The pro-life common sense clincher

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JimG said:
The issue is indeed about government power. Seven men on the supreme court took upon themselves the sole power to impose abortion on demand on the nation as a whole, despite the fact that every state in the nation had laws regulating abortion. No, all abortion was not criminalized in every state, pre-Roe. The court told the states, you can no longer legislate on this, because seven of us think that there is a right to abortion buried somewhere among the penumbras in the constitution.

That’s just a raw exercise of judicial power. (Personally, I don’t think that even the Roe justices really thought that there was a constitutional right to abortion. They just wanted to make new law–something for the legislatures to do.)

And they did not split up the duty to protect the life of the unborn child–they simply removed protection from it. Going by Doe v Bolton’s definition of health, any abortion can be justified by an abortionist at any time up till birth. No prosecutor will second guess any reason given. In fact, the unborn child has no protection.

Presumably the instant the umbilical cord is cut, it suddenly transforms from the equivalent of a root-ball to a human being. The lack of embryological knowledge used in public debate is distressing. Every new human being has a biological beginning. It starts with its own DNA, distinct from the parents. That beginning is at conception.

The only question is, do all human beings deserve protection. Or are some more equal than others, because we’re older and have the means to kill.
Click to expand...
👍👍

They unlawfully circumvented the law of the people.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
*Have you come across the “unconscious violinist” thought experiment? *

Yes. And I have come across this answer to it.

str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5689

I still don’t see how any feminist can say that the moral turpitude of killing one’s own child is trumped by the notion that a mother has a right not to be “invaded” by her own child.
Click to expand...
Your answer shows you’ve missed the point. There’s no answer to a thought experiment:rolleyes:
 
NoviceApologist said:
I find the perfect way to “trump” pro-choicers is to ask them if the baby’s life is more important than the reason they are having an abortion. If they say that the unborn baby is not a baby, then ask them what else it could be. It has a heartbeat at 9 weeks (long before you can legally abort a baby) so it is alive. It is obviously alive. Ask them how many chronosomes an unborn baby has. there is no way to answer that. The last option is that it is an organ of the mother having an abortion, but babies often have a different blood type than the mother, so it must be a FULLY ALIVE HUMAN BABY. In all of my debates, noone has ever come up with a logical counter to this argument. When I used this on a fellow Scout in Boy Scout camp, he backtracked and said that it was morally wrong to change someone’s opinion!!!
Click to expand...
It doesn’t trump the pro-choice argument. Sorry.
 
=JimG;6303744]The issue is indeed about government power. Seven men on the supreme court took upon themselves the sole power to impose abortion on demand on the nation as a whole, despite the fact that every state in the nation had laws regulating abortion. No, all abortion was not criminalized in every state, pre-Roe. The court told the states, you can no longer legislate on this, because seven of us think that there is a right to abortion buried somewhere among the penumbras in the constitution.
Click to expand...
That’s just a raw exercise of judicial power. (Personally, I don’t think that even the Roe justices really thought that there was a constitutional right to abortion. They just wanted to make new law–something for the legislatures to do.)
Click to expand...
Yes…we have heard all that before JimG-----if your that upset by it then go amend the Constitution.
And they did not split up the duty to protect the life of the unborn child–they simply removed protection from it.
Click to expand...
Sure, the duty was split----the women can choose not to have the abortion—life protect, viola.
Going by Doe v Bolton’s definition of health, any abortion can be justified by an abortionist at any time up till birth. No prosecutor will second guess any reason given. In fact, the unborn child has no protection.
Click to expand...
Let us stick to the central holding which is that at some level the women has the choice.
" Definition of health"—which you do not provide----is more towards the specifics regarding the regulation of abortion—which Roe, reaffirmed by Casey, allows the state to do with the " undue burden" standard.
Presumably the instant the umbilical cord is cut, it suddenly transforms from the equivalent of a root-ball to a human being. The lack of embryological knowledge used in public debate is distressing. Every new human being has a biological beginning. It starts with its own DNA, distinct from the parents. That beginning is at conception.
Click to expand...
Once again you are going into the specifics regarding the regulation of abortion–which Roe and Casey allow the states to do. As far as the " life " status of the fetus. That is not a trump card, the " life " of the early fetus is not the same type of life as a new born. The govt makes classifications all the time to carry out multiple policy goals that society has----here " limited govt". Again, Roe put the burden on the women to protect the " life" of the early fetus.
The only question is, do all human beings deserve protection. Or are some more equal than others, because we’re older and have the means to kill.
Click to expand...
No, that is not the issue—the issue is how and when the government is to be involved in protecting that life.
 
Worthy5

As far as the " life " status of the fetus. That is not a trump card, the " life " of the early fetus is not the same type of life as a new born.

Is this common sense? The life of a teenager is not the same as the life of the elderly. Is that grounds for regarding the life of the teenager as disposable?

Taking the life of a child in the first several months of pregnancy is to take away the** whole **life. That child’s own “choice” rights are annihilated in the womb, along with his life. That child will never be able to choose to go to college, or choose to get married, or choose to have children, or choose to make his mark upon the world. So who really are the pro-choice advocates? They are the the pro-life advocates!
 
In Roe v Wade, Justice Blackmun (one of the shallowest intellects ever to occupy the Supreme Court) argued, after supposedly studying all the medical material relating to abortion, that the states could not decide whether the fetus has the same right to life as newborn infants. Even in 1973 that statement was preposterous. The humanity of the fetus was never in doubt either in the medical or moral community. Most states had laws on the books affirming that conviction. As early as the 1850s physicians were supporting laws restricting the availability of legal abortions.

However, Blackmun fell for the same logic that pro-abortion advocates were promoting: the fetus is to a human being what an acorn is to an oak tree. (Remember that one?) If an acorn is so easily disposable, why not a fetus? So the human being at its earliest stage became in the minds of many the moral equivalent of an acorn?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Worthy5

Is this common sense? The life of a teenager is not the same as the life of the elderly. Is that grounds for regarding the life of the teenager as disposable?
Click to expand...
Does it have to be? That is the classification that the Court made. The classifications are made in the law to promote multiple policies at the same time.
Taking the life of a child in the first several months of pregnancy is to take away the** whole **life. That child’s own “choice” rights are annihilated in the womb, along with his life. That child will never be able to choose to go to college, or choose to get married, or choose to have children, or choose to make his mark upon the world. So who really are the pro-choice advocates? They are the the pro-life advocates!
Click to expand...
Yes, very sad. We can all pray women make the best choice— life----but that does not mean the govt police power should be used to address the problem in every circumstance.
 
Charlemagne, you are right, I am probably dealing with people who don’t know what they’re talking about-I’ve probably never dabated with a serious abortionist. Of course, at my age…if I had, I would be surprised. As for your answer, Mikibee, An embryo cannot be part of you like a hair can-a hair has the same blood and DNA as the body it is part of. An unborn baby often has a different blood type, and always has different DNA than the body holing it. Furthermore, when is the last time you saw a hair clinging to the body it is part of in fright because of the abortion probe that is about to cruelly slice it to pieces? Babies can feel the pain as they are aborted. Abortion is intrinsically wrong.
 
If you’re justifying your position on the basis of the conceptus’ pain perception, then you run into problems.
 
Worthy5 said:
Yes…we have heard all that before JimG-----if your that upset by it then go amend the Constitution.
Click to expand...
The Constitution doesn’t need to be amended. Roe v Wade just needs to be overturned, since it finds a right to abortion in the Constitution which is not there.
" Definition of health"—which you do not provide----is more towards the specifics regarding the regulation of abortion—which Roe, reaffirmed by Casey, allows the state to do with the " undue burden" standard.
Click to expand...
Following Roe and Doe, many states passed laws to regulate abortion, but they were struck down by the courts. The Court allowed almost no leeway for States to prohibit abortion for any reason, even up to birth.
Once again you are going into the specifics regarding the regulation of abortion–which Roe and Casey allow the states to do. As far as the " life " status of the fetus. That is not a trump card, the " life " of the early fetus is not the same type of life as a new born.
Click to expand...
No, Roe & Casey pretty much usurped the legislative and regulatory function when it comes to abortion, removing most of the power from the states.

And a newborn’s life is a continuum from it’s prenatal life, as a teenager’s life is a continuum from a newborn’s. If a human being can be killed simply because of his or her stage of development, none of us is safe. The abortion limit could be raised to age 1, or 10, or 12.

The basic issue is that abortion is not in the constitution. If the Constitution as written means nothing except what men choose to put there, then it might as well be blank pages.

Future generations will look back at this era as we look at the era of slavery, shaking their heads at how we could have allowed it to happen, killing off a fourth or a third of each generation with little protest.
 
Jim, it’s not an arbitrary distinction between the born and unborn baby.
 
Here is what Doe v Bolton says about health of the mother as a required exception to abortion regulation: "We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health. This allows the attending physician the room he needs to make his best medical judgment."It means all factors which the abortionist wants to consider: physical, emotional, psychological, familial, age. An abortionist can make whatever decision he wants and no prosecutor or lawyer can disagree with him. (In Kansas, he’s required to get a second opinion, which always comes from a second abortionist.)
 
Doc_Keele said:
Jim, it’s not an arbitrary distinction between the born and unborn baby.
Click to expand...
It’s arbitrary from the standpoint of the child, if we propose to kill him while in the birth canal, but allow him to live if he successfully exits.
 
Doc Keele

It might help our discussion if you would get beyond one-liners? Thank you. 👍

*Jim, it’s not an arbitrary distinction between the born and unborn baby. *

In the law there is no distinction. A person can be indicted for a double homicide if he kills a pregnant woman. Both are human. Both need to be defended by the law. Both **are **defended by the law in the case of a double homicide, but both are not defended by the law in the case of abortion on demand.

Go figure.
 
Why be excessively verbose? I think distilling down one particular point at a time is quite useful in a discussion.

“In the law” - which law are you on about? Because that’s not the law in my jurisdiction. And the state foetal homicide statutes I am aware of do not actually equate the foetus at any stage to a child.
 
JimG said:
It’s arbitrary from the standpoint of the child, if we propose to kill him while in the birth canal, but allow him to live if he successfully exits.
Click to expand...
Either it’s arbitrary or it’s not - you don’t have to qualify it by adding “from the standpoint of the child”.
In the UK, a healthy child cannot be aborted up to birth. Abortion limits IN THE UK are generally decided by viability, which is not arbitrary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top