The pro-life common sense clincher

[JimG]

Honestly, these types of discussions tend to depress me. We are like philosophers debating whether slaves are fully human or whether there is a rationale for killing Jews, while the killing of our children continues unabated.

Parents can now schedule 4D Sonograms of their unborn children stretching, yawning, smiling, in the womb–or they can schedule an appointment to have them ripped limb from limb.

The results given us by Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton are not what the public wanted. If abortion were able to be put to a vote in any state of the union, the public would not give us Roe and Doe. But–it’s now the law, isn’t it? So was the Dred Scott decision.

 

[Worthy5]

=Charlemagne II;6322979]Worthy5

Just do not use the govt police power in the process.

Explain why the government police power is to be used to prevent a born baby from being murdered, but not an unborn baby?

This is going to be interesting!

There you go again----using those analogies. We have been over this right? The law makes classifications to promote multiple policies simultaneously. The Court made the classification------the early fetus *is not * a born baby.

 

[Christopher68]

Worthy5

Just do not use the govt police power in the process.

Explain why the government police power is to be used to prevent a born baby from being murdered, but not an unborn baby?

This is going to be interesting!

One thing is universally recognized as being wrong, and the other is not. That is the difference.

 

[Spirithound]

OK, what about the Sam and the Indians thought experiment then?
Focussing too much on the specifics often misses the point of the thought experiment.

Please post the “Sam and the Indians” thought experiment, or a link. A Google search has come up over-fruitful.

 

[Spirithound]

No that is not the title to the thread. The thread is asking a legal pro-life " clincher " ------it has been demonstrated that one does not exist----if " common sense " means a definitive winning argument.

It does not matter how far this poster will take the policy of " limited govt" it only matters how far the Court takes it.

Certainly it matters how far that poster points will take the policy of “limited govt”, since he is also a voter, and thus a less-than-proximate elector of Supreme Court Justices. If you believe the SCOTUS has gotten it wrong, please say so. If they have gotten it right, please explain how.

Furthermore, the title of this thread does not include the word “legal”, and if you do not see a clincher yet, perhaps if you would consider your position more fully, you would eventually see one.

 

[Spirithound]

One thing is universally recognized as being wrong…

If that were the case, there would be no need for a law to punish it.

 

[Viki63]

I
Its the Holy Spirit that has to convert their hearts to a true understand of life. Just like Saul of Tarsus had to become Paul the Great Convert.
A conversion of heart, wrought by the Holy Spirit, is what many have to experience before they will change their views

I think this is correct.
In college I was fully prepared to have an abortion if I ever needed it, I considered this the responsible thing to do. Ir never occurred to me that there was a baby involved in the situation.
After I became a Christian, I woke up one morning and realized that abortion was wrong.

How did any of you arrive at your pro-life convictions?

 

[JimG]

I think this is correct.
In college I was fully prepared to have an abortion if I ever needed it, I considered this the responsible thing to do. Ir never occurred to me that there was a baby involved in the situation.
After I became a Christian, I woke up one morning and realized that abortion was wrong.

How did any of you arrive at your pro-life convictions?

While conversion is necessary in a pro-death culture, for me it was always apparent that there was a baby involved, simply from the facts of embryology, and knowing when a new human being began. The past 35 years have seen a concerted effort to diminish the humanity of the infant a woman carries in her womb. It used to be a common expression to refer to a pregnant woman as being ‘with child.’

 

[Christopher68]

If that were the case, there would be no need for a law to punish it.

Ok, if it makes you feel better, you can replace the word ‘universal’ with 99.99%.

 

[Spirithound]

Ok, if it makes you feel better, you can replace the word ‘universal’ with 99.99%.

It’s still an irrelevant, fallacious appeal to the majority. There was a time when that stat held up regarding abortion too. The the SCOTUS overturned the will of the people.

 

[Christopher68]

It’s still an irrelevant, fallacious appeal to the majority. There was a time when that stat held up regarding abortion too. The the SCOTUS overturned the will of the people.

Please don’t kill the messenger.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Please post the “Sam and the Indians” thought experiment, or a link. A Google search has come up over-fruitful.

Ah - it’s “Jim and the Indians”! Sorry:blush:
e-mago.co.il/e-magazine/jatiamq-kgng.html
“Jim finds himself in the central square of a small South American town. Tied up against the wall are twenty Indians, most terrified, a few defiant, in front of several armed men in uniform. A heavy man in a sweat-stained khaki shirt turns out to be the captain in charge and, after a good deal of questioning of Jim which establishes that he got there by accident while on a botanical expedition, explains that the Indians are a random group of inhabitants who, after recent acts of protest against the government, are just about to be killed to remind other possible protesters of the advantage of not protesting. However, since Jim is an honoured visitor from another land, the captain is happy to offer him a guest’s privilege of killing one of the prisoners himself. If Jim accepts, then as a special mark of the occasion the other Indians will be let off. Of course, if Jim refuses, there will be no special occasion, and the captain will do what he was about to do when Jim arrived and kill them all. Jim, with some desperate recollection of schoolboy fiction, wonders whether if he got hold of a gun, he could hold the captain and the rest of the soldiers to threat, but it is quite clear from the set-up that nothing of that kind is going to work; any attempt at that sort of thing will mean that all the Indians will be killed, and himself. The men are against the wall and the other villagers understand the situation and are obviously begging him to accept. What should he do?”

 

[Worthy5]

=Spirithound;6323770]Certainly it matters how far that poster points will take the policy of “limited govt”, since he is also a voter, and thus a less-than-proximate elector of Supreme Court Justices.

No, it does not. How this poster votes is none of your business.

If you believe the SCOTUS has gotten it wrong, please say so. If they have gotten it right, please explain how.

There is no right or wrong legal position----reasonable people can disagree the nature and the extent of the use of govt power to address social problems.

Furthermore, the title of this thread does not include the word “legal”,

Come on, Spirithound We thought you were not concerned with " silly" comebacks. " Pro-life" as it is being used in this thread is about using the govt police power to address the abortion problem—that is a legal position----“legal pro-life” Not to be mistaken with those who personally oppose abortion morally and are thus for life but do not support the use of govt police power in every case to address the problem.

and if you do not see a clincher yet, perhaps if you would consider your position more fully, you would eventually see one.

This poster needs not to reconsider anything more fully. This poster’s position is explaining a legal position in regards to the abortion problem—a legal position that is reasonable to hold given the nature of govt’s relationship to the individual in a democratic-republic based on limited govt. God Bless

 

[Worthy5]

Spirithound;6323993]It’s still an irrelevant, fallacious appeal to the majority.

Fallacious appeal to the majority—do you not believe in popular democracy.

The the SCOTUS overturned the will of the people.

Now wait, the majority will did not matter above----so why does the SCOTUS need to worry about that.

 

[fix]

I agree Fix. Just do not use the govt police power in the process.

Oh, the government is required to use its power to protect innocent life. Why should you and I get such protection, but not innocent children?

 

[Christopher68]

Oh, the government is required to use its power to protect innocent life. Why should you and I get such protection, but not innocent children?

Children have the same legal potections as adults. Of course, the word children implies that someone has been born.

 

[CatofAlexandria]

First: The will and opinion of the people has little bearing both in the legal and philosophical realm. We have a life-tenured Supreme Court so that they will sometimes make unpopular decisions. Decades ago, 99% of voters thought blacks weren’t people. It was the Court’s job to step in and make the constitutional, unpopular decision giving African Americans rights.
Now, I’m not saying that the Court made the right decision in Roe (I actually think that, if you look at the analysis, they considered consensus a bit too much), but whether they overturned or upheld the will of the people? That really should not matter in a republic like ours.

Second: Worthy, I’m seeing way too much fist pounding. The other posters just want to know why that’s your legal position, and it is a reasonable question to ask. So, pretend that the Supreme Court has granted certiorari on a case that has the potential to overturn Roe v. Wade. You’re the lead attorney on that case. What do you write in your brief? What do you say in oral argument? What are the philosophical and reasoned principles that back-up taking the police power away from the states with regard to the abortion decision?

Even if there is “no right or wrong legal position,” (although that’s debatable), you still must give reasons for your legal position, and the reasons must be different from your conclusion.

 

[Worthy5]

CatofAlexandria;6325073]

Second: Worthy, I’m seeing way too much fist pounding. The other posters just want to know why that’s your legal position, and it is a reasonable question to ask. So, pretend that the Supreme Court has granted certiorari on a case that has the potential to overturn Roe v. Wade. You’re the lead attorney on that case. What do you write in your brief? What do you say in oral argument? What are the philosophical and reasoned principles that back-up taking the police power away from the states with regard to the abortion decision?

Even if there is “no right or wrong legal position,” (although that’s debatable), you still must give reasons for your legal position, and the reasons must be different from your conclusion.

Well Cato this poster is not certain where you have been-----the position has been laid out several times. There is no fist pounding here----in fact since you mentioned it, perhaps you are doing the fist pounding.

The brief and the argument written would depend upon which side one represents. For purposes of this discussion this poster has laid out the " pro-choice" position. But one defers to Mr. Justice Blackmun, who delivered the opinion of the Court:

" This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. "

Joining Justice Blackmun in the opinion: Justice Douglas, Justice Brennan, Chief Justice Burger, Justice Powell, Justice Stewart, and Justice Marshall.

Come on Cato—this is just a discussion. Reasonable people can disagree. God Bless

 

[fix]

Children have the same legal potections as adults. Of course, the word children implies that someone has been born.

What is a baby before he/she is born if not a child?

 

[Doc_Keele]

A foetus. Or an embryo.