Pro Life versus Pro Choice Debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter gakroeger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unlike the Church, the Supreme court is not infallible. It is part of faithful citizenship to call into question judgments made in error.
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court does not need to claim infallibility my friend. The Court has never asserted that Jesus Christ guides her. Moreover, the Supreme Court was deciding the legal issue not the moral issue. You certaintly can disagree with the Court but the Court has the authority to say what the law is—that is the authority the Court has–unless you somehow disagree with how this country was founded. (putting aside the MvM case). The Court did not claim it was making a moral statement.
The court has made errors in the past and corrected them (case in point: Plessey v. Ferguson, 1896, was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 1954).
Click to expand...
Yes, but the core of Roe was reaffirmed in the 1992 Casey decision. So the law remains the same. Only the Court can decide if it wants to overturn its own precedent.
It is an infallible statement that abortion is intrinsically evil.
Click to expand...
No disagreement here. But has the Church invoke infallibility here–seems unnecessary.
The life of the unborn must be protected, and the protection of life is a guaranteed right in the Constitution. Privacy. however is mentioned nowhere.
Click to expand...
The Court believes such a right in some form exists given the language of the 14th and 9th Amendments—again who has the authority.
Roe v. Wade , 1973 is not an example of interpretation of the Constitution, but of legislation from the Bench.
Click to expand...
Is there a discernable difference outside the eye of the beholder? Interpretation vs. legislation. Please define your criterion that explains what is interpreting and what is legislating? I would love to see it.
]I would argue that the Supreme Court had no right to strike down anti-abortion laws. It is the duty of the Supreme Court to protect the citizens from tyranny, not to enforce tyranny
Click to expand...
.

No right, how do you figure–of course it does. The Court has the authority. Yes, a key duty is to protect individual rights and in doing so it looks to limit the power of the government in certain situations and in Roe the Court said it is the women’s duty (power) to protect or not protect that life.(or potential life in the Court’s view) Govt can regulate to a degree–thus limiting govt power.
 
Worthy5 said:
No right, how do you figure–of course it does. The Court has the authority. Yes, a key duty is to protect individual rights and in doing so it looks to limit the power of the government in certain situations and in Roe the Court said it is the women’s duty (power) to protect or not protect that life. Govt can regulate to a degree–thus limiting govt power.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Whiteacre
The supreme court also once decided that no one has the right to buy, sell, or consume alcohol. A decision they later repealed. Yes, the supreme court’s job is to interpret the constitution, but no one has EVER believed they were infallible. That’s what the appeals process is for in the first place.
Click to expand...
No one, including the Court, claims they are infallible. Has the Court ever said that JC guides them. Moreover, did the Court claim it was making a moral statement. It was deciding an issue of law-----do you know the difference?

The Court has the authority to decide the legal issue–or do you disagree with how the American legal system works. And the US Supreme Court is the final court of appeals. 👍
Like prohibilition, this is another miscarriage of justice, and a general big screw up on their part. They let their personal opinions get in the way when they made this decision, clearly, because the right to life is the first and most important right in this country. There was no “due process of law” afforded to the unborn before they signed the death warrant of these children. They didn’t educate themselves, they didn’t determine harm. They just went off their personal biases. And like prohibition, we can only hope sanity returns to the courts, and they repeal this decision as well.
Click to expand...
Great, but that is your opinion. But you say they did not " educate themselves" Really, the Court was filled with highly educated lawyers with years of legal experience.
 
Hello all, I’m new on this forum, so please forgive me if I’m a little too controversial or political. I’m totally pro life and I don’t think there should be any controversy at all about this issue of life, but why did nearly 60% of all Catholics (so called Catholics I should say) vote for a very pro choice president, Something is desperately wrong in our religion. How can you be a real Catholic and vote for Obama? I’m sorry but this is really disturbing. What is wrong with Catholicism and Christianity all together to allow things to go this far? I think the problem lies in an evil media industry in America combined with a warped educational system, But that’s JMO. I’ll keep praying and voting Pro life in the mean time, and if I’m not sure who to vote for, I can just turn on CNN, or read the NY Times, and then I’ll know who not to vote for because they’ll be behind the wrong guy every time.
.
 
Benadam said:
Liberty, is inherent in human nature. Liberty is a God given right. When law in the name of liberty removes from man what is his by nature to have
Click to expand...
We can’t remove something that’s inherent to an entity without changing an entity. So if humans have liberty, and “the law” takes it away, are the victims still human? If so, then liberty isn’t inherent to humans like, say, hydrogen is inherent to water.
 
Worthy5 said:
And when I stand before Jesus Christ, I will be able to say that I fought against unrighteousness, and I won’t have to say “Well, I would have, but I am more in favor of less government intervention, no matter what the moral ramifications were. You understand don’t you, Jesus?”
This is why libertarians annoy me. They cry “less government intervention” so they fance themselves conservatives, but they adopt the amoral qualities of liberals. This is one of the most selfish possible attitudes one can have towards government. “Stay out of my business, and who cares about anyone else!”
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Worthy5 said:
No one, including the Court, claims they are infallible. Has the Court ever said thet JC guieds them. Moreover, the Court is not making a moral statement but deciding and issue of law-----do you know the difference?
Click to expand...
I never said that the court is led by christianity or christian morals. It is, however, led by the guidelines of the constitution that states that life is a right given to all people.

Secondly, yes I do know the difference. Trying to attack me or my intellegence in a debate of policy won’t make your point any more right, or any more respected. Why do you feel the need to insult those who disagree with you?

We are talking about LAW here, and the LAW says that all people have a right to life, and they cannot be denied that right without due process. Trying to accuse me of making this a religious issue when I have not again reflects poorly on your arguments. I have not once used religion as a basis for why abortion violates the right to life. I don’t need to. The Constitution makes the point for me.
The Court has the authority to decide the legal issue–or do you disagree with how the American legal system works. And the US Supreme Court is the final court of appeals. 👍
Click to expand...
But even the supreme court has corrected itself. AGAIN let me point you back to prohibition.
Great, but that is your opinion. But you say they did not " educate themselves" Really, the Court was filled with highly educated lawyers with years of legal experience.
Click to expand...
Who, if they were truly supporting the constitution would find that the issue of the life of the unborn child plays a vital role in this case. They are ruling on the right of one class of people to take the life of another class of people. They clearly made their decision based off of “feelings” rather than what they learned in their classes.

Lastly, I have very patiently been waiting for these people defending abortion to put forth their idea for when life actually begins, and not ONE of them have stepped up to the plate on this. Why is this? Does it make the issue more real?
 
=Whitacre_Girl;5867744
Click to expand...
I never said that the court is led by christianity or christian morals. It is, however, led by the guidelines of the constitution that states that life is a right given to all people.
Click to expand...
I believe you used " infallibility" in the discussion, the Church infallible because Christ guides in essential matters of faith and morals. Again, the Supreme Court has the authority but it does not claim infallibility.

You state " constitution that states that life is a right given to all people" well the Court did not see the case that way.
Secondly, yes I do know the difference. Trying to attack me or my intellegence in a debate of policy won’t make your point any more right, or any more respected. Why do you feel the need to insult those who disagree with you?
Click to expand...
It is just a discusion. Well you started talking law and legal precedent so I assume you have a working definition on that.
We are talking about LAW here, and the LAW says that all people have a right to life, and they cannot be denied that right without due process. Trying to accus me of making this is a religious issue, and again reflects poorly on your point. I have not once used religion as a basis for why abortion violates the right to life. I don’t need to. The Constitution makes the point for me.
Click to expand...
Who accussed you of making it a religious issue? Whatever that means. If you mean moral issue, well it is a moral issue, but also it is a legal issue and often the two intertwine—thus the reason asking your understanding of such.
But even the supreme court is corrected itself. AGAIN let me point you back to prohibition.
Click to expand...
But the Court has not done that.
Who, if they were truly supporting the constitution would find that the issue of the life of the unborn child plays a vital role in this case. They are ruling on the right of one class of people to take the life of another class of people. They clearly made their decision based off of “feelings” rather than what they learned in their law classes.
Click to expand...
Fine, but that is your opinion.
Lastly, I have very patiently been waiting for these people defending abortion to put forth their idea for when life actually begins, and not ONE of them have stepped up to the plate on this. Why is this? Does it make the issue more real?
Click to expand...
Let us say it begins at conception. But the Court really did not get into that, they decided the case on privacy grounds.
 
Worthy5 said:
I believe you used " infallibility" in the discussion, the Church infallible because Christ guides in essential matters of faith and morals. Again, the Supreme Court has the authority but it does not claim infallibility.

You state " constitution that states that life is a right given to all people" well the Court did not see the case that way.

It is just a discusion. Well you started talking law and legal precedent so I assume you have a working definition on that.

Who accussed you of making it a religious issue? Whatever that means. If you mean moral issue, well it is a moral issue, but also it is a legal issue and often the two intertwine—thus the reason asking your understanding of such.

But the Court has not done that.

Fine, but that is your opinion.
Click to expand...
Let us say it begins at conception. But the Court really did not get into that, they decided the case on privacy grounds.

Infallibility is important here. If the court can make mistakes, then it could be wrong…and in this case it is. Whether you like it our not, our legal system is based or morality, wherein moral infractions tend to be against the law, and regulation of these is left to the state governments. Your claim of “limited government” is a poor argument in that it was government involvement from too high of a level that caused this mess. Head the federal government stayed out, we would not even be having this discussion. Why don’t you just admit that you are wrong and you have no true basis for your arguments other than you don’t wish to submit to either Church or governmental authority.
 
Whitacre_Girl said:
Lastly, I have very patiently been waiting for these people defending abortion to put forth their idea for when life actually begins, and not ONE of them have stepped up to the plate on this. Why is this? Does it make the issue more real?
Click to expand...
I believe we have all been waiting for the forum members on this thread who are proabortion to give a clear, coherent explanation of when a person becomes a person. We have had one response that really appeared to be a fallacy, but I have seen no more…

Why is that, I wonder?

Gearhead and Worthy5, tick tock tick tock…When does a person become a person, in your opinion?
 
Worthy5 said:
I believe you used " infallibility" in the discussion, the Church infallible because Christ guides in essential matters of faith and morals. Again, the Supreme Court has the authority but it does not claim infallibility.
Click to expand...
We need to explain infallability then. It is not a religious word. To be infallible means you don’t make error, or lead anyone astray. Just because the supreme court ruled once that abortion was constitutional, it doesn’t make it the hard and fast truth. They are not infallible, they CAN mistakes as history has proved. Abortion is another such mistake.
You state " constitution that states that life is a right given to all people" well the Court did not see the case that way.
Click to expand...
Exactly. They didn’t, because they were not looking at the constitution and the guaranteed right to life for all people. They were legislating from the bench based solely off their emotions and biases, NOT the constitution.
It is just a discusion. Well you started talking law and legal precedent so I assume you have a working definition on that.
Click to expand...
Yes, I do. It’s called the constitution. What our whole legal system is based off of.

I also have cases where men are being locked up for murder on unborn children when they kill a child in the womb at the same age that abortion is legal. They are charged with murder. The courts DO recognise the life of these children, so how are the men committing murder and the women are not? There is a huge hypocricy present.
Who accussed you of making it a religious issue? Whatever that means. If you mean moral issue, well it is a moral issue, but also it is a legal issue and often the two intertwine—thus the reason asking your understanding of such.
Click to expand...
It means that you are stating the only reason I would claim that abortion is immoral is based of a religious belief and I am forcing my belief on other people. I am not, I am merely crying out for the freedoms guaranteed to all the people of the United States.
Let us say it begins at conception. But the Court really did not get into that, they decided the case on privacy grounds.
Click to expand...
Okay, lets say it does. Then the court SHOULD have found that the right to privacy is always trumped by the right to life. Take for example a man who invites women into his home. When they enter his home he brutally rapes and murders them. Should the law do nothing because of his right to privacy to do what he wants in his own home? Now replace man and his home with woman and her body, and replace woman with child. Should a woman be allowed to hire someone to hack a living human to pieces and remove them from her body? She invited the person in when she had sex.
 
CWBetts said:

Govt can select different means to address the problem in order to fulfill moral obligations.
This is why libertarians annoy me. They cry “less government intervention” so they fance themselves conservatives, but they adopt the amoral qualities of liberals. This is one of the most selfish possible attitudes one can have towards government. “Stay out of my business, and who cares about anyone else!”
Click to expand...
]

No it really is not about that but recognizing that reasonable people can disagree about how govt is to deal with the problem given the multiple policy goals that govt must balance and its limited resources.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Caramel said:
I believe we have all been waiting for the forum members on this thread who are proabortion to give a clear, coherent explanation of when a person becomes a person. We have had one response that really appeared to be a fallacy, but I have seen no more…
Why is that, I wonder?
Click to expand...
Caramel, you claim you did not think the thread was about the legal issue. I simply corrected the record when someone else brought up legal precedent by pointing out how the Supreme Court ruled in Roe and Casey.

None of my post ever claimed that life did not begin at conception. My posts are outlining the reasonable position of some in the pro-choice position given the need for limited govt and govt right to select other means to deal with the abortion problem.
Click to expand...
 
worthy5 said:
caramel, you claim you did not think the thread was about the legal issue. I simply corrected the record when someone else brought up legal precedent by pointing out how the supreme court ruled in roe and casey.

None of my post ever claimed that life did not begin at conception. My posts are outlining the reasonable position of some in the pro-choice position given the need for limited govt and govt right to select other means to deal with the abortion problem.
Click to expand...
there is no reasonable pro-choice position
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top