Abortion supporters promote mob rule

South Dakota abortion supporters are using the vote of the majority to infringe upon the right to life of the pre-born:

South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families wants to remind the Legislature that their constituents don't want another measure that bans abortion in the state.

Post-election surveying by the group showed people want the focus to shift to preventing unintended pregnancies, co-chairwoman Jan Nicolay said Wednesday.

"The people of South Dakota do not want government intruding into their personal medical decisions," she said. "We just think everyone should work together on that and not spend time with ballot issues."

The campaign's post-election report will be sent to lawmakers. They noted half of the House's representatives are new, and this is a chance to educate them.

Yes, the far-left wants to "educate them", just like they educate future generations of voters in public education that abortion is a right. Most do not know that America is a Constitutional Republic where the minority still has rights (including the right to life), regardless of what the majority says. But instead, we are lead to believe that America is a pure democracy where the majority rules. That is tyranny through mob rule.

Comments

[Sam]

So mob rule that enacts things you approve of (like Prop 8 in CA) is good, but if you disagree with it, it's bad?

I'm confused.

[Steve Sibson]

Sam,

Your confusion lies in not understanding that Natural Law means a marriage is between a man and a woman and that killing the innocent is a violation of Natural Law.

[Sam]

No, my confusion lies in your rigid application of the second clause of the 2nd amendment versus you rather relaxed application of the first.

If your religion demands certain things, the first amendment means that you cannot demand them of the rest of us, by mob rule or otherwise. When will you post on the death penalty for those who remarry after divorce (that's adultery)? After all, their death is demanded in the Bible, too.

The first amendment means that we cannot enact a law based strictly on one religion's interpretation.

And "Natural Law" is a properly a science term, not a moral one. If you wish to argue about nature, than we should talk about what happens in nature, not what you wish it to be. For example; in all mammalian species, and some birds, there exists some percentage of same-sex mating behavior. Are they "choosing" this "devient" behavior? Or acting out the "natural law"?

[Steve Sibson]

Sam,

The “relaxed application of the first” amendment is on the part of the secular left. They want to remove all speech that is “religious”. In fact that goes beyond a relaxed first amendment, and into the realm of censorship and a totalitarian environment. The Declaration clearly states our rights come from our Creator based on “Nature’s Law and God’s Nature”. Natural Law is a legal term, see Blackstone. The Law schools stopped with Blackstone just after the Civil War. At the same time Darwin’s Theory of evolution came into being, and now the government schools use censorship to promote only that theory and exclude ID and creationism.

And the death of unrepentant sinners is a spiritual one. Please don't make the mistake of taken things our of context from the Bible. That is what false prophets do.

And your example of mammalian same-sex mating behavior does show that simply following our animalistic desires makes us the same as animals. Man is to become spiritual and follow the Laws of God and resist the desires of the flesh. That is what makes humans different than animals. Do you believe we should instead allow a “dog eat dog” world where the majority rules?

[Sam]

Oh no! The dog-eat dog world is not what I, or anyone with sense wants. But it is a sign that there is a "same-sex" bias in all animals, no matter how spiritual or not. Did the Creator make an error here? Or is it a lesson?

Resisting the desires of the flesh is not a same-sex or different-sex thing, but a spiritual thing. Why the refusal to allow our fellow humans their bliss if they are same-sex, but no comment on different-sex bliss? Commitment is all well and good, but there seems to be more emphasis on denying homosexuals the right to practice it that those of the heterosexuals who are accepted, even when not practicing the letter of your law.

And the “relaxed application of the first amendment" is not about removal of religious speak from the public sector, but rather the effort to pass laws based on "Biblical principles". No more that the institution of Shi'ria law, the passage of Biblical laws is unconstitutional, but you keep arguing as if it is not.

And where did I take the Bible out of context? I missed that.

[Steve Sibson]

Sam,

I am in complete agreement that heterosexual immorality is just as sinful as same-sex immorality. And I also agree that there is too much acceptance of heterosexual immorality. Sexual immorality is the result of adopting the humanist worldview, and all forms of sexual immorality is counter to the Biblical Christian worldview.

And in regard to taking the Bible out of context; Liberals like to take phrases out of the Old Testament and say that they are counter to a phrase from the New Testament. Jesus Christ provided us with a clearer understanding of God’s Truth. It us our interpretation of God’s truth that is fallible. Again, the death that we should be most concerned about is spiritual, not physical.

And there is nothing unconstitutional about passing laws the fit Biblical principles. The first amendment is to prevent the government from establishing a church as authority. And today the government is guilty of establishing the church of the secular humanists through censorship in public schools. So how can we consider the secular tolerant and proponents of liberty?

And I have no problem with a comparative study of the Quran and the Bible in public education.

[Sam]

Update to my previous comment: I realize you were refering to my comment about adultery and what the penalty is.

Like in Deuteronomy 22:22 "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die."

or: Leviticus 20:10 "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death."

and since: Matthew 19:9 "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

and since:Luke 16:18 "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

and since: Mark 10:11 "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her."

Do we not understand that these people need to be killed? Especially as Jesus was talking about the application of Old Testement laws.

Are those not vital to enforce as the proscriptions about (male) homosexuality? (I am unaware of any Biblical procriptions about female homosexuality) Have I missed the context? And what about the proscriptions about shellfish in Deuteronomy (I think)? Are we to stop all from coming into Long John Silver's?

I realize a certain level of snark in my tone above, but I am truely interested in your answer.

[Steve Sibson]

Sam,

The Old Testament makes it clear as to what is evil and it also justifies capital punishment. We also need to agree that God’s laws in regard to marriage are basically ignored by today’s American court system. Perhaps we now know what is the primary cause of our troubles.

Now I point to the New Testament where we find a clearer revelation of Natural Law from Jesus Christ. I point you to John Chapter 8:1-11 and ask, does repentance have important connotations as to the application of capital punishment? And second, does anybody or any entity have a right to execute capital punishment?

[Sam]

And does any of that actually address my comment? Are you agreeing that the laws about divorse and remarriage deserve death? And the bit about shellfish? John8:1-11 is a nice refrence, but does it allow you to ignore the references I posted? Or is the Bible available to be cherry-picked by everyone?

And the court system is not handcuffed by the Bible, since the rule of religion is not mandatory federal law. Thanks to the 1st amendment. And we're back where we started this thread.

[Steve Sibson]

Sam,

I did address your comment. John brings into play the grace of God for repentant sinners. It does change God’s laws on marriage. I am not cherry picking. I am simply replying to your trick question in the same way Jesus did.

Divorce and remarriage is sinful, not a First Amendment right. Do you really believe that divorce is a good thing?