Read more here and here. We have to go to town on a college campus tour now, but more analysis will come later.
Talk to you then!
Update:
I am so glad this bill was signed into law yesterday. This is a clear cut case of the people of South Dakota taking the law back from a bunch of liberal justices and saying with their votes, "We will not allow the wholesale murder of children to continue, the buck stops here".
Boy howdy, do we ever need more states to pass laws like this.
My guess is that the liberals are going to play their same old hand, "woman's "right" to privacy, woman's right to choose, etc, etc. I have a question for those who support these views, what about the babies rights, hmm? I believe our government should protect its citizens, not kill them. As I have said before, the only mindset that allows for a mother to kill her child is a mindset of humanism, a mindset that places the mother in the position of God, a mindset, by the way, which goes along nicely with evolution's "natural selection". These mindsets take into no account such has beens as right and wrong. Doesn't jump out at me as the type of philosophy I want my country to use as its basis for law. Let's throw it out and get another. One who believes that life begins at conception and innocents should be protected if at all possible.
That's all for now,
The Blogging Boy Scout,
Travis
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Yipee! :)
It's great to see something like this happen. Less talk, more action; "speak softly and carry a big stick" and all that jazz!
Speaking of "speaking softly," do you know what President Bush said about this whole thing when asked about it?
“President Bush, asked about the South Dakota measure in an interview with ABC News’ Elizabeth Vargas, said Tuesday he hadn’t ‘paid attention to that, to this particular issue you’re talking about.’”
(see http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11604762)
Travis -- To answer your rhetorical question ... It's not just liberal propoganda that drives people with opinions that differ from yours. The fundamental question here is "when does life begin?" Not everyone agrees that life begins at conception. Intelligent, honest people can disagree about this. And if I don't agree that a simple cell formation is a human being, then your logic about "murder" and "killing citizens" doesn't fit.
Just some honest debate, I don't mean to offend.
I heard about this just earlier today, and am impressed with South Dakota!
Found your site on Regenerate Our Culture, by the way! Keep up the good work!
Anonymous:
The fact that the possibility exists means you should honor it. ;) If a doctor orders someone to be put in a morgue without checking to see if they are alive (even if the doctor believes they are dead) then the doctor will be held responsible for that. If, as an officer, I decided to call in an airstrike on a house I thought was free of civilians...but I didn;t check, I could get in serious trouble. The point is not that we are 100% sure that life begins at conception...the point is that there is enough doubt that we cannot in good conscience allow them to die. :)
Alexander -- Your argument implies that there is some eventual, objective truth that we'll one day discover. But this topic has no objective truth, just your opinion and mine. It's not that I didn't bother to check if a fertilized egg is immediately human life. It's that there's no way to check.
I understand that you have a relgious view here, and you're entitled to it. What you are not entitled to is to impose your religious views on me. That's a principal that is at the core of our national philosophy.
There has and always will be an objective truth. To say that Christianity can have no place in our government is to allow ANY action at all. The rights liberals so eagerly promote were acknowledged by our founders to be given by God, and not just any God, but by Christ. To take away Christ you take away our rights and our liberty. Nowhere is history has man had the "right" to do wrong. Why is it wrong to murder? Because our government says so? No, because God says it is wrong. If you say the government defines right and wrong, then Hitler did nothing wrong because he followed the laws of Germany while murdering thousands of people. Everything about law is suppressing one line of thought for another. (right over wrong). To say that no belief of another person can be forced on you is nuts. You are forced to drive at the safe speed the government maintains at the risk of your life and money. You have no "right" to drive faster then the law dictates. The same goes for any other "right over wrong". Murder is wrong because God says it is wrong and yet you like that command because it protects you from murder. Religious and other views are "imposed" upon you daily. Of course someone else's belief's can be forced upon you! It happens every time a Christian must answer a question on evolution in order to get a grade. It is just a matter of "what" views will be imposed on you. And I believe we should stick with the laws and beliefs that made our nation great thank you very much. I have no interest in destruction.
Travis -- There are a lot of areas where sensible people can agree on right and wrong. Broad concensus tells us that killing your neighbor is wrong, cheating on your taxes is wrong, misleading the country into war is wrong.
Then there are areas that are ambiguous. In these areas sensible, well-meaning people can come to different conclusions. Some people's conclusions will be shaped by their religious views, Christian or otherwise. Other people's views will be shaped by their experiences, or by sincere introspection.
Why must you force your conclusions on the rest of the country? Seems awfully arrogant for a Christian.
Post a Comment