The pro-life common sense clincher

[Worthy5]

=Charlemagne II;6316977]Worthy5

No, the " Pro-choice" position is based on the policy of limited use of the govt police ppower.

So, presumably you would support the use of government police power to stop terrorists from killing citizens,

Is that what we are talking about? Terrorists. And how would you know what this poster " presumes" in that area.

but you would not support the same use of government police power to stop physician-butchers from killing our children?

Nice use of inflammatory language—but that really does not make a point. Once again, abortion is horrible----that is not the point----the point, and the title of your thread is, " looking for the ‘clincher’. "

You do not have a " clincher " because the American legal system promotes multiple polices at the same time for this society to function. To do this, the law makes classifications. Abortion is killing a life----a life that is a fetus intrinsically connected to the women----not a 2 year old child. The Court, who has the authority, split the duty to protect the life between the women and the govt police power at different points of time. Govt can take all kinds of " soft" persuasive measures to convince women to make the better decisions in this area.

How is that logical?

Logic is about deductive reasoning, your use of a " child" is reasoning by analogy.

How is that common sense?

Define common sense.

 

[Worthy5]

warpspeedpetey;6316963]i agree, its irrational, i have yet to see an argument consistent with any of our (American) values

.

Really, the policy of limited use of govt police power is not an American value?

 

[BobCatholic]

Well then you’ve missed the points that have been made many times about the justification of the pro-choice position.
Your position is incoherent when you examine it closely.

Actually, it is your position that makes no sense.

Tell me how many human rights does a dead baby have? The answer is zero.

A dead baby cannot speak.
A dead baby cannot practice any religion.
A dead baby cannot petition the government for redress of grievances.
A dead baby cannot do anything that human rights permit it to do.
Thus, human rights were completely denied to the baby because its primary human right - the right to life - was denied it.

An abortion is done with the mother’s decision. When she decides that the baby must die.

If the baby lives, it is only because she gives permission. And human rights are only granted upon birth.

Thus, human rights are only given with the mother’s permission in our society.

 

[BobCatholic]

BobCatholic
*
The “pro-choice” types probably won’t get it, but if you explain that when you take away someone’s life you take away all their rights, they may get a clue.*

This is a very good point. I wish the “pro-choice” people would call themselves what they are … “pro-death.” It isn’t as if "“pro-choice” is a hallowed phrase that should excuse everything.

We cannot be “pro-choice” about paying our taxes. Why should we be “pro-choice” about killing our children?

Yeah, the term “pro-choice” is a blatant lie. They don’t care about choice. The unborn child has no choice, the father has no choice, the grandparents have no choice, the other family members have no choice. And of course, the taxpayer has no choice.

 

[BobCatholic]

No, the " Pro-choice" position is based on the policy of limited use of the govt police ppower.

That’s the real pro-choice position.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Worthy 5

Nice use of inflammatory language—but that really does not make a point. Once again, abortion is horrible----that is not the point----the point, and the title of your thread is, " looking for the ‘clincher’. "

The “clincher” was found some time ago if you have read much of this thread, and has been repeated several times. Unfortunately, some people just don’t get it because they don’t want to get it.

"It is not common sense for mothers and doctors to kill babies."

Got it?

Our society has been so blinded by a plethora of silly arguments to the contrary that many people cannot think straight any more. We are so awash in hedonistic arguments for abortion and the apathy of the courts and the medical profession that it’s no wonder, as Bill Bennet has put it, the death of moral outrage has consumed our society.

How does one get that outrage back without showing a little outrage?

Armchair morality propped up by clever and seductive logic lessons simply won’t do.

 

[CatofAlexandria]

Worthy5, I notice that you keep mentioning “limited use of government police power” and “limited government,” but what “government,” exactly, are you talking about?

Defining “personhood” for the purpose of criminality and regulating on matters of health and safety have been roles traditionally reserved for the states. It is not a limited government, but actually a more expansive federal government that tells the states how they are regulate in these areas (or if they are to regulate at all).

You might recall that Justice Marshall was a devout Federalist, after all.

 

[Lethe]

I am pro-choice (I am not a Catholic, please dont start arguing with me!) but I think the best thing pro-lifers could do to further their cause is get a lot of support out there for pregnant women who might be tempted to get an abortion.

I think a lot of the pro-choice support (mine included) is that I feel many women are poor, young, without family/partner support, and quite simply terrified about pregnancy, birth and raising a child. A lot are not religious, and so probably despise being judged for having sex outside marriage, but I think religious or not, would be persuaded to keep a child if they had support around them, and the message that keeping the child can be positive to their life, not negative.

So I’d say, it isnt what you SAY to win the argument, but what you DO.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Lethe

So I’d say, it isnt what you SAY to win the argument, but what you DO.

Right! No argument there. The Church has always supported those in distress, and nurturing a woman who chooses to have an unwanted child is a mandate of true Christian love.

There are hundreds of thousands of people looking for children to adopt. Sadly, we look all over the world for them while killing our own.

More common sense?

 

[Doc_Keele]

Actually, it is your position that makes no sense

OK, I said that the position was incoherent, which is different from saying it makes no sense.
Could you explain why you think my position makes no sense. Incidentally what position do you believe I’m taking?

An abortion is done with the mother’s decision. When she decides that the baby must die.

If the baby lives, it is only because she gives permission. And human rights are only granted upon birth.

Thus, human rights are only given with the mother’s permission in our society.

Well you show a fundamental misunderstanding of the justification that is used for abortion. Human rights are not conditional on the mother’s permission, that’s just pure rhetoric.

What is correct, is that some people believe that the mother’s right to exercise her autonomy overrides the foetus’ right to life. Other people believe that the foetus does not have any human rights.

 

[Worthy5]

Charlemagne II;6317348]

"It is not common sense for mothers and doctors to kill babies."

Got it?

Got it! Agreed. But how does this justify that the govt should use its police power as the primary means to address this problem-------we have been through this right.

How does one get that outrage back without showing a little outrage?

Yes, show the outrage, the Church should speak out. Massive TV campaigns should take place, bumper stickers, mandatory counseling for any women who wants an abortion, adoption alternatives--------just not that expansive use of police power of the government.

 

[Worthy5]

CatofAlexandria;6317385]Worthy5, I notice that you keep mentioning “limited use of government police power” and “limited government,” but what “government,” exactly, are you talking about?

Defining “personhood” for the purpose of criminality and regulating on matters of health and safety have been roles traditionally reserved for the states. It is not a limited government, but actually a more expansive federal government that tells the states how they are regulate in these areas (or if they are to regulate at all).

You might recall that Justice Marshall was a devout Federalist, after all.

Come on Cato-----you can do better than that. The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review----you know Marbury v Madison,also by Justice Marshall.

 

[CatofAlexandria]

Come on Cato-----you can do better than that. The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review----you know Marbury v Madison,also by Justice Marshall.

Of course the Supreme Court has the power of Judicial Review. That’s the first thing you study in Constitutional Law. But, I’m having trouble seeing your connections.

With great power comes great responsibility. In other words, with judicial review comes judicial restraint. I am certainly not advocating Char’s “we the people” analysis of American governance. That would be, as our founders contemplated, a disaster. The need for life tenured Article III judges is a wonderful aspect of our great republic.
I am simply questioning the wisdom of this High Court’s opinion, and your touting “limited government,” when it does indeed undermine of some of our federalist principles.

The Supreme Court did not base it’s decision merely on this limited government notion. Justice Blackmun weighed the woman’s right to privacy with the states’ traditional right to regulate in the areas of crime, health, safety, and general welfare. In so doing, the Court acknowledged that it was expanding the reach of federal power. You should also note that in this extremely fact-intensive balancing test there is room for a change in the underlying facts (either specific or foundational) that would either change the outcome or seemingly change the doctrinal analysis as well.

 

[Worthy5]

CatofAlexandria;6317860]Of course the Supreme Court has the power of Judicial Review. That’s the first thing you study in Constitutional Law.

No, the first thing you learn in Constitutional law is that the Court has the authority—not you or I.

But, I’m having trouble seeing your connections.

Because you are not looking hard enough.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Worthy5

Agreed. But how does this justify that the govt should use its police power as the primary means to address this problem-------

If it is **common sense **that the State should use its police power as the means to address homicide, why isn’t it **common sense **for the State to use its police power to address the physician’s homicide of the infant in the womb, whose **entire life **is ended in a bloody scene … limbs torn from torso and head crushed?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

My position is a pro-life one, but not from a moral absolutist standpoint - because my intuition is that doing nothing in certain situations is wrong. Sophie’s Choice is a good illustration of this.

ive never seen the movie, other than a plot summary about having to choose between her children, im not sure how this applies to the abortion argument?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Worthy5
*
Massive TV campaigns should take place, bumper stickers, mandatory counseling for any women who wants an abortion, adoption alternatives--------**just not that expansive use of police power of the government. ***

Are you against the “expansive use of police power” to protect innocents from terrorism at the airport or anywhere else?

 

[Worthy5]

=CatofAlexandria;6317860]

I am simply questioning the wisdom of this High Court’s opinion, and your touting “limited government,” when it does indeed undermine of some of our federalist principles.

Cato, I can not resist. What is the language of the 14th Amendment-----" No State…"
Now, the rest of the language is subject to interpretation–by the Court—but it seems clear that the 14th Amend applies to the states----limiting its power against the individual. Who’s role is it to " limit" that state power in a particular circumstance? The Court.

The Supreme Court did not base it’s decision merely on this limited government notion. Justice Blackmun weighed the woman’s right to privacy with the states’ traditional right to regulate in the areas of crime, health, safety, and general welfare. In so doing, the Court acknowledged that it was expanding the reach of federal power.

So.

You should also note that in this extremely fact-intensive balancing test there is room for a change in the underlying facts (either specific or foundational) that would either change the outcome or seemingly change the doctrinal analysis as well.

Okay wait, what is a “specific” fact vs a " foundational" fact.

 

[CatofAlexandria]

Oh, wow. Seriously? The only point that I was trying to make was that, when you say “limited government power,” you mean “limited state government power,” and it’s not so clear whether that’s “consistent with any of our (American) values.”

Look. I’m not going to argue with you if you’re going to be a hard-nose about judicial opinions as gospel. Lawyers and judges don’t just expound the constitution – they expound judicial opinions far more often: judicial opinions are malleable and subject to changes in interpretation given changes in the underlying facts. In fact, I’d be out of the job if it was forbidden to question the wisdom of a judicial opinion. Who needs lawyers when it’s already been decided?

The law is dynamic. It’s rooted in philosophy, facts, and circumstances subject (as always) to change. For example, in Roe, the Court cited Aristotle at least two times and looks to history and prevailing opinions for the personhood inquiry. What if philosophical dialogue changes? What if the prevailing thought twists? The balancing test might shift the other way.

 

[Worthy5]

Charlemagne
Are you against the “expansive use of police power” to protect innocents from terrorism at the airport or anywhere else?

Is that what we are talking about here?