The pro-life common sense clincher

[Worthy5]

=JimG;6307266]In other words, the Constitution means what the Court says it means, regardless of what its authors intended. Perhaps a majority of the Court might agree. What that means in practice is that we have become nation not of laws but of men.

How do you know what the authors intended? No, a nation of men means rule by individual fiat. A nation of laws means passing law by a legislature, signed by an executive and judge by a Court.

The Court might just as well conclude that the right of privacy allows us to terminate our elderly parents in the privacy of our own homes. Or perhaps that states might regulate the termination of the elderly so long as it does not unduly burden the right of their caregivers to terminate them. After all, the Constitution says nothing about that either

.

There you go again, that parade of horribles.

The legal problem with Roe v. Wade is simple: The Supreme Court’s decision to invalidate state laws prohibiting or restricting abortion lacks any basis in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution of the United States.[/INDENT]

In other words, they just made up what they wanted. That’s not constitutional interpretation. That’s legislating personal whim.

Well seven justices in Roe did not think so----and they had the authority.

 

[CatofAlexandria]

… We have been through this right? As Chief Justice Marshall states in McCulloch v. Maryland, " this is a constitution we are expounding…" …

Don’t mean to nit-pick, but you’ve said it twice, and you’ve gotta give credit where credit is due.

 

[Worthy5]

Don’t mean to nit-pick, but you’ve said it twice, and you’ve gotta give credit where credit is due.

Thanks Cato. My apology for the slip up.

 

[Spirithound]

You don’t understand what a thought experiment is, then. OK

You said there is no answer to a thought experiment, while another poster gave an answer. Therefore, the Violinist Example is obviously not a thought experiment. Since it is not a thought experiment, while Thompson thought it was, she must not have given the topic enough thought.

Please tell me where I have gone wrong.

 

[Spirithound]

My friend, my other posts address the issue fairly. God Bless!

Charlemagne, you can have your legal pro-life position but as stated being legal pro-choice is just that, a legal position—it does not argue that abortion is in any way moral.

The issue is about govt power. This is not an autocratic theocracy, this is a democratic-republic based on the notion of limited govt–specifically here the limited use of state’s police power. (criminalizing all abortions). The Court split up the duty to protect the life of the fetus. It is the women’s responsibility in the early term, the state’s interest take priority as the fetus matures.

You do not have to agree with this, and further can believe the Court overreached its power—fine, well the Constitution can be amended–so the process allows for a correction.

Limited govt means that the govt just does not get to make all the decisions in this society. With abortion, there are other means that the govt can use to convince women to make the correct choice—if she makes the wrong choice then God can arrest her. This country is planted thick with laws, man’s laws not God’s.

That is the argument—thus you do not have a " clincher". The issue is not about abortion, the issue is what should be the amount of govt power used to address the problem. Reasonable people are going to disagree on this point—thus again you do not have a " clincher".

That is where the arguments are----though no doubt there are pro-choice position that do not think abortion is morally wrong. This poster has nothing to say there, nor that this poster is pro-choice even but this poster does know the arguments on both sides. God Bless

Well look, this post of yours is basically admitting what I said before. You (or I guess not you, but some people in society) are asking for the legal right to carry out an immoral act. I really do believe that law should reflect morality, and as an immoral act, abortion should be illegal.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Worthy5

*Well thanks Charlemagne for the brief explanation on who appointments the justices. You added nothing to what was already said. *

Perhaps I have in that I think you have been over-emphasizing the role of the Supreme Court as the final interpreter of the Constitution. The first three words of the Constitution can never be repeated often enough … “We the people …” All Constitutional authority rests ultimately in the people, not in the three branches of government.

I don’t in the least question your knowledge of Constitutional principles, so my remarks were not meant as a “lesson” you didn’t need to learn. But I think it never hurts to be reminded from time to time of lessons we have learned.

Thomas Jefferson himself suspected that the courts were a seedbed of corruption and the main avenue by which a small oligarchy could dominate the government. I think this has happened with Roe v Wade. The majority deciders of that opinion were not men of intellect or of character. I hope and pray for another Court made of members who have common sense if nothing else.

It is common sense that you cannot have it both ways: you cannot on the one hand have courts that indict for the double homicide of a pregnant woman, and on the other hand have courts that allow the absolute right of mothers and butchers to kill the unborn.

This is, to put it mildly, an insane legal system with no basis in the Constitution.

 

[Young_Thinker]

What about sterilization(through a tubal ligitation) for concern of a woman’s life(as after having given birth to children)? Is that permissible?

 

[Worthy5]

=Spirithound;6309031]Well look, this post of yours is basically admitting what I said before. You (or I guess not you, but some people in society) are asking for the legal right to carry out an immoral act. I really do believe that law should reflect morality, and as an immoral act, abortion should be illegal.

Not really, Because the law cannot exclusively promote morality at the expense of everything else.

You say you do not believe one should have a " legal right to carry out an immoral act" ----yet the point is that the law is not meant to soley and exclusively enforce morality at every corner at the cost to everything else. Human society has multiple goals that the law must promote simultaneously----one of them is " limited government"—Excessive govt power is a problem in and of itself.

Further, it is not clear that outlawing all abortions is the best way to prevent them. God Bless.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Young Thinker

*What about sterilization(through a tubal ligitation) for concern of a woman’s life(as after having given birth to children)? Is that permissible? *

This could be a topic for another thread?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Worthy 5

*You say you do not believe one should have a " legal right to carry out an immoral act" ----yet the point is that the law is not meant to soley and exclusively enforce morality at every corner at the cost to everything else. *

Find me a law that cannot be connected one way or another to morality.

Why do you think Moses sits atop the Supreme Court building with the Ten Commandments open in his hands?

*Further, it is not clear that outlawing all abortions is the best way to prevent them. *

No form of immorality or criminality can be absolutely prevented. However, such conduct can be discouraged. When “outlawing all abortions” was abandoned with Roe v Wade, I don’t think you could argue that that effectively prevented, or even discouraged, abortions. On the contrary, abortions skyrocketed to well over a million a year.

 

[JimG]

I don’t really need a parade of horribles. A million abortions per year is horrible enough. But the fact remains that when any human being can be deprived of the right to life at a whim, none of us is safe.

But the most horrible thing that comes to my mind is what Mother Teresa of Calcutta said: “The fruit of abortion is nuclear war.” Disregard for life always has evil social consequences.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Worthy - very good points about the Constitution.
The Constitution cannot usurp the law, it is the basis of the law and **over **the statutes passed by the legislature.

 

[Doc_Keele]

You said there is no answer to a thought experiment, while another poster gave an answer. Therefore, the Violinist Example is obviously not a thought experiment. Since it is not a thought experiment, while Thompson thought it was, she must not have given the topic enough thought.

Please tell me where I have gone wrong.

Where do I start?

The Violinist is a thought experiment. Plain and simple.
There are a few different types of thought experiments, 3 positive and 1 negative.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Doc Keele

The Constitution cannot usurp the law, it is the basis of the law and over the statutes passed by the legislature.

And “We the People …” are over both the Constitution and the statutes passed by the legislature.

The Constitution can be created, sustained, or abolished by the people.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Doc Keele

The Constitution cannot usurp the law, it is the basis of the law and over the statutes passed by the legislature.

And “We the People …” are over both the Constitution and the statutes passed by the legislature.

The Constitution can be created, sustained, or abolished by the people.

and?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Doc Keele

*Where do I start?

The Violinist is a thought experiment. Plain and simple.
There are a few different types of thought experiments, 3 positive and 1 negative. *

and?

 

[Doc_Keele]

OK, I am just interested in formal arguments. Not silly comebacks.

 

[dusza]

Why did it take the Church until 1854 to define the doctrine of the immaculate conception?

Because that’s when critics where questioning the belief in the immaculate conception. Dogmas are defined to remove doubt among the faithful, not to establish a new teaching.

 

[CatofAlexandria]

Oh! Judith Jarvis Thompson’s lovely violinist thought experiment? I want in! Where are we?

 

[kimmielittle]

Hiyas

I find it ironic…to be debating Constitutional rights…with someone from the United Kingdom…wasn’t the reason for writing it …to establish United States Governorship as opposed to British Law?

As Always, just my thoughts