TOS, did YOU read the link you posted? Or was it “that far over your head”? It clearly states:

Prosecutors in Illinois entered into a consent decree in 1993 agreeing not to prosecute doctors for apparent or alleged violations of this law based on “born alive” definitions and other definitions

So the 1975 law you quoted wasn’t being enforced. That’s why they needed a new law to clear up ambiguities in the old law and protect the rights of infants.

I noticed that TOS still has not responded to this.

Romans 1 teaches that the Gentiles are under the judgment of God, even though they did not have the Bible. That is because there are certain things that God has made available to man just through common sense.

You don’t need the Bible to understand that the statue/idol you just made isn’t the One who made you. Whether you believe in creation or evolution, it still follows that homosexuality is unnatural. A man is clearly built for a woman, and vice versa. Paul uses this kind of reasoning when debating with the Athenians on Mars Hill (Acts 17).

We are called to sow the seed. The rest is between them and God.

For the same reason that people are willing to argue about what they will look like if and when they go to heaven is exactly why we engage in ridiculous arguments with pro-abortionist.

I disagree, it is good to make arguments and reason over such things.

I used to be pro-choice. I was raised in a pro-choice family, and grew up in a rabidly pro-choice environment. But then something happened. As I grew a bit older, I began to think for myself.

I focused on what abortion really is and said “This is horrific, this is an abomination.” I then managed to convince my pro-choice parents to become pro-life. Only liberals should want to avoid reasoning and arguments when it comes to abortion, because they cannot defend it.

If we could get more people to talk about abortion and really think about it, there is no doubt in my mind it would become less palatable to the general public.

Viewing this from a socialist perspective, he was attempting to emphasize the de-personization and de-individualization of people. ‘It” was not a “person,” certainly not a person with a spiritual potential. It was simply a collection of tissue. It was not an “individual”, certainly nothing with unique value. It was simply part of the collective. While elevating subsets of the collective can sometimes be useful in furthering the cause of the Left (e.g., champion or tolerate Black Nationalism in order to tear down the traditional, White-led, order), doing so with the class known as “nearly-aborted-Americans” (and this child would be an American citizen) would have no such benefit.

In truth, the fear is that to treat such a child as a human would make any honest person realize it was a human prior to the abortion attempt. This would undermine support for “abortion rights” and cut into its social acceptability. This would, in turn, regardless of any changes in the legal situation, undercut an essential part of Leftist-Socialist efforts to indoctrinate society in the equalization-of-outcome for the genders.

Hussein’s earlier comments on Roe v. Wade actually remained vaguely true (from the Leftist perspective). The law could undermine Roe v. Wade. Not by contradicting any legal right allegedly held by females in this regard, but rather by affecting people’s view of the issue. Ultimately such could lead to an anti-abortion amendment to the Constitution, thereby overturning Roe v. Wade. Of course, in truth, that is totally different than passing a law which one knows will not pass court-tested Constitutional muster, but in the Leftist-Socialist focus on equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity, there is no difference.

Hussein opposed the law simply because abortion is essential to the Left. They do not care about the Constitution. They do not care about “women’s rights.” They only care about the destruction of the traditional and natural order. Abortion does this by reducing the differential of outcome between men and women of loose sexual practices. This in turn reminds people of the reality of the natural order, and thus inhibits the Leftist agenda.

Trollman said:
purplepeep said:

“I think it does address the nature/makeup of humans “post-this world”, TMan, since “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God”.”

The discussion in question is recorded in 3 places: Matthew 22:23-33; Mark 12:13-27; & Luke 20:27-38. Since Luke’s account is the most detailed, we’ll look at that.

Luke records “they [the resurrected righteous ones] cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.” So they are like angels in that they do not die. To say we look like angels goes beyond the context of the passage (not that we have a good idea of what angels look like, since their appearances are varied in the Scriptures).

You’ll search in vain for anywhere I’ve cited “we look like angels”, TMan.

Since flesh and blood is ruled out – the Egyptians wasted their time on mumification – we have to look for what Jesus said would be the future existential nature of humans.

As you noted “angels” has different meanings because the term is also used to refer to humans. The word simply means “messenger”. The common popular conception of wings and harps is incorrect, as it is with Satan decked in red PJs, horns, cloven feet and clutching a pitchfork.

But we are here, and Jesus was there, of course refering to the host of “heavenly beings”. It’s obvious they are made up of such stuff that we are not in this life.

If someone were to assert eternity involved something along the lines of a continued human existence, I think they would be falling into the same incorrect thinking as the Sadducees did in these passages. That is, trying to frame eternal existence in purely human terms.

At any rate, your take may be different on this, that’s just mine. (And there’s Someone who trumps us both, of course.)

Interestingly enough, as it applies to the larger topic at hand, in the original writing the word in the passage is not “sons”. The King James version gets it closer on this one in using “children” since the original Greek is “huios” – which is used primarily to refer to human offspring.

I decided instead to make a stupid picture that I’m not going to post here because of the nature of it. I’ll give some details of what it is.

It’s pretty much of a picture of the infamous Ha**** picture from Goa***.** with an animated Obama logo in the middle. I’m sure a few here know what I’m referring to because one way or another they been tricked into seeing the original. I’m self censoring the name of the picture and website because I don’t want some hapless person looking it up.

I’m going to use it as a screenshot in Counterstrike Source.

P.S. Michelle, keep up the great work.

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a “child in utero” as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines “child in utero” as “a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”

from Wiki