The pro-life common sense clincher

[Worthy5]

miguel;6356916]Yes if the constitution requires it.

And how do you know the Constitution requires it? The Court right—it has the authority–not you.

Civilized societies have long accepted the use of police power to prevent onerous crimes like murder (killing babies is especially onerous).

That was not the question posed------the question is, is the govt to be used to solve all the problems of the human condition? Yes or No. If you say yes–then that is an argument for an autocratic government. If you say No—then you have recognized the policy of limited govt—the basis for the " pro-choice" position.

And the 14th Amendment requires the states to provide equal protection of the laws to “any person” in their jurisdictions.To get back to the injustice of the Roe decision, Blackmun ruled that the unborn were not persons as that term is used in the 14th Amendment. So a person can be murdered one second before birth and is protected from being murdered one second after birth. There is no difference in a person one second before and one second after birth. It’s absurd.

Correct, the Court found that the unborn was not a person— but how. Well let us go back to Mr. Justice Blackmun:

Is discussing what " person" was in other areas of the Constitution— " nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application."

And further the Court went on " throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word “person,” as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn."

And further, " It is thus apparent that at common law, at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect. Phrasing it another way, a woman enjoyed a substantially broader right to terminate a pregnancy …the opportunity to make this choice was present in this country well into the 19th century. "

Perhaps what is absurd is not recognizing the counterargument.

 

[CatofAlexandria]

Worthy: it’s nice to see you finally fleshing out your arguments. However, you still haven’t explained why (except, “because the Supreme Court says so”) “the concept of limited government” (and expansive federal control) ought to apply in the case of an abortion. I read and interpret judicial opinions for a living. If I want to know the current status of the law, I can figure that out myself. What we’re talking about here, however, is how things ought to be, not how they currently are. There’s a big difference between normative and descriptive argument.

The concept of limited government is a nice one, indeed. However, what you must understand is that these concepts are to be grounded in some reasoning or systematic philosophy. Perhaps, for example, you are taking the Hobbsian social contract approach to ethical theory and arguing that we should only agree to give up our freedoms to the extent that, on the whole, it makes us freer to do what we’d like to do in life. While nice in theory, this concept presumes that all men are generally equal in strength and ability, and this is certainly not the case. So, perhaps you’d make out a system where, not knowing your lot in life, you maximize happiness and autonomy for all persons. Well, then, how you limit government to maximize autonomy is going to depend on who you count as a “person.” This is why the metaphysical question matters.

While some are certainly tired of the slavery analogy, this is a wonderful illustration of how a metaphysical distinction can make an ethical and (normative) legal difference. If we wish to maximize autonomy for persons, and African Americans are not persons, then there should be no law prohibiting slavery. What I do with my body–how I treat my chattel, my personal property–has always been sacred in American jurisprudence. It was up to the “masters” (and social and moral norms) to dictate the African American’s fate. However, if African Americans are persons, then slavery ought to be suspect, for they must be included in the autonomy-maximizing equation. And so, the limited government question is a two-step analysis: (1) Who’s autonomy do we care about, and (2) How do we maximize this autonomy? This explains the Supreme Court’s doctrinal shift.

What the pro-lifers are pressing you to do from a normative standpoint is to consider the first, metaphysical inquiry which analytically precedes the autonomy analysis. I will give you credit and say that the slavery question is much easier to answer once you’ve taken the metaphysical leap. Because of the unborn child’s state of dependency, the autonomy question is more difficult, but there may already be a basis in the law and ethical theory for evaluating the conflict of future total autonomy and immediate, bodily autonomy which takes place in the abortion decision.

Of course, there are some things that we ought to do, and that it would be nice for us to do that the government should not force us to do by law. It would be nice, for example, if everyone showered and smelled nice because them smelling bad makes my life less enjoyable. On another level, it would be nice if people would not lie, for that interferes with my ability to gather the correct information, which, we all know, hinders my ability to make the best choice. That’s (in part) why we have social norms and moral norms in place – to strike the correct balance of autonomy.
However, there comes a point at which the scales tip in one direction and the government must interfere in order to maximize autonomy as a rule: don’t lie at trial, under oath; don’t lie to your investors; you must help someone you accidentally hit. This is the question, ultimately, that we’re getting at. We must give up some freedoms to, as a whole, be free. That’s the REAL limited government debate.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Worthy5

Is discussing what " person" was in other areas of the Constitution— " nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application."

Then how was it possible that Scott Peterson was convicted of a double homicide in the death of his pregnant wife?

None of you has yet to answer this, and you act as if the question had never been asked (was asked twice, this is the third ask). Anybody on your side of the issue is invited to answer it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Worthy5

*That was not the question posed------the question is, is the govt to be used to solve all the problems of the human condition? *

The answer to your question is self evident and common sense. Of course the government is not to be used to solve all the problems of the human condition. However, it may and always has rightly been assigned to govern in matters of homicide, as it did in the case of Scott Peterson who was found guilty of the double murder of his wife and the child in her womb.

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45520-2004Nov12.html

Scroll down

 

[fix]

No fix, it is about what the govt is to do, not you or I.

It is the responsibility of the government to protect us from being murdered. This is self evident. Would you trade place with the baby about to be aborted?

By your logic, govt has the right to regulate all aspects of a person’s life, all aspects of society-----is that a free society?

By my logic judges do not invent their own truth, misapply it under the guise of a judicial philosophy, and claim unborn children have no right to life.

Hardly. There is always something " wrong" going on in every facet of the human condition. Is govt to regulate all that, esp using its onerous and expensive police power?

This is silliness. No one here has argued any such thing. Re-categorizing protecting children from murder as overly intrusive government functions defies common sense.

 

[fix]

Worthy5

Is discussing what " person" was in other areas of the Constitution— " nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application."

Then how was it possible that Scott Peterson was convicted of a double homicide in the death of his pregnant wife?

None of you has yet to answer this, and you act as if the question had never been asked (was asked twice, this is the third ask). Anybody on your side of the issue is invited to answer it.

One of the problems is that if we view the civil law through the lens moral relativism, then we can come up with any conclusion based on any court decision regardless of moral coherence.

 

[fix]

The concept of limited government is a nice one, indeed. However, what you must understand is that these concepts are to be grounded in some reasoning or systematic philosophy. Perhaps, for example, you are taking the Hobbsian social contract approach to ethical theory and arguing that we should only agree to give up our freedoms to the extent that, on the whole, it makes us freer to do what we’d like to do in life. While nice in theory, this concept presumes that all men are generally equal in strength and ability, and this is certainly not the case. So, perhaps you’d make out a system where, not knowing your lot in life, you maximize happiness and autonomy for all persons. Well, then, how you limit government to maximize autonomy is going to depend on who you count as a “person.” This is why the metaphysical question matters.

Another problem with the pro abort position is that some claim to follow one philosophical school or another. The problem is they come to differing conclusions on the same topic. How do they decide what is the correct way to act? Either majority rule, or because the court said so and some judge claims his judicial philosophy or interpretation is correct.

Now, I ask you how does the slave or unborn person come out in such a situation? Hit or miss.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Great post Cat
Certainly makes a change from the dozens of posts telling us that killing children is not commonsense, which gets a bit boring after the 20th time…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Doc Keele
*
Certainly makes a change from the dozens of posts telling us that killing children is not commonsense, which gets a bit boring after the 20th time…*

Hearing that the right to kill your children is common sense would be even more insufferable heard for the 20th time …

But I’ll tell you what really gets boring … the refusal to answer questions that you know you can’t answer without looking pretty silly.

Such as: “Is it common sense that we should have the right to kill our own children?”

 

[Doc_Keele]

I haven’t refused to answer questions. I just can’t see the point in answering your questions when you just argue in this bull-headed way )and when even if I give answers they go in one ear and out the other, it’s really futile in the extreme) - you’ve got double standards Charlemagne.
It would be wonderful if you listened to other people for a change.

 

[Worthy5]

=CatofAlexandria;6357341]Worthy: it’s nice to see you finally fleshing out your arguments. However, you still haven’t explained why (except, “because the Supreme Court says so”) “the concept of limited government” (and expansive federal control) ought to apply in the case of an abortion. I read and interpret judicial opinions for a living. If I want to know the current status of the law, I can figure that out myself. What we’re talking about here, however, is how things ought to be, not how they currently are. There’s a big difference between normative and descriptive argument.

The concept of limited government is a nice one, indeed. However, what you must understand is that these concepts are to be grounded in some reasoning or systematic philosophy. Perhaps, for example, you are taking the Hobbsian social contract approach to ethical theory and arguing that we should only agree to give up our freedoms to the extent that, on the whole, it makes us freer to do what we’d like to do in life. While nice in theory, this concept presumes that all men are generally equal in strength and ability, and this is certainly not the case. So, perhaps you’d make out a system where, not knowing your lot in life, you maximize happiness and autonomy for all persons. Well, then, how you limit government to maximize autonomy is going to depend on who you count as a “person.” This is why the metaphysical question matters.

While some are certainly tired of the slavery analogy, this is a wonderful illustration of how a metaphysical distinction can make an ethical and (normative) legal difference. If we wish to maximize autonomy for persons, and African Americans are not persons, then there should be no law prohibiting slavery. What I do with my body–how I treat my chattel, my personal property–has always been sacred in American jurisprudence. It was up to the “masters” (and social and moral norms) to dictate the African American’s fate. However, if African Americans are persons, then slavery ought to be suspect, for they must be included in the autonomy-maximizing equation. And so, the limited government question is a two-step analysis: (1) Who’s autonomy do we care about, and (2) How do we maximize this autonomy? This explains the Supreme Court’s doctrinal shift.

What the pro-lifers are pressing you to do from a normative standpoint is to consider the first, metaphysical inquiry which analytically precedes the autonomy analysis. I will give you credit and say that the slavery question is much easier to answer once you’ve taken the metaphysical leap. Because of the unborn child’s state of dependency, the autonomy question is more difficult, but there may already be a basis in the law and ethical theory for evaluating the conflict of future total autonomy and immediate, bodily autonomy which takes place in the abortion decision.

Of course, there are some things that we ought to do, and that it would be nice for us to do that the government should not force us to do by law. It would be nice, for example, if everyone showered and smelled nice because them smelling bad makes my life less enjoyable. On another level, it would be nice if people would not lie, for that interferes with my ability to gather the correct information, which, we all know, hinders my ability to make the best choice. That’s (in part) why we have social norms and moral norms in place – to strike the correct balance of autonomy.
However, there comes a point at which the scales tip in one direction and the government must interfere in order to maximize autonomy as a rule: don’t lie at trial, under oath; don’t lie to your investors; you must help someone you accidentally hit. This is the question, ultimately, that we’re getting at. We must give up some freedoms to, as a whole, be free. That’s the REAL limited government debate.

My friend several points. 1) This poster does not care what you are looking for. 2) the topic of the thread is a pro-life " clincher" posted by Charlemagne. The Roe case is obviously a place to go to explain a line of reasoning for the " pro-choice" position. That has been provided to a degree. The Court has the authority.

It is simply a check on govt power----a limited govt view in this area by the Court. That is one of the counterarguments to the Pro-life position-----and it is a reasonable position to take based on this value judgment by the Court. Thus, there is not a pro-life legal “clincher”.

You can disagree with it, you can say the Court was wrong in its value judgment----fine, but what you think the law “should be” is not finding the pro-life " clincher". If you want to take the thread further out, go ask Charles and have at it.

Take your " metaphysical " debate and the " normative " standpoint up with the Court. The Court stated why it did not count the early fetus as a “person.” Good Luck

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Doc Keele

I’ll ask you once more. It should not be so painful to give a one word answer: yes or no. I’m all ears. I’m listening, believe me.

However, I know you won’t give an answer.

“Is it common sense that we should have the right to kill our own children?”

 

[Worthy5]

Charlemagne II;6357351]

Is discussing what " person" was in other areas of the Constitution— " nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application."

Then how was it possible that Scott Peterson was convicted of a double homicide in the death of his pregnant wife?

None of you has yet to answer this, and you act as if the question had never been asked (was asked twice, this is the third ask). Anybody on your side of the issue is invited to answer it.

Was that statue at issue before the Court in 1973? Go read the opinion.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Charlemagne, this is a complex question so therefore there isn’t a straightorward answer. If you asked me (boring example but here we go) “Have you stopped beating your wife?”, there’s no straight answer I can give that denies that I have ever beaten my wife.
Do you want to ask a reasonable question that doesn’t suffer those problems?

 

[Worthy5]

Charlemagne II;6357373]Worthy5

Of course the government is not to be used to solve all the problems of the human condition.

Okay Charles then there is your answer----that is why there is no pro-life " clincher". The Court did not see fit to allow the govt police power to solve the abortion problem in all cases, esp the early fetus.

You can disagree with that judgment----that is fine. But the Court saw it differently. Thus, now the Pro-choice position is better understood. I think this thread is complete.

 

[Worthy5]

=fix;6357503]

Re-categorizing protecting children from murder as overly intrusive government functions defies common sense.

Well, that was not the way the Court looked at it.

 

[BobCatholic]

Bob, the right to life isn’t absolute in the European Charter of Human Rights.

That’s true, they also allow abortion in the EU.

No, no value, even life, is protected at all costs. If that were the case we never let a convicted murder out of prison, never let anyone drive over 10 mph.

So if the right to life is not an absolute human right, please give me the list of human rights that the dead have.

Freedom of speech? Nope.
Freedom to Marry? Nope (not yet…stay tuned to what our sextremist friends are up to)
Freedom to own property? Nope.
Freedom to assemble? Nope. (not yet, but let’s see when the mass graves start popping up)

So, now the govt is suppose to make sure we never die?

The government is supposed to make sure people are not murdered.

Using your objection, should the government stop enforcing murder laws?

my world doesn’t begin and end with the issue of abortion
my world begins and ends with my Lord Jesus Christ

Ah, so are you saying that Jesus approves of abortion?

Yes indeed - we bring light to the world by bringing Christ to the people, not by banning abortion. What a limited and ephemeral aim it is to simply ban abortion.

Ah, so we should not stand up against evil. Nice.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Abortion is bigotry. Plain and simple.

19th century = blacks were lynched legally
21st century = babies are killed legally

What’s the difference?

16th Century Mayan “civilization” sacrificed babies on the altar to their false gods.
21st Century USA “civilization” sacrifices babies on the altar of sextremism.

What’s the difference?

 

[Doc_Keele]

Bob, you just don’t get it, and I really can’t be bothered dealing with someone else who argues like Charlemagne - one is enough!
Force of personality does not constitute a formal argument by itself:thumbsup:

 

[CatofAlexandria]

Doc: Thanks. I try to do my part. I get so frustrated with the rhetoric on both sides of the fence. They are grounded in valid concepts, but never fleshed out. And the two sides are usually arguing different parts of the multi-step analysis. It’s an emotional issue, and I think that our professions let us step back from emotion to evaluate not only what is “good,” but why that is the case. I feel strongly, but those feelings will not persuade.

Char: Please read my post (which supports your position), and you might understand a bit better where Doc is coming from. This is, essentially, a multi-step analysis. The “don’t kill your children” part is one important step. But, it does not get you all of the way there. Please don’t see me as some heartless academic who does not care for children. I greatly oppose abortion, but I seek to understand the full arguments. There is some reason behind the other side’s intuition.

Worthy: Thanks for the go-ahead. Perhaps I will argue before the Court one day. When it’s looking to re-evaluate a doctrine, it is usually more receptive to normative arguments. Descriptive arguments are hogwash without a normative component.

 

[Worthy5]

BobCatholic;6357683]That’s true, they also allow abortion in the EU.

So if the right to life is not an absolute human right, please give me the list of human rights that the dead have.

Freedom of speech? Nope.
Freedom to Marry? Nope (not yet…stay tuned to what our sextremist friends are up to)
Freedom to own property? Nope.
Freedom to assemble? Nope. (not yet, but let’s see when the mass graves start popping up)

Please Bob spare us the popcorn. Life is an absolute value, but not an absolute right—no govt has the resources to guarantee such a thing.

The government is supposed to make sure people are not murdered.

Using your objection, should the government stop enforcing murder laws?

Well, the Court did not see the early fetus as a " person" entitled to that protection. If you do not like it—go amend the Constitution.