Pastor Running for Governor of Oklahoma: ‘It Is Time to Abolish Human Abortion’

YUKON, Okla. — A pastor and former member of the Oklahoma House of Representatives who is currently running for the governor of Oklahoma declared in a video posted online this week that if elected, he would abolish abortion in the state.

“Tragically, some 250,000 preborn Oklahomans have been deprived of their right to life since the U.S. Supreme legitimized the slaughter in 1973,” lamented Dan Fisher, pastor of Liberty Church in Yukon. “And that’s not even counting those killed by various abortifacient drugs and devices.”

He said that while pro-life bills have been passed in the state with regularity, they only seek to regulate killing unborn children, and do not attempt to end abortion altogether.

“For example, pro-lifers have passed laws requiring that a mother must wait 72 hours before she has her baby killed,” Fisher outlined. “Pro-life legislators have passed laws requiring the abortionist to perform an ultrasound, which the mother may look at—or not.”

“[There are] laws allowing a baby’s body to be ripped into parts, of course, just as long as those parts are not sold,” he continued. “And laws that allow the baby’s body to be dismembered as long as the instrument used does not employ the convergence of two levers.”

Fisher said that while such legislation may have deterred some mothers from killing their children, it still affirms abortion as a legal choice.

“[I]n the end, they only spell out the requirements for killing a newborn baby; they do not prevent the murder,” he opined. “If you think about it, these laws are basically pro-choice.”

  • Connect with Christian News

Fisher advised that if elected governor, he will not merely regulate abortion, but abolish it.

“If elected, I will do everything in my power to bring this evil to an end and take executive action to ensure that all Oklahomans are equally protected, including the preborn,” he stated. “I will disregard any unjust rulings or perversions of the U.S. Constitution that claim that there is a right to murder preborn human beings in the womb.”

He noted that the U.S. Supreme Court was wrong in the 1857 case of Dred Scott v. Sandford, and they were likewise wrong in the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade.

“Friends, children are being murdered in our state,” Fisher declared with urgency. “Is that not cause enough to take a bold stand and say no?”

Fisher, a father and grandfather, announced his gubernatorial bid on Aug. 22.

“Throughout his life, Dan has believed that Christians cannot compartmentalize their lives into the ‘secular’ and the ‘sacred,’ but are called by Jesus to be ‘salt and light’ in every area of society—including government,” his campaign website reads. “He believes that since we Americans live in a representative republic, it is essential that ‘we, the people’ fulfill our duties as citizens—especially so for those who are Christians.”

As previously reported, another political candidate has also made ending abortion the forefront of their campaign. Sam McLure, who is running for attorney general of Alabama, said in a recent video that he believes abortionists should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and will do so if elected.

Become a Christian News Network Supporter...

Dear Reader, has been of benefit and a blessing to you? For many years now, the Lord has seen fit to use this small news outlet as a strong influential resource in keeping Christians informed on current events from a Biblical worldview. Despite Facebook's recent algorithm changes, which has limited our readership, and, as a result, has affected operational revenue, we continue to strive to bring you the news without compromise and to keep Christ in focus. If you have benefited from our news coverage, would you please prayerfully consider becoming a Christian News supporter by clicking here to make a one-time or monthly donation to help keep the truth widely and freely published and distributed? May Christ continue to be exalted through this work!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Amos Moses – He>i

    Abortion and eugenics has its birth in RACISM ……….. thats HISTORY ….

    • mr goody two shoes

      Yes and it all goes back to evolutionary teaching. No God no accountability to how you treat your neighbor. Were all star stuff and pond scum.

      • jaycubed

        Then why is it almost always self-identified Christians you read about that starve & beat their children, denying them medical attention for prayer, robbing, raping & murdering them? Nearly every day you can read of some new horror visited on their children by some group/family of True Believers.

        Why? Because God allows or demands it.

        Exodus 21:15, 1 Samuel 15:2-3, Exodus 32:26-29, Joshua 6:20-21, Leviticus 20:9, Jeremiah 50:21-22, Exodus 12:29-30, Joshua 10:40, Proverbs 13:24

        Prisons are full of Christians.

        Less than 1% of the people incarcerated in U.S. prisons are atheists.

        That leaves better than 98%* of incarcerated felons as fellow followers of Your Religion – Abrahamic Monotheism .They are mostly Christians, with a moderate segment of Muslims & a small number of Jews.

        God certainly seems completely ineffective in controlling the violent, abusive & anti-social behavior of His followers.
        * There have to be a couple of Buddhist & Hindus too.

    • brucewang

      Abortion has nothing to do with racism.

      • Amos Moses – He>i

        ignored ………

      • Amos Moses – He>i

        MAAFA ……….

        • Some like this one do not want the truth. A lie suits them just fine.

        • brucewang

          Abortion has always occurred regardless of race. If someone comes along to worsen the problem for a short period it is incidental. That’s like blaming the 9/11 hijackers for terrorism when it’s existed for centuries.

      • Margret Sanger was a racist and a bigot that championed the murder of babies by abortion as a solution to the birth of undesirables. This included different ethnic/socioeconomic groups.

        That is the truth like it or not.

        • Nick Halflinger

          Don’t tell the folks over at Breitbart.

        • brucewang

          Since when is Margret Sanger the person who invented abortion? It would exist still without her.

        • Tangent002

          Margaret Sanger was opposed to abortion. Planned Parenthood didn’t begin offering abortion until well after Sanger had died.

          • Either you are a liar or you are ignorant of the facts. I hope for your sake it is the latter.

          • realpolitik

            First planned parenthood abortion, 1970, Sanger passed in 66.

          • Yet she was in favor of abortion is looked upon by the abortionists and their allies as the one who made it acceptable to the point where it could go mainstream and she wanted it as an excuse to murder what she deemed to be undesirable people..

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            she was opposed to the abortion of WHITE PEOPLE …………

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. And the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”
            – Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon’s Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976

            “Today eugenics is suggested by the most diverse minds as the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.
            “I think you must agree… that the campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics… Birth control propaganda is thus the entering wedge for the eugenic educator.
            “As an advocate of birth control I wish… to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the ‘unfit’ and the ‘fit,’ admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes. In this matter, the example of the inferior classes, the fertility of the feeble-minded, the mentally defective, the poverty-stricken classes, should not be held up for emulation.
            “On the contrary, the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective.”
            – Margaret Sanger. “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.” Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5

      • Jerome Horwitz

        Then explain the presence of abortion clinics in black neighborhoods.

        • brucewang

          Um…because black people get abortions too?
          Excuse me, what on earth does skin color have to do with whether or not a person would get an abortion?

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Uh, I think you need to re-read what I wrote, as well as bear in mind Sanger believed in the forced sterilization of the black race.

            No coincidences here.

          • brucewang

            Not only will I re-read what you wrote, I’ll re-write it. “Explain the presence of abortion clinics in black neighborhoods.”

            Let me ask you two questions:

            1) How long has abortion existed?
            2) What year was Sanger born?

            Now, would you like to continue to propagate Amos’s statement that abortion has its roots in racism?

          • Jerome Horwitz

            That is not what I said. WHY are there so many abortion clinics in black neighborhoods?

            1) Not relevant.
            2) Not relevant.

            What is relevant: Your defense of abortion.

          • brucewang

            Because black people get abortions like everyone else. You’re not going to win this one – I have no clue what point you’re trying to make.

            Also, please tell me where I defended abortion.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            You are defending it now. You are also trying like the sickens to keep from admitting racism does in fact play a role in abortions.

          • brucewang

            Please tell me where I defended it. I only posted a few sentences so it shouldn’t take you long. Let’s hear it.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Where do you say you are pro-life?

            Oh, yeah, that’s right: Nowhere. Every post you have made is in defense of your idea abortion isn’t racist.

            Now, as someone who has been on both sides of the fence, your argument isn’t something that would come out the mouth of someone who is pro-life.

            So stop projecting and have a seat.

          • brucewang

            That doesn’t even make sense. It’s a simple enough fact that abortion is abortion, no race component involved. I don’t know why this troubles you so much.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Dodge fail. Try again.

          • brucewang

            There is nothing being dodged. The claim was made that abortion has its roots in racism. That’s dumb and makes no sense.

          • Jerome Horwitz

            Margaret Sanger believed in eugenics and the forced sterilization of the black race. So, yes, abortion and racism go hand-in-hand, and anyone who says different is ignorant or a liar.

          • cadcoke5

            I really don’t think the original poster to this branch of the discussion, was intending to say that the original invention of abortion was fairly recent, or for the purpose of racism. Rather, I suspect the disagreement is because the post saying “Abortion and eugenics has its birth in RACISM” was within the context of legal abortion in U.S. politics.

            The racist founding of Planned Parenthood, and its major effort to establish and defend abortion, is what makes the original statement true.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “I’ll re-write it. “Explain the presence of abortion clinics in black neighborhoods.””

            you misspelled a word …. it is spelled P-R-E-V-A-L-E-N-C-E …………….

          • brucewang

            Oops. It adds nothing to your argument. Abortion occurs in all cultures.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you still misquoted him ………..

          • brucewang

            Like I said, oops. It affects nothing though.

  • Amos Moses – He>i

    one misstatement in the above video …. the abortion “industry” ….. and if that term is not absolutely repellent then i do not know what is ….. is NOT well “regulated” ………..

  • He has my vote.

  • Joseph Robert Dunfe

    When the U.S. Constitution was created, a child in the womb was considered a person. Thus, when it recognized that God has provided us with the right to life, it included those who are in the womb. When the U.S. Supreme Court imagined an abortion right in the Constitution, it was ignoring what the Constitution actually said.

    Mr. Fisher is truly defending our Constitution as it was written.

    • jaycubed


      The actual written U.S. Constitution defines a Citizen as one who is “natural born”.

      An “unborn” child is Not a Citizen according to the U.S. Constitution because they have not been “born”.

      By the way, the U.S. Constitution was not “Created” – it was written as a collective act by “We The People” – and “We The People” provide no support for your claims about the imaginary rights of the “unborn”.

      Also, God is NEVER mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.The only mentions of Religion are in the negative: NO Religious Test for office & NO State Establishment of Religion.

      • Amos Moses – He>i

        but God IS mentioned in the DOI and in EVERY STATE CONSTITUTION ….. all 50 of them ………..

  • jaycubed

    It is Blasphemy & Rebellion against God’s Directly Expressed Law to call an unborn child a Life or to claim that killing an unborn child is Murder. Exodus 21; 22-25

    That is what Jesus learned in his Synagogue.
    And Jesus affirmed that it is God’s Law in Matthew 5:18.

    • Sorry but that is a lie from misapplying scripture.

      • jaycubed

        Sorry, but it is the truth as evidenced by 2300 years of Talmudic discourse & teaching.

        God says, directly to the people, that as a matter of God’s – “Judgement”, “Ordinance”, “Ruling”, “Law”, Case Law” * – an unborn child is not a Life – it is the property of the man who owns the woman.

        Killing an unborn child is not Murder – it is a property crime against the man who owns the woman – to be settled by the payment of a fine.

        * (etc. depending on your Bible translation)

        • No. It is murder and God hates the shedding of innocent blood.

          • jaycubed

            Interesting that you reject God’s directly expressed Law. After all, you know better than God’s Law.

            By the way, what makes you think God “hates the shedding of innocent blood”?
            “Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” (Psalm 137:9)
            God murdered Job’s innocent children (seven sons and three daughters) to win a bet with Satan (Job 1:18-19).
            God accepted the human sacrifice of an innocent young girl in His honor. (Judges 11:30-40)
            God tortured the people of Egypt & murdered their children while actively preventing any response from the one person who could do God’s Will {God repeatedly hardened Pharaoh’s heart} (Exodus 7-12)

          • Proverbs 6:16-19New King James Version (NKJV)
            16 These six things the Lord hates,
            Yes, seven are an abomination to Him:
            17 A proud look,
            A lying tongue,
            Hands that shed innocent blood,
            18 A heart that devises wicked plans,
            Feet that are swift in running to evil,
            19 A false witness who speaks lies,
            And one who sows discord among brethren.

          • All that you said here is a lie due to the misunderstanding of the scriptures.

          • jaycubed

            I quote the scriptures which you deny.

          • That is not true. You are misusing scripture by taking them out of context and applying your own meaning to them.

            Are you a Christian?

          • jaycubed

            I am placing Scripture in context. You appear to have no sense of context, and in my opinion You belittle Your own Bible by denying and making excuses for the clear statements written – picking & choosing the parts that fit in with your personal prejudices and Denying others You don’t like.

            It is You who explicitly deny God’s Word because You disagree with it.

          • Psalm 137:9 If you read the scripture before this you will see that the Psalmist is talking about the revenge he is seeking against the Babylonians for the treatment given to Israel under their captivity and it is not an abortion.

            Job 1:18-19 If you read the part before this you will see that this was Satan’s work that God gave permission for and you will see why God gave that permission

            Judges 11:30-40 Did he actually sacrifice her or not? I admit that it would seem that he did but God plainly tells us in the 10 Commandments not to murder anyone and as I previously pointed out in Proverbs God hates the shedding of innocent blood. Having said that God would not want nor accept this as a human sacrifice to Him and it would have been viewed upon as a child sacrifice to Molech which was done by pagans of that time. Either way it was not and would never be God’s will to do such a thing.

            Exodus 21: 22-25 details a scenario wherein a pregnant woman is injured during a fight and miscarries because of it and that is not anything to do with abortion and not the will of God.

            As I said… take scripture out of context and falsely apply whatever meaning you want to make a point/win an argument.

          • jaycubed

            Psalm 137:9 – So, God approves of murdering young babies who offend You, so that’s OK. Revenge is a reason for murdering children with God’s Blessing.

            Job 1:18-19 – So God directs his subordinate, Satan, to murder people so God can win a bet. Winning a bet is a reason for murdering children at God’s command.

            Judges 11:30-40 – 31 “when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD’S, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.” 39 “And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed”.
            She was sacrificed to God as a Holocaust – A burnt offering to fulfill the promise Jepthath made to God for God’s assistance in victory.

            Exodus 21: 22-25 – God establishes the Legal Status of an unborn child in the only place in the Bible that discusses the issue. – an unborn child is chattel belonging to the man. God Rules that an unborn child doesn’t trigger “an eye for an eye” or “a Life for a Life”.

            You continue to deny the Judgement of God in Your Bible for your own judgement.

          • Once again you are lying about me and calling God a liar also.

            Surrender yourself to God through His only begotten son Christ Jesus while you still have the time to do so because time is growing short.

          • jaycubed

            You are the one who calls Your God a liar by denying His Word in Your own Bible. I’m not sure how I am “lying about you”?

            Am I being unfair by quoting you or referencing Bible verses to demonstrate that You are wrong?

            You should Grow Up & stop whining about how everyone picks on You and Your God.

            I can guarantee you that I live a joyful life of service to others without fear of death or demand for “eternal” reward. And without any imaginary buddies watching over me.

            I have absolutely nothing to worry about after I die.

          • Except finding out just how wrong you are and realizing that it is too late.

          • jaycubed

            That is your twisted fantasy, not mine.

          • It is not a fantasy it is real because God and His Holy Word is real.

          • jaycubed

            Then why do You repeatedly deny God’s Word, as I have demonstrated over & over in this thread? You do not Believe what You claim to Believe.

            Let me ask you a question. Do You Believe that Jesus answers prayers like it says in the Bible?

          • I believe EVERY WORD of scripture in The Bible aka God’s Holy Word.

            Obviously you do not otherwise you would be a Christian and have the Holy Spirit living within you.

          • jaycubed

            So You Believe, that if You have Faith that “Whatever” You ask for in Prayer “Will” be granted? As mentioned in the following four verses:

            Matthew 7:7 “Ask, and it will be given to you seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.

            Matthew 21:22 And whatever you ask in prayer, you will receive, if you have faith.”

            Mark 11:24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

            John 14:13-14 Whatever you ask in my name, this I
            will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me
            anything in my name, I will do it

            So are You claiming that “Whatever” You Pray for has been granted since You claim to have “Faith”.

            There are No exceptions or limits Jesus places on “Whatever”.

            Jesus Himself Says that IF You have Faith THEN all of your prayers will be answered & “You Will Receive” “Whatever” You Prayed for.

            Or is Jesus lying about answering “Whatever” Prayer a Believer makes?

          • jaycubed

            P.S. Sorry I’m late, I was out with my ” Armageddon Outta Here ! ” sign to wave bye’bye to those getting Raptured today (It said so on the internet, it must be true).
            Fifth time I’ve shown up for the Apocalypse – Still waiting.

          • There are two things I will say here and then I am done with you.

            1) Jesus is God and He never lies. He and His Word are always true.
            2) It amazes me that you and others like you that do not believe in God and therefore have no idea about Him and who He is, think that you actually are the ones that know it all when it comes to telling us Christians that we are wrong in our belief and understanding of Him and His Holy Word. I have put up with your blasphemy and hatred all I intend to. Do not contact me or reply to me again.

          • jaycubed

            I have no hatred for you, that is your projection*, but it is apparent that not only are you a brazen liar & Blasphemer – You Are A Coward ! –
            You deny and run away from Jesus’ Direct Word and deny Jesus’ Power.

            In order to “be done with (me)” you have to deny Your own Faith in Jesus and in the Gospel.

            You Reject Jesus’ Word, Lie about it, and then run away like a coward with your tail tucked in. You refuse to defend Jesus & His promises.

            * I certainly have contempt for your ideas & way of life. But nothing like hatred.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            YUP …. and many times the answer is NO ………….

          • cadcoke5

            God cannot commit murder, since it is only murder if someone else, who does not have the proper authority to do so, does it. God, always has the right to call everyone to their final judgement. For the Godly, to their eternal reward, for the ungodly, to their eternal place of judgment.

            But, it looks like you didn’t even bother to read the verses you were citing.

            Psalm 123:9 It says the one doing the dashing is the happy one. It does not say God is happy that this is occurring.

            Job 1:18-19 It does not say God killed them. Rather, earlier it says that God removed his “hedge of protection”. But, again, if these are Godly descendants, they are going to their reward.

            Judges 11:30-40 It does not say God accept this sacrifice. Only that Jephthah did it. And Jephthah should have expected a person, rather than an animal, to cross his threshold. He just didn’t expect his daughter. And again, if Godly, she went to her reward. The scripture does not call the murder he committed to be a Godly act.

            Exodus 7-12 When it is God who does the killing himself, it is never murder. He can bring to judgment anyone he wants, at any time, and does so eventually for everyone.

          • jaycubed

            Psalm 123:9 – Psalms are songs to God. God must approve of the sentiments of this Sacred Hymnal to Him; why would it be in His Book otherwise.

            Job 1:18-19 – ““Your sons and daughters were eating and drinking wine in their oldest brother’s house, and suddenly a great wind came from across the wilderness and struck the four corners of the house, and it fell on the young people, and they are dead” – God killed them (or Satan acted at God’s express command.)

            Judges 11:30-40 – The sacrifice was made successfully to God, so He accepted it. God knew that Jephthah would have to sacrifice his daughter when the promise was made, yet He accepted it.

            How Nice for God to be able to murder indiscriminately and get away with it since He gets to decide who should be murdered. How Nice for You that You know what God wants and are willing to oppress others and commit murder (11 doctors murdered) to attain your goals.

          • cadcoke5

            There are a lot of descriptions of evil in the Psalms, and many express God’s displeasure at them. Some are implied displeasure, since the Law he gives is against them.

            Concerning Job;. Giving permission is not the same as commanding. Nor does God promise to eliminate every source of harm from our lives.

            Concerning the Judges passage; When a person makes a sacrifice, it does not at all guarantee from God. In fact, God says that even a properly done sacrifice, if it is done with the wrong heart, is ignored by Him. How much more would he ignore a sacrifice which is against His laws. He also said He detests that the Canaanites committed child sacrifice.

            God “murders” (apparently, by your definition) nearly everyone. Our lifespan is dictated, or permitted by him, though he has set a max limit. He has also not eliminated all disease from all those who truly follow him. We endure a time of testing here on Earth. That is God’s privileged. Though, he has promised eternal life in Heaven to those who do.

          • jaycubed

            When I say “God Murdered”, I clearly refer to specific instances where God intentionally murders someone. I am not talking about natural death or man-made death. I am talking about Your God Murdering innocents with Your Blessing

            You are the follower of a death cult.

            You are obsessed with dying, so you will do anything to promote your sad fantasy of living forever. Not by positive action but by the damnation of others.

            You call yourself humble, yet brag that You personally are buddies with “The Creator of The Universe”, He whispers in your ear and tells You that He cares about the intimate details of other people’s lives so much that he wants You to tell all of them how to live and to oppress & even murder those who disagree with You/Him.

            If Your God actually existed, than any creature capable of ethical behavior would have to reject & resist such a monster. who PLANS to destroy all Life* and torture people for eternity. And You want to join on in.
            * After attempting once before, murdering billions of humans & animals in the process.

          • cadcoke5

            I not clear if you are an Atheist or not. But, since you refer to the topic of ethical behavior, you obviously believe that there some source that has established an ethical standard. Some believe this standard is created by popular vote. Thus, slavery and rape is moral in cultures that accept them. But, your tone suggests that you believe in a moral standard that is above this, and is an absolute standard.

            If you believe in an ultimate moral standard, do you believe that people should be held to that standard? What do you want to do with the non-compliant?

            There are several descriptions of what Hell is like in the Bible. Jesus talks about this more than he talks about Heaven. The lake of fire “which does not consume” and “where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth” is the most popular image people have. But there are other images provided as well. In Matt 22:1-14, Jesus teaches a parable where a king invites all the people, but only some come, and one comes not properly dressed for a party. Jesus has the king say, “throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

            I submit to you that the God of the Bible is the only true God. He is righteous, good and loving, as well as just. He judges and condemns to Hell, but he also provides a way to avoid it. I will conclude with John 3:19, “And this is the judgment, that light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil,” … some prefer the outer darkness, but the party is with God.

          • jaycubed

            I find that Ethics and Morality are completely different concepts and sources of behavior.

            Ethics is the Process (It’s a “verb”) of determining value. Ethics are the result of cooperative/competitive human behavior. Ethics can change & can be improved over time. Ethics require constant challenge & examination. Ethics exist in Reality.

            Morals are the Fixed Rules (It’s a “noun”) of a Culture that claim to derive from Magical sources (God Said!), claim to be eternal & unchanging. In practice Morals are the Excuses a person or culture makes for their own unethical behaviors. Morals are not connected to Reality or Consequence.

            It was Christian Morality that the Nazis exploited as anyone who has actually read Martin Luther, John Chrysostom or St Augustine can affirm. Christians “Morally” Murdered fellow Christians in God’s Name for trivial issues for more than a thousand years. German Christians “Morally” & “Legally” Murdered Jews. Your Muslim co-Religionists are still quite actively murdering each other (& Jews) “Morally” for similar trivial reasons.

            Obviously I find Your Morality loathsome. You have No Ethics because You Believe that You are Blessed and that the rules of Reality don’t apply to you.
            I submit to You that the God of the Bible is the most horrific monster in literary history. I further submit to You that You have Never actually read Your Bible.
            You had the Bible read to You (back in Sunday school?) and don’t have a clue what is actually in it – only what You insist must be in it. You actively Deny God’s direct Word when You don’t agree with it.

            Sadly you will probably never open your eyes to Reality before You die and . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cease . . . . . . . . . . .

          • jaycubed

            P.S., So:

            Murder is wrong because of its consequences in Reality. Murder is unethical. As God commands & commits numerous Murders in the Bible that must make Murder “Moral”.

            Rape is wrong because of its consequences in Reality. Rape is unethical. As God commands numerous Rapes in the Bible that must make Rape “Moral”.

            Arson is wrong because of its consequences in Reality. Arson is unethical.
            As arson is not condemned in the Bible in any way it must be Moral to burn down people’s homes – and in fact arson is blessed/encouraged by God several times in the Bible. Self-professed Christians continue to commit arson in God’s name. Therefore arson is “Moral”.

            Slavery is wrong because of its consequences in Reality. Slavery is unethical. Slavery is never condemned & in fact encouraged by God in the Bible. Therefore slavery is “Moral”.

  • jaycubed

    “Harvard Law Journal concludes: The preborn child is a constitutional person.” cadcoke5

    The reference/citation please?

    • cadcoke5

      You are correct, the headline is not an accurate description. Rather, it was an article published by the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, and written by Josh Craddock. I was looking at a good presentation of the argument he makes and I glossed over the title.

      You make a reference that only born people are referred to as citizens, and imply they therefore have a right to life. That is only in the 14th amendment. Other places, such as the 5th amendment, do connect citizenship with the right to life.

      In regards to God providing any rights; While all the authors and voters of the Constitution would say that God is the source of that right, they did not write it in the Constitution itself. The Declaration of independence shows what they felt quite clearly. They prayed at great length, at the suggestion of Ben Franklin, during the ratification process. They wrote about it in other documents, and in reality, it would have been unthinkable to those men, that there might be no God. Otherwise, there would be no source for a right that governments must bow to.

      • jaycubed

        “Otherwise, there would be no source for a right that governments must bow to.”
        Try reading the first three words of the U.S. Constitution and you will see the source of power that our Government must bow to:
        . . . WE THE PEOPLE . . .
        Not God . . . Not Church . . . Not Religion of any kind. It is the collective action of We The People that authorize & legitimize the U.S. Government..

        5th Amendment: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except incases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness
        against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
        due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
        without just compensation.”

        A person is not necessarily a citizen. Non-citizens who have been born are protected under the Law according to the 5th Amendment.

        Abortion is practiced following “due process of law”, as Roe v. Wade & numerous connected cases have shown.

        “Personhood” is Not a legal concept. Citizenship is.

        • cadcoke5

          My point in the prior message was that the people who voted to ratify the Constitution, recognized where rights originate from. They said so when they declared independence. and made this legal document the founding of our country. You simply cannot impose an atheistic view onto these people. They did not view the people as supreme. Rather, God was supreme. They expected that the citizens and representative would also keep this view.

          Regarding the 5th amendment. The “due process of law” in this amendment, is not satisfied by a general ruling from the supreme court, like Roe v. Wade. Rather it requires that each individual have due process done to determine that they can be deprived of life.

          You said, “Non-citizens who have been born are protected under the Law according to the 5th Amendment.” But, the 5th amendment does not refer to those who have been born, like when it talks about citizenship in the 14th.

          • jaycubed

            I agree that the people who ratified the U.S. Constitution recognized where Human Rights came from. That is why they cited that source as the first three words of said Constitution – We The People.

            They clearly did not cite any “God Given Rights” for several very good reasons.

            1. “God Given Rights” Opposed the American Revolution. God & Church supported the King. The American revolution was not just against a King, but against the King’s “God Given Rights” to rule.

            2. They were a diverse group of conflicting Beliefs who were well educated & aware of the sordid & violent history of “Christian Government”. They knew the recent history of mass Religious murder/oppression in Europe and wanted none of it.

            3. They (sadly it now seems) thought that the American People would be thoughtful & deliberative in politics rather than the lunatics that 200 years of history has shown us to be. They knew that one group would attempt to force their Beliefs down others throats if they could.

            Our Founding Fathers Intentionally removed any reference to God to protect the Republic against Religious Fanatics.

          • jaycubed

            You said, “Non-citizens who have been born are protected under the Law
            according to the 5th Amendment.” But, the 5th amendment does not refer
            to those who have been born, like when it does when it talks Defines Citizenship in the 14th. cadcoke5

            The 5th Amendment does not Define Citizenship. The 14th Amendment actively Defines what a Citizen is. Also, as a matter of Law, later Amendments clarify/revise earlier Law. That’s how the Law works.

            You might want to take a New Citizenship class with immigrants so you can learn how the Law actually works. They are usually more aware of the Law than “born” citizens.