



Logos Bible Study Software Up to 15% OFF FOR THEOLOGYONLINE MEMBERS! Study twice, post once.
Logos Bible Software —take your Bible study to the next level.