dpwozney

The so-called "Supreme Court of Canada judges" in "the Morgentaler Decision" stated their allegiance to Elizabeth the Second. Elizabeth the Second is not Queen of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", contrary to the requirement in this Fifth Schedule, which states: "Oath of Allegiance I A.B. do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria. Note. The Name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the Time being is to be substituted from Time to Time, with proper Terms of Reference thereto.". Elizabeth the Second claims to be Queen of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". The provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", not the Crown of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", according to the British North America Act, 1867.

In this topic thread, it was claimed that "... abortion is legalized ...". So my question, in reaction to the above claim, is: "What law made abortion legal?".

In this topic thread, I have not yet made an argument. Instead, so far in this topic thread, I have asked a question, made a couple of correct statements about scripture, and have quoted scripture. The question which I asked, which so far lacks a satisfactory answer in this topic thread, is: "What law made abortion legal?"

"For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath showed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment." James 2:11-13 (KJV)

Killing a child, before the child is born, is contrary to New Testament Christian law. Romans 13:9 states "Thou shalt not kill".

What law made abortion legal?

My statements were made to answer a question, not to make an argument. My statements are a valid observation. Many of the people, getting taxpayer-funded abortions, can easily afford to pay for the abortions themselves. Governments pick and choose what taxes go towards.

Religious people are forced to pay for other people's abortions. Indirectly funding abortions by paying taxes is an activity that some religious people find objectionable.

According to this article, "it is clearly evident from the immediate context of Deuteronomy 22 that rape is not being discussed in verses 28-29" and "some translations inaccurately and mistakenly translate" the Hebrew word tapas as "rape".

According to 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (KJV), "neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners" shall have the right to inherit the kingdom of God.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (KJV) 28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. The term "lay hold" in Deuteronomy 22:28 (KJV) is translated from the Hebrew word transliterated as "taphas" which is never translated as "rape" or "rapes" in the KJV Bible. The word "humbled" in Deuteronomy 22:29 (KJV) is translated from the Hebrew word transliterated as "anah" which is never translated as "violated" in the KJV Bible.

The original posting in this topic thread provides the following quote from this article. "The resolution still needs affirmation by the next synod in 2019 before it becomes church law."

Did you read the original posting in this thread?

Acts 9:15 quotes Jesus. Acts 9 10 And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord. 11 And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, 12 And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight. 13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: 14 And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. 15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: 16 For I will show him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.

Christ stated that Paul was "a chosen vessel" unto the Lord, to bear the Lord's name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel (Acts 9:15). Paul wrote that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16). Paul was filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17) and was baptized (Acts 9:18). Paul was sent forth by the Holy Spirit (Acts 13:4). Paul preached the kingdom of God, and taught those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 28:31). Paul wrote "he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife" and "she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband" (1 Corinthians 7:33-34).

According to recent media reports, Marie Renaud wrote: "I had an abortion and I thank God I was able to." Killing a child, before the child is born, is contrary to the commandments of the God of the Christian Bible. Romans 13:9 states "Thou shalt not kill". Also, according to the God of the Christian Bible, repentance is necessary for salvation. Jesus said "except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." (Matthew 7:1-2) The commandment in Matthew 7:1-2 is to judge not violations of God's laws along with physical measures meted out. See also Matthew 13:28-30. The New Testament does not prescribe any specified physical penalty, punishment, or enforcement by men for violations of the laws of God before the end of the present church age. Nevertheless, both good and evil are to be discerned: "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

"RCMP deputy commissioner Marianne Ryan" is quoted in this June 3rd Edmonton Journal article. Publicly and openly endorsing, supporting, and celebrating pride is disrespecful of the Christian community that teaches that pride is an evil thing, which Christian community includes Jesus Christ. "And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man." Mark 7:20-23 (KJV)

The long-form census is unlawful because the "Statistics Act, R.S.C., 1985" is non-compliant with Canadian law. The "Statistics Act, R.S.C., 1985" was created, and exists, with the understanding that Elizabeth the Second is "Queen". Elizabeth the Second is not Queen of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", contrary to the requirement in this Fifth Schedule, which states: "Oath of Allegiance I A.B. do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria. Note. The Name of the King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for the Time being is to be substituted from Time to Time, with proper Terms of Reference thereto.". Elizabeth the Second claims to be Queen of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". The provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick expressed their desire to be federally united into one Dominion under the Crown of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", not the Crown of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", according to the British North America Act, 1867.

So then, "Je suis Omar", is it the "Crown" that owns 81% of the province's oil, natural gas and other mineral resources, in your view? Is this "Alberta Energy" webpage incorrect when it states that "Albertans own 81% of the province's oil, natural gas and other mineral resources"? The "Crown", "Alberta", or the "Province of Alberta", is a different entity than "Albertans", "the people of Alberta", or "Albertans, collectively".

So, "Je suis Omar", is it the "Crown", or is it it "Albertans", that own 81% of the province's oil, natural gas and other mineral resources, in your view?"Alberta", the "Province of Alberta", or the "Crown", is a different entity than "Albertans", "the people of Alberta", or "Albertans, collectively".

Owning something can be different than having certain rights to that same something. The entity that owns something can be different than some entity that has certain rights to that same something.

This other "Alberta Energy" webpage claims "In Alberta, the Crown owns 81% of the province's mineral rights ..." and refers to "petroleum and natural gas rights owned by the Province of Alberta". "The earth is the LORD'S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein", according to Psalm 24:1. "For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof", according to 1 Corinthians 10:26. The fulness of the earth includes mineral and energy resources. Has the original owner of mineral and energy resources ever been publicly acknowledged by any government in Canada?

"A mineral is a naturally occurring substance that is solid and inorganic representable by a chemical formula, usually abiogenic, and has an ordered atomic structure", according to Wikipedia's article for "Mineral". Wiktionary's first three definitions for the noun mineral state: "1. (geology) Any naturally occurring inorganic material that has a (more or less) definite chemical composition and characteristic physical properties. 2. Any inorganic material (as distinguished from animal or vegetable). 3. Any inorganic element that is essential to nutrition; a dietary mineral." Some historical definitions for what constitutes a mineral are provided at this mineral website link.

"Albertans own 81% of the province's oil, natural gas and other mineral resources", according to this "Alberta Energy" webpage. By what law, or on what basis, is the above claim made? The "Constitution Act, 1867" refers to "Lands, Mines, Minerals, and Royalties belonging to the several Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick at the Union". The "Alberta Act, 1905" refers to "Crown lands, mines and minerals". The "Alberta Natural Resources Act, SC 1930, c 3" refers to "Crown lands, mines, minerals (precious and base) and royalties derived therefrom within the Province". Are "Crown lands, mines and minerals" not owned by the "Crown"? Do "Crown lands, mines and minerals" not belong to the "Crown"? "Alberta", the "Province of Alberta", or the "Crown", is a different entity than "Albertans", "the people of Alberta", or "Albertans, collectively". Is oil a mineral? Is natural gas a mineral? Are oil resources, or natural gas resources, claimed to be "mineral resources"? Does the "Government of the Province of Alberta" claim that oil is a mineral? Does the "Government of the Province of Alberta" claim that natural gas is a mineral?