J
JimG
Guest
As it was called when the Dred Scott decision concluded that slavery was legal.
- Status
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
Your point being?
J
JimG
Guest
My point is that stare decisis ought not to mean keeping bad law in place forever. It ought not to foreclose the ability to correct a mistake.
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
Of course. My statement of the principle wasn’t asserting that this should be the case. Since 1966 the highest court in the UK (then the House of Lords Appellate Committee, now the Supreme Court) has been able to overrule its previous decisions, although it uses the power rarely. The virtue of stare decisis is certainty.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Doc Keele
*Charlemagne, you just don’t understand the law. *
Well, Lincoln understood it. And he was not loathe to attack those who would pervert the Constitution.
I’m still waiting for someone to cite the specific passage in the Constitution that provides for the murdering of babies in the womb as a right of privacy.
Any takers?
Or has common sense at last prevailed?
*Charlemagne, you just don’t understand the law. *
Well, Lincoln understood it. And he was not loathe to attack those who would pervert the Constitution.
I’m still waiting for someone to cite the specific passage in the Constitution that provides for the murdering of babies in the womb as a right of privacy.
Any takers?
Or has common sense at last prevailed?
C
Christopher68
Guest
From a legal standpoint I would disagree with this statement. It is important to remember that the intent of the Constitution was to limit the power of the federal government - not to limit individuals. The limits of the federal government were clearly outlined in the 10th Amendment. Conversely, the liberty and soveriegnty of the individual was explained in the 9th Amendment. A right to privacy did not need to be specifically stated. Said another way - unless the Constitution took away a right to privacy, the people retain this right. And the courts have validated that the right to privacy includes issues of sexuality and reproduction.
W
Worthy5
Guest
Only if you show how the Church came up with the concept of the Trinity and the Immaculate Conception when reading the Bible.
J
JimG
Guest
Didn’t the 10th Amendment leave it to the states or the people to legislate what was not in the Constitution? Well, abortion is not in the constitution. The founders would have been very surprised to discover that it was.
It’s hard to say what might be included in a right to privacy, since it’s not explicitly state in the constitution either. But I have to quarrel with the proposition that we have the right to kill our children in private. And abortion clinics are actually public businesses.
C
Christopher68
Guest
As my comments were regarding ‘legality’ as opposed to morality, I will continue in this manner. As the legal definition of ‘children’ is ‘human beings between the stages of birth and puberty’, I can assure you that the right to kill our children in private is most clealry not stated in the Constitution.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Worthy5
Only if you show how the Church came up with the concept of the Trinity and the Immaculate Conception when reading the Bible.
Immaculate Conception: Luke 1:35
*But Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?”
And the angel said to her in reply, "The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. *
Trinity:
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father , and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19). …
Let’s not get sidetracked!
Only if you show how the Church came up with the concept of the Trinity and the Immaculate Conception when reading the Bible.
Immaculate Conception: Luke 1:35
*But Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I have no relations with a man?”
And the angel said to her in reply, "The holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God. *
Trinity:
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father , and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19). …
Let’s not get sidetracked!
W
Worthy5
Guest
Sorry, that is the Virgin Birth.
Pius IX looked to Genesis 3:15. and no where does it have the terms " Immaculate Conception."
And, so you just proved the point. How do you conclude that this passage clearly shows that God is three persons in One being. It takes a teaching authority to flush this out of such language. The Church is that authority. The Court does so with the Constitution. Again Justice Blackmun:
“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.”
F
fix
Guest
The Church speaks as Christ. The court misused their authority and has no such mandate to rule that killing is a “right”. Are you claiming that the court is correct simply because they are the court?
F
fix
Guest
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
I’ve seen this before and it always makes me smile (just a little bit, because of course the subject is gruesome). Thanks for posting it!
Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.
W
Worthy5
Guest
Thaaat’s right. Read Article III of the Constitution:
" Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."
D
dkoziolek
Guest
After 37 years it seems increasingly unlikely that any argument will make a difference. What I don’t understand is why prayer hasn’t worked? How can it be that the Catholic Church has been praying to end abortion for 37 years without success? Does this mean that the Church lacks faith in God? Did Jesus mean something else in Matthew 21:22 when he said “And in all things whatsoever you shall ask in prayer, believing, you shall receive?”
J
JimG
Guest
At one time we were a nation to whom prayer came easily and naturally. While many still are, perhaps we as a nation, as a society, are no longer a people of prayer. Maybe we haven’t prayed long and hard enough about abortion because it’s other people’s children who are being exterminated. And after all, the supreme court has spoken, hasn’t it.
But I’m afraid that a nation will kills its young cannot survive long. Disrespect for life has become endemic, and not just with respect to abortion.
In her Nobel acceptance speech, Mother Teresa said: “Many people are very, very concerned with the children in India, with the children in Africa where quite a number die, maybe of malnutrition, of hunger and so on, --but millions are dying deliberately by the will of the mother. And this is what is the greatest destroyer of peace today. Because if a mother can kill her own child - what is left but for me to kill you and you kill me - there is nothing between.” In another place she said: “If you want peace, work for life.” And “The fruit of abortion is nuclear war.”
Abortion is the great destroyer of peace and of life; it’s fruit is death and war.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Worthy5
Sorry, that is the Virgin Birth.
Of course it’s the Virgin Birth. Christ had to be born of a virgin who was stainless ijn order not to inherit the stain of original sin. That is why Joseph could not be the father. Jesus had to be born innocent, as Adam was born innocent. The only way to achieve that would be that he be born of a virgin who was herself innocent … Mary, the Second Eve. The second Adam and the second Eve.
And, so you just proved the point. How do you conclude that this passage clearly shows that God is three persons in One being.
Self evident.
*
It takes a teaching authority to flush this out of such language.*
It takes no such thing, as it is self evident. Yet the Church had that teaching authority long before Matthew was written. You have the cart before the horse again. The New Testament is not the equivalent of a Constitution. The authority of the Church was to create the Bible. It wasn’t the Bible that created the Church. The Church is WE THE PEOPLE … the Body of Christ.
Best as I can figure out, you have to be a Protestant.
The Church is that authority. The Court does so with the Constitution.
Not true. The Church does have teaching authority that existed before the NT. The Supreme court never had teaching authority. It has only the authority to interpret. It has no authority to add endless doctrines to the Constitution that are absurd perversions of the document.
Again, I’m asking you to show me where in the Constitution it establishes, even by implication, that mothers have the right to kill their children and that physicians have the right to be their hired executioners.
This is new doctrine!
It would be as if someone wrote a new Gospel in which Christ allowed that it was o.k. to murder children in the womb. What would that have to do with anything that was said in the four Gospels?
So what does Roe v Wade have to do with anything that was said in the Constitution?
Please cite exact phrases. Thank you.
Sorry, that is the Virgin Birth.
Of course it’s the Virgin Birth. Christ had to be born of a virgin who was stainless ijn order not to inherit the stain of original sin. That is why Joseph could not be the father. Jesus had to be born innocent, as Adam was born innocent. The only way to achieve that would be that he be born of a virgin who was herself innocent … Mary, the Second Eve. The second Adam and the second Eve.
And, so you just proved the point. How do you conclude that this passage clearly shows that God is three persons in One being.
Self evident.
*
It takes a teaching authority to flush this out of such language.*
It takes no such thing, as it is self evident. Yet the Church had that teaching authority long before Matthew was written. You have the cart before the horse again. The New Testament is not the equivalent of a Constitution. The authority of the Church was to create the Bible. It wasn’t the Bible that created the Church. The Church is WE THE PEOPLE … the Body of Christ.
Best as I can figure out, you have to be a Protestant.
The Church is that authority. The Court does so with the Constitution.
Not true. The Church does have teaching authority that existed before the NT. The Supreme court never had teaching authority. It has only the authority to interpret. It has no authority to add endless doctrines to the Constitution that are absurd perversions of the document.
Again, I’m asking you to show me where in the Constitution it establishes, even by implication, that mothers have the right to kill their children and that physicians have the right to be their hired executioners.
This is new doctrine!
It would be as if someone wrote a new Gospel in which Christ allowed that it was o.k. to murder children in the womb. What would that have to do with anything that was said in the four Gospels?
So what does Roe v Wade have to do with anything that was said in the Constitution?
Please cite exact phrases. Thank you.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Worthy5
The Fifth Amendment:
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
If the unborn child could speak for himself or herself, it could invoke the 5th Amendment. Why should it be deprived of life without due process? And what crime could it have possibly committed that it would deserve the death penallty as devised by the Supreme court in Roe v Wade?
This interpretation of the consitution surely is more common sensical than the laughable notion that a woman can, according to the Constitution, invoke her right to privacy in the very act of killing her own child, or that the abortionists can invoke the same right to privacy.
Might as well say the Constitution allows the right to murder as long as murder is done in secret on an operating table in a chamber built for death.
Even an adult murderer has more Consitutional rights to defend himself from undue process than an innocent babe.
The Fifth Amendment:
“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
If the unborn child could speak for himself or herself, it could invoke the 5th Amendment. Why should it be deprived of life without due process? And what crime could it have possibly committed that it would deserve the death penallty as devised by the Supreme court in Roe v Wade?
This interpretation of the consitution surely is more common sensical than the laughable notion that a woman can, according to the Constitution, invoke her right to privacy in the very act of killing her own child, or that the abortionists can invoke the same right to privacy.
Might as well say the Constitution allows the right to murder as long as murder is done in secret on an operating table in a chamber built for death.
Even an adult murderer has more Consitutional rights to defend himself from undue process than an innocent babe.
S
Spirithound
Guest
This passage does not grant the power of creating truth to the Supreme Court.
- Status