Questions for 7th Day Adventists

[Patrick_Murebil]

Perhaps you should google “History of Abortion” then click on Wikapedia. You might get an eye opener.

Hi SabbathKeeper,

I just read the Wikapedia article you recommended en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

I don’t know what you thought I’d find in there that would be an eye opener.

According to the article, English and American Common Law allowed abortions before “quickening” in the 18th and early 19th centuries. This was around the time of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution. But I failed to see in that article, any reference to Constitutional protections for abortion.

The article made mention that between 1825-1880, all 50 states passed statutes that punished anyone performing or attempting to perform abortions. (Which reveals one of the problems with Wikipedia authors…not all 50 states were in the United States during that time period)

But still there is nothing in the Constitution that protects a right to abortion, murder, rape, theft, etc. In fact the Constitution was not meant to control the laws of individual states, but to place limits upon the new Federal, centralized, government. That was to protect the liberties of the citizens in the individual states from encroachment and tyranny of the centralized Federal government. And that is why the Bill of Rights was included in the Constituion before the signers would ratify it. They feared the possibilitiy of the centralized government taking more and more control and reducing more and more the liberties of the individuals.

***Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.***
archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

***Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.***
archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Abortion was not a Federal issue…it was a state issue, which is consistent with the history pointed out in the Wikipedia article you suggested. The states, not the Federal government, passed statutes against abortion between 1820-1880.

Suggested readings:
The Federalist Papers
foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

The Anti-Federalist Papers
wepin.com/articles/afp/

The terms federalist and anti-federalist used in that time was very Orwellian in nature. The federalists, in their attempt to create a new government and gain acceptance of the Constituion believed more in strong central government rather than Fedralism. And they grabbed the name first to help sell their point to the American citizens and each state.

The term anti-federalists, was was taken up by the opponents (e.g., Patrick Henry, George Mason, etc.) de facto since they were opposed to the Constitution, yet they were indeed the true federalists in philosophy and belief. Adding the Bill of Rights eased some of their worries and they ratified the Constitution. If anyone takes the time to read their papers, their writings and warnings will appear as prophecies describing our day and age.

God bless all!!!

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Hi SabbathKeeper,

I just read the Wikapedia article you recommended en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

I don’t know what you thought I’d find in there that would be an eye opener.

According to the article, English and American Common Law allowed abortions before “quickening” in the 18th and early 19th centuries. This was around the time of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution. But I failed to see in that article, any reference to Constitutional protections for abortion.

The article made mention that between 1825-1880, all 50 states passed statutes that punished anyone performing or attempting to perform abortions. (Which reveals one of the problems with Wikipedia authors…not all 50 states were in the United States during that time period)

But still there is nothing in the Constitution that protects a right to abortion, murder, rape, theft, etc. In fact the Constitution was not meant to control the laws of individual states, but to place limits upon the new Federal, centralized, government. That was to protect the liberties of the citizens in the individual states from encroachment and tyranny of the centralized Federal government. And that is why the Bill of Rights was included in the Constituion before the signers would ratify it. They feared the possibilitiy of the centralized government taking more and more control and reducing more and more the liberties of the individuals.

***Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.***
archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

***Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.***
archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Abortion was not a Federal issue…it was a state issue, which is consistent with the history pointed out in the Wikipedia article you suggested. The states, not the Federal government, passed statutes against abortion between 1820-1880.

Suggested readings:
The Federalist Papers
foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/

The Anti-Federalist Papers
wepin.com/articles/afp/

The terms federalist and anti-federalist used in that time was very Orwellian in nature. The federalists, in their attempt to create a new government and gain acceptance of the Constituion believed more in strong central government rather than Fedralism. And they grabbed the name first to help sell their point to the American citizens and each state.

The term anti-federalists, was was taken up by the opponents (e.g., Patrick Henry, George Mason, etc.) de facto since they were opposed to the Constitution, yet they were indeed the true federalists in philosophy and belief. Adding the Bill of Rights eased some of their worries and they ratified the Constitution. If anyone takes the time to read their papers, their writings and warnings will appear as prophecies describing our day and age.

God bless all!!!

My post was in reference to the following comment you made not about the legalities of abortion but of how long abortion had been around.

It is the idea of ending life in the womb by abortion that was foreign to them in their day and age. Unfortunately we, in this day and age have embraced it whole heartedly.\QUOTE]

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

My post was in reference to the following comment you made not about the legalities of abortion but of how long abortion had been around.
Patrick Murebil;4382074:

It is the idea of ending life in the womb by abortion that was foreign to them in their day and age. Unfortunately we, in this day and age have embraced it whole heartedly.\QUOTE]

Oh…Ok.

I did not mean to imply that they were unaware of abortions. Abortions have been around since ancient times. I meant that from what I’ve read of the writings of the Founders and Framers, I never came across any discussions or essays or writings that they thought protecting abortion procedures was an important part of protecting Liberty for mankind.

Perhaps the term “foreign”, which I used was misleading. The term I probably should have used is “abhorrent”.

Those links I provided are still excellent!!

So what in that Wikipedia article did you think would be an “eye opener” for me? I’ll admit that I might have missed that point or points in my read of it.

God bless all!!!

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Sabbath Keeper;4386887:

My post was in reference to the following comment you made not about the legalities of abortion but of how long abortion had been around.

Oh…Ok.

I did not mean to imply that they were unaware of abortions. Abortions have been around since ancient times. I meant that from what I’ve read of the writings of the Founders and Framers, I never came across any discussions or essays or writings that they thought protecting abortion procedures was an important part of protecting Liberty for mankind.

Perhaps the term “foreign”, which I used was misleading. The term I probably should have used is “abhorrent”.

Those links I provided are still excellent!!

So what in that Wikipedia article did you think would be an “eye opener” for me? I’ll admit that I might have missed that point or points in my read of it.

God bless all!!!

Clarification accepted:thumbsup:

Reading the links.

(Strange how this thread turned for a question concerning the Sabbath into a debate over abortion. Maybe not so strange considering the volitility of the subject and the persistance to discredit ALL SDA members )

 

[Patrick_Murebil]

Patrick Murebil;4386904:

Clarification accepted:thumbsup:

Reading the links.

(Strange how this thread turned for a question concerning the Sabbath into a debate over abortion. Maybe not so strange considering the volitility of the subject and the persistance to discredit ALL SDA members )

Myself, not beng a multi-tasker, and posting on more than one thread, and having been on these threads since back in the spring of this year…I no longer find the twists and turns strange…perhaps that’s an indication that I’ve been here too long.

God bless all!!!

 

[Sabbath_Keeper]

Sabbath Keeper;4386913:

Myself, not beng a multi-tasker, and posting on more than one thread, and having been on these threads since back in the spring of this year…I no longer find the twists and turns strange…perhaps that’s an indication that I’ve been here too long.

God bless all!!!

You’re two months older on these threads than I. I too find the twists and turns interesting. And then there are of course the different views from and between Catholics as well. But then, that’s what builds faith, discussion.