The pro-life common sense clincher

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hiyas:)

The **sole reason ** for Government to exist: Is to protect the weak and innocent. It exists for no other reason.

The unborn… is the weakest and most innocent when it comes to abortion.👍👍

They are clearly, unprotected.
To be true to it’s charge, the Government owes the unborn protection.

As always, just my thoughts
 
Charlemagne_II said:
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?
Click to expand...
I am sorry; thank you.
 
kimmielittle said:
Actually, since it isn’t a codified document allowing the people access to read it…it would be hard to produce…;)😛
Click to expand...
That’s not the issue.
The UK has a constitution. A codified constitution is not the only form of constitution.
 
Doc_Keele said:
not following you:confused:
Click to expand...
Repeating: 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? 😛
 
kimmielittle said:
Repeating: 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? 😛
Click to expand...
that’s not irony
 
Doc_Keele said:
You just have to look up the definition of irony:shrug:
Click to expand...
Situational irony **Definition: **An occasion in which the outcome is significantly different from what was expected or considered appropriate.😛
 
As the instigator of this thread, I have to politely ask you all to get back on topic.

Thanks!

Thought experiments are a traditional way to clarify issues. They pose circumstantial situations where the principle being debated might logically or illogically apply. However, some thought experiments are less relevant than others, especially when they seek to designate circumstances highly unlikely to apply to the situation being discussed.

The notion that you can equate an unborn child with someone who had secretly kidnapped your body and was using it for unlawful purposes is absurd on the face of it.
 
=dusza;6310091]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.
Click to expand...
And so it is with the law. The Court can not decide a case unless it is brought before it by litigants. The Court resolved the Constitution issue before it when the issue was brought to it in 1973, specifically the 9th and 14th amendments in regards to the abortion choice.

As Justice Marshall (thanks Cato:thumbsup:) stated (a founding father) " this is a constitution we are expounding…"

To expound----or to explain is defined as " to render understandable or intelligible."
 
=Charlemagne
Click to expand...
Find me a law that cannot be connected one way or another to morality.
Click to expand...
The law that requires me to drive on the right side of the road. 😉
Why do you think Moses sits atop the Supreme Court building with the Ten Commandments open in his hands?
Click to expand...
No one is saying morality does not play a role, just not the exclusive and sole role.
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.
Click to expand...
These are empirical arguments----cite your source for the statistics. But even so that does not mean the govt cannot use other means to counter that spike. The policy value of limited govt still carries weight despite the numbers.

Look Charlemagne you can have your position. We hear what you are saying but the pro-choice position has a “reasonable” position as well even though you disagree with it. God Bless
 
Worthy 5

*The law that requires me to drive on the right side of the road. *

Thou shalt not kill! :eek:

These are empirical arguments----cite your source for the statistics.

I really don’t have the time. You are free to disbelieve. It is a commonly known statistic that well over a million abortions per year have been conducted since Roe v Wade. Somewhere close to 50 million by now.

*The Court resolved the Constitution issue before it when the issue was brought to it in 1973, specifically the 9th and 14th amendments in regards to the abortion choice. *

I’m not aware that abortion is mentioned in those Amendments. :rolleyes:
 
=Charlemagne II;6311522]Worthy 5
Click to expand...
*The law that requires me to drive on the right side of the road. *
Click to expand...
Thou shalt not kill! :eek:
Click to expand...
Yes, so what is your point—this poster never said morality is not part of the law, just not soley and exclusively the law. Come on Charlemagne you can do better than that. 🙂
I really don’t have the time. You are free to disbelieve. It is a commonly known statistic that well over a million abortions per year have been conducted since Roe v Wade. Somewhere close to 50 million by now.
Click to expand...
Okay, does this say anything about our system of law or really more about the lack of morality in the culture. Do you not see a difference in the culture of a nation versus a nation’s govt?
Is R v W the sole cause? Hardly.
I’m not aware that abortion is mentioned in those Amendments. :rolleyes
Click to expand...
There you go again. Really Charlemagne your refusal or inability to comprehend what
“expounding” a document written in broad language means is getting tiresome.:yawn:
God Bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top