The pro-life common sense clincher

[Doc_Keele]

Doc Keele

*Charlemagne, you just don’t understand the law. *

Well, Lincoln understood it. And he was not loathe to attack those who would pervert the Constitution.

I’m still waiting for someone to cite the specific passage in the Constitution that provides for the murdering of babies in the womb as a right of privacy.

Any takers?

Or has common sense at last prevailed?

…and we still haven’t moved on. My point remains - you don’t understand the law, most specifically how a Constitution operates.

 

[Worthy5]

Charlemangne

Of course it’s the Virgin Birth. Christ had to be born of a virgin who was stainless ijn order not to inherit the stain of original sin. That is why Joseph could not be the father. Jesus had to be born innocent, as Adam was born innocent. The only way to achieve that would be that he be born of a virgin who was herself innocent … Mary, the Second Eve. The second Adam and the second Eve.

You cited the incorrect passage for the " Immaculate Conception".

Self evident.

Could not the Roe Court say the same thing about privacy and the decision on early abortions.

It takes no such thing, as it is self evident. Yet the Church had that teaching authority long before Matthew was written.

Okay wait, is there or is there not a teaching authority? If it is self-evident then is there a need for a teaching authority?

You have the cart before the horse again.

So, then is the Old Testament the horse or the cart?

The New Testament is not the equivalent of a Constitution.

It is the same when it comes to the indeterminancy of written language.

Best as I can figure out, you have to be a Protestant

.

Is that a problem?

Not true. The Church does have teaching authority that existed before the NT.

How do you deal with the Old Testament with this " this was before that therefore…" line of reasoning.

The Supreme court never had teaching authority. It has only the authority to interpret.

Is there a a distinction here?

It has no authority to add endless doctrines to the Constitution that are absurd perversions of the document

.

Then amend the Constitution.

Again, I’m asking you to show me where in the Constitution it establishes, even by implication, that mothers have the right to kill their children and that physicians have the right to be their hired executioners.

This poster has no such authority to do so—only the Supreme Court does.

It would be as if someone wrote a new Gospel in which Christ allowed that it was o.k. to murder children in the womb. What would that have to do with anything that was said in the four Gospels?

So what does Roe v Wade have to do with anything that was said in the Constitution?

Please cite exact phrases.

Once again, 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. "

 

[Worthy5]

=Charlemagne II;6340225]Worthy5

The Fifth Amendment:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

If the unborn child could speak for himself or herself, it could invoke the 5th Amendment. Why should it be deprived of life without due process? And what crime could it have possibly committed that it would deserve the death penallty as devised by the Supreme court in Roe v Wade?

This interpretation of the consitution surely is more common sensical than the laughable notion that a woman can, according to the Constitution, invoke her right to privacy in the very act of killing her own child, or that the abortionists can invoke the same right to privacy.

Might as well say the Constitution allows the right to murder as long as murder is done in secret on an operating table in a chamber built for death.

Even an adult murderer has more Consitutional rights to defend himself from undue process than an innocent babe.

Take it up with the Supreme Court there Charlemagne.

 

[Worthy5]

Spirithound;6340319]This passage does not grant the power of creating truth to the Supreme Court.

And what is the truth?

 

[Spirithound]

[BIBLEDRB]John 18:38-40[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Worthy5

You cited the incorrect passage for the " Immaculate Conception".

There is no “correct” passage. The teaching authority of the Church encompasses, but is not limited to, the teachings presented to us in Scripture, which were not collected, authorized, and diseminated to the faithful until the 4th Century. For centuries Church theologians have been seeking to solve the question of how Jesus escaped inheriting the the stain of original sin. The Immaculate Conception is the only logical solution. Again, not all Catholic teaching is to be found explicitly stated in Scripture; but Scripture, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, never fails to give as clues about any questions we need answered. The passage from Luke is extremely helpful.

*Could not the Roe Court say the same thing about privacy and the decision on early abortions. *

That it is self-evident? Show me where Roe v Wade says it is “self evident.” Only by the most laughable logic was the court able to wrest “privacy” rights for abortion out of the Constitution.

I said:
*It takes no such thing, as it is self evident. Yet the Church had that teaching authority long before Matthew was written. *

You said:

So, then is the Old Testament the horse or the cart?

The Old Testament is the caboose!

*It is the same when it comes to the indeterminancy of written language. *

I don’t understand this point. Can you clarify?

I said I thought you must be a Protestant.

You said:

Is that a problem?

Not at all. I’m just pointing out to others viewing this discussion that as a Protestant you understandably emphasize the Bible as equal to a Constitution, when it is no such thing, and then you make the Church equal to a Supreme Court, when it is no such thing.

*How do you deal with the Old Testament with this " this was before that therefore…" line of reasoning. *

The Chosen People (WE THE PEOPLE) created the OT over a period of centuries, just as the Church (WE THE PEOPLE) created the NT over a period of centuries. In both cases, WE THE PEOPLE assumed authority over our own Scriptures. The Scriptures did not assume authority over us except to the extent that we gave the scriptures that authority in the first place. If you want to view the OT as a Constitution of sorts, I don’t mind. We are still bound by the Ten Commandments, after all. I’ll then view the NT as a Bill of Rights … first of all the right to life … and then the right to everlasting life.

I said:
*The Supreme court never had teaching authority. It has only the authority to interpret. *

You said:
*Is there a a distinction here? *

Yes. A teacher can let his mind go wherever it wants, and from time to time discover and impart newly discovered truths. This authority was nowhere given to the Supreme Court in the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s role is to interpret the Constitution and apply its provisions to whatever challenges are brought before it. It has no power to amend the Constitution, and that is precisely what Roe v Wade has done by inventing a right nowhere provided except by the most absurd stretch of imagination.

*Then amend the Constitution. *

That has been done before, and can be done again. Or the Supreme Court could reverse itself.

I said:

*Again, I’m asking you to show me where in the Constitution it establishes, even by implication, that mothers have the right to kill their children and that physicians have the right to be their hired executioners. *

You said:
*This poster has no such authority to do so—only the Supreme Court does. *

You don’t need the Supreme Court’s authority. Just cite the passage.

*"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. " *

You apparently accept this as the last and infallible word on the subject? Again, the Supreme court does not enjoy the charism of the Catholic Church … infallibility; and as a good Protestant you should agree!

 

[Spirithound]

And what is the truth?

Is this what it comes down to? You don’t have an absolute truth, so you need to appeal to the government to define truth for you?

Do you have an absolute measure to which you can compare various statements to determine if they are true?

 

[Worthy5]

=Charlemagne II;6341519]Worthy5

You cited the incorrect passage for the " Immaculate Conception".

There is no “correct” passage. The teaching authority of the Church encompasses, but is not limited to, the teachings presented to us in Scripture, which were not collected, authorized, and diseminated to the faithful until the 4th Century. For centuries Church theologians have been seeking to solve the question of how Jesus escaped inheriting the the stain of original sin. The Immaculate Conception is the only logical solution. Again, not all Catholic teaching is to be found explicitly stated in Scripture; but Scripture, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, never fails to give as clues about any questions we need answered. The passage from Luke is extremely helpful.

Come on Charles you really are needing to explain alot here.

That it is self-evident? Show me where Roe v Wade says it is “self evident.” Only by the most laughable logic was the court able to wrest “privacy” rights for abortion out of the Constitution.

There you go again. Playing " word" hard ball when its suits your argument but when it does not you want to make long explanation like the above.

Well, you can call it laughable logic but Justice Blackmun, Chief Justice Burger, Justice Powell, Justice Stewart, Justice Douglas, Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall------all top legal scholars—saw it differently.

The Old Testament is the caboose!

Come Charles you really need to do better there.

*It is the same when it comes to the indeterminancy of written language. *

I don’t understand this point. Can you clarify?

Go look it up.

Not at all. I’m just pointing out to others viewing this discussion that as a Protestant you understandably emphasize the Bible as equal to a Constitution, when it is no such thing, and then you make the Church equal to a Supreme Court, when it is no such thing.

Really, and what denomination does that?

The Chosen People (WE THE PEOPLE) created the OT over a period of centuries, just as the Church (WE THE PEOPLE) created the NT over a period of centuries. In both cases, WE THE PEOPLE assumed authority over our own Scriptures. The Scriptures did not assume authority over us except to the extent that we gave the scriptures that authority in the first place. If you want to view the OT as a Constitution of sorts, I don’t mind. We are still bound by the Ten Commandments, after all. I’ll then view the NT as a Bill of Rights … first of all the right to life … and then the right to everlasting life.

Is the authority of the Church vested with the people or in apostolic succession?

Yes. A teacher can let his mind go wherever it wants, and from time to time discover and impart newly discovered truths. This authority was nowhere given to the Supreme Court in the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s role is to interpret the Constitution and apply its provisions to whatever challenges are brought before it. It has no power to amend the Constitution, and that is precisely what Roe v Wade has done by inventing a right nowhere provided except by the most absurd stretch of imagination.

That is the point you are missing----the line between interpreting and " inventing" is not as clear as you want it to be. And the Court’s doctrine of Judicial Review is well established whether you like it or not.

You don’t need the Supreme Court’s authority. Just cite the passage.

Once again 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. " *

You apparently accept this as the last and infallible word on the subject? Again, the Supreme court does not enjoy the charism of the Catholic Church … infallibility;

The Court does not need to assert infallibility-----knowing a divine revelation----it only needs to have the authority to decide the legal case before it as a matter of American law. Once again you keep wanting to work on the assumption that American law is soley and exclusively about morality----it is not—if it was then this would be an autocratic theocracy.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*Once again 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. " *

Not what I was asking you. I’m asking you to cite the Constitutional passage that allows this interpretation. Justice Blackmun is not the Constitution. What obtuse reasoning process that went on in his head is not the Constitution.

Also, the woman’s right of privacy aside, what Constitutional authority gives a medical butcher the right to take the life of an unborn child for money? Surely not the right of privacy.

*Well, you can call it laughable logic but Justice Blackmun, Chief Justice Burger, Justice Powell, Justice Stewart, Justice Douglas, Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall------all top legal scholars—saw it differently. *

Justice Byron White and William Rehnquist, also top legal scholars, didn’t agree. They saw in Blackmun’s reading an attempt by the Court’s majority to create a statue that is nowhere found in the Constitution. They were right. And since the Supreme Court does not enjoy the charism of infallibility, sooner or later, God willing, Blackmun’s logic will be exposed for what it is … legal hocus pocus.

 

[Worthy5]

=Charlemagne II;6341750]*

Not what I was asking you. I’m asking you* to cite the Constitutional passage that allows this interpretation. Justice Blackmun is not the Constitution. What obtuse reasoning process that went on in his head is not the Constitution.

There you go again. And this poster is asking you to cite the passage where the word Trinity is stated in the Bible.

Also, the woman’s right of privacy aside, what Constitutional authority gives a medical butcher the right to take the life of an unborn child for money? Surely not the right of privacy.

Not what the Court thought—and the Court has the authority–not you.

Justice Byron White and William Rehnquist, also top legal scholars, didn’t agree. They saw in Blackmun’s reading an attempt by the Court’s majority to create a statue that is nowhere found in the Constitution.

Yes, but they were in the minority.

And since the Supreme Court does not enjoy the charism of infallibility, sooner or later, God willing, Blackmun’s logic will be exposed for what it is … legal hocus pocus

.

The Court does not need infallibility, only the authority to decide issues of America law.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Yes, but they were in the minority.

Christ and the Apostles were also in the minority! But they were right.

There you go again. And this poster is asking you to cite the passage where the word Trinity is stated in the Bible.

O.K. I’m satisfied that, like me, you also cannot find the passage in the Constitution that allows abortion as a privacy issue, or the butcher’s right to abort as a privacy issue.

 

[Worthy5]

Charlemagne II;6341855]Yes, but they were in the minority.

Christ and the Apostles were also in the minority! But they were right.

Yes, but they were not asking for the American govt to use its police power were they.

O.K. I’m satisfied that, like me, you also cannot find the passage in the Constitution that allows abortion as a privacy issue, or the butcher’s right to abort as a privacy issue.

This poster does not have to, the Supreme Court has the authority----not you or I. Once again 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. "

 

[LittleSoldier]

Yes, but they were not asking for the American govt to use its police power were they.

This poster does not have to, the Supreme Court has the authority----not you or I. Once again 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. "

The American Supreme Court’s Authority is extremely limited; first, they can only rule on law in one country; second, they are trumped by a higher court - God’s and His law.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[Worthy5]

LittleSoldier;6342439]The American Supreme Court’s Authority is extremely limited; first, they can only rule on law in one country

But they have all the authority needed to say what the Constitution means.

; second, they are trumped by a higher court - God’s and His law.

Surely, and if a women violates God’s law with an abortion----then God can arrest her.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Worthy5

Surely, and if a women violates God’s law with an abortion----then God can arrest her.

Where does it say in the Constitution that an abortionist, a medical butcher, has a right of privacy to kill an unborn child? This I’ve got to see! Not even Blackmun was that stupid!

Yes, but they [Christ and the apostles] were not asking for the American govt to use its police power were they.

Jesus cared for the children … a good deal more than the Supreme Court. When he said “Suffer the little ones to come unto me,” he didn’t mean that the Supreme Court should use its police power to make that possible in the most literal sense of the word "suffer … or that the Supreme Court should use its “police” power to make possible police protection for those who would kill the children.

 

[LittleSoldier]

But they have all the authority needed to say what the Constitution means.

There are laws far above the laws of one little country in this big world. But the entire world is ruled by God’s laws and should submit to those.

Surely, and if a women violates God’s law with an abortion----then God can arrest her.

I’m not amused.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[LittleSoldier]

But they have all the authority needed to say what the Constitution means.

There are laws far above the laws of one little country in this big world. But the entire world is ruled by God’s laws and should submit to those.

Surely, and if a women violates God’s law with an abortion----then God can arrest her.

I’m not amused.

If you aren’t concerned about a woman’s eternal soul, you should be. Really. Any woman who procures an abortion with full knowledge of the gravity of the act and with full consent, and then dies without confessing her sin, is damned to hell.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[Worthy5]

=Charlemagne II;6342696]

Where does it say in the Constitution that an abortionist, a medical butcher, has a right of privacy to kill an unborn child? This I’ve got to see! Not even Blackmun was that stupid!

Once again 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. "

Jesus cared for the children … a good deal more than the Supreme Court. When he said “Suffer the little ones to come unto me,” he didn’t mean that the Supreme Court should use its police power to make that possible in the most literal sense of the word "suffer … or that the Supreme Court should use its “police” power to make possible police protection for those who would kill the children.

Yes indeed.

 

[Worthy5]

LittleSoldier;6342809]

If you aren’t concerned about a woman’s eternal soul, you should be. Really. Any woman who procures an abortion with full knowledge of the gravity of the act and with full consent, and then dies without confessing her sin, is damned to hell.

Yes indeed, and you are certainly free in this country to explain that to them.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Worthy5

*Once again 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. " *

Please keep in mind that the butcher’s action is separate from the mother’s.

Still waiting for you to show where the Constitution (not the Supreme Court) says a mother may conspire with a butcher to take the life of her child.

Please cite the specific passage, rather than Blackmun’s interpretation of that passage.

I think you cannot, and that’s why you haven’t.

Many of the high Justices in Nazi Germany likewise signed executive orders allowing the incarceration, sterilization, or execution of Jews, Catholics, and other enemies of the State. After the war some of them were tried and sentenced by Justices from the United States at the Nuremberg trials.

Within two decades, with Roe v Wade, Justices of the United States would be endorsing the execution of millions of unborn humans.

Please explain why the Supreme Court’s defense of this butchery is not in fact a form of police action designed to protect the butchers in their execution of the innocents. This time why not try working from your own common sense rather than Blackmun’s uncommon nonsense?