So is it or isn't it a human

[Worthy5]

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

Like to argue this with you Ender, but sorry guys have to go, other matters are pressing. Is there any body out there to argue the pro-choice side???

Thanks for the debate

God Bless

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

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.

. . . . . . .

Deafening silence. The FACT that the Court has consistently treated the fetus as non-human leaves you speechless.

Worthy5:

Pepcis, the only one treating the fetus as not a human is the women who decided to have the abortion.

You’re absolutely nuts if you really believe that any thinking person is going to accept such a ridiculous statement. If a woman has an abortion, here are the list of people that believe that the “fetus” is not human and therefore not worthy of the state’s protection:

• The woman having the abortion
• YOU
• Other pro-abortionists like you who support this woman’s right to choose to abort her baby
• The doctor
• The majority of justices on the Supreme Court
• The list goes on and on and on…

Worthy5:

The Court is simply defining what…role [the government will have]…in addressing the problem.

Oh, and here I thought that you believed in LIMITED government. So much for that.

Worthy5:

Your " characterization " [that] the Court does not " treat" the fetus as…human smacks at the notion that " it takes a villiage" to give birth to and raise children.

I guess that’s supposed to hurt? LOL I actually agree with Hillary that it takes a village to raise a child, but I believe that the village is the citizens, while Hillary (and probably you) believe that the village is the government.

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

The Supreme Court has done this without ever having stated when life begins.

Worthy5:

The Court does not have to.

PEPCIS:

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. . .

Again, it’s not a characterization to state facts. You seem to think that by retorting “that’s your characterization” that somehow your answer trumps the facts. Try again.

[It]
is fine be legally pro-life, it is a reasonable position to have. But the Court took the opposite view.

That’s nice, but that has nothing to do with the fact that the Court made up the rules as they went along, finding authority where none has ever existed before. Just like the liberals in power now are doing with the healthcare and other legislation. And besides, it’s not only “fine to be legally pro-life”, but the ONLY true moral position is one that supports and protects human life at all stages of development.

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:

Amend Constitution if you do not like it.

There is no need to amend the Constitution. The Constitution is fine just the way that it is. It is the liberals who have interpreted it in ways that it was never intended. All we have to do is vote out those who are destroying the Constitution.

The Court did not make that decision [whether the fetus is human life or not] to come to the legal conclusion that it came to.

PEPCIS:

No kidding. That’s exactly what I said.

Worthy5:

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

Of course I know it. I don’t deny it. However, you refuse to acknowledge that it is IMPOSSIBLE to come to any LOGICAL conclusion on whether or not the fetus is deserving of the state’s protection without FIRST determining whether or not it is human life.

If I ask you if a 5 year old is deserving of the state’s protections, you will agree with me that she is. Why not the 2-celled human being? What rationale denies this human her protection???

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

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.

You’re confused about what it means to have a limited government and what it would apply to. A limited government has absolutely nothing to do with our discussion in making laws that protect people who murder other people. Such a government that protects murderers is not a just government. Any government that fails to protect it’s most vulnerable citizens is the furthest thing from a “just” government.

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

PEPCIS:

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

Worthy5:

But this is not about the moral problem that abortion is, this is about what govt role is going to be in that problem.

What a queer thing to do - separate morality from government action, as if any act of government was devoid of any moral question.

Worthy5:

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.

Yes, it is very interesting that you bring to bear the resemblance of the National SOCIALIST government to what Obama is doing today by implementing a socialist agenda which includes the right to kill humans in utero.

Worthy5:

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

As I have stated, you cannot separate morality from government action. Every human action is infused with a moral position, and government is humans in action.

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.”

Worthy5:

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.

Three things:

1. 
   *]You did dispute the Church’s role in speaking out against the moral sin of abortion by stating that she has no authority to speak on what American law must be, or that she has no authority to tell Catholics that they cannot support the policy of limited government as a citizen of this country.
   *]The Church has just as much authority as any citizen to speak on what American law must be.
   *]The Church has absolutely authority over Catholics in directing them to act morally in any given situation.
   
   
   Worthy5:
   

   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!

   You want to limit, or remove, the moral question in how people practice and act in politics and law, but as I stated above, that is impossible. You cannot divorce morality from human action. All human action has an inherently moral aspect.

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

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.

The Court said --------the govt does not get to regulate there!!!

You’re not listening. I acknowledge that the Court said that the government does not get to regulate there. I’m saying that the only way that you can maintain the illogic of your argument (and the only way that the Supreme Court was able to maintain the illogic of their argument) was by their faulty ruling that a fetus is not human and is therefore not deserving of the protections of the state.

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)

PEPCIS:

You make my point for me.

Worthy5:

No my friend, it is not the same point.

Yes, it is. You said “The Court did not have to decide, scientifically, whether the early fetus is a human or not or some other form of “early life”.” I have consistently stated that the Court refused to consider whether or not the fetus is human. That is THE EXACT SAME POINT. You keep on trying to tell me that I can’t make that point, and then you make it for me. Thanks!

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.

Worthy5:

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’re engaging in massive doublespeak. You say “The Court is saying that police power cannot be used to usurp the women’s decision early on.” “Early on.” What the heck is that supposed to mean. Clarify your language. I know what it means, but you seem to think that if you use such euphemisms, that you won’t have to defend your statements.

The fact is that abortion is legal in ALL 9 MONTHS of pregnancy. There is no period within the 9 months which is off limits to abortion. That’s because in Roe v. Wade the Supreme Court ruled that abortion may not be restricted at all in the first trimester. They also stated that in the second trimester abortion may be regulated only for the mother’s health. They then stated that after a fetus reaches “viability,” that abortion may be prohibited except where necessary to preserve the mother’s health.

Then, along came the “companion case” to Roe, called “Doe v. Bolton.” In Doe, the Court defined maternal “health” as: “all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age - relevant to the well-being of the patient.”

Therefore, abortion is legal – and cannot be prohibited – in any phase or trimester of a pregnancy, if any of these reasons is invoked.

Worthy5:

You want to say that to “defend human life” the govt has to criminalize it in all circumstances. Your opinion–fine.

This is more than “my” opinion. I share it with the majority of the citizens of the US. Not only has the US Supreme Court engaged in subterfuge to find some kind of right to privacy, but they did so against the majority of public opinion on the matter.

 

[twb1621]

That is your characterization with regard to the ealy fetus…

That is your characterization with regard to the ealy fetus. The Court did not see that that characterization should be made into law. In fact, the general policy of limited govt is the Court taking steps to respect the rights of individuals in general—for an autocractic govt is one of the major threats to the individual right of freedom.

It is not “my” characterization, it is reality. But if you can prove to me that at any stage of development an embryo or fetus procreated between two humans can develop into any other creature other than a human being, perhaps you will have credibility in your support for abortion rights. Even one of the supreme court judges had the honesty to say it as it truly was.

Further, the court did have steps in place to respect and protect the rights of individuals and abortion was illegal. The court changed that stance to making it legal. You can not change the fact this country was founded on the principles it was nor can anyone change the fact God was recognized in the foundation of this country and is no longer. What you are presenting is a liberal stand on what ever the mass feels convenient. Do you not relate the legality of abortion to the period of the sexual revolution as it is aptly called?

No, it is not what this poster is saying, but rather the Court. But my friend, analogies are just that–analogies. Yours is a rather weak one—the multiple policies that a free society has to promote is not like a human baby. We do not split a baby up. But we as a society have to promote multiple policies simultaneously. We do not rely on the govt to do everything, excessive govt power threatens individual freedom as whole in the long run.

I believe your intentions are just in your understanding of this issue, but with all due respect, how many years experience do you have professionally in the legal system? And the analogy was meant as just that. It is clearly spelled out what government was and is responsible for, above all, being life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Life is not expendable for anyone’s happiness. It is the first to be protected. The constitution was drawn on those principles. Government chooses what else it wishes to involve itself in which is clear throughout history. Look around you at what government is taking control of and tell me how you are and will be affected. Government has been most intently striving to remove God and His principles from consideration of the people at large. Just as a for instance, Over 80% of the population is against abortion funding in this health plan issue, the government of the people ignored that massive stance. That 80 % IS the society you speak of. The president began removing obstacles to any abortion access within the first 24 hours of his taking office. Government, with the president has reduced funding to programs that have shown themselves successful in the reduction of teen births through education over the last two years. The government with the president is instituting graduated limited health care in social security for those 70 and above whom because of age, are no longer considered worth the expense of some medical interventions even though they are of the most highly invested group into the social security program. The government with the president has removed private banking from student loans, has invested the society’s tax dollars in private commercial institutions of which through intentional financial arrogance, misappropriated investor and customer funds, and awarded themselves bonuses for doing so. These investments of tax dollars went to save the same PRIVATE institutions that wouldn’t give a second thought to bury someone who due to sudden hardship could not make the demanded payments as scheduled. My friend, promoting multiple policies, and promoting double standards are two different things. This is the government and the president you think is limited. Do you not feel threatened?

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

You apparently do not understand what a “foundation” is. Secondly, you would benefit from reading the constitution; you will be amazed at all the provisions for the protection of life of all men without prejudice to any stage of life.

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.

That is only an analogy and not as good as mine I might add. We are talking about the fundamental right to life and the Supreme Court is not nor does it possess the knowledge of God. The valuation of life as used in Roe VS Wade could very easily be applied to many cases of medical infirmities eventually leading to arguments for the selective termination of life. The forefathers at least had the sense to know man’s limitations which is why they wrote what they wrote.

continued next post

 

[twb1621]

That is your characterization with regard to the ealy fetus…

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

Protect means to defend from harm. And why should a man be charged with murder for the death of a fetus during a period of time a women can choose to abort?

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.

You do realize the D of I as you refer to it led to the deaths of a great many men (Americans) to form the country that houses the society you refer to, do you not? You do realize that without it, the society that drew up the D of I (13 states) would not have received external military support to fight for its independence and could not have won independence on its own, and it was this D of I that justified allied intervention, do you not?

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.

I understand it exists, but we all must be vigilant as to what we will accept or we may become the subject of the next decision of the Supreme Court or Congress or the presidency. Why do you think the D of I was written in the first place?

Worthy5, let me assure you as a person who has enforced laws and incarcerated all types from motor vehicle violators to federal judges and any in between, most times it only takes one misstep to loose much of what one has and it happens to people at time without them even realizing what is happening. Perhaps you never heard of a person loosing everything including their home to the IRS for what turned out to be a miscalculation on the part of the government agency. Or a person wrongly imprisoned for years. Think about it. Are the courts or government always right or if not, should we not strive to legally point that out?

The court wrong… Could it be? But then how will it change that decision without assuming the responsibility for millions upon millions of innocent lives? Kind of a hairy position to find itself in I would think.

 

[kimmielittle]

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 Church isn’t the Government - The Church doesn’t condone killing of innocent human life, no matter what spin you try

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.

Limited Government, in this case, requires Government to negligently address it’s sole reason to exist. Governments sole reason to exist is to protect the weak and innocent. No place is it Governments job to provide justification of a selected population the right to murder another selected part of the population…for whatever reasoning.

Using whatever reasoning to allow so…is being negligent of their sole responsibility.

It actually fails protecting any right to life. Including yours. It’s an abuse in it’s authority - counter to Governments Responsibility. Tomorrow my right to privacy may out weight your right to life. Granting another selected population justification to murder another selective population - for convenience. Euthanasia and Eugenics ]

 

[JimG]

What the Court did in Roe was far from a limitation of government power. It was rather a seizure of power from the States to legislate on the matter of abortion. Not every state regulated abortion in the same way. Some were more restrictive, others less so. When elected state legislatures make law, there ends up being less controversy, first because the legislators are elected by the people, and secondly because the constituents have some (name removed by moderator)ut.

What the Court did was to simply decree, not only that abortion was a right under the constitution, which was obviously false, but also that the constitution allowed for a trimester system of regulation (which has since been discarded.)

Yes, the constitution is interpreted by the Courts. But interpretation does not mean disregarding the words that are written. If that is the case, we might as well revoke the constitution and just let judges make law, for the words of the document as written will have been rendered meaningless.

No doubt, Roe will be overturned eventually, having been irrationally decided. The Court and its new Obama appointees will continue to try to find new reasons for finding a right to abortion in the constitution, having thrown out the previous reasons. They will search through clauses and penumbras, but it is becoming increasingly apparent that it is like the 17th century chemists trying to find phlogiston. It’s just not there.

 

[kimmielittle]

What the Court did in Roe was far from a limitation of government power. It was rather a seizure of power from the States to legislate on the matter of abortion. Not every state regulated abortion in the same way. Some were more restrictive, others less so. When elected state legislatures make law, there ends up being less controversy, first because the legislators are elected by the people, and secondly because the constituents have some (name removed by moderator)ut.

What the Court did was to simply decree, not only that abortion was a right under the constitution, which was obviously false, but also that the constitution allowed for a trimester system of regulation (which has since been discarded.)

Yes, the constitution is interpreted by the Courts. But interpretation does not mean disregarding the words that are written. If that is the case, we might as well revoke the constitution and just let judges make law, for the words of the document as written will have been rendered meaningless.

No doubt, Roe will be overturned eventually, having been irrationally decided. The Court and its new Obama appointees will continue to try to find new reasons for finding a right to abortion in the constitution, having thrown out the previous reasons. They will search through clauses and penumbras, but it is becoming increasingly apparent that it is like the 17th century chemists trying to find phlogiston. It’s just not there.

Hiyas

I disagree with the bolded part. Mr Obama et al. will only seek to seat judges until Obamacare kicks in. The health Care bill was composed with the knowledge that Roe would be overturned. It was done for this reasoning IMHO

 

[PEPCIS]

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.

This is why our country is going to hell in a handbasket - people think that the courts are there to protect the minority from the majority. That’s what the Constitution is for. The courts are there to INTERPRET the Constitution according to its original intent.

 

[Ender]

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.

I suppose this is true to the extent that whatever the Court says becomes law, but the ruling in a particular case may or may not have anything to do with what the Constitution actually says and we are way too passive and indifferent if we ever come to accept that the Constitution actually means whatever the Court says it means simply because it is the Supreme Court that is saying it.

“[W]hen a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean.”

This is something we should keep in mind, and I think most people recognize that Roe was just such a ruling where the strict interpretation of the Constitution was abandoned. It is also worth noting that this comment was from a dissenting opinion written about an earlier ruling notorious for its aberrant conclusion.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 621 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).

Ender

 

[Worthy5]

[PEPCIS;6559661 You want to limit, or remove, the moral question in how people practice and act in politics and law, but as I stated above, that is impossible. You cannot divorce morality from human action. All human action has an inherently moral aspect

.

Wow, you guys really fired up there----that is always a good sign. This poster had to check back in. But really has no more time:

Pepcis two points:

1. The above you say " You want to limit, or remove, the moral question in how people practice and act in politics and law, but as I stated above, that is impossible. "

No it is possible, it is more than possible, it is every day reality. If morality was always enforced by the government in every situation that humans engage in at all costs then other policies, like economic development and efficiency, freedom to contract to work with anyone of choice, freedom of an employer to hire and fire who he/she wants at will for the benefit of their business, freedom to engage in certain personal behaviors , making the law predictable so business can plan properly, rewarding risk taking business with big profits…
…etc…would all be lost.

1. You keep wanting to " go on" about how the Court did not decide when life begins ----" the Supreme Court’s faulty ruling that a fetus is not human and is therefore not deserving of the protections of the state."

The Court made a judgment about how to strike a balance among competing policies----just because you do not like that judgment does not make it a “faulty” ruling. You say that because you are working on the assumption that the law is soley and exclusively about morality—as the above shows it, cannot be for us to have the other benefits that this free society has.

You move around statements and place them in an order then draw a conclusion that fits your position—fine you can do that.But the key is -you work off of an assumption that you have not justified and do not want to accept the implications of-----that all law is morality and all morality is law------that assumotion ultimately leads to an autocractic govt

The Court, made a legal distinction, whether it stated so or not—that the early stages of the fetus (a human or not) do not get the same protection (but not no protection) as a born person from the Govt. Why? Because it is not a born person. That is the distinction. That distinction provides the means to promote the policy of limited government. (so an autocratic govt does not form)

If you do not like it or disagree with it—fine-----go amend the Constitution. And God Bless you for it!

Regards,

And God Bless
[/quote]

 

[libbybeth]

So now we discuss not only whether the foetus is human, but whether it is a person.

Let’s remember; it is human; it is alive; it is growing; it moves within the uterus; and moves in ways that newborns do, eg, by kicking or putting its thumb in its mouth. During its growth within the womb, it can hear - for instance, the foetus can be startled and jump within the womb. What woman has not experienced that, including St Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist. Furthermore, research shows that when born, babies remember music played to them in utero by their parents, and will settle down more quickly if this music is played. Thus, a newborn baby draws upon experiences, and memory to guide its behaviour after birth.

In case of doubt, we give the benefit of the doubt - especially in cases of life and death. I would not like to make the wrong call and say that a foetus is not a person. In any case, all life comes from God, and we act to frustrate his will when we kill human life;it is made worse by the sheer innocence and helplessness of the young foetus.

As some of you will know, “foetus” is simply the Greek for “little one”. Let us protect God’s little ones

 

[MarkInOregon]

Obviously, it’s a human being. The real question is, should it have any kind of human rights? We don’t give children the same rights that we give to adults, after all. Should fetuses have the same rights that children have? My vote is “Yes, they should.”

Ah but the rights that children don’t have they don’t have in order to protect them and keep them safe until they are of an age to handle the right. In the case of an unborn human we are taking away a fundamental right in order to justify killing them–a far cry from protecting.

Peace,
Mark

 

[Tom_Qualey]

Hi, Libbeybeth,

Excellent!

I did not know about the Greek origin for this term… how totally appropriate…

God bless

Tom

So now we discuss not only whether the foetus is human, but whether it is a person.

Let’s remember; it is human; it is alive; it is growing; it moves within the uterus; and moves in ways that newborns do, eg, by kicking or putting its thumb in its mouth. During its growth within the womb, it can hear - for instance, the foetus can be startled and jump within the womb. What woman has not experienced that, including St Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist. Furthermore, research shows that when born, babies remember music played to them in utero by their parents, and will settle down more quickly if this music is played. Thus, a newborn baby draws upon experiences, and memory to guide its behaviour after birth.

In case of doubt, we give the benefit of the doubt - especially in cases of life and death. I would not like to make the wrong call and say that a foetus is not a person. In any case, all life comes from God, and we act to frustrate his will when we kill human life;it is made worse by the sheer innocence and helplessness of the young foetus.

As some of you will know, “foetus” is simply the Greek for “little one”. Let us protect God’s little ones

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

You want to limit, or remove, the moral question in how people practice and act in politics and law, but as I stated above, that is impossible.

No it is possible, it is more than possible, it is every day reality.

Sorry, but you are confused. That is understandable in this postmodern world, where today’s generation mistakens perception for truth. See, just because someone can cause or bring about an action without regard to that action’s fundamental moral foundation, does not mean that the moral foundation is somehow removed, or absent.

For example, as a soldier I may carry out the orders of my superior and execute an entire village of civilian people, but this does not negate that the governmental command (which is the same as a law) was IMMORAL, and therefore any acts that are performed as a result of such an immoral order are immoral in themselves.

Worthy5:

If morality was always enforced by the government in every situation that humans engage in at all costs then other policies, like economic development and efficiency, freedom to contract to work with anyone of choice, freedom of an employer to hire and fire who he/she wants at will for the benefit of their business, freedom to engage in certain personal behaviors , making the law predictable so business can plan properly, rewarding risk taking business with big profits…etc…would all be lost.

You evidently did not read my earlier post where I spoke SPECIFICALLY of this very concern. First and foremost, there is no governmental action or law which is not rooted in some moral question. Either that law is an abrogation of what is morally proper and just, or it is a confirmation of it. Abortion is an example of how the government has abrogated what is morally proper and just. Laws against murder are examples of how the government has confirmed what is morally proper and just.

You speak of all the actions that “humans engage in” and if we allowed the government to intrude upon every human action, that “all would be lost.” I’m assuming that by “all” you mean “freedom.” As you stated: “freedom to contract to work…to engage in certain…behaviors…” etc, etc. To that, I previously stated that our form of government (a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC) was only made for a religous people who self-govern themselves.

What that means is that government has no need to frame laws that are intrusive, because people police themselves, and do not intrude on the peace of their neighbors. But when people fail to govern themselves according to a standard of morality, then the government must impose upon the people more and more law, in proportion to the preceived lack of the people to govern themselves.

If you remove the Constitution from consideration, and you install a Socialist government in its place, then the government has no reason to hold back, and to make any manner of law that they desire without regard to the moral question, or the people’s concerns. That is what is currently happening in America today.

Worthy5:

You keep wanting to " go on" about how the Court did not decide when life begins ---- “the Supreme Court’s faulty ruling that a fetus is not human and is therefore not deserving of the protections of the state.”

The Court made a judgment about how to strike a balance among competing policies----just because you do not like that judgment does not make it a “faulty” ruling.

1. 
   *]First thing, the Court did no such thing as striking “a balance among competing policies.” The Court abrogated moral law by disregarding even the possibility that the fetus is human life - and that faulty reasoning is crystal clear in the fact that fetal viability has changed dramatically in the 37 years since Roe, shining forth the truth of human life that can exist outside of the mother’s womb even as early as 6 months gestation.
   *]Secondly, it’s not a question of whether I “like” that ruling or not that makes it faulty. It’s faulty because of SEVERAL reasons, none of which you are willing to acknowledge, most signficantly the scientific question of whether we are dealing with human life or not.

 

[PEPCIS]

You say that because you are working on the assumption that the law is soley and exclusively about morality—as the above shows it, cannot be for us to have the other benefits that this free society has.

Here’s two points:

1. 
   *]I’m working on one assumption, and you’re working from another. Only one of us can be correct.
   
   *]You have done absolutely nothing to establish that your assumption is correct, other than to make some lame claim that if my assumption were correct, that we would be living in a non-limited governmental reality.
   
   
   Worthy5:
   

   You move around statements and place them in an order then draw a conclusion that fits your position—fine you can do that.

   Please don’t lie about others, it’s not becoming of you. You’ve been doing pretty good up till now. My quotations are typically placed in the order in which they are made, or otherwise formatted to maintain logic and consistency in the progression of the debate. That’s just plain wrong to insinuate that I manipulate the formatting of my posts in order to fabricate a false reality. I purposely spend an inordinate amount of time researching the order of statements in order to maintain the timeline in which those statements were made, so as to discount any possibility that anyone could make a scurrilous charge such as you have just made.
   
   
   Worthy5:
   

   But the key is - you work off of an assumption that you have not justified and do not want to accept the implications of-----that all law is morality and all morality is law------that assumotion ultimately leads to an autocractic govt

   Up to this post, I had not ever thought it to be necessary to have to “justify” the notion that all law is a moral representation and reflection of the people that it governs. You are the first person who has ever denied the moral basis of law.

 

[Worthy5]

PEPCIS;6564746

You are the first person who has ever denied the moral basis of law.

No…morality is a part of the law…it just is not the sole and exclusive purpose of the law. Pepcis this poster wishes you luck…but in a country where a limted govt is valued your arguments are only reasonable…but never conclusive. Go amend the Constitution, my friend…and God Bless you for it!

 

[kimmielittle]

Go amend the Constitution, my friend…and God Bless you for it!

The Constitution is just fine - it is the Courts that abused their authority.

Again, No place in the Constitution or it’s Amendment Articles OR the Declaration of Independence does it provide for a base to make a ruling that any select population has the right to justify the murder of another selected population. - It’s just not there. was never intended to be there.

The Court made up a base to support their ruling.