The pro-life common sense clincher

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jermosh said:
Even a “Pro-Life” John Roberts said:
“Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land,” he said. “There’s nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.”
Click to expand...
Hiyas:)
How about this?; You can not exclude - to include - that is reverse discrimination - kimmie
 
Five Catholic Justices on the Supreme Court and no reversal of Roe v Wade in sight. Critics of the Church someday will have a field day scandalizing the Church for that one … much as Jewish historians are still slamming the Catholic bishops of Nazi Germany for their chronic silence about the Jews.
 
Worthy5 said:
The problem is that those in the pro-life position that cannot see the reasonable position of the pro-choice position is due to the fact that they do not undertand the distinction between a moral issue and a legal issue.

The main rationale for the pro-choice position is that it is a legal position—not a moral one.
Click to expand...
Are you asking for a legal right to carry out an immoral act?
 
The RCC permits one to kill in self-defense or in defense of a loved one if the threat of death is imminent and real. The threat does not have to be intentional. E.G., I may morally kill a psychotic man threatening me with a knife, even though he does not know what he is doing. The same applies to an ectopic pregnancy, i.e., where the embryo is implanted in the Fallopian Tube. Science cannot as yet move the embryo from the tube to the uterus. One day, though, we will be able to do that, I’m sure. The problem is, the child cannot live, is doomed to die, and if not aborted, the woman herself is certain to die. I maintain that this is a form of self-defense; the woman does not need to choose to die in this situation. She may defend her life from the malfunction of her reproductive system by aborting the ectopic pregnancy.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Jermosh

1st you are ignoring the very 1st sentence.

No, you are misreading the first sentence. To be born does not merely mean to exit the womb waving a birth certificate. If personhood were so rigidly and illogically defined, there could be no indictment for double homicide when a pregnant woman is murdered. But there are such indictments. So far as I know, there has been no Constitutional challenge to such indictments for double homicide. How can you indict for the death of an unborn child if the **right to life **for the unborn child is not protected by the Constitution?

You are trying to put into the Constitution a defect, so that (if I read you correctly) it is the Constitution that must be amended, not the stupidity and venality of the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
Actually that is how it reads, take the case of children being born in the US being eligible for citizenship for one example. I have not heard of a case that speaks of conception in the US as eligibility for citizenship.

As for the case of double homocide, it has not hit the courts yet. A famous case was Scott Peterson, he got 1st degree for his wife and 2nd for his child who was in womb at the time.
And what belief system “that they already agree with” would that be? I haven’t the foggiest notion of what you mean by their belief sytem. Are you saying that people who don’t believe in God might have a belief system? I think not a belief system, but rather common sense and common decency is what we are after, for Christians and atheists alike.

God needn’t, however, be excluded from the discussion so far as all Christians are concerned. Any Christian who believes in pro-choice is clearly defying his own belief system. As a Catholic, surely you can see that. As a Catholic you don’t leave your morality outside the booth when you go in to vote. Do you?
Click to expand...
So you want to argue a belief system to someone that does not believe? Thats why I take God out of the conversation, far to much objectivity.

Also, just to be clear, I am pro-life. I just look at abortion as a non-legal and religous thing, more of a humanitarian one. If this was truely a religous thing, then what right do we have to push our covenent on others who do not want to believe?

Also, even if this is the fault of a unjust court system and not a leglislators issue. What can you honestly even do about it? We cannot vote in a judge and its impossible to pull them out, putting in “pro-life” judges means little.
We are not a secular nation. We are more religious (believing in God) than secular. The secularists (humanists, agnostics, atheists) do not get to tell us how the laws will be made. If that were so, we would have the tyranny of the minority.

Read again the Pledge of Allegiance.
Click to expand...
We are not a religous society, did Judeo have a central influence, sure, but Moses is only one of the statues at the Supreme Court building.

http://www.ten-commandments.us/ten_commandments/images/moses_supreme_court.jpg
 
jrgiancola said:
The RCC permits one to kill in self-defense or in defense of a loved one if the threat of death is imminent and real. The threat does not have to be intentional. E.G., I may morally kill a psychotic man threatening me with a knife, even though he does not know what he is doing. The same applies to an ectopic pregnancy, i.e., where the embryo is implanted in the Fallopian Tube. Science cannot as yet move the embryo from the tube to the uterus. One day, though, we will be able to do that, I’m sure. The problem is, the child cannot live, is doomed to die, and if not aborted, the woman herself is certain to die. I maintain that this is a form of self-defense; the woman does not need to choose to die in this situation. She may defend her life from the malfunction of her reproductive system by aborting the ectopic pregnancy.
Click to expand...
Hiyas:)

I agree she may defend her life.
This analogy however doesn’t work with abortion on demand.
The Church, I’m sure, will not condone you for murder without threat.

Ectopic pregnancy, as far as I know, is treated at hospitals - not abortion mills.

As always, just my thoughts
 
We are not a religous society, did Judeo have a central influence, sure, but Moses is only one of the statues at the Supreme Court building.

christianpost.com/article/20070402/poll-9-of-10-americans-believe-in-god-nearly-half-rejects-evolution/index.html

I wish you’d do a little research on your own to confirm that America is a religious society, far more so than a secular society.
*
So you want to argue a belief system to someone that does not believe?*

Please point out where I said that. I’ve never said I want to impose my religion on others. With respect to abortion, I’ve said in earlier posts that not belief systems, but rather common sense and common decency should bring both atheists and religious people to the same conclusion … that you don’t kill your own child.

*Actually that is how it reads, take the case of children being born in the US being eligible for citizenship for one example. I have not heard of a case that speaks of conception in the US as eligibility for citizenship. *

You have heard of foreign born terrorists who are entitled in our courts of law to be defended by an attorney, a right that is given to **all humans **in this country … except, of course, the unborn. Foreign born terrorists therefore have more rights than our own babies in the womb who are torn limb from limb with no one to act in their defense. Is that your idea of a defect in the Constitution? I say it is more a profound defect in the integrity of those on the Supreme Court who gave foreign born terrorists more rights than innocent unborn Americans.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
We are not a religous society, did Judeo have a central influence, sure, but Moses is only one of the statues at the Supreme Court building.

christianpost.com/article/20070402/poll-9-of-10-americans-believe-in-god-nearly-half-rejects-evolution/index.html

I wish you’d do a little research on your own to confirm that America is a religious society, far more so than a secular society.
Click to expand...
I have done my research, have you figured out the other figures around Moses yet?
Please point out where I said that. I’ve never said I want to impose my religion on others. With respect to abortion, I’ve said in earlier posts that not belief systems, but rather common sense and common decency should bring both atheists and religious people to the same conclusion … that you don’t kill your own child.
Click to expand...
Then leave religion out of the conversation.
You have heard of foreign born terrorists who are entitled in our courts of law to be defended by an attorney, a right that is given to **all humans **in this country … except, of course, the unborn. Foreign born terrorists therefore have more rights than our own babies in the womb who are torn limb from limb with no one to act in their defense. Is that your idea of a defect in the Constitution? I say it is more a profound defect in the integrity of those on the Supreme Court who gave foreign born terrorists more rights than innocent unborn Americans.
Click to expand...
Good then bring that to the courts, use the system as it was designed.

Final thought on this, what possible outcome can come from blaiming the SCOTUS for this issue? Are we going to remove them somehow, remove a Federal Branch from the Constitution? Other then another Civil War, there is absolutly no chance of that ever happening, as I stated before the Unborn need their own “Uncle Toms Cabin” but I certainly do not see anyone doing that.
 
Jermosh

*Then leave religion out of the conversation. *

I guess I don’t understand you. Christians can’t even talk to each other about their Christian convictions regarding the sanctity of life in the womb? Where is that coming from?

This is a Catholic forum, not an atheist one. Catholics and atheists should be able, if they are using common sense, to agree. One of the most avid of atheists, Chester Dolan, agrees with the Cathoilic view on abortion and has said so in his Religion on Trial. If you want to leave religion out of the conversation, you are free to do so. You are not free to demand that others leave it out of the conversation.

I’m wondering about your definition of secular. The 1st Amendment clearly protects for all religious people the free practice of their religion. It also protects the government from being dominated by any particular religion. It says nothing about our being a “secular” (non-religious) nation. It should not have escaped your attemtion, the position of Moses atop the Supreme Court building. He is central to all the others. The Ten commandments are centrally displayed, even behind the Justices when they meet in session.

ten-commandments.us/ten_commandments/publicdisplay.phtml
 
Jermosh said:
I have done my research, have you figured out the other figures around Moses yet?

Then leave religion out of the conversation.

Good then bring that to the courts, use the system as it was designed.

Final thought on this, what possible outcome can come from blaiming the SCOTUS for this issue? Are we going to remove them somehow, remove a Federal Branch from the Constitution? Other then another Civil War, there is absolutly no chance of that ever happening, as I stated before the Unborn need their own “Uncle Toms Cabin” but I certainly do not see anyone doing that.
Click to expand...
The U.S. Supreme Court is one of the three co-equal branches of the U.S. government. As far as I know, no one is suggesting that the SCOTUS be abolished.

The Court can and does make mistakes. Those mistakes are sometimes rectified by subsequent justices. They make fewer mistakes when they don’t act as a legislature, which is not their job. There are few cases which are decided on a 9-0 opinion, so even justices argue that other justices make mistakes. SCOTUS decisions are just decisions, sometimes good, sometimes bad. They are not dictates from God.

The unborn do not need to be defined as persons within the body of the Constitution in order to receive protection of the law. Neither do bald eagles, which also are not defined as persons, and which we are yet prohibited from killing.

Constitutional silence on abortion does not mean that it must be freely available throughout nine months of pregnancy. Constitutional silence on slavery does not mean that it must be allowed. Constitutional silence on gay marriage or polygamy or man-boy marriage does not mean that they must all be allowed. What it does mean is that State legislatures are permitted to regulate those issues in the old fashioned way–by votes of the people and by passing laws.

And when someone appeals those laws to the SCOTUS saying, well, they must be allowed anyway, the SCOTUS ought not to go looking in the penumbras of the constitution for rights that the founders never inserted there in the first place.
 
P.S. I might add that that’s one reason why progressives and liberals fought so bitterly against any nominee that was thought to have even implicit pro-life leanings, and why they fought so hard for Barack Obama’s election. The rallying cry was “we are one vote away from losing our right to choose!”

Judicial nominees matter because judicial philosophies matter. And for the most part, the Court has to correct its own mistakes.
 
*Judicial nominees matter because judicial philosophies matter. And for the most part, the Court has to correct its own mistakes. *

Agreed. The Court cannot correct the Constitution. Only a constitutional Amendment can do that. Finally, the people have their say, and had their first say when the Constitution was first approved and the Amendments were added. At that time a great public debate was held throughout the land. We are at the point of starting another great public debate … about whether the Supreme Court has the right to continue abrogating the Constitution by finding things said in it that are not really said, or whether the Justices must find previous Court decisions to be in error, and therefore null and void.

The liberals have no recourse but to submit to the self-correcting course of the Supreme Court, or risk a Constitutional Amendment on abortion that will forever settle the matter for all future Courts. I’m at sixes and sevens about which course is preferable. The latter course will require a great national debate about the humanity of the unborn. I am inclined to think that, once the matter is well vetted, the majority of the people in every state would come to the rescue of the unborn. In this I think we can trust the will of the people, rather than the will of the so-called elites on the Left.

The result might make for extreme growing pains for the Left. But I think it’s about time the Left outgrew its reflexive, infantile and slavish defense of our selfish and hedonistic culture of death.
 
JimG said:
The U.S. Supreme Court is one of the three co-equal branches of the U.S. government. As far as I know, no one is suggesting that the SCOTUS be abolished.

The Court can and does make mistakes. Those mistakes are sometimes rectified by subsequent justices. They make fewer mistakes when they don’t act as a legislature, which is not their job. There are few cases which are decided on a 9-0 opinion, so even justices argue that other justices make mistakes. SCOTUS decisions are just decisions, sometimes good, sometimes bad. They are not dictates from God.

The unborn do not need to be defined as persons within the body of the Constitution in order to receive protection of the law. Neither do bald eagles, which also are not defined as persons, and which we are yet prohibited from killing.

Constitutional silence on abortion does not mean that it must be freely available throughout nine months of pregnancy. Constitutional silence on slavery does not mean that it must be allowed. Constitutional silence on gay marriage or polygamy or man-boy marriage does not mean that they must all be allowed. What it does mean is that State legislatures are permitted to regulate those issues in the old fashioned way–by votes of the people and by passing laws.

And when someone appeals those laws to the SCOTUS saying, well, they must be allowed anyway, the SCOTUS ought not to go looking in the penumbras of the constitution for rights that the founders never inserted there in the first place.
Click to expand...
:clapping::clapping:
 
Charlemagne_II said:
*Judicial nominees matter because judicial philosophies matter. And for the most part, the Court has to correct its own mistakes. *

Agreed. The Court cannot correct the Constitution. Only a constitutional Amendment can do that. Finally, the people have their say, and had their first say when the Constitution was first approved and the Amendments were added. At that time a great public debate was held throughout the land. We are at the point of starting another great public debate … about whether the Supreme Court has the right to continue abrogating the Constitution by finding things said in it that are not really said, or whether the Justices must find previous Court decisions to be in error, and therefore null and void.

The liberals have no recourse but to submit to the self-correcting course of the Supreme Court, or risk a Constitutional Amendment on abortion that will forever settle the matter for all future Courts. I’m at sixes and sevens about which course is preferable. The latter course will require a great national debate about the humanity of the unborn. I am inclined to think that, once the matter is well vetted, the majority of the people in every state would come to the rescue of the unborn. In this I think we can trust the will of the people, rather than the will of the so-called elites on the Left.

The result might make for extreme growing pains for the Left. But I think it’s about time the Left outgrew its reflexive, infantile and slavish defense of our selfish and hedonistic culture of death.
Click to expand...
:dancing::clapping: But what do you really think :D:D
 
JimG said:
Apparently it took from 1787 until 1973 for the right to abortion to be discovered in the Constitution. How long will it take for the right to life to be discovered? That, after all, is one of the unalienable rights enunciated in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence.
Click to expand...
Why did it take the Church until 1854 to define the doctrine of the immaculate conception?
 
Worthy5

Where in the Bible is the word trinity?

Where in the Bible is the word “Bible”? 👍
 
A constitutional amendment concerning abortion might be phrased as follows?

“Neither Congress, nor the State Legislatures, nor the Courts shall declare null and void the right of the unborn to be born. No other provision of the United States Constitution shall be interpreted or declared to take precedence over, or to be in conflict with, this Amendment.”

Would this be a “common sense clincher” that would appeal to most Americans?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
A constitutional amendment concerning abortion might be phrased as follows?
“Neither Congress, nor the State Legislatures, nor the Courts shall declare null and void the right of the unborn to be born. No other provision of the United States Constitution shall be interpreted or declared to take precedence over, or to be in conflict with, this Amendment.”
Click to expand...
Well who knows Charlemagne? Why is not your amendment part of the Constitution already given it is so " common sense".
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top