|Vol 2 No. 3
Aug 1, 2018
|This newsletter reports
on the U.S.A., fighting
for the face to face
bestowal of the
essence of democratic
law: One person one
vote from one free
citizen to the next free
citizen, to win
individual access to
earthly desires, which
is required to generate
a modern and
prosperous nation(This is based on the
Transmission of the
Law argued by
the Lotus Sutra,
and the Nichiren Shoshu)
|This article was written
by arguing Nam Myoho
Renge Kyo to a
Gohonzon, and reciting
this article along with
other research material,
arguing last moment of
life, Time without
Propagation, as to
win objects of desire
Question: What of people who want to soften this separation of Church from State and repeal Roe vs Wade?
Answer: We can point them to Ireland. In May 2018, Ireland voted to repeal anti abortion laws. Ireland is 78% Catholic. These people voted, by secret ballot, to repeal their state’s anti abortion Constitutional amendment. They repealed the 8th Amendment of their Constitution that was passed in 1983 and had made abortions illegal for most circumstances. About 66% voted to repeal. About 64% of voters, voted.
There are certain policies that people will eventually rise up and say ‘No More. It does not work. It makes us a miserable country.’ The Russians did this to their Communism, after 70 years. The Irish did this to their 8th Amendment, after 35 years.
Question: Then why do you mention ‘Separation of Church from State’?
Answer: The US Supreme Court decision in Roe vs. Wade was based on state proof. Because our US Supreme Court Justices do not cite documentary proof, derived or direct, from a ‘Supreme Being’ as an authority for ruling pro or con on any of the cases presented before them.
Our ‘US Constitution’ does not embrace a ‘Supreme Being’ as an authority. Instead it explicitly reads “…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
The ‘US Declaration of Independence’ is extremely careful and precise, to cite: “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”.
Question: How then is state proof handled?
Answer: State proof is based on a person’s decision that they do not want to remain pregnant. This decision can be reached for various reasons. A pregnancy happened by accident. Or from being a victim of a crime involving acts of rape. Anti pregnancy measures failed, such as condoms, diagrams, gels. A person was perhaps overwhelmed by alcohol or drugs and that led to an accidental pregnancy. It’s a very simple decision process. She says ‘No’ to pregnancy.
Today, there are laws that when a woman or man says ‘No’ to sex, if another person, including a husband or wife, forces them into having sex, it is ruled rape.
Question: Then what of people who want to protect a right to life of a fetus, and thus overturn Roe vs. Wade and they claim their anti-abortion desire is not based on any religious edict?
Answer: They want laws to protect a right of life of a fetus and ignore the rights of life of a person who does not wish to keep their pregnancy.
They might argue that a fetus also has protection and the pleas of the pregnant woman, to have an abortion, must be ignored.
They can argue that if a pregnant woman is provided with sufficient rituals extolling the virtues of a fetus, that they will change her mind and she will decide to keep her pregnancy. They might argue that a woman must carry her pregnancy, because there are many families who will then honor her and are willing to adopt that baby. They might argue that when anti pregnancy safeguards fail, or if by accident or even if by rape, that a woman must accept responsibility, because sex is also an act of procreation, and she has to deliver that baby from her pregnancy. They might cite that it is a great medicine for a country to prevent abortions, and that abortions weakens a country’s ability to give its citizen’s a feeling of a healthy country.
A husband might argue that he married his wife, to have children, and now she wants to abort her pregnancy. At this stage, he does not care about his wife’s desires. He might argue his wife is being mean spirited and willing to kill their baby because she has lost her good mind. He might argue that he is 50% responsible for conception and he wants her pregnancy to continue. He will argue that she must be bound by law to deliver her baby and he will be there to supervise her to insure a healthy baby is delivered. This is ‘misery’.
All in all they are willing to exhaust their good fortune to over rule a woman’s desire to say ‘No’ she does not want to be pregnant and wants an abortion..