The pro-life common sense clincher

[Charlemagne_II]

Jermosh

Person is clearly defined as someone who is born in the Constitution

Could you cite the passage for us? Thanks.

The bottom line is that SCOTUS enshrines as a human right of privacy the right to kill one’s own child. Is there anything more insane than that?

 

[budgie2]

*camerong

Imagine the most pro-choice couple decides to have a baby. They conceive, get ultrasounds, paint the baby room, come up with names, etc. And then the woman suffers a miscarriage. How do they react? They would be devastated as if they lost a child. They don’t look at each other and say “whoops, oh well, at least it was just a fetus, we’ll go make another one!” In this way, even pro-choice people see “fetuses” as children, when they want the child. *

Your point is well taken. When I was an altar server I used to assist the priest several times a year at the funerals of babies. You never saw such grief! Those were never “Whoops!” moments. We cannot deny the evidence of the heart, which is that babies are loved because they are children … all of them. Even the ones that are aborted will be grieved for years to come by their mothers, unless their mothers have no love or conscience in them.

I’m sure pro-choicers would care more if they wanted a baby. But the fact is some people don’t give a damn if they’ve had a miscarriage and they’re not pro-life either. If we cared more about miscarriage as a Church we’d be more pro-life and we should have miscarriage remembrance services.

 

[budgie2]

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).

Unborn babies here in Britain are niggers in law. We have to fight for the rights in the same way as the black rights movement according to Dr. Alveda King. Not to offend anybody who’s black as I have friends in Ghana in the Church where there was a large slave trade. The words embryo and fetus are basically insults to the unborn baby like ******, Jewboy, Gerry, Paddy or Chink. Not to offend everybody.

 

[JimG]

So it comes to this: when the U.S. Constitution was written, it did not specifically state either a right of privacy or a right to abortion. It was just not considered. The fact that abortion was neither prohibited nor allowed within the Constitution means that the States and the people were free to make their own regulations on the matter.

If someone had brought the question to the framers: “Does this document allow for the intentional killing of a child in the process of birth but which is not yet fully emerged from its mother?,” I can’t imagine that the answer would have been “yes, of course it does.”

Yet that is what the Roe Court gave us. Not only that, it found that the Constitution somehow included the idea that (a) States could not prohibit abortion for any reason whatever in the first trimester, (b) States could regulate abortion in the second trimester for reasons of life and health of the mother, and (c) States could possibly prohibit abortion in the 3rd trimester but ONLY if there were always exceptions for the life and health of the mother, and (d) (as found in Doe, health could mean anything related to a woman’s family or economic status or mental health status, or whatever the abortionist might deem appropriate, thus allowing for abortion on demand.

That’s a lot to find in the Constitution. I submit that such detailed regulatory policy is not constitutional law; rather it is legislation imposed by a Court which found State legislation not to its liking.

When the SCOTUS issued that ruling, did it add a footnote that the ruling might result in a million abortions a year?

 

[JimG]

Here is a portion of the 60 Minutes interview with Justice Scalia, which may be interesting in the context of discussing constitutional law.

 

[Christopher68]

What I hear some of you saying is that reason just doesn’t get through to some people when they have been conditioned all their lives and by the mainstream culture to regard a woman’s right to choose as more sacred than a child’s right to live.

Yes, I think reason can provoke irrational responses such as some noted above. Lots of people just don’t like to reason.

Here’s one argument I found in the telling of a story about a pregnant woman’s visit to her physician.

*A worried woman went to her gynecologist and said:

'Doctor, I have a serious problem and desperately need your help!

My baby is not even 1 yr. old and I’m pregnant again.

I don’t want kids so close together.’

So the doctor said: ‘Ok, and what do you want me to do?’

She said: ‘I want you to end my pregnancy, and I’m counting on your help with this.’

The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the lady:

‘I think I have a better solution for your problem. It’s less dangerous for you too.’

She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to accept her request.

Then he continued: You see, in order for you not to have to take care of 2 babies at the same time, let’s kill the one in your arms. This way, you could rest some before the other one is born.

If we’re going to kill one of them, it doesn’t matter which one it is.

There would be no risk for your body if you chose the one in your arms.

The lady was horrified and said: 'No doctor! How terrible! It’s a crime to kill a child!

‘I agree’, the doctor replied. 'But you seemed to be ok with it, so I thought maybe that was the best solution.
*

That is one hypothetical situation. For discussion purposes, here is an alternate hypothetical discussion between a woman and her doctor.

‘Doctor, I was violently raped and became pregnant as a result. I need to terminate the pregnancy.’

‘I’m sorry, ma’am, you can’t do that.’

‘I have to. I cannot imagine the horror of carrying the child of an evil maniac inside me for 9 months and being reminded on a constant basis of the most terrifying experience of my life.’

‘I’m sorry, ma’am. You don’t get to make personal decisions about your body - the state does.’

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Christopher 68

*‘Doctor, I was violently raped and became pregnant as a result. I need to terminate the pregnancy.’

‘I’m sorry, ma’am, you can’t do that.’

‘I have to. I cannot imagine the horror of carrying the child of an evil maniac inside me for 9 months and being reminded on a constant basis of the most terrifying experience of my life.’

‘I’m sorry, ma’am. You don’t get to make personal decisions about your body - the state does.’ *

And yet another:

*“Sergeant, I was violently raped. I need to kill the man who raped and impregnated me.”

“I’m sorry, ma’am, you can’t do that.”

“I have to. I cannot imagine the horror of that evil maniac being the father of my child and the constant reminder of my humiliation.”

“I’m sorry, ma’am. You don’t get to kill the evil man who raped you. The state won’t allow that. However, the state will allow you to kill the innocent child inside you, if that will make you feel any better.”*

Hmm?

 

[Christopher68]

Christopher 68

*‘Doctor, I was violently raped and became pregnant as a result. I need to terminate the pregnancy.’

‘I’m sorry, ma’am, you can’t do that.’

‘I have to. I cannot imagine the horror of carrying the child of an evil maniac inside me for 9 months and being reminded on a constant basis of the most terrifying experience of my life.’

‘I’m sorry, ma’am. You don’t get to make personal decisions about your body - the state does.’ *

And yet another:

*“Sergeant, I was violently raped. I need to kill the man who raped and impregnated me.”

“I’m sorry, ma’am, you can’t do that.”

“I have to. I cannot imagine the horror of that evil maniac being the father of my child and the constant reminder of my humiliation.”

“I’m sorry, ma’am. You don’t get to kill the evil man who raped you. The state won’t allow that. However, the state will allow you to kill the innocent child inside you, if that will make you feel any better.”*

Hmm?

If the woman killed the rapist in the process of his attacking her, no charges would be filed against her. Once the rapist would be in police custody, hopefully he would never see the light of day again. However, neither situation relates to the specific situation I described in my earlier post.

 

[Young_Thinker]

Why could she just have the child and give up for adoption? Would it relieve her conscious more to pay to have a “doctor” kill it within her**** womb?

 

[Jermosh]

Jermosh

Person is clearly defined as someone who is born in the Constitution

Could you cite the passage for us? Thanks.

The bottom line is that SCOTUS enshrines as a human right of privacy the right to kill one’s own child. Is there anything more insane than that?

“AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

As again, its not the failure of the SOCTUS, its the failure of Legislation to write the Constitution in a manner that the unborn have rights. Some of that is changing with recognizing the unborn in murder cases, yea I know its Ironic. But my point is we need to point the finger in the correct direction, in this case the SOCTUS is doing exactly what they were put into place for.

 

[JimG]

From the dissenting opinion of Justices Byron White and William Rehnquist in the case of Roe v Wade:

“I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes.”

Rehnquist further stated: “To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment.”

Again, I note that the Constitution was not meant to be all inclusive. The Court’s function is not to invent new law. The Court is not a super-legislature. Writing law is for legislatures. When the Constitution is silent, state law prevails, or should.

The Framers are not at fault for a million abortions a year. The fault lies with bad law imposed by an imperial Court.

 

[Jermosh]

From the dissenting opinion of Justices Byron White and William Rehnquist in the case of Roe v Wade:

“I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes.”

Rehnquist further stated: “To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment.”

Again, I note that the Constitution was not meant to be all inclusive. The Court’s function is not to invent new law. The Court is not a super-legislature. Writing law is for legislatures. When the Constitution is silent, state law prevails, or should.

The Framers are not at fault for a million abortions a year. The fault lies with bad law imposed by an imperial Court.

This is fruitless. The SCOTUS does not make morality, that is the Legislators job, so blame them. Its the same case with Dred Scott, was it a moral decision? No, but it was based on the law that was already written. Also the dissenters are called that because they lost, so I am not sure what the point of highlighting their points mean.

 

[JimG]

This is fruitless. The SCOTUS does not make morality, that is the Legislators job, so blame them. Its the same case with Dred Scott, was it a moral decision? No, but it was based on the law that was already written. Also the dissenters are called that because they lost, so I am not sure what the point of highlighting their points mean.

The Dred Scott decision was wrongly decided. So was Roe. I agree entirely that it is the legislators’ job to pass law. It was precisely those laws passed by legislators of 50 states that were overturned by seven men making their own law based on nothing in the constitution.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Jermosh

This is fruitless. The SCOTUS does not make morality, that is the Legislators job, so blame them.

You have it upside down. Neither Scotus nor legislature can make morality. (Both can make immorality, and have.) Morality is already made by God and present in all of us. What we have to do is discern morality. The Supreme Court in Dred Scott enshrined immorality (slavery) by its decision, as it enshrined immorality (abortion) with Roe v Wade.

You cite the 14th Amendment as providing the lawful right to an abortion. Seems to me it does just the opposite.:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

How does this amendment deny protection of life to the unborn person? How does this amendment say that the state may deprive the unborn of their right to life? Where does this amendment say that the unborn are **not **citizens?

And if it is saying that, then how can anybody be indicted for a double homicide when a pregnant woman is murdered?

 

[JimG]

I have to add that the Dred Scott case was not “based on the law that was already written.” In fact it was new law, fashioned by the Court. The Court ruled that no slave or descendant of a slave could ever be a U.S. citizen. As a non-citizen, Scott had no standing to sue for freedom even if he resided in a State where slavery was illegal.

Descendants of slaves were born in the United States; thus it would seem that they met the “person” test of being born or naturalized in the United States, but the Court did not agree.

The Supreme Court makes mistakes. It is more apt to make mistakes when it usurps the function of a legislature.

 

[Christopher68]

The Supreme Court makes mistakes. It is more apt to make mistakes when it usurps the function of a legislature.

I would add the legislature makes mistakes whenever it creates laws that violate the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution. The 9th Amendment clearly empowers the individual (versus the government), and the 10th Amendment clearly limits the role of the federal government.

 

[JimG]

I would add the legislature makes mistakes whenever it creates laws that violate the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution. The 9th Amendment clearly empowers the individual (versus the government), and the 10th Amendment clearly limits the role of the federal government.

Yes. It is, of course, Congress rather than State legislatures that tend to forget these amendments.

Sorry, I am afraid we have gotten off topic from the original post.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Luke Chapter 2

4
And Joseph too went up from Galilee from the town of Nazareth to Judea, to the city of David that is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David,
5
to be enrolled with Mary, his betrothed, who was with child.
6
While they were there, the time came for her to have her child,
7
and she gave birth to her firstborn son. 3 She wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

Clearly Catholics and Protestants alike must regard what is in the womb as a child, not as a disposable alien organism we are free by sanction of law to kill.

 

[Jermosh]

Jermosh

This is fruitless. The SCOTUS does not make morality, that is the Legislators job, so blame them.

You have it upside down. Neither Scotus nor legislature can make morality. (Both can make immorality, and have.) Morality is already made by God and present in all of us. What we have to do is discern morality. The Supreme Court in Dred Scott enshrined immorality (slavery) by its decision, as it enshrined immorality (abortion) with Roe v Wade.

You cite the 14th Amendment as providing the lawful right to an abortion. Seems to me it does just the opposite.:

Civil morality is created by the legislation, they make what laws we must abide by based on a platform that attracted their electors. You are attempting to bring religion into this debate, which will never win a debate, hence the answer to the OP. We live in a secular country, we must discuss secular definitions and subjects. Stating to someone who is staunchly “pro-choice” that abortion is wrong because God said so is not going to do anything, we must come at them with a belief system that they already agree with.

The Dred Scott case was wrong on many levels for some of us, for some others it was the right one. But to the Judges of that time, Scot was not a US Citizen, so therefore no rights. We can disagree with the Judicial branch as much as we want, but it is a corner stone of the US Constitution and how our represented Republic was founded.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life

, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."*

How does this amendment deny protection of life to the unborn person? How does this amendment say that the state may deprive the unborn of their right to life? Where does this amendment say that the unborn are **not **citizens?

And if it is saying that, then how can anybody be indicted for a double homicide when a pregnant woman is murdered?

1st you are ignoring the very 1st sentence. Maybe one day that will change, maybe we will need a abolishment movement, maybe the unborn need their own “Uncles Toms Cabin”.
2nd part is where somethings are changing for the positive.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

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.

*You are attempting to bring religion into this debate, which will never win a debate, hence the answer to the OP. We live in a secular country, we must discuss secular definitions and subjects. Stating to someone who is staunchly “pro-choice” that abortion is wrong because God said so is not going to do anything, we must come at them with a belief system that they already agree with. *

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?

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.