The pro-life common sense clincher

[Worthy5]

Charlemagne II;6343382]Worthy5

Please keep in mind that the butcher’s action is separate from the mother’s.

Still waiting for you to show where the Constitution (not the Supreme Court) says a mother may conspire with a butcher to take the life of her child.

Please cite the specific passage, rather than Blackmun’s interpretation of that passage.

I think you cannot, and that’s why you haven’t.

Many of the high Justices in Nazi Germany likewise signed executive orders allowing the incarceration, sterilization, or execution of Jews, Catholics, and other enemies of the State. After the war some of them were tried and sentenced by Justices from the United States at the Nuremberg trials.

Within two decades, with Roe v Wade, Justices of the United States would be endorsing the execution of millions of unborn humans.

Please explain why the Supreme Court’s defense of this butchery is not in fact a form of police action designed to protect the butchers in their execution of the innocents. This time why not try working from your own common sense rather than Blackmun’s uncommon nonsense? :rolleyes

Once again Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the United States Supreme Court as final authority on what the Constituition means:

"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. "

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Worthy5

*Once again Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the United States Supreme Court as final authority on what the Constituition means:

"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. " *

Once again, the Constitution has been perverted before, as Lincoln said. The Supreme Court is not above the Constitution. Nor is it above WE THE PEOPLE, who created the Constitution. It is merely one of three branches of government and is not infallible; and its work, though it may defy the Constitution, can be undone through time and the grace of God.

That will be achieved by the power of prayer and common sense.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Charlemagne, you don’t understand the law. You just keep repeating the same erroneous point. The Supreme Court is the organ that has the job of interpreting the Constitution. You don’t.
Judges don’t pass statutes they interpret. The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, and has the power to strike down legislation.
A constitution can be changed, and if and when the US Constitution is changed to your suiting, then the Supreme Court will have to abide by those amendments.
The fact that you disagree with the decision is irrelevant to whether or not the decision is legally sound. The fact that you’ve found lawyers that disagree with the decision doesn’t mean the decision is not legally sound either.
If the will of the power decided the interpretation of the constitution, it wouldn’t be a constitution. Minorities would have next to no protection.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Yes indeed, and you are certainly free in this country to explain that to them.

Yes indeed, as I have already done in this forum. But I wonder if you care about a person’s eternal soul. The aborted children are all in heaven. But the women who procure abortions and the “physicians” who do the aborting, are all in danger.

Do you care about these people?

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[Worthy5]

LittleSoldier;6344966]Yes indeed, as I have already done in this forum. But I wonder if you care about a person’s eternal soul. The aborted children are all in heaven. But the women who procure abortions and the “physicians” who do the aborting, are all in danger.

Do you care about these people?

Yes, but whether you do or anyone does has nothing to do with the legal issue.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Yes, but whether you do or anyone does has nothing to do with the legal issue.

If you really care about these people, then I would think you would be taking some action to stop abortion.

It’s already been pointed out to you that God’s law reigns supreme. Man-made laws, even if the American Supreme Court believes they are constitutional (which is questionable) are irrelevant if they conflict with God’s law.

So what are you doing about this problem, besides posting here?

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[Worthy5]

LittleSoldier;6344985]If you really care about these people, then I would think you would be taking some action to stop abortion.

It’s already been pointed out to you that God’s law reigns supreme. Man-made laws, even if the American Supreme Court believes they are constitutional (which is questionable) are irrelevant if they conflict with God’s law.

So what are you doing about this problem, besides posting here?

Once 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. "

God Bless, my friend.

 

[miguel]

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?

As my sweet Irish mom would say, this is a mystery. It comes down to free will and God’s grace. Some baptized, confirmed, regular mass attenders struggle with truth. And to others it comes easy. I went to Catholic High School and was asked to write a paper on the subject. This was shortly after the Roe decision.

One of my closest surfing buddies was an evangelical. His dad was kind of an athiest who became an evangelical when my friend was in high school. His mom had a Mormon background but she was not a Mormon. They all knew I was a Catholic and they used to give me all kinds of flack…great family. My friend was one of those kids who got great grades without studying…at least in high school. We often discussed religion and politics. His family was fairly conservative politically and they helped turn me into one. His dad used to call me a “bleeding heart”. But when the subject of abortion came up, my friend’s response to logical arguements was always “Oh you’re just saying that 'cause you’re Catholic.” Anyway, his freshman year in college, he took a logic class. The final was a selection of controversial topics. And he had to pick one, take a position, and logically defend it. He was kind of amazed telling me this later, but he picked abortion and he started out with the pro-choice position but he sat through half the final struggling to find logical arguements to defend it. He was running out of time and didn’t want to get an F so he ended up taking the pro-life position and had no trouble coming up with logical arguements to defend that. And that’s why my friend is pro-life.

 

[JimG]

Once 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. "

God Bless, my friend. Blackmun then went on to contradict his own statement by endorsing a trimester framework which purported to give the state the power to prohibit abortion in some instances. What happened to the broadness of the right to privacy in those instances? The fact that he did not state that the right to privacy gave an absolute right to abortion indicates that such a right is not so broad after all.

Not that I fault the Court for in effect placing limits on its own theory of privacy–at least in Roe. They rectified that in Doe v Bolton by taking away what little power they gave to the state in the second and third trimesters, by means of imposing a universally required ‘health’ exception which allowed the abortionist to do whatever he wanted, throughout the nine months of pregnancy.

As an aside, I must comment on the reference to the magisterium teaching the Trinity–a word which is not found in the Bible.

It is not the job of the magisterium to merely interpret whatever is in the Bible. The bible is not a constitutional document. The job of the magisterium is to say what has been handed down and believed from the beginning. The Church believed the doctrine of three persons in one divine nature from the beginning. With respect to any particular formulation of doctrine, it’s job was to conclude, “is this what has been handed down–is this what we have believed–or not?” I could only wish that the SCOTUS operated in the same manner, instead of inventing a right to kill unborn children which is nowhere found in the text, history, or original understand of the constitution.

 

[Worthy5]

JimG;6345155]

It is not the job of the magisterium to merely interpret whatever is in the Bible. The bible is not a constitutional document. The job of the magisterium is to say what has been handed down and believed from the beginning. The Church believed the doctrine of three persons in one divine nature from the beginning. With respect to any particular formulation of doctrine, it’s job was to conclude, “is this what has been handed down–is this what we have believed–or not?” I could only wish that the SCOTUS operated in the same manner, instead of inventing a right to kill unborn children which is nowhere found in the text, history, or original understand of the constitution.

No one said its a perfect match. The point is the Church looks to scripture for the support. The Framers were thinking about the concept of personal liberty and limited govt power my friend long before the Constitution was ratified.

 

[JimG]

No one said its a perfect match. The point is the Church looks to scripture for the support. The Framers were thinking about the concept of personal liberty and limited govt power my friend long before the Constitution was ratified.

The framers would have been astonished to find that their document allows for abortion throughout nine months of pregnancy. They would have been equally astonished that States would be prohibited by the federal government from legislating in this area!

 

[Worthy5]

JimG;6345209]The framers would have been astonished to find that their document allows for abortion throughout nine months of pregnancy. They would have been equally astonished that States would be prohibited by the federal government from legislating in this area!]

Well, that is not what the Supreme Court in Roe and reaffirmed in Casey thought.

 

[miguel]

The crux of the pro-choice is that it is a legal position–not a moral one. The question is who has the duty to protect the unborn life and when?

I don’t get this at all. Taking an amoral legal position on a moral issue doesn’t alter the fact that it is a moral issue. And to answer the question, we all do. And the state in particular because the reason it exists is the safeguarding of life and property.

 

[miguel]

I don’t think there is a clincher. I am simply baffled by the ferocity with which the ability to kill our young is defended as an essential right.

This doesn’t fully explain it. But some folks simply hate the Church. If the Church takes one position, they’ll take another. There’s an apparent satisfaction in that…even if thousands of babies die today.

 

[seekerz]

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?”

You ask if faith is lacking…not sure that’s what the problem is. I believe that praying for an end to abortion is asking for God to thwart the very wrongly-directed, but by His own generosity, free, will of those who think abortion is permissible and/or necessary. How does God redirect our free will? Does He do so directly or through circumstances and people in our lives?

It’s like praying for someone’s conversion to the faith: pray as hard as we might, it’s unlikely to work if that someone is not being positively influenced by a child of God. Same thing with abortion (which, by the way, has plagued mankind long before it became legal), we who pray must also live in manner that shouts from the rooftops our respect for life - all life (in the womb and outside it).

Which is why I think the angry rhetoric, name calling and above all, the politicization of abortion, is working against the prayers, like a house divided against itself…

You see, if abortion is simply about right and wrong, it’s much easier to convert people than when it becomes about left and right (as indivisible as these these two contrasts may seem to some people). Political disagreements tend to be considered legitimate and acceptable, moral nonconformity, much less so.

When moral/religious issues are appropriated by political parties, then it becomes a case of: you can’t be a good _____ if you are for/against ______ , rather than being about the right and just thing to do.

False choices are also presented. For example, we are told that to consider certain homosexual behavior immoral is to ‘hate’ homosexuals and to consider abortion immoral is to be against women’s rights or poor people. To complicate matters even more, since love is also not quite the watchword in the world of politics, that does indeed get cast by the wayside in some quarters, so that a certain extent of hate and bigotry really do feature in the mix.

That’s why I believe, the first step in winning the fight against abortion is to define the battleground: spiritual/moral versus political. The second step is to acknowledge that, as with most human failings, this will be an ongoing struggle and the key is perseverance. Third is, back to the faith question: we have to believe that we are indeed receiving what we pray for: how do you know how many decisions for abortion your prayers and example have prevented? The answer is unceasing prayer, unfailing hope and - unfettered love, “the greatest of these”…

 

[seekerz]

From what you say, abortion is not really illegal at all in India anyway so it doesn’t matter. If you can find a real example I would still be interested to hear it though. In any case, this is just another attempt to repackage the ubiquitous “but some people will still do it anyway” argument even though it applies to any other law ever made. Again, hooray for double standards.

You knew that the word “clincher” in the OP referred to an argument and not a law. At least try not to sound disingenuous.

Hadn’t read your post till now but now seems like a very good time to address it. I will forgive the sarcasm. Dismissing someone’s opinion simply because it’s different from yours doesn’t really lend itself to rational discussion. Just because someone else may have said the same thing in a different way, doesn’t make the substance of my point of view faulty.

What kind of abortion law would you consider sufficient to make abortion truly illegal?

Not all laws are equal, so to compare abortion law to “any other law ever made” doesn’t really help the discussion. Some laws have existed in one form or another, from ancient times and probably always will e.g. laws against murder and theft. Some laws became obsolete and were discarded e.g. laws forbidding mixed race marriage. Some laws are not enforced even though they remain on the books, e.g. laws against adultery. Some laws are actively enforced and probably just as actively disregarded e.g. laws against marijuana use. Some laws are relatively new, having been crafted or revised in response to changing social awareness e.g. certain child abuse laws.

In which category, if any, does the potential outlawing of abortion fall, in your opinion?

 

[LittleSoldier]

Once 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. "

God Bless, my friend.

You didn’t answer my question, so I’ll ask it again:

What are you doing to stop abortion, besides posting here?

God bless you too!

 

[Worthy5]

LittleSoldier;6345715]You didn’t answer my question, so I’ll ask it again:

What are you doing to stop abortion, besides posting here?

Is that the title of the thread? Once 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. "

 

[JimG]

“Blackmun locuta est, causa finita est."

 

[miguel]

You cite the 14th Amendment as providing the lawful right to an abortion. Seems to me it does just the opposite.:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

How does this amendment deny protection of life to the unborn person? How does this amendment say that the state may deprive the unborn of their right to life? Where does this amendment say that the unborn are **not **citizens?

And if it is saying that, then how can anybody be indicted for a double homicide when a pregnant woman is murdered?

Absolutely correct. The 1st part simply defines the citizen as a person born or naturalized in the US. It is clear from its usage in the 14th Amendment that citizen is a subcategory of the broader term person. The 2nd part makes this clear when it refers to privileges or immunities of citizens (i.e., beyond non-citizen persons). Citizens have the privilege of voting for example. Non-citizens don’t. But to prevent the states from abusing non-citizen persons, the broader and all-encompasing term any person is used in the last part. Equal protection of the laws is extended to any person. For example you can’t murder a person with impunity in California just because he’s a non-citizen. California is required under this Amendment to protect non-citizen persons the same as citizen persons. That’s what equal protection means.

To get back to the injustice of the Roe decision, unborn persons were denied the same protections enjoyed by born persons. Blackmun ruled that the unborn are not persons as that term is used in the 14th Amendment. So a baby is not a person one second before birth and is a person one second later. There’s no difference in a person one second before birth and one second later. It’s an absurd and evil misuse of the word person.