The pro-life common sense clincher

[cecilia97]

This, along with the undeniable biological FACT that, from the moment of conception, the unborn child is a complete separate HUMAN being apart from the mother, should, logically, stop them in their tracks. However, they know this, but are so entrenched in their position, that they then fall back on “the child is not a LEGAL person with rights/the mother’s rights supercedes the child’s rights”. They usually use the child’s inability to survive on his/her own as justification. However, born infants also can’t survive on their own. In fact, I’m not sure how old a child would be b/f they could “survive” (i.e., be able to feed themselves and keep themselves out of danger) on their own. But the pro-aborts (except for Peter Singer, of course) never advocate killing them. They know they’re hypocrites without a leg to stand on. Luckily, they’ll soon be dying off, and the younger generation is definately more prolife.

In Christ,

Ellen

Blacks, Jews, and women were also not LEGAL people at times in world history. Shoots that argument all to hell.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

QUOTE=Charlemagne II;6263898]*Justice Blackmun
And thus did Blackmun instigate the murder of 50 million babes in the womb

*It was the women involved who made that choice----all be it a wrong choice. *

Let’s not quibble here. “Instigate” means to start a process, not to be the one who carries it out. But would the process have been carried out in this case without the Supreme Court aiding and abetting?*

 

[Worthy5]

Worthy5,

You mention the Ninth Amendment. I believe many people fail to understand this amendment and the nature of the Constitution in general. The Constitution was designed to limit government - NOT individuals. And the Ninth Amendment states that individuals retain all rights not taken away by The Constitution. For instance, the right to privacy does not need to be specifically stated in the Constitution as a right. Instead, the people retain this right because the right to privacy was not taken away from the people via the Constitution or via subsequent Constitutional Amendment.

Yes, and along with the 14 amendment. The Court simply was asserting the policy of limited government—which meant here that govt just does not get to make all of the decisions in a society.

Along the same line is the notion that this country, and government, was not instituted to solve all problems of the human condition—or at least not use its police power in every circumstance—there are other things the govt can do to address social problems.

Pro-life is a reasonable position to take----requesting the use of the govt police power in all abortion cases. To hold this position should also mean to know the counterargument, however.

 

[Protestant101]

there’s a nice Editorial on The Province (Vancouver, BC) today regarding women’s health and how abortion doesn’t do anything to help it

can’t find an online version, perhaps they don’t post it online until a few days after it goes on print, so as to put some value on the print version

How on earth anyone can call it “therapeutic abortion” is just beyond reason. That is the last word that should be used to describe it. (IMHO)

 

[Jermosh]

Jermosh

RvW is a legal precedent, not a law.

Right. Laws are supposed to be passed by legislatures and signed into effect by the executive head of a state or country. However, Roe v Wade does have the force of law by **making legal **something that was in doubt as to its legality … abortion on demand.

The judiciary throughout the United States have usurped the role of state legislatures and Congress by making things legal or forbidden just by the decision of a few men or women. This usurpation of power can only be overcome by constitutional amendment, which unfortunately is a long, arduous, and divisive process. Yet abortion-on-demand seems to be about the worthiest of reasons to institute a constitutional amendment that would prevent courts from doing end-runs around common sense morality.

The court did not go out of bounds or anything wrong, they are doing exactly what the Constitution meant them to do. There was no usurpation of power, they based the decision on arguments and reflection of the Constitution. Blame the Constitution and not the judges doing what they were nominated for.

 

[Young_Thinker]

The court did not go out of bounds or anything wrong, they are doing exactly what the Constitution meant them to do. There was no usurpation of power, they based the decision on arguments and reflection of the Constitution. Blame the Constitution and not the judges doing what they were nominated for.

Yes, it was mostly because of a majority of the judges’ interpretation.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Jermosh

*The court did not go out of bounds or anything wrong, they are doing exactly what the Constitution meant them to do. There was no usurpation of power, they based the decision on arguments and reflection of the Constitution. Blame the Constitution and not the judges doing what they were nominated for. *

Where in the Constitution did they find reference to the lawful right of society to kill the unborn?

 

[JimG]

Jermosh

*The court did not go out of bounds or anything wrong, they are doing exactly what the Constitution meant them to do. There was no usurpation of power, they based the decision on arguments and reflection of the Constitution. Blame the Constitution and not the judges doing what they were nominated for. *

Where in the Constitution did they find reference to the lawful right of society to kill the unborn?

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.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

JimG

Here is an article that connects abortion and slavery as stemming from the same fault and fallacy … the notion that human beings are property that we can dispose of as we wish.

abort73.com/abortion/systematic_injustice/making_a_person_property/

 

[Young_Thinker]

Yes, but I feel that aborticide is far worse than slavery. One can be a benevolent slaveholder but never a benign abortionist(sorry, Dr. Tiller; I really hope that you are not being tormented in Hell).

JimG
Here is an article that connects abortion and slavery as stemming from the same fault and fallacy … the notion that human beings are property that we can dispose of as we wish.

abort73.com/abortion/systematic_injustice/making_a_person_property/

 

[Jermosh]

Jermosh

*The court did not go out of bounds or anything wrong, they are doing exactly what the Constitution meant them to do. There was no usurpation of power, they based the decision on arguments and reflection of the Constitution. Blame the Constitution and not the judges doing what they were nominated for. *

Where in the Constitution did they find reference to the lawful right of society to kill the unborn?

Because the Constitution does not recognise the unborn, as again blame the Constitution not the Courts.

 

[exoflare]

You wanna hear something really sad? I have actually used this, and I kid you not, the response I got was “I wouldn’t care. I wasn’t alive yet. It’s her choice to make, not mine.”

I’ve heard people say the same thing. Of course it’s so easy to say that after the fact.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Young Thinker

“Turn your eyes inward, look into your depths, learn to first know yourself.”- Sigmund Freud

Your signature quote from Freud is good as far as it goes. Socrates said the same. We should all know ourselves. But first? We should know God first, and then we will be helped to know ourselves, because we cannot know ourselves without seeing in ourselves the image of God.

 

[mercyangel]

I figure it this way: if you get sick, you may have a cold or you may have the flu. You aren’t exactly sure. But pregnancy is not one of those things that’s uncertain. You’re either pregnant or you’re not. And if you are pregnant, what could possibly be in your womb? Is it a monkey? A beach ball? No! It is a human life. End of discussion, IMHO!

 

[Young_Thinker]

Young Thinker

“Turn your eyes inward, look into your depths, learn to first know yourself.”- Sigmund Freud

Your signature quote from Freud is good as far as it goes. Socrates said the same. We should all know ourselves. But first? We should know God first, and then we will be helped to know ourselves, because we cannot know ourselves without seeing in ourselves the image of God.

Indeed, but such a quotation still has a lot of meaning. I enboldened the last part because it is a form of the philosophical statement “Know thyself.”

 

[JimG]

Because the Constitution does not recognise the unborn, as again blame the Constitution not the Courts.

Why blame the Constitution? The constitution says nothing about abortion. Consequently States are free to make legislation about it; just as the States did, prior to 1973. In order to overturn those laws, the SCOTUS had to find in the Constitution something that was not there–a right to abortion.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Is this a clincher? Father Frank Pavone rips off his Roman collar to prove his point about dismemberment abortion. youtube.com/watch?v=us_y9GP_-DA&feature=related

 

[Jermosh]

Why blame the Constitution? The constitution says nothing about abortion. Consequently States are free to make legislation about it; just as the States did, prior to 1973. In order to overturn those laws, the SCOTUS had to find in the Constitution something that was not there–a right to abortion.

The SCOTUS did not find it, the civil attorney team found it and presented and argued the point. Legal precedents are put into place for a reason, this is the whole point of having a Judicial Branch.

 

[JimG]

The SCOTUS did not find it, the civil attorney team found it and presented and argued the point. Legal precedents are put into place for a reason, this is the whole point of having a Judicial Branch.

A civil attorney team found it? In the Constitution? What happened was that those trying to repeal state abortion restrictions were having no luck in the state legislatures. They ginned up a phony case in order to bypass the legislatures to get it through the courts. (Their plaintiff, Norma Corvey, aka Jane Roe, subsequently petitioned the Court to overturn their decision. She was rejected.) The whole point of having a judicial branch is to interpret existing law, not to make new law. That’s for the legislature to do. Was there a right to abortion buried deep in the Constitution all along just waiting for some enterprising lawyer to discover it? Hardly. The authors of the document certainly would not have recognized it as being in there. And when the Constitution is silent about such a matter, it is left for the States or the people to decide through their duly elected legislatures. The 1973 Court arrogated to itself a legislative function which does not belong to it.

NARAL and PP and other pro-abortion groups certainly do not wish to leave the regulation of abortion to the States, because in most cases, the will of the people would impose more stringent limits than the abortion on demand regime that is now in place.

 

[Jermosh]

A civil attorney team found it? In the Constitution? What happened was that those trying to repeal state abortion restrictions were having no luck in the state legislatures. They ginned up a phony case in order to bypass the legislatures to get it through the courts. (Their plaintiff, Norma Corvey, aka Jane Roe, subsequently petitioned the Court to overturn their decision. She was rejected.) The whole point of having a judicial branch is to interpret existing law, not to make new law. That’s for the legislature to do. Was there a right to abortion buried deep in the Constitution all along just waiting for some enterprising lawyer to discover it? Hardly. The authors of the document certainly would not have recognized it as being in there. And when the Constitution is silent about such a matter, it is left for the States or the people to decide through their duly elected legislatures. The 1973 Court arrogated to itself a legislative function which does not belong to it.

NARAL and PP and other pro-abortion groups certainly do not wish to leave the regulation of abortion to the States, because in most cases, the will of the people would impose more stringent limits than the abortion on demand regime that is now in place.

Yes that is exactly what they did, they did not make a law, just a precedent that a woman has the right to privacy under an existing ammendment. Person is clearly defined as someone who is born in the Constitution, so as again its the Constitutions fault, not the SCOTUS.
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.”