Congress Hall Cafe
“How sensible, rational, and beneficial is it to declare to the most vulnerable American citizen that you are protected at your conception. How right and noble to declare to a child in the womb that you are safe not only by the rectitude of a good conscience, but if that failing, then by the law of the community where you found life. How glorious that God Himself protects you in the womb by His written statutes. How important is it to tell a woman that she is not her own, but that she belongs to that divine and benevolent Being who formed her in her mother’s womb, and that the child that He put in her also belongs to Him and to destroy what God has put in her is to destroy herself by placing herself under His condemnation. If you are a pregnant woman your destiny is tied to your child that God calls his son or daughter. Sacredly, fate commands you to render great care, great protection, and worthy training to the child the Creator has assigned to you. Do no fail your mission, but work to establish a good reputation not only on earth but also in Heaven where every deed is judged according to its merits with awards or punishments.
In 1973, The Supreme Court in Roe v Wade admitted it could not determine when the life of a child began based on presented or historic evidence. The Court’s admitted ignorance of the first stage of human development was pitted against the right of the mother to abort the “fetus.” The Court in its uncertainty of the genesis of life handed the decision of life and death to the mother and her doctor. Let us ask, was it sensible or even just for the Supreme Court to make a life and death decision while admitting inconclusive evidence and thus resorting to guesswork? We know it is the job of a judge to measure the facts of the case against the written law in making a decision, but the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade had no certain facts on child development and absolutely no law for a woman’s right to abort her prenatal infants. In fact, the Court admits it was working against the wisdom of state legislatures. The Court made this decision relying on the “substantive” due process clause and some penumbra of natural right of the woman. The Supreme Court’s approach fails utterly in the real meaning of due process as it abandons American law. America’s charter the Declaration of Independence declared that life is “inalienable.” If the Court had difficulty is determining when life began it needed only to consult the “Supreme Judge of the world” for its “rectitude” just as fifty six signers of the Declaration of Independence did during the revolutionary war. Our nation’s Supreme Judge revealed his laws and statutes in Scripture and our nation can not be ashamed of His revelation because His “rectitude” is incorporated into our laws by our charter of 1776. Our Supreme Judge declared in Exodus 20.13 “You shall not murder” and He gives us a case law in Exodus 21.22-24 “If men fight and hurt a pregnant woman so that she gives birth prematurely, and yet no harm follows, he shall be surely fined as much as the woman’s husband demands and the judges allow. But if any harm follows, then you must take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot..” This case law clearly ties “life for life” (with no time reference) to the “pregnant woman” thereby calling the prenatal infant “life” from conception. If the Supreme Court had acted faithfully upon the “rectitude” of our American charter it would have left the darkness of uncertainty and entered the light of true understanding and today there would be no American Holocaust and fifty million Americans still alive.
Defining Good and Evil
A definition of good and evil is a requirement of society. Without this definition, justice can not be instituted, maintained or understood. And since all men exist in a state of equality, common sense says that no one man can dictate to all other men as to what is right or what is wrong, only the Voice of a highest Authority can make such a determination,only God can speak of justice by defining good and evil. God must establish our inalienable rights and our rectitude, our liberty and our obligations. Therefore, a unified society based on equality can only find concord and harmony upon the universal agreement of a Higher Law. In a society of equals the Creator is the fountain of justice we all must drink. Without this divine compass the temptation to form a society upon the passions of individual’s is overwhelming and certain, for example, Sparta and the Iroquois Indians. Additionally, the judgments of God are framed around His response to sin, and no other standard can sufficiently guide mankind blamelessly in the operation of our courts, public councils or in that of personal righteousness. Does a woman have a right to choose life or death for her prenatal infant? Divine law is unequivocal. The answer from immutable law is no. First, the body of the woman is not her own. God declares that every thing in the earth belongs to Him. This principle is held up in the common law where suicide is considered a crime because only God can sanction the taking of life. Man cannot take his own life because his body does not belong to him *see Blackstone. A woman can not take her own life or the life of a prenatal infant because neither belong to her. Second, revealed law says that life begins at conception. In Exodus 20.13, the principle law is “You shall not murder”, and the case law is given in Exodus 21.22-24, “If men fight and hurt a pregnant woman so that she gives birth prematurely… any harm follows, then you must take life for life..” This case law clearly ties “life for life” (with no time reference) to the “pregnant woman” thereby calling the prenatal infant “life” from conception to birth.
I began to research Paula’s lists of experts and found a very similar list if not the exact list on the Planned Parenthood website. Planned Parenthood was started by Margaret Sanger who said,”All of our problems are the result of over breeding among the working class, and if morality is to mean anything at all to us, we must regard all the changes which tend toward the uplift and survival of the human race as moral. ” (Morality and Birth Control”, February-March, 1918, pp. 11,14.) At least one motivation of Margaret Sander for abortion was not for the health of woman but for the elimination of over abundant working class.
The first principle of criminal justice is the definition of good and evil in order to determine what actions are right and what actions are wrong. The use of “psychological impact” in determining good and evil or right and wrong is dangerous. What kind of standard would a nation get based on the exhaustive examination of satisfied and efficient Nazi officers who in good conscience guided by overwhelming “expert analysis” sought to evolve mankind by killing off the inferior race. According to Wikipedia, “Gas chambers were used in the Third Reich as part of the “public euthanasia program” aimed at eliminating physically and mentally retarded people and political undesirables in the 1930s”. We must ask, can the human race trust life and death decisions on our emotional responses? Absolutely not. According to God’s revelation, Jeremiah 17:9 say,”The heart is deceitful above all things,and it is exceedingly corrupt…” Emotional responses reflect personal convictions of the heart which are developed by doctrine, good or bad. In other words, we can not trust our feelings or our emotional well being. We cannot make how we feel as the standard of good and evil. As evidence, it is a duty for Muslims to perform jihad, and according to the Koran, it means the killing of infidels: Jews and Christians. Did the performing of jihad in the recent Boston Marathon bombing in the United States causing the death of innocent Americans have a negative emotional impact or even burden the conscience of the jihadists. Judging by the response of the agents of the crime, it did not, nor across the Islamic world who danced in jubilation. The death of innocent lives did not trigger the appropriate response of grief, remorse, and guilt that should be associated with a crime committed against innocent persons instead it produced glee, satisfaction, and rejoicing.
In the same light, one of the studies that Paula’s recommends in support of abortion is called “Psychological Responses after Abortion,” by Nancy Adler. Nancy Adler says research shows that woman after an abortion “most frequently report feeling relief and happiness.” (However, she admits her research is not conclusive, in fact, she writes,“Although much literature exists on the psychological consequences of abortion, contradictory conclusions have been reached.”) The question to be addressed can woman be deceived to the nature of their actions? Can proper emotional responses be perverted to a point that an evil action can result in happiness and relief? History and experience is unequivocal in the answer; its verdict is without a reasonable doubt, YES, fraud and deception residing in the soul responds approvingly to evil action, even censuring justice. Islamic Jihad, Nazi Germany’s, and Planned Parenthood are historic examples that bad doctrine twisting the soul toward wickedness. Their methodical work of tyranny is formulated by evolutionary research and modern scientism that has the power to corrupt the conscience of an individual, group or even a nation resulting in dysfunctional responses causing personal satisfaction, serenity, and jubilation for acts of a sinister nature.
Let us add, that no one is exempted form this defiling of conscience by bad doctrine. Bad doctrine distorts convictions thereby dulling even eliminating appropriate rational responses to wrong doing, even encouraging its opposite. In criminal jurisprudence this is know as depravity. In true psychology this is called a defiled conscience. No one is exempt from this trap, only the sound doctrine of God’s moral judgment impressed upon a weak conscience will reinstate the tribunal of the soul as the effective judge of good and evil resulting in proper and true responses to external realities. 1Timothy 4:16 says,” Pay attention to yourself, and to your teaching… for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.”
Spilling Innocent Blood
The Biblical principle of spilling innocent blood determines territory rights. This principle is first formulated in the Book of Genesis when Cain murdered his brother Abel, and by divine fiat, Cain was forced out of Eden the for spilling of innocent blood. We see the Spartans, who practiced infanticide, become extinct by depopulation. We can see the loss of territory for spilling innocent blood in the infant sacrifices by the Carthaginians who lost their empire to the Romans. Later, Rome, having forsaken righteous pursuits, had became corrupted as demonstrated by their spilling of innocent blood in the Colosseum; plaques and major military defeats depleted the men of Rome and at their door step entered the Gauls and Franks. Again, in South America, the Aztecs made a blood bath of Central Mexico with human sacrifices and cannibalism, and by the hand of Providence and the judgment of God, a mere five hundred Spanish Conquistadors in league with neighboring tribes defeated the massive Aztec military. The Spanish cleansed the earth of Mexico’s terrible scourge. Today, we see this principle of spilling of innocence blood by abortion or infanticide in action in reducing Anglo-European’s hold on their nations as the continent fills up with foreign tribes with foreign gods. And here in America, abortion has so weakened the United States that its massive governmental social programs are faltering due to massive loss of population that had been expected to maintain it. Some Americans are now seeing the mass migration of illegal aliens as a source of needed labor, in spite of the obvious transformation of the demographics of the Union. The message to the nations is clear, spilling innocent blood bring judgment by territory expulsion and a right to foreign occupation.
7. Paulus, On the Shares Granted to the Children of Condemned Persons.
A child in its mother’s womb is cared for just as if it were in existence, whenever its own advantage is concerned; although it cannot be of any benefit to anyone else before it is born.