Some in the pro-life community (and some of Lindsey Graham’s colleagues) are upset that the South Carolina Senator has come up with new legislation to stop abortions at 15 weeks nationwide.
Hey team! When will Republicans prioritize rebuilding prisons by adding many more, making them more humane (one person per cell), while promoting elimination of bail, parole boards, and probation? Why are judges and parole officers immune from prosecution for mistakenly releasing repeat offenders?
On a strictly pragmatic level I agree with your synopsis and even your advice.
On a moral level, I agree that 15 weeks is better than full gestation or even after birth "make the blob comfortable while we decided whether to call it a child or a blob we decided to take life from"
But on a deeper moral ground, we need to ask and answer this question. Either ""We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" or Thomas Jefferson and the Founders got it wrong.
Either we have souls given to us by God (at conception is my belief) or we are biological accidents with no more worth or value than the squirrel that get's hit by the car, or the virus we fight thinking our lives have more value than the virus. We don't. of we are only a biological accident...a blob of organized atoms with no more intrinsic value than a scoop of mud or other perhaps less desirable material.
Somewhere, someone needs to alert or citizens that what they are debating is not "a woman's right" but whether or not any human being at any time has any value. Do not be deceived, if we can throw away the soul in the uteruses what makes anyone think that the determination will not be made that life past 75 years old has no meaningful value and should be ended. That certainly will take care of the social security problem.
The battle is not new. What is being debated is "The Soul Of Man". Either we have one, or we don't. Either God brings all life, human and other creatures into existence or He doesn't exist and reality is absurd.
So, I know we don't like to raise the spiritual dimension, but our struggle truly is with spiritual forces of wickedness, and you can hear that voice clearly shouting in our world “Indeed, has God said, " and also “You surely will not die! ".
We need to proclaim what is true. I would vote for the 15 week but not because it is right but because it is less wrong than saying "there is no value, ever."
May God Have Mercy On Us, As I Sure Do Not Want His Justice.
I wonder if giving the bill a clever moniker like, The "Kill Before It Hurts" Bill might humanize the procedure a bit more. Maybe can even get PETA on board - they don't want anything to get hurt, right? ;-)
Another thank you for offering some insight into why he did this and the timing of it. Still not sure I agree with his action but this at least gives me some perspective.
Graham's bill exposes all the things you say. But my voice joins those that say principles are principles and this should be left to the states to decide. Life is, indeed, sacred. But good systems are self-healing, self-improving, and move directionally over time to the optimal resolution. Our system of government is a sound one. Issues of a personal nature, self-affecting, should be left to the states to manage. Maybe changes do not come as fast as we want and things might seem to ebb and flow. In time, however, with education, moral clarity, developing self-reliance, increased economic opportunity, and better alternatives, we will see fewer and fewer abortions.
My only thought in opposition to his bill is why would it make sense to introduce it at a time when he knows it won't pass, and possibly ensuring that the republicans won't re-take the senate, thus ensuring it won't pass, probably ever. Why wouldn't it make more sense to do everything possible to get control of congress then try to get it done? I understand the bill, support it, and would love to see it. But someone is going to have to explain to me why introducing it when it can't pass makes any sense whatsoever.
It is a counterpoint to the Democrats bill enshrining abortion access in fdereal law. It creates an opposition argument and forces Democrats to both argue against it and defend their own bill.
It's 3D checkmate because Dems are left without a reasonable response. It shifts the advantage to Republicans by forcing Dems to vote on it before the election, making their vote and their talking points a matter of public record. As Erick points out, it will expose how unreasonable Dems are on the issue and how out of step they are with the rest of the country. It propels Republicans to a big win in November where they can then make this bill a reality.
Hey team! When will Republicans prioritize rebuilding prisons by adding many more, making them more humane (one person per cell), while promoting elimination of bail, parole boards, and probation? Why are judges and parole officers immune from prosecution for mistakenly releasing repeat offenders?
Eric,
On a strictly pragmatic level I agree with your synopsis and even your advice.
On a moral level, I agree that 15 weeks is better than full gestation or even after birth "make the blob comfortable while we decided whether to call it a child or a blob we decided to take life from"
But on a deeper moral ground, we need to ask and answer this question. Either ""We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" or Thomas Jefferson and the Founders got it wrong.
Either we have souls given to us by God (at conception is my belief) or we are biological accidents with no more worth or value than the squirrel that get's hit by the car, or the virus we fight thinking our lives have more value than the virus. We don't. of we are only a biological accident...a blob of organized atoms with no more intrinsic value than a scoop of mud or other perhaps less desirable material.
Somewhere, someone needs to alert or citizens that what they are debating is not "a woman's right" but whether or not any human being at any time has any value. Do not be deceived, if we can throw away the soul in the uteruses what makes anyone think that the determination will not be made that life past 75 years old has no meaningful value and should be ended. That certainly will take care of the social security problem.
The battle is not new. What is being debated is "The Soul Of Man". Either we have one, or we don't. Either God brings all life, human and other creatures into existence or He doesn't exist and reality is absurd.
So, I know we don't like to raise the spiritual dimension, but our struggle truly is with spiritual forces of wickedness, and you can hear that voice clearly shouting in our world “Indeed, has God said, " and also “You surely will not die! ".
We need to proclaim what is true. I would vote for the 15 week but not because it is right but because it is less wrong than saying "there is no value, ever."
May God Have Mercy On Us, As I Sure Do Not Want His Justice.
Charles
I wonder if giving the bill a clever moniker like, The "Kill Before It Hurts" Bill might humanize the procedure a bit more. Maybe can even get PETA on board - they don't want anything to get hurt, right? ;-)
Another thank you for offering some insight into why he did this and the timing of it. Still not sure I agree with his action but this at least gives me some perspective.
Graham's bill exposes all the things you say. But my voice joins those that say principles are principles and this should be left to the states to decide. Life is, indeed, sacred. But good systems are self-healing, self-improving, and move directionally over time to the optimal resolution. Our system of government is a sound one. Issues of a personal nature, self-affecting, should be left to the states to manage. Maybe changes do not come as fast as we want and things might seem to ebb and flow. In time, however, with education, moral clarity, developing self-reliance, increased economic opportunity, and better alternatives, we will see fewer and fewer abortions.
Thanks Erick for explaining that. I was wondering what he was doing.
My only thought in opposition to his bill is why would it make sense to introduce it at a time when he knows it won't pass, and possibly ensuring that the republicans won't re-take the senate, thus ensuring it won't pass, probably ever. Why wouldn't it make more sense to do everything possible to get control of congress then try to get it done? I understand the bill, support it, and would love to see it. But someone is going to have to explain to me why introducing it when it can't pass makes any sense whatsoever.
It is a counterpoint to the Democrats bill enshrining abortion access in fdereal law. It creates an opposition argument and forces Democrats to both argue against it and defend their own bill.
It's 3D checkmate because Dems are left without a reasonable response. It shifts the advantage to Republicans by forcing Dems to vote on it before the election, making their vote and their talking points a matter of public record. As Erick points out, it will expose how unreasonable Dems are on the issue and how out of step they are with the rest of the country. It propels Republicans to a big win in November where they can then make this bill a reality.