F
- Status
J
JimG
Guest
Perhaps there should be no laws against murder, rape, infanticide, assault, or slander.
Such laws are a threat to personal autonomy, and are an attempt to change behavior. What is needed is evangelism, not law.
(But above all what is needed is to allow state legislatures to do their jobs.)
It’s amazing to me that so much sophistry can be expended to justify the mass killing of unborn children. Arguments to justify abortion can also be used to justify infanticide.
Such laws are a threat to personal autonomy, and are an attempt to change behavior. What is needed is evangelism, not law.
(But above all what is needed is to allow state legislatures to do their jobs.)
It’s amazing to me that so much sophistry can be expended to justify the mass killing of unborn children. Arguments to justify abortion can also be used to justify infanticide.
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
straw man argument Jim
you’re only showing that you haven’t grasped the arguments being made
you’re only showing that you haven’t grasped the arguments being made
F
fix
Guest
No, my friend, you offer a Hobson’s choice and expect me to answer it. Not playing along.
J
jrgiancola
Guest
JimG: You need to read the abortion decisions subsequent to Roe. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor drew the line at viability when she interpreted Roe in Casey v. Planned Parenthood. You do not have your facts straight. There are many decisions subsequent to Roe which further define the law.
Charlamagne: You have a complete lack of knowledge regarding our Constitution, as do many of you. Since I have a J.D., a Doctorate degree in Law, and have studied Constitutional Law with particularity, I suggest you accept my previous post or provide documentation that proves me wrong. The Supreme Court is NOT subject to the will of the people. The Constitution can only be changed with an amendment approved by 2/3 of the states.
As for the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe, it is based upon previous constitutional law guaranteeing a certain “right to privacy” that is inherent in the constitution. The Roe Court did not manufacture Roe out of the blue, they based it upon this constitutional right to privacy that we Americans have, and should rightly have.
Charlamagne: You have a complete lack of knowledge regarding our Constitution, as do many of you. Since I have a J.D., a Doctorate degree in Law, and have studied Constitutional Law with particularity, I suggest you accept my previous post or provide documentation that proves me wrong. The Supreme Court is NOT subject to the will of the people. The Constitution can only be changed with an amendment approved by 2/3 of the states.
As for the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe, it is based upon previous constitutional law guaranteeing a certain “right to privacy” that is inherent in the constitution. The Roe Court did not manufacture Roe out of the blue, they based it upon this constitutional right to privacy that we Americans have, and should rightly have.
S
soniel
Guest
Here goes my two cents. I do feel abortion is taking the life of a child, so it is hard for me to be objective. The question I have for those that are pro-choice is, “Does anyone become pregnant for the sole purpose of having an abortion?” I would assume that the answer would be “no”. Maybe people get pregnant for the wrong reasons, but never just to have an abortion. If no one becomes pregnant for the sole purpose to have an abortion, then we can all agree that it was a mistake. Why have so many people fought so hard for so long for a mistake? Why is there such a battle to let people make the same mistake over and over? As a comparison, if someone rapes or robs another person, we all agree that it is wrong. We may differ on the penalty for the wrong, but we all agree that we don’t want that person to make the same mistake again. We don’t want to see another person raped or robbed again. We want to prevent the wrong in the first place. If the logical solution to a mistake or wrong-doing is prevention, then why not shift the fight from making the same mistake again and again, to preventing the mistake, pregnancy, in the first place? Obviously, the pro-choice side would not consider abortion a crime, but at the very least they would consider the pregnancy a mistake. Just like most criminals are repeat offenders, the punishment is not the best deterrent. The better deterrent would be a strong family upbringing with moral values instilled in us as to what is right and wrong and the consequences and responsibilities of our actions and decisions. Same with abortion. The pro-choice movement describes these as unwanted pregnancies. To use abortion as a deterrent does not work. If it did the numbers would be decreasing dramatically every year. Even to use abortion as a means of birth control, which seems to be the case more and more, is not a valid argument, since the purpose of birth control is to prevent pregnancy in the first place. Even giving the conflicting beliefs on this issue, when life begins or the mother’s right to terminate, its seems the pro-choice side does not have a logical end to the problem. Do they want abortions to increase every year? If they do, then it can be determined that they are in favor of “feeding” a mistake.
J
jrgiancola
Guest
It is obvious that some of you have never read the entire Roe v. Wade decision, nor the Constitution itself. I suggest you do both before you post any further on these matters. Just where are you getting your information from if you have not read Roe nor the Constitution?
F
fix
Guest
It’s not true. That is what you wish to impute to me. You place two items next to each other and then claim one must chose one when in fact that is not the choice at all.
F
fix
Guest
Just like when we allowed slavery. Judges can pretty much interpret things in an evil way and then find legal justification.
F
fix
Guest
Where in reality are these two items the only possible choice?
F
fix
Guest
As I said they may misinterpret what comes before them and claim all sorts of legal justifications.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
jrgiancola
*Charlamagne: You have a complete lack of knowledge regarding our Constitution, as do many of you. Since I have a J.D., a Doctorate degree in Law, and have studied Constitutional Law with particularity, I suggest you accept my previous post or provide documentation that proves me wrong. The Supreme Court is NOT subject to the will of the people. The Constitution can only be changed with an amendment approved by 2/3 of the states. *
Wouldn’t that be the people?
As for the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe, it is based upon previous constitutional law guaranteeing a certain “right to privacy” that is inherent in the constitution. The Roe Court did not manufacture Roe out of the blue, they based it upon this constitutional right to privacy that we Americans have, and should rightly have.
“**We the people **are the rightful masters of both Congress & the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
The Constitution in “Roe v Wade” has been perverted. There is in the Constitution no right of privacy to kill the unborn. Since you are a Constitutional lawyer, you should be able very easily to provide the specific passage that allows the killing of the unborn as a private matter. Please post the specific passage in the Constitution that says what I just said in the previous sentence.
Otherwise, your assertion is hogwash and you know it.
*Charlamagne: You have a complete lack of knowledge regarding our Constitution, as do many of you. Since I have a J.D., a Doctorate degree in Law, and have studied Constitutional Law with particularity, I suggest you accept my previous post or provide documentation that proves me wrong. The Supreme Court is NOT subject to the will of the people. The Constitution can only be changed with an amendment approved by 2/3 of the states. *
Wouldn’t that be the people?
As for the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe, it is based upon previous constitutional law guaranteeing a certain “right to privacy” that is inherent in the constitution. The Roe Court did not manufacture Roe out of the blue, they based it upon this constitutional right to privacy that we Americans have, and should rightly have.
“**We the people **are the rightful masters of both Congress & the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.” Abraham Lincoln
The Constitution in “Roe v Wade” has been perverted. There is in the Constitution no right of privacy to kill the unborn. Since you are a Constitutional lawyer, you should be able very easily to provide the specific passage that allows the killing of the unborn as a private matter. Please post the specific passage in the Constitution that says what I just said in the previous sentence.
Otherwise, your assertion is hogwash and you know it.
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
Charlemagne, you just don’t understand the law.
J
JimG
Guest
Casey v Planned Parenthood rejected the trimester framework provided by Roe. Does it allow states to prohibit abortion past viability? Apparently not, since it did not reject the vacuous “health” definition of Doe v Bolton. Abortion remains legal through nine months of pregnancy.
Yes, the Roe court did manufacture a right to abortion out of the blue.
Someday, in a saner society, I hope that historians will look back upon this era of generational genocide with the same abhorrence that we view the Court’s decision in Dred Scott.
In Casey v Planned Parenthood, the Court even adverts to the fact that an entire generation of women had grown up with the understanding of a right to abortion found in Roe, and thus they were loathe to overturn it. As if permission to kill one’s young acquires some legitimacy with the passage of time.
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
It’s called stare decisis.
- Status