As I mentioned in my last post, there were two recent situations in New Jersey that could have national implications and ought to be of concern to believers.
The last one - which dealt with the attempt to coerce a Methodist Camp Association to allow homosexual civil unions in their chapel/pavillion - I entitled, "There's Something Rotten in the State of ... New Jersey, part 1".
This article is the "Part 2" to the first article and relates to a different moral issue.
The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that doctors "have no duty to tell a woman seeking an abortion that the procedure would kill a human being." (NJ.Com article is located : here)
The New Jersey Supreme Court is not famous for reasoned and rational decisions and leans heavily Democrat. (Although they have a mostly new set of justices now, they still are 5-2 appointed by Democrats and the 2 appointed by Republicans were appointed by liberal Republican Christine Whitman.)
Notice the following quote:
Acuna said she asked the doctor "if it was the baby in there?" She claimed he told her: "Don't be stupid, it's just some blood."
The doctor testified that he did not recall Acuna asking such a question but would have told her that a "seven-week pregnancy is not a living human being."
If this was the early 1970s, I could understand a doctor not being sure that a seven-week pregnancy is a living human being. But with the advances in technology that allow us to look into the womb and all the things we now know about the process of pregnancy and the development of children in the womb, to make such a claim should cause this guy to lose his license.
If he wanted to make the case that this life was not worth saving or something along those lines, I would still disagree, but at least he could still claim some intellectual honesty. Instead, he is hiding his head in the sand to support the prevailing liberal agenda of the day.
Ridiculous.
One day, I hope that we will look back at the genocide of the pro-abortion agenda the way that many of us view the 3/5ths compromise in the Constitution - how could such otherwise wise men have been so stupid?
Just my thoughts,
Frank
(For a related article on this subject from my archives, see this post.)
2 comments:
Good article, Frank.
It's been a long time since I reflected on the 3/5ths compromise
What if the Methodist group (Ocean Grove) or say a camp (perhaps Tri-State) refused to use the property for any weddings until this wends its way to the Supreme Court (perhaps) for resolution? Tri-State could easily be at risk!
Jim,
Thanks for your comments.
As far as the groups not allowing any weddings, I am going to guess that is what many of the groups will probably do. (And, yes, one of the groups I was considering that could be impacted was TSBC.)
While I don't think that a camp is necessarily the place for a wedding (I am a "church wedding" type of guy), at TSBC there was a church using the chapel facilities for a few years and another church uses the property for Baptisms. Could the same argument be made regarding requiring a homosexual group to be able to use the chapel as well for whatever special ceremonies they want? (Or other groups, for that matter?)
I know some may dismiss the argument for being a slippery slope, but, frankly, I have seen too many things in our society head down those type of hills to believe that the slopes are anything other than slippery. After all, who would have imagined thirty years ago that we would be talking about homosexual marriages?
Thanks for stopping by and commenting.
Frank
Post a Comment