So is it or isn't it a human

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

The Supreme Court has NEVER stated when life began, so you are wrong.

My friend, that post,nor any post, every stated that the Supreme Court decided when life began.

Well, here is what you stated: [SIGN]Bottom line is that you, or I, are not the Supreme Court—it has the authority to say what the Constitution means. And it means, whatever the Surpeme Court says it means—that is what courts do. This is not a scientific experiment where something can be " proved" or " disproved" (in fact science itself simply works as an explanation of parts of reality)[/SIGN]

Notice that you have claimed that it is only the Supreme Court who has the authority to state what the Constitution means. In the various cases that the Court has considered in regards to abortion, they have consistently treated the fetus as non-human. They have done this without ever having stated when life begins.

Since you claim that the Supreme Court has the “authority” to claim that a human being is non-human simply takes us back to the time of the Nazi regime where the courts in Germany declared that Jews were not human, therefore killing them was not “murder.”

You also stated: [SIGN]The Church should spend more time helping women make their own correct moral decisions on their own than going on about the legal status of the early fetus.[/SIGN]

Once again, you clearly show how it is that you recognize that the Supreme Court has NEVER stated when life begins. This is why I stated that “you are wrong.” Your premise is that “The Church should spend more time helping women make their own correct moral decisions on their own [rather] than going on about the legal status of the early fetus.” Since the Supreme Court has NEVER ruled on when life begins, the argument concerning ALL STAGES OF HUMAN LIFE is an imperative one, and must be answered in order to reverse the unConstitutional and unjust decisions that the Supreme Court has made.

The Church can and should spend whatever time is necessary in protecting human life.

Worthy5:

No one said it should not, the Church should stick to its role as a moral voice.

Well, that may not be what you meant to say, but that certainly is what came across. By saying that the “Church should spend more time helping women make their own correct moral decisions on their own than going on about the legal status of the early fetus” you have clearly stated that it is more important to help women make a decision to abort their child than it is to stand as a moral voice against abortion.

Your comment that the “Church should spend more time helping women make their own correct moral decisions” is doublespeak for saying that the Church should not interfere with a woman’s legal right to choose abortion if she so chooses.

Worthy5:

Yes it is saying exactly that—there is no double speak involved.

Well, thanks for the honesty.

 

[Worthy5]

=PEPCIS;6554763]Well, here is what you stated: [SIGN]Bottom line is that you, or I, are not the Supreme Court—it has the authority to say what the Constitution means. And it means, whatever the Surpeme Court says it means—that is what courts do. This is not a scientific experiment where something can be " proved" or " disproved" (in fact science itself simply works as an explanation of parts of reality)[/SIGN]

Notice that you have claimed that it is only the Supreme Court who has the authority to state what the Constitution means.

Yes, correct. Read Article III of the Constitution.

In the various cases that the Court has considered in regards to abortion, they have consistently treated the fetus as non-human.

Your characterization.

They have done this without ever having stated when life begins.

The Court does not have to. If you read the Roe and Casey cases you might actually see that. The Court did not make that decision to come to the legal conclusion that it came to.

Since you claim that the Supreme Court has the “authority” to claim that a human being is non-human

No my friend. You are mischaracterizing. See above.

simply takes us back to the time of the Nazi regime where the courts in Germany declared that Jews were not human, therefore killing them was not “murder.”

Is there ever a discussion that does not end up talking about Hitler?

You also stated: [SIGN]The Church should spend more time helping women make their own correct moral decisions on their own than going on about the legal status of the early fetus.[/SIGN]

Once again, you clearly show how it is that you recognize that the Supreme Court has NEVER stated when life begins. This is why I stated that “you are wrong.” Your premise is that “The Church should spend more time helping women make their own correct moral decisions on their own [rather] than going on about the legal status of the early fetus.” Since the Supreme Court has NEVER ruled on when life begins, the argument concerning ALL STAGES OF HUMAN LIFE is an imperative one, and must be answered in order to reverse the unConstitutional and unjust decisions that the Supreme Court has made.

My friend, you are making no sense. You say " you recognize that the SC has never stated when life begins" before you stated " You are wrong" in that the SC never decided when life began. Right… that is what was said.

Read the cases. The Court did not have to decide, scientifically, whether the early fetus is a human or not or some other form of “early life”. It focused on the zone of privacy—the govt cannot regulate in this area over a women. (although this has problems with the doctors role—but another point)

 

[twb1621]

No my friend, a choice is the freedom to choose either one thing or another-whether good or bad for you…

Sorry for the delay but I was off the grid for a time…

No my friend, a choice is the freedom to choose either one thing or another-whether good or bad for you. But that is fine for you to argue the pro-life legal position—it is a reasonable position to have.

You misread the matter of choice here. Good or bad for you is not the statement, show me where anyone has the right to choose that which infringes on the rights of another, as IS the statement.

But the Court saw it otherwise. The “realm of privacy” analysis is saying—that the govt cannot regulate there despite what moral wrong the women maybe doing. The Court split the duty to protect the life between the women, early on, and then society takes over as the fetus matures.

Thus, promoting both limited govt and protection of life via the state police power. Society can use other means to try to help the early fetus—just not its police power.

Unfortunately, what you are justifying is no different than saying Solomon would have been literally correct cutting the baby in half to satisfy both women but he had enough sense to know the real mother would not allow that to happen. The fact is, The Declaration of Independence acknowledged and the government in its statutes followed that;

We (the people including government representing the people)

hold these truths***(not possibilities but recognized realities or facts)***

to be self-evident***(obvious and without question in and of themselves),***

that all men are created equal**, **(men referring to human beings / equal meaning without difference one from another)

that they are endowed by their Creator***(gifted by God being the creator)***

with certain unalienable Rights**, **(rights that can not be revoked or taken away from any man as gifted by God)

**that among these are Life **(Life being the first specifically noted unalienable right)

Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness**. **(Without life, neither of these rights can be pursued)

“…The Court split the duty to protect the life between the women, early on, then society takes over as the fetus matures”.

No, it was not specific to saving the life of the women but pertained to abortion as a matter of many choices under all circustances.

This is in direct opposition to the Declaration of Independence as again, it is stated; all man’s unalienable rights. There is no division or qualifying factor among men.

Further, you claim the court decision was at least in part based on; “The “realm of privacy” analysis is saying—that the govt cannot regulate there despite what moral wrong the women maybe doing”, however, the government did regulate by its own opinions in direct opposition to the Declaration of Independence, the gifts of our Creator and the unalienable rights of man as this country and laws were previously founded upon and in fact did so intently that they determined various stages it would be acceptable and conditions government would accept.

continued next post…

 

[twb1621]

continued from previous post:

No my friend, …

Thanks my friend, but the D of I is not binding legal authority that the Supreme Court refers to. Its the Constitution. Thanks for the debate.

In acknowledgment of our newly found friendship, worthy5, I offer you the following;

There is what is officially referred to as the “Three Charters of Freedom” that formed this country. The Declaration of Independence is the first of the three and establishes (sets forth) the principles this country was founded upon and was to follow in the establishment of our systems of Justice for all. Verified throughout this country’s short history, it is clearly recorded that the power of the Supreme Court has evolved on the back of its own adjudications over time, through a series of milestone court cases. In other words, it established its own growth in power for itself.

As a functioning form of justice our legal system suffers from what I consider the “Chess syndrome”, meaning more frequently than most people would care to know, adjudication is founded on who knows how to manipulate the law through “loop holes” and poorly clarified statutes better than his or her adversary. This is not Sinicism I speak with but the observation and involvement of one who was educated and trained by the law to enforce the law. Then there are the laws established in opposition to other laws. Sodomy is illegal but “gay marriage” is ever growing with legal acknowledgement state by state. Perhaps they will eventually call sodomy a “blue law” and only selectively enforce it when its comfortable to utilize.

You say the Declaration of Independence is not binding legal authority, you are correct. It is the parent of binding legal authority and in itself is being aborted. The Declaration states what our God-given rights are, “life, liberty, pursuit of happiness” and the reasons we declared our independence. The Constitution explains what form of government will best guard these rights.

What happens when the same “ethical” reasoning such as brought about the legal acceptance of abortion is called to reevaluate the viability of the Bill of Rights or anti-discrimination law? You know the part of the constitution that states man cannot be discriminated against because of race religion, sex, AGE… Isn’t age (trimester) the basic determining factor as to when a human being is “viable”? Or which “class” of abortion the judicial system established fits the act?

The Fifth Amendment attests that even if we are accused of a crime we do not lose our basic rights. The legal implementation of *habeas corpus *further supports these rights, including the basic right to life, using the exact language used in the Declaration: “no person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law.”

The fourteenth amendment reaffirms this basic principle: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

even the death penalty can not be blanketly imposed, it must be adjudicated on a case by case basis.

opinion on Roe v. Wade:

"At the heart of the controversy in these cases are those recurring pregnancies that pose no danger whatsoever to the life or health of the mother but are, nevertheless, unwanted for any one or more of a variety of reasons — convenience, family planning, economics, dislike of children, the embarrassment of illegitimacy, etc. … I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. … As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court." — Justice Byron R. White.

By the way, Roe has several years ago recognized her error in pursuing abortion rights. In fact, she converted to Catholicism and now fights for pro-life.

CNS NEWS: Wednesday, July 29th, 2009
“No abortion is to be paid for with tax-funded dollars,” McCorvey, now a pro-life activist, told CNSNews.com after the protest. “It’s against the laws of God. Roe versus Wade is a bad law and I’m sorry that I ever did it.”

McCorvey, joined dozens of other protestors in the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to speak out against the legislation, which currently involves using taxpayer dollars to fund abortions.

 

[Worthy5]

Sorry for the delay but I was off the grid for a time…

You misread the matter of choice here. Good or bad for you is not the statement, show me where anyone has the right to choose that which infringes on the rights of another, as IS the statement.

My friend, the D of I is not a binding legal document–the Constitution is the Supreme law of the land.

Without life, neither of these rights can be pursued.

But the Court decided the early fetus was not entitled to the same type of legal protection of its life given its status inside the women. And govt does not do everything to protect you or my life so we can pursue the other rights. If it did then the speed limit would be 10 mph everywhere so no one would be killed in an accident.

[No, it was not specific to saving the life of the women but pertained to abortion as a matter of many choices under all circustances

You misread that—the women has the job to protect the early fetus…later govt can usurp her decision.

This is in direct opposition to the Declaration of Independence as again, it is stated; all man’s unalienable rights. There is no division or qualifying factor among men

You need to get over the D of I. Further, such language you are referring to is language stated at a high level of generality—you know well that does not really mean anything until applied to a given context.

Further, you claim the court decision was at least in part based on;

This poster claims nothing—read the opinion.

the government did regulate

by its own opinions in direct opposition to the Declaration of Independence, the gifts of our Creator and the unalienable rights of man as this country and laws were previously founded upon and in fact did so intently that they determined various stages it would be acceptable and conditions government would accept.

Oookay
[/quote]
[/QUOTE]

 

[Worthy5]

"At the heart of the controversy in these cases are those recurring pregnancies that pose no danger whatsoever to the life or health of the mother but are, nevertheless, unwanted for any one or more of a variety of reasons — convenience, family planning, economics, dislike of children, the embarrassment of illegitimacy, etc. … I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. … As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court." — Justice Byron R. White.

By the way, Roe has several years ago recognized her error in pursuing abortion rights. In fact, she converted to Catholicism and now fights for pro-life.

CNS NEWS: Wednesday, July 29th, 2009
“No abortion is to be paid for with tax-funded dollars,” McCorvey, now a pro-life activist, told CNSNews.com after the protest. “It’s against the laws of God. Roe versus Wade is a bad law and I’m sorry that I ever did it.”

McCorvey, joined dozens of other protestors in the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to speak out against the legislation, which currently involves using taxpayer dollars to fund abortions.

Well Justice White was in the minority—sorry. And what Roe thinks is great but she is not on the Court. Fine----be legally pro-life and God Bless you for it—but the counter argument exists.

 

[JimG]

“I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment.”
–Justice Byron White (quoted more fully above)

And of course he was correct. There is nothing in the text or language or history of the Constitution prior to Roe, that would lead one even to suspect the existence of a right to abortion. The seven justices of the Court at the time simply made up that right, ferreting it out of the penumbras of the also-unmentioned right to privacy.

But of course, even the Court has subsequently abandoned that reasoning, as well as the original trimester reasoning which in fact, when coupled with Doe, allowed for abortion on demand throughout nine months of pregnancy. The Court has never invoked “limited government” as a reason for the alleged right to abortion. The ruling is on a collision course with itself. It has long been on a collision course with science.

 

[Worthy5]

[JimG;6555479]And of course he was correct. There is nothing in the text or language or history of the Constitution prior to Roe, that would lead one even to suspect the existence of a right to abortion. The seven justices of the Court at the time simply made up that right, ferreting it out of the penumbras of the also-unmentioned right to privacy.

Yes, too bad Justice White was in the minority.

Does that mean the Church just made up the Trinity? It is no where in the Bible. What about the Immaculate Conception? Just checking.

The Court has never invoked “limited government” as a reason for the alleged right to abortion. The ruling is on a collision course with itself. It has long been on a collision course with science.

Really, Justice Blackmun:

“This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” (emphasis added)

Sounds like a notion of limited government.

 

[PEPCIS]

In the various cases that the Court has considered in regards to abortion, they have consistently treated the fetus as non-human.

Worthy5:

Your characterization.

If I have black hair and blue eyes, and you make the claim that I have black hair and blue eyes, it is not only a “characterization”, but a stubborn fact. The same is true with the Supreme Court. They have consistently treated the fetus as non-human: fact. I guess you don’t like them.

They have done this without ever having stated when life begins.

Worthy5:

The Court does not have to.

That’s the same liberal claptrap that those currently in power used to force health care through. They said that they make the rules, so tough luck to those who oppose them. The Court doesn’t “have to”, but if they don’t follow logic and common sense, then their actions are suspect.

Worthy5:

If you read the Roe and Casey cases you might actually see that.

I have read both of those, and I did see that. The fact that they did that is not in question. I never said that they didn’t, or that the Court HAD to do anything that it did not want to do. But that is exactly what Jefferson warned us against - an oligarchy running the country through the Supreme Court. Why didn’t we listen to him?

Worthy5:

The Court did not make that decision to come to the legal conclusion that it came to.

No kidding. That’s exactly what I said.

Since you claim that the Supreme Court has the “authority” to claim that a human being is non-human simply takes us back to the time of the Nazi regime where the courts in Germany declared that Jews were not human, therefore killing them was not “murder.”

Worthy5:

No my friend. You are mischaracterizing. See above.

No, you are obfuscating, because you don’t like the implications of your own ideology.

Worthy5:

Is there ever a discussion that does not end up talking about Hitler?

Regarding abortion? No, because the similarities are more than striking.

You also stated: [SIGN]The Church should spend more time helping women make their own correct moral decisions on their own than going on about the legal status of the early fetus.[/SIGN]

Once again, you clearly show how it is that you recognize that the Supreme Court has NEVER stated when life begins. This is why I stated that "you are wrong

." Your premise is that “The Church should spend more time helping women make their own correct moral decisions on their own [rather] than going on about the legal status of the early fetus.” Since the Supreme Court has NEVER ruled on when life begins, the argument concerning ALL STAGES OF HUMAN LIFE is an imperative one, and must be answered in order to reverse the unConstitutional and unjust decisions that the Supreme Court has made.

Worthy5:

My friend, you are making no sense.

I’m sure that plenty of people understand exactly what I’m saying. You just don’t want to accept the logic of the argument, because it would clearly show your position to be anti-biblical, and immoral. Advocating for abortion is not an option for the Church.

Worthy5:

You say “you recognize that the SC has never stated when life begins” before you stated " You are wrong" in that the SC never decided when life began. Right… that is what was said.

Right. That’s why you are wrong. You can’t argue that the Church should keep her nose out of the fight of the “early fetus” while simultaneously arguing that the Church has the right to speak for those who are defenseless - the very ones you self-describe as “early fetus.” The ONLY way that you are maintaining the illogic of your argument is by holding to the Supreme Court’s faulty ruling that a fetus is not human and is therefore not deserving of the protections of the state.

Most people don’t realize that the Supreme Court rulings outlawed any restrictions against abortion, regardless of what trimester.

Worthy5:

The Court did not have to decide, scientifically, whether the early fetus is a human or not or some other form of “early life”. It focused on the zone of privacy—the govt cannot regulate in this area over a women. (although this has problems with the doctors role—but another point)

You make my point for me. It is impossible to attend to the defense of human life if those in power are able to come up with some other means of declaring that segment of society “non-human” and unworthy of the protection of the state. That is what Roe v. Wade did. I assume that you have read it?

 

[PEPCIS]

Really, Justice Blackmun:

“This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” (emphasis added)

Sounds like a notion of limited government.

That’s your mis-characterization.

 

[Ender]

“This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” (emphasis added)

The point raised here is in regard to the right of privacy and whether it is based on the Fourteenth Amendment or the Ninth Amendment, but since the opinion that abortion is legitimated by the right to privacy was vacated the question is moot. There are restrictions upon state action but, because of Casey, they have nothing to do with a presumed right to privacy permitting abortion.

Ender

 

[PEPCIS]

The point raised here is in regard to the right of privacy and whether it is based on the Fourteenth Amendment or the Ninth Amendment, but since the opinion that abortion is legitimated by the right to privacy was vacated the question is moot. There are restrictions upon state action but, because of Casey, they have nothing to do with a presumed right to privacy permitting abortion.

Ender

Hi Enders,

I wasn’t aware that any court vacated the question of the right to privacy as being the underpinning of abortion rights. Which court did that? Thanks.

 

[JimG]

Yes, too bad Justice White was in the minority.

Does that mean the Church just made up the Trinity? It is no where in the Bible. What about the Immaculate Conception? Just checking.

Off topic, but two points anyway: 1) The bible is not a founding document of Catholicism, rather it was produced by the Church. 2) In defining the doctrine of the Trinity, the Church did precisely what the SCOTUS ought to be doing: it answered the question–is this what was handed down to us? Is this what we have believed from the beginning? The question was not one of creating new doctrine, but defining what was always believed. The Church issues formal declarations of doctrine on matters which are already matters of faith and which have been handed down through the centuries. The same applies to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

I could only hope for a Supreme Court with a similar philosophy.

Really, Justice Blackmun:
“This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” (emphasis added) Sounds like a notion of limited government.

Really, it sounds as though Blackmun couldn’t even decide where the right to privacy was located in the constitution. It’s interesting that he should mention the reservation of rights to the people, since it was precisely the people’s ability to legislate on abortion regulation that the court removed from them by judicial fiat.

Leaving to the states matters which are not addressed by the Constitution–now that would be limited government.

 

[Tom_Qualey]

Hi, Pepcis,

I got here late, too - and, this comment also caught my eye.

Thanks for asking the quetion

Tom

I know I’m coming to the discussion late, but I’m wondering what you meant by the “At a much earlier stage of development - yes” comment. Do you mean to say that anyone that claims a fetus is not human might be “less” disingenuous and blatantly dishonest if it’s only two cells? I guess they might argue that, but it still comes down to the fact that those first two cells are uniquely Human cells, so the union of a human egg with a human sperm can only result in a human being - even if it is only 2 cells big.

What do you think?

 

[PEPCIS]

Hi, Pepcis,

I got here late, too - and, this comment also caught my eye.

Thanks for asking the quetion

Tom

Hi Tom,

So far I haven’t seen a response, but let’s give it some time…

 

[Tom_Qualey]

Hi, Pepcis,

Looking back on previous posts, I guess Worthy 5’s post would be a good example… the majority of the Court simply decided to legislate from the Bench. It would take a Constitutional Amendment to change their rulings and they seem to set about planting their feet solidly in this wrongly decided matter.

Now, this will take a bit of imagination…and time jumpingh… but could you imagine the late Sen Kennedy, Sen Biden and Obama pelting questions and comments at a Supreme Court Nominee about upholding Plessy v Fergerson (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson) because it was the Law of the Land (until overturned by Brown v. Board of Education)? The Court totally reversed itself - yet no where were Nominees questioned to see if they would up-hold Plessy as a virtual condition of being voted on.

It is the very nature of the Court legislating rather then strictly deciding that makes these politicians (primarily Senators) so jumpy.

Imagine the outcry if the Court were to deside that tearing condemned criminals limb from limb or sucking out their brains was the new form of execution to be used in this country. After all, if the most innocent are put to death this way - why not the most guilty? Naturally, I am being hyperbolic - but, the lack of respect for the most innocent of life is truly distressing.

Maybe those who support abortion will consider what it is that is actually bering done to these un-born babies.

God bless

Tom

Hi Tom,

So far I haven’t seen a response, but let’s give it some time…

 

[Ender]

I wasn’t aware that any court vacated the question of the right to privacy as being the underpinning of abortion rights. Which court did that? Thanks.

The Casey decision readdressed the holdings in Roe. About the only part of Roe left standing was that abortion is still a Constitutional right.
law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-744.ZO.html

This is Justice Rehnquist’s dissent where he lays out what just happened.
"In Roe v. **Wade, the Court recognized a “guarantee of personal privacy” which “is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” 410 U. S., at 152-153. We are now of the view that, in terming this right fundamental, the Court in **Roe read the earlier opinions upon which it based its decision much too broadly."

This is Scalia’s explanation of the ruling (from his dissent):
*"Under Roe, requiring that a woman seeking an abortion be provided truthful information about abortion before giving informed written consent is unconstitutional, if the information is designed to influence her choice, **Thornburgh, 476 U. S., at 759-765; **Akron I, 462 U. S., at 442-445. Under the joint opinion’s “undue burden” regime (as applied today, at least) such a requirement is constitutional, *ante, at 38-42.

•     "Under **Roe, requiring that information be provided by a   doctor, rather than by nonphysician counselors, is unconstitutional, **Akron  I, **supra, at 446-449.  Under the "undue   burden" regime (as applied today, at least) it is not, **ante,   at 42.*

•     "Under **Roe, requiring a 24-hour waiting period between   the time the woman gives her informed consent and the   time of the abortion is unconstitutional, **Akron I, **supra,  at   449-451.  Under the "undue burden" regime (as applied   today, at least) it is not, **ante, at 43-45.*

•     "Under **Roe, requiring detailed reports that include   demographic data about each woman who seeks an abortion   and various information about each abortion is unconstitutional, **Thornburgh,  **supra, at 765-768.  Under the "undue   burden" regime (as applied today, at least) it generally is   not, **ante, at 58-59.*

This is from O’Connor’s opinion where the term privacy is scarcely to be seen but the term liberty appears throughout. Abortion is now on the liberty standard.
Constitutional protection of the woman’s decision to terminate her pregnancy derives from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It declares that no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The controlling word in the case before us is “liberty.”

We reject the trimester framework, which we do not consider to be part of the essential holding of Roe.

Ender

 

[Gift_from_God]

It’s irrational to say it’s not.

 

[Worthy5]

=PEPCIS;6556960]If I have black hair and blue eyes, and you make the claim that I have black hair and blue eyes, it is not only a “characterization”, but a stubborn fact. The same is true with the Supreme Court. They have consistently treated the fetus as non-human: fact. I guess you don’t like them.

Pepcis, the only one treating the fetus as not a human is the women who decided to have the abortion. The Court is simply defining what govt role is going to be in addressing the problem. Your " characterization " the the Court does not " treat" the fetus as non-human smacks at the notion that " it takes a villiage" to give birth to and raise children.

That’s the same liberal claptrap that those currently in power used to force health care through. They said that they make the rules, so tough luck to those who oppose them. The Court doesn’t “have to”, but if they don’t follow logic and common sense, then their actions are suspect.

Again, your characterization—that is fine be legally pro-life, it is a reasonable position to have. But the Court took the opposite view.

I have read both of those, and I did see that. The fact that they did that is not in question. I never said that they didn’t, or that the Court HAD to do anything that it did not want to do. But that is exactly what Jefferson warned us against - an oligarchy running the country through the Supreme Court. Why didn’t we listen to him?

Amend Constitution if you do not like it.

No kidding. That’s exactly what I said.

Your statment gave the impression that the Court needed to, and you know it.

No, you are obfuscating, because you don’t like the implications of your own ideology.

Yeah, exactly. I mean a limited govt—who would like that.

Regarding abortion? No, because the similarities are more than striking.

But this is not about the moral problem that abortion is, this is about what govt role is going to be in that problem. One of the things striking about Germany’s situation is that it was a big National Socialist govt doing all that----govt power is very, very dangerous.

I’m sure that plenty of people understand exactly what I’m saying. You just don’t want to accept the logic of the argument, because it would clearly show your position to be anti-biblical, and immoral. Advocating for abortion is not an option for the Church.

The argument in this post is not a moral position nor is it advocating abortion. It is about the scope of the govt role.

Right. That’s why you are wrong. You can’t argue that the Church should keep her nose out of the fight of the “early fetus” while simultaneously arguing that the Church has the right to speak for those who are defenseless - the very ones you self-describe as “early fetus.”

My friend. No one disputes the Church’s role in speaking out against the moral sin of abortion and it can engage many outlets to do that. The Church has no authority though on what American law must be or any authority to tell a Catholic that he/she cannot support the policy of limited govt as a citizen of this country.

This is about the U.S. and state govt role in this matter, and more specifically the use of its police power, not the moral actions of individual Catholics or whether abortion is wrong-----of course it is wrong!

The ONLY way that you are maintaining the illogic of your argument is by holding to the Supreme Court’s faulty ruling that a fetus is not human and is therefore not deserving of the protections of the state.

My friend, you are just doing a rope-a-dope and a head pull. The Court said --------the govt does not get to regulate there!!!

You make my point for me.

No my friend, it is not the same point.

It is impossible to attend to the defense of human life if those in power are able to come up with some other means of declaring that segment of society “non-human” and unworthy of the protection of the state.

You assume that the Court or the govt has to " attend to the defense of human life" by using the govt police power to outlaw all abortions—as if that is the only means. It is not. The Court is saying that the police power cannot be used to usurp the women’s decision early on----if the govt want to use persuasive means to convince her to not make such a decision so be it.

You want to say that to " defend human life" the govt has to criminalize it in all circumstances. Your opinion–fine. But the Court is saying to the states, " we do not care what you do other than that you cannot criminalize it in the early stages." (yes there is other stuff to this with the " undue burden standard" but that is not about the central issue that at some point the decision belongs to the women–not govt.)

That is what Roe v. Wade did.

Your characterization.

I assume that you have read it?

Yes, which is why the argument is on this poster’s side. The winning argument is that reasonable people are going to disagree on govt’s role in addressing this problem. But the policy of limited govt remains—no matter how much you guys shout.

 

[Worthy5]

=JimG;6557505]Off topic, but two points anyway: 1) The bible is not a founding document of Catholicism, rather it was produced by the Church. 2) In defining the doctrine of the Trinity, the Church did precisely what the SCOTUS ought to be doing: it answered the question–is this what was handed down to us? Is this what we have believed from the beginning? The question was not one of creating new doctrine, but defining what was always believed. The Church issues formal declarations of doctrine on matters which are already matters of faith and which have been handed down through the centuries. The same applies to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

No, its not off topic. But this poster agrees the Church is a different reality than the SC but the point remains. Language is subject to multiple interpretation and an authority is needed to define it. And you know it—and you know that is what the Court was doing in Roe. The Church still uses scripture as support for those doctrines, and you know that to. You also know, that being a Catholic and not a non-Catholic Christian, is the recognizing that a teaching authority is needed for the written word.

Really, it sounds as though Blackmun couldn’t even decide where the right to privacy was located in the constitution. It’s interesting that he should mention the reservation of rights to the people, since it was precisely the people’s ability to legislate on abortion regulation that the court removed from them by judicial fiat.

Come now Jim, the Constitution is written in broad language. And the people’s ability to legislate is yes----the majority rule----and of course the majority has never violated the rights of the minority or the individual right?

That is what the courts are for Jim, to check the tyranny of the majority.

God Bless