The pro-life common sense clincher

[jrgiancola]

Roe v Wade and the subsequent decisions do NOT endorse abortion. They merely define when a state may or may not prohibit an abortion. The state is neutral on whether or not to actually have an abortion. Some of you would rather the state was not neutral, that the state codify into law the moral code of the church or the Bible. We can see where codifying the religious moral code into law has gotten the people of Iran. Besides, overturning Roe, which will never happen, will not even stop abortion. The rich will go to other nations to have it done; the poor and middle class will do what they’ve been doing FOR LITERALLY CENTURIES: going underground or self-inducing. Before abortions cease, the hearts of men must change. Changing the law does not change the hearts of mankind. The government ended slavery in 1866. Racism continued through the turbulent 1960’s and is still prevalent today. But at least the 13th Amendment did in fact end slavery; overturning Roe will not in any way end abortions. It’s very easy to sit back in your comfortable chairs at home and support pro-life movements. It takes much more energy, time, money and personal self-investment to reach out to people in ways that will enable them to choose life rather than abortion. Has anyone posting here actually ever done anything to personally help a struggling woman who thinks abortion is her only way out of the problem?

The RCC permits killing in self-defense. It does not matter whether the intent to kill is present. I may morally kill an insane man who is holding a gun to my head. Is he responsible for his actions? No. Do I have the moral right to kill him? Yes. The same holds for the mother whose life is threatened by a fetus. Is the fetus responsible for its actions? No. If the mother will die because of the existence of the fetus does she have a right to kill it? Yes. It’s called self-defense. We hear so much about the right to life of the fetus; some of you forget that the mother also has just as great a right to life, maybe moreso since she has been alive, has otherwise not chosen to die, and might have other children to raise. If my wife was going to die unless she had an abortion, I’d cut the fetus from her womb myself if I had to in order to save her life. My wife passed away two years ago; we were married 35 years, had four children who I love intensely. But I would have aborted anyone of them to save my wife’s life if that situation had occurred. And with no regrets. Some of you have lost all reason due to your obsession with ending abortion.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Bob, the right to life isn’t absolute in the European Charter of Human Rights. The only absolute right is the right to not be tortured actually.
The relationship of mother to foetus is different from the relationship of mother to child. Claiming they are the same is nonsensical.

 

[Worthy5]

BobCatholic;6332853]Children are not totally autonomous post birth but yet we declare they have at least the right to life.

The early fetus is intrinsically part of the women’s body—that is the distinction. It is her duty to protect the life.

Also, the child cannot impinge on the human rights of the mother for the child did not choose to be in the womb - the mother made that decision for the child.

.

That is not the issue—the issue is who has the duty to protect that life and when.

That’s false. At least one human right is absolute: the right to life.

No, no value, even life, is protected at all costs. If that were the case we never let a convicted murder out of prison, never let anyone drive over 10 mph.

If you are dead, you don’t have any other human rights. Period

.

So, now the govt is suppose to make sure we never die?

 

[Doc_Keele]

No, no value, even life, is protected at all costs. If that were the case we never let a convicted murder out of prison, never let anyone drive over 10 mph

…and everyone would have to live just above the poverty line and half the population would work either in healthcare or the police!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jrgiancola

Some of you have lost all reason due to your obsession with ending abortion.

The eclipse of reason began with the slaughtering of 50 million babies in the womb.

Your outrage seems truly misplaced for a Catholic.

 

[Doc_Keele]

my world doesn’t begin and end with the issue of abortion
my world begins and ends with my Lord Jesus Christ

 

[seekerz]

my world doesn’t begin and end with the issue of abortion
my world begins and ends with my Lord Jesus Christ

That, really is the crux of the issue. If as a Christian I see abortion primarily as an affront to God (as opposed to primarily an act against the baby) then the focus in trying to right it would be by bringing people to God (not necessarily only by preaching and giving material help, but also by passionately reaching out and letting people know we value them…dare I say, even love them…).

Most great stories of turned-around lives I’m aware of, resulted from someone taking the time to interact with another and thereby influencing that life in a positive way. Millions of lives need turned-around to prevent/stop abortion and the attempts at redemption by remote control will not achieve that.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Yes indeed - we bring light to the world by bringing Christ to the people, not by banning abortion. What a limited and ephemeral aim it is to simply ban abortion.

 

[jrgiancola]

Some of you also do not seem to understand the function of the Supreme Court and might, I’m admittedly assuming this, want to eliminate that institution all together due to its decision in Roe. The day that happens, if ever, we will no longer live in a democracy.

Everyone knows that Congress makes the laws. Members of Congress are supposed to consider the will of the people when they make law or “legislate.” Sometimes they do, sometimes they do not.

However, the Supreme Court does not make law. Rather, the Supreme Court interprets whether a law, made by Congress, does or does not violate the Constitution. The Constitution is the final legal authority in this country. Neither the President nor the Congress can override the Constitution. The Founding Fathers intended it to be that way to preserve our democracy.

In performing this task, the Supreme Court may not, does not, and should not ever consider the “will of the people.” Congress considers the will of the people; the Supreme Court only and solely and exclusively interprets and applies the Constituition.

Example: Suppose a very charismatic bigot is elected President one day. Suppose this person convinces the majority of the American people that all Negroes and Jews should be deported because they interfere with white racial purity. Suppose further, the public outcry in favor of this position is so strong that Congress makes such a law. In short, suppose Congress, accepting the will of the people, legislates that all Negroes and Jews must be deported ASAP.

Without the Supreme Court, this law would have to be followed. The Supreme Court would easily determine that this law violates the Constitution and, therefore, is null and void and not to be enforced. Thus, REGARDLESS OF THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE, the law would be rendered invalid because it is unconstitutional.

SAY AGAIN: THE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT ACT AND MUST NOT ACT UPON THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. THAT IS THE PROVINCE OF CONGRESS, NOT THE SUPREME COURT.

Without the Supreme Court, a runaway, freak Congress could make any law it chooses to do so. It could reinstate slavery and segregation; it could increase the income tax to 50%; it could eliminate the Presidency and set itself up as the sole governing body; it could split the union into two or more separate nations; it could declare Protestantism the sole permissible religion of the United States and outlaw any other religion; it could eliminate the right to free speech. In essence, we would no longer have a democracy.

Roe v Wade, right or wrong and I’m not defending it here, was the compromise between two essential Constitutional rights: (1) the right to an American citizen to make personal decisions without the interference of the government (i.e., the right to live free of Big Brother); and (2) the right of the government to make laws which protect the lives of its citizens INCLUDING THE UNBORN. Both of these rights are essential to a democracy and neither is to be tread upon lightly.

Roe, rightly or wrongly, drew the line at “viability outside the womb.” If a fetus is viable outside the womb, the state may enact laws which prohibit its abortion; if a fetus is not viable outside the womb, the state may not make laws restricting its abortion. Within these guidelines, the Supreme Court left it up to each individual state to make its own choices on this matter.

(Interestingly enough, medical science will eventually get to the point where a fetus even only a week old will be able to be made viable outside the womb. When this occurs, a state will be able to ban its abortion practically from the moment of conception. Of course, this does not solve the problem here and now).

My point? The Supreme Court did not make abortion legal. The Supreme Court, in its attempt to satisfy and preserve two immensely important Constitutional rights, so to preserve our democratic system of government, drew a very unpopular line at “viability.”
The Supreme Court is not the villain here. We have a Constitution that seeks to protect its citizens’ right to make personal decisions but also its citizens’ right to be protected from murder.

The only LEGAL solution is for the country to enact an amendment to the Constitution which bans abortion. If this is done, the Supreme Court would then be able to interpret the Constitution so as to uphold any state law which outlaws abortion. A constitutional amendment requires that 2/3 of the states vote to pass that amendment in a general election. This is the only way the “will of the people” can affect the decision of the Supreme Court. The Founding Fathers intended it to be this way; they wanted it to be difficult to amend the Constitution, because they foresaw that if it were easy, amendments would come every time a new political party took power, and the Constitution would quickly evaporate into a worthless piece of paper.

I thank God we live in a country with this kind of government, a government that uses such “checks and balances” to preserve democracy. And so should all of you. :slapfight:

 

[jrgiancola]

Charlamagne II. You would condemn a living woman to death in order to prevent her from having an abortion. Your lack of knowledge regarding the love of God, as well as your insanity, seems misplaced for a human being.:banghead:

 

[JimG]

Roe, rightly or wrongly, drew the line at “viability outside the womb.” If a fetus is viable outside the womb, the state may enact laws which prohibit its abortion; if a fetus is not viable outside the womb, the state may not make laws restricting its abortion. Within these guidelines, the Supreme Court left it up to each individual state to make its own choices on this matter.

Roe did not draw the line at viability. Roe set up an unworkable trimester system, (which it rejected in a subsequent case), then made even that quasi-regulatory apparatus meaningless by imposing a definition of woman’s health in Doe which meant that abortion remained permissible throughout nine months of pregnancy. It established abortion on demand.

Subsequently, many states tried to re-impose various regulations on abortion, which were overturned as not being permissible under Doe or Roe. The State of Kansas has a law which prohibits abortion after viability except to save the life of the mother or when continuance of the pregnancy will cause irreparable harm to a major bodily function.
That law has not affected even one late term abortion, since it is the abortionist who decides the health issue, and the abortionist has a financial stake in doing late term abortion.

I keep hearing that a woman has a right to life and a right to self-defense. Fine–but that’s not the existing law. If we limited abortion to cases in which a mother’s life was threatened, there would be 98% fewer abortions.

I keep hearing that changing the law will not stop abortion. Yet, prior to Roe, we were not a nation of lawbreakers, and contrary to pro-abortion propaganda at the time, women were not self-inducing abortions or dying in back alleys. Read Bernard Nathanson’s Aborting America for the full story.

Each state had its own reasonable restrictions on abortion. Roe and Doe overturned those laws, which represented the will of the people. In 1973, there was no popular demand that abortion law be changed. That’s why abortion proponents were having no success in the state legislatures and decided to try to ram a case through the Court. (The “Jane Roe” after whom the case is named, incidentally–[Norma Corvey], later petitioned the Court to overturn its decision on her case but was rejected.)

 

[JimG]

"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.

The late John Hart Ely, a famous legal scholar who himself supported legal abortion as a matter of public policy, said that Roe v. Wade “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” The justices who manufactured a right to abortion in Roe violated and dishonored the very Constitution they purported to interpret by substituting their own moral and political judgments for those of the elected representatives of the people."
Source: firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/01/an-interview-with-robert-p-george-on-roe-v-wade/

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Charlamagne II. You would condemn a living woman to death in order to prevent her from having an abortion. Your lack of knowledge regarding the love of God, as well as your insanity, seems misplaced for a human being.

What woman did I condemn to death? Time for a reality check?

*The Constitution is the final legal authority in this country. Neither the President nor the Congress can override the Constitution. The Founding Fathers intended it to be that way to preserve our democracy.

In performing this task, the Supreme Court may not, does not, and should not ever consider the “will of the people.” Congress considers the will of the people; the Supreme Court only and solely and exclusively interprets and applies the Constituition.*

This is so far off base I hardly know where to begin. The people … not the Supreme Court … made the Constitution. The *people *(not the Supreme court) have already amended the constitution many times. The people, not the Supreme court, can amend it again if they so choose. The people also elect the President and Congress, and can throw both out of office any time they want, whereby the laws can be changed to protect the people from despots. The people can also by their election of a President and Congress do so on the promise of those candidates that as a court vacancy occurs they will change the composition of a venal and stupid Supreme Court majority.

You really need to get a grip on the history of this country and the Constitution. The Constitution is the law, but it is not the final law. We the people are the final law … and in a society that has not truly run afoul of reason … such as Nazi Germany with its corrupt Judiciary that collaborated in pulling off the Holocaust … the people will sooner or later have the final say.

 

[exoflare]

Whether or not one is instituted, if people respect life they won’t have abortions. What’s the problem with the truth?

No “problem” with that particular truth… it’s just irrelevant to this discussion.

I will never tire of pointing out that even pro-life people are split into those who … would allow exemptions for rape/incest

Those people are not pro-life.

mother’s health

Ambiguous as that is, if you’re talking about cases where they truly have to decide between the life of the baby and the life of the mother, or ectopic pregnancies, those don’t apply to this discussion either as they don’t involve murderous intent. Not all killing is murder, and when we talk about abortion it’s understood that we are referring only to cases that fit the moral criteria for what defines murder.

there might as well be no legal restrictions for all the good they do.

based on…?

A law against abortion is desirable - it is far from a magic bullet.

Nobody claimed that it WAS a magic bullet.

 

[JulieAA]

"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.

The late John Hart Ely, a famous legal scholar who himself supported legal abortion as a matter of public policy, said that Roe v. Wade “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” The justices who manufactured a right to abortion in Roe violated and dishonored the very Constitution they purported to interpret by substituting their own moral and political judgments for those of the elected representatives of the people."
Source: firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/01/an-interview-with-robert-p-george-on-roe-v-wade/

Finally…perfect point!!!

 

[seekerz]

No “problem” with that particular truth… it’s just irrelevant to this discussion.

Those people are not pro-life.

Then the absolutists are truly outnumbered and there are no pro-life politicians, because I cannot think of a single one who publicly advocates prohibiting abortion in ALL circumstances.

Ambiguous as that is, if you’re talking about cases where they truly have to decide between the life of the baby and the life of the mother, or ectopic pregnancies, those don’t apply to this discussion either as they don’t involve murderous intent. Not all killing is murder, and when we talk about abortion it’s understood that we are referring only to cases that fit the moral criteria for what defines murder.

You are right, it is ambiguous but I am quoting the language I’ve heard used by ‘pro-life’ politicians, some of the same ones who are being depended on to elect the ‘right’ judges!

based on…?

Read the whole sentence if you want to get the sense of what I’m saying. I can give an example: abortion is supposedly illegal in India, except in certain defined situations (not only medical admittedly). Medical indications are routinely used to justify what is essentially abortion on demand. The patients seek it, the doctor’s generally are sympathetic and a judge cannot personally determine whether a particular diagnosis is genuine or fake.

I can well imagine you’ll say this is America, but the reasoning applies because the attitudes to abortion in the medical community are overwhelmingly tolerant of the practice regardless of personal beliefs on the matter.

Nobody claimed that it WAS a magic bullet.

Sorry, but the term ‘clincher’ in the topic seemed to indicate that to me.

 

[Kolbe300]

my world doesn’t begin and end with the issue of abortion
my world begins and ends with my Lord Jesus Christ

For millions, their world does end because of the issue of abortion. They never get a chance for their world to begin and end with their Lord Jesus Christ the way yours does. Unfortunately, they are also unable to come on here and make an argument for themselves.

Yes indeed - we bring light to the world by bringing Christ to the people, not by banning abortion. What a limited and ephemeral aim it is to simply ban abortion.

I don’t get the sense that anyone is arguing that banning abortion should be our only aim. That being said, until we stop snuffing out the innocent lives of millions how can we possibly be a light to the world? Countless millions of lives are being destroyed in what should be their safest place. You think we should focus on bringing Christ to the people. I totally agree. I just think we should start by bringing Him to the unborn in any way we can. Something tells me they could use His help. Should our efforts begin and end with banning abortion? Absolutely not, but I think it’s a darn good place to start.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

seekerz

*Nobody claimed that it WAS a magic bullet.

Sorry, but the term ‘clincher’ in the topic seemed to indicate that to me. *

It’s very tedious to have to explain what “clincher” meant in the lead post.

It obviously meant the “best” point to make for the pro-life position. It certainly did not mean the “magic bullet” that would end all abortions.

Laws against homicide generally do not stop all homicides. I think we can be fairly certain they stop a good many. Without such a law, there would no doubt be a good many more.

 

[JulieAA]

In about another 20 minutes, I am leaving the office to again witness my youngest daughter’s sonogram…she is having twins…

Now tell me, what exactly do I see when I watch the “two products” moving around…sucking their thumbs…kicking their legs…??

 

[Worthy5]

=seekerz;6331832] What’s the problem with the truth?

You can’t handle the truth!! :bigyikes:

Sorry had to post that.