The pro-life common sense clincher

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Doc Keele

*Is the Hippocratic Oath “truth” from a Christian perspective? *

Obviously yes. But also from a common sense perspective.

We do not kill our children.
 
Doc_Keele said:
Jim G, the analysis of the issue is a lot more sophisticated than that, believe me - or if you don’t believe me read the papers in the philosophical journals by orthodox Catholic philosophers. Like I have.
Click to expand...
I don’t know if there are Catholic philosophers who argue for the direct killing of a fetus or embryo. I was going by these two replies from the Ask an Apologist forum:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=17307

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=55211

I can only hope that when my own life is on the line, I will not be done in by an excess philosophical sophistication.
 
Back to the commonsense mantra.
Goebbels believed in repeating things time after time, so that people would believe it was the truth. Are you consciously adopting his tactics?

Being an intelligent adult, I don’t need to have something repeated to me dozens of times. It gets frankly annoying.
 
Jim G - so the Catholic Church doesn’t have any sophisticated philosophical arguments?
Does sophistication bother you?:confused:
 
Doc_Keele said:
Jim G - so the Catholic Church doesn’t have any sophisticated philosophical arguments?
Does sophistication bother you?:confused:
Click to expand...
The Church has a lot of sound and theologically orthodox philosophers. I’m wondering which ones you were reading. After all, some moral laws really are straightforward. When I’m very ill, I’d prefer not to have philosophers at my bedside arguing about whether or not I’m really human or really a person.

The National Catholic Bioethics Center also deals with applying Catholic ethics to complex situations.
 
JimG said:
The Church has a lot of sound and theologically orthodox philosophers. I’m wondering which ones you were reading. After all, some moral laws really are straightforward. When I’m very ill, I’d prefer not to have philosophers at my bedside arguing about whether or not I’m really human or really a person.

The National Catholic Bioethics Center also deals with applying Catholic ethics to complex situations.
Click to expand...
It’s funny how you know what these papers say even though you haven’t read them:rolleyes:
Jim G, read the papers before commenting on them.
 
Doc_Keele said:
It’s funny how you know what these papers say even though you haven’t read them:rolleyes:
Jim G, read the papers before commenting on them.
Click to expand...
Read which papers?
I’m not commenting about any papers, but about what I read in this forum. But OK, give me a reading assignment.
 
JimG said:
Read which papers?
I’m not commenting about any papers, but about what I read in this forum. But OK, give me a reading assignment.
Click to expand...
Interesting that you comment about papers that you haven’t read. There’s “Moral Absolutism and Ectopic Pregnancy” by Kaczor, someone here found a free access site with it on (my access is via University Athens log in).
 
miguel;6369762]Sure. There are different uses of the word person in the Constitution. Qualifications for public office and the like clearly do not apply to pre-natal persons.
Click to expand...
Miguel, really, why makes such comments. Did you read the opinion? The Court was looking at the intent of the drafters concluding that no where in their minds was pre-born covered by the use of “person” anywhere in the Constitution but specifically in regards to the 14th Amend.
The deprivation of a person of life (i.e., without due process) is unconstitutional. It’s clearly stated in Amendments 5 and 14. Blackmun just makes an assertion about the impossibility of any pre-natal application. It’s absurd. The ordinary use of the word person clearly does not exclude this.
Click to expand...
Its absurd in your opinion. The Court concluded that the drafters had no where in mind
" pre-born" application given the status of abortion at that time.
By similar reasoning, one could argue for a return to slavery, since the freedom to own slaves was much freer in the 19th century than it is today.
Click to expand...
Once again its the intent of the drafters the Court was looking at given the status of abortion at that time. Moreover, the 14th Amend was written in the wake of emancipation. I mean, come on. 🤷
 
Doc Keele

With respect to my mantra about common sense, you said:

Goebbels believed in repeating things time after time, so that people would believe it was the truth. Are you consciously adopting his tactics?

No, I’m adopting the tactics of the Femi-Nazis, who are forever repeating the mantra that they have the Constitutional right to kill their own children. Oh please show me that passage in the Constitution!

Since the Constitution was addressed to people who were not at that time busy trying to kill off the next generation, why would the Supreme Court presume to read the minds of the Founders by assuming that they did not regard the unborn as without protection?

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. No?

Please remind me of your answer to this question:

Why was Scott Peterson convicted of a double homicide of his pregnant wife if the Constitution insists that an unborn baby is not a person and is not entitled to protection of life and limb? :confused:
 
miguel;6370871]Sadly yes. It’s incoherent. If you want an example of coherent reasoning, I recommend Rehnquist’s dissent.
Click to expand...
Your opinion. 🙂
 
Worthy5

Refute this point in Rehnquist’s dissent with logic, not by merely repeating Blackmun ad nauseam. Thank you. 🙂

Even if there were a plaintiff in this case capable of litigating the issue which the Court decides, I would reach a conclusion opposite to that reached by the Court. I have difficulty in concluding, as the Court does, that the right of “privacy” is involved in this case. Texas, by the statute here challenged, bars the performance of a medical abortion by a licensed physician on a plaintiff such as Roe. A transaction resulting in an operation such as this is not “private” in the ordinary usage of that word. Nor is the “privacy” that the Court finds here even a distant relative of the freedom from searches and seizures protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which the Court has referred to as embodying a right to privacy. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).

It’s clear that Rehnquist sees **no common sense connection **between the privacy rights granted in the 4th Amendment and the right to kill the offspring argued by Blackmun.
 
Charlemagne II;6370990]
Click to expand...
Refute this point in Rehnquist’s dissent with logic, not by merely repeating Blackmun ad nauseam. Thank you. 🙂
Click to expand...
Even if there were a plaintiff in this case capable of litigating the issue which the Court decides, I would reach a conclusion opposite to that reached by the Court. I have difficulty in concluding, as the Court does, that the right of “privacy” is involved in this case. Texas, by the statute here challenged, bars the performance of a medical abortion by a licensed physician on a plaintiff such as Roe. A transaction resulting in an operation such as this is not “private” in the ordinary usage of that word. Nor is the “privacy” that the Court finds here even a distant relative of the freedom from searches and seizures protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which the Court has referred to as embodying a right to privacy. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
Click to expand...
It’s clear that Rehnquist sees **no common sense connection **between the privacy rights granted in the 4th Amendment and the right to kill the offspring argued by Blackmun
Click to expand...
Here is your problem: Rehnquist was in the 7-2 minority. Go read Justice Stewart’s concurring opinion. 😃
 
Charlemagne II;6370828]
Click to expand...
Why was Scott Peterson convicted of a double homicide of his pregnant wife if the Constitution insists that an unborn baby is not a person and is not entitled to protection of life and limb? :confused:
Click to expand...
Charles, the law can classify “persons” for protection for different purposes. The purpose of the double homicide statue is addressing the malicious intent of such a murder on a pregnant female—double homicide means harsher punishment.

You again miss the thrust of Roe-----the personal autonomy of the female. The govt cannot regulate there—the zone of privacy. It does not mean that in that " zone" something immoral is not being done there----just that the govt cannot stop it there. What do you think a limited govt means?

That is different from the govt punishing an adult male crime on a pregnant adult female.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Doc Keele

With respect to my mantra about common sense, you said:

Goebbels believed in repeating things time after time, so that people would believe it was the truth. Are you consciously adopting his tactics?

No, I’m adopting the tactics of the Femi-Nazis, who are forever repeating the mantra that they have the Constitutional right to kill their own children. Oh please show me that passage in the Constitution!

Since the Constitution was addressed to people who were not at that time busy trying to kill off the next generation, why would the Supreme Court presume to read the minds of the Founders by assuming that they did not regard the unborn as without protection?

What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. No?

Please remind me of your answer to this question:

Why was Scott Peterson convicted of a double homicide of his pregnant wife if the Constitution insists that an unborn baby is not a person and is not entitled to protection of life and limb? :confused:
Click to expand...
Charlemagne, if you can’t at least have the courtesy to treat me as an adult who doesn’t need slogans rammed down his throat, I’m not sure why I have to treat you like an adult:confused:
I didn’t answer the question because it doesn’t advance the debate any. And no matter what I answered you’d keep on browbeating me with “commonsense”.
Unless you ask me something that assumes I’m an adult with at least moderate intelligence (and at least short to medium term memory), I’m just going to ignore you.
 
Worthy5

*Charles, the law can classify “persons” for protection for different purposes. The purpose of the double homicide statue is addressing the malicious intent of such a murder on a pregnant female—double homicide means harsher punishment. *

Hardly a convincing answer. A double homicide means two people killed. This is a no spin zone. Please respect that.

What do you think a limited govt means?

For the umpteenth time, it means** not **using the Courts or Congress to make legal the killing of persons in the womb … 50 million plus to date!
 
Doc Keele

*Unless you ask me something that assumes I’m an adult with at least moderate intelligence (and at least short to medium term memory), I’m just going to ignore you. *

If you want to be treated with respect, engage in the dialogue and give a better answer than Worthy5.

Why was Scott Peterson convicted of a double homicide if there was no “person” in the womb?

And please remember, this is a no spin zone.
 
Charlemagne, that last post says it all really:rolleyes:
Talk to yourself if it makes you happy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top