The pro-life common sense clincher

[Worthy5]

miguel;6346593]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

That is good. One problem though, you are not the Supreme Court.

 

[LittleSoldier]

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. "

I think the title of this thread is “Re: The pro-life common sense clincher.”

If all you are doing is posting here, that’s fine. I just thought that because you agreed that you were concerned about women, that you might be doing something to help them, other than posting here. It’s easy to talk; it’s easy to write; it’s easy to post.

It takes more effort to really go out and do something.

I have my answer.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Worthy5

*That is good. One problem though, you are not the Supreme Court. *

I thank God daily that I was not on Blackmun’s Supreme Court. The blood of babies on their hands is flooding the country. The fact that many in our country are not filled with outrage about this is a sign of how decadent our civilization has become.

You still don’t have it right. The Church (WE THE PEOPLE) created the Bible. The Bible did not create the Church.

WE THE PEOPLE created the Constitution. It did not create us. WE THE PEOPLE also created the Supreme Court. We can change its composition. We can change its rulings by getting appointed men of character and integrity, rather than bloodthirsty baby killers.

Your recurrent quote from Blackmun is getting us nowhere. You cite Blackmun as if he were infallible and Roe v Wade as if it is the eternal law of the land. I hope you live long enough to see that the Supreme Court’s endorsement of the power of the police to protect the murderers of babies will come to an end.

But tell me, do you really want to defend the legal sanction of the murdering of 50 million innocent babes in the womb?
I don’t think you do, because your posts end up being little more than reruns of Blackmun’s quote. If you really believed in Blackmun, surely you could support him more vigorously with arguments of your own.

Why not try one now?

 

[LittleSoldier]

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

“Casey thought what”?

I do believe Jim referred to the framers of the American Constitution, not the current Supreme Court.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[Worthy5]

LittleSoldier;6346799]I think the title of this thread is “Re: The pro-life common sense clincher.”

If all you are doing is posting here, that’s fine. I just thought that because you agreed that you were concerned about women, that you might be doing something to help them, other than posting here. It’s easy to talk; it’s easy to write; it’s easy to post.

It takes more effort to really go out and do something.

I have my answer.

By all means my friend go out and do the good work. And may God Bless you for it.

 

[Worthy5]

=LittleSoldier;6346838]“Casey thought what”?

I do believe Jim referred to the framers of the American Constitution, not the current Supreme Court.

Why do you guys seem to have such trouble with authority-----if you do not like what the Supreme Court has said—then go out there and amend the Constitution and good luck to you on your efforts.

But the " pro-choice" legal argument has been made.

 

[Worthy5]

Charlemagne II;

WE THE PEOPLE created the Constitution. It did not create us. WE THE PEOPLE also created the Supreme Court. We can change its composition. We can change its rulings by getting appointed men of character and integrity, rather than bloodthirsty baby killers

.

Then go out there and amend the Constitution my friend—and good luck to you in the effort.

Your recurrent quote from Blackmun is getting us nowhere. You cite Blackmun as if he were infallible and Roe v Wade as if it is the eternal law of the land. I hope you live long enough to see that the Supreme Court’s endorsement of the power of the police to protect the murderers of babies will come to an end.

As of now, Roe is the law of the land.

But tell me, do you really want to defend the legal sanction of the murdering of 50 million innocent babes in the womb?

What a particular poster wants is not the subject of the thread? You wanted a legal Pro-life " clincher". The " Pro-choice" legal position has, to a degree, been presented.

I don’t think you do, because your posts end up being little more than reruns of Blackmun’s quote. If you really believed in Blackmun, surely you could support him more vigorously with arguments of your own.

Justice Blackmun was a very accomplished lawyer and judge----feel free to read more of his opinions.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Why do you guys seem to have such trouble with authority-----if you do not like what the Supreme Court has said—then go out there and amend the Constitution and good luck to you on your efforts.

But the " pro-choice" legal argument has been made.

When you state “the pro-choice legal argument has been made” you are incorrect. The American prochoice legal argument at this time has been made. I have no doubt it will change in the future. I don’t understand why you can’t see that the American Supreme Court is “supreme” only in the United States and its jurisdiction there is questionable. God’s law has jurisdiction universally. You seem to consistently ignore this fact.

I would also like to mention that no Catholic is required to adhere to man-made laws that conflict with God’s law; in fact, it is our duty as Catholics to refuse to adhere to those laws.

The American Supreme Court is composed of fallible human beings. The human beings that make up the Court have erred in the past; they erred in Roe v. Wade and they will err again. They will be called to judgment for their actions, just as every other human being will be.

In the meantime, it is up to us to do what we can to right the wrongs that have been done.

They don’t have the authority; God does.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Worthy5;:

As of now, Roe is the law of the land.

One land, actually. Just one.

What a particular poster wants is not the subject of the thread? You wanted a legal Pro-life " clincher". The " Pro-choice" legal position has, to a degree, been presented.

Where in the title of this thread does the word “legal” appear?

Justice Blackmun was a very accomplished lawyer and judge----feel free to read more of his opinions.

Justice Blackmun was an fallible human being who made mistakes.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[Worthy5]

LittleSoldier;6347001]One land, actually. Just one.

Where in the title of this thread does the word “legal” appear?

Justice Blackmun was an fallible human being who made mistakes.

 

[Worthy5]

LittleSoldier;6346989]When you state “the pro-choice legal argument has been made” you are incorrect. The American prochoice legal argument at this time has been made. I have no doubt it will change in the future. I don’t understand why you can’t see that the American Supreme Court is “supreme” only in the United States and its jurisdiction there is questionable. God’s law has jurisdiction universally. You seem to consistently ignore this fact.

I would also like to mention that no Catholic is required to adhere to man-made laws that conflict with God’s law; in fact, it is our duty as Catholics to refuse to adhere to those laws.

The American Supreme Court is composed of fallible human beings. The human beings that make up the Court have erred in the past; they erred in Roe v. Wade and they will err again. They will be called to judgment for their actions, just as every other human being will be.

In the meantime, it is up to us to do what we can to right the wrongs that have been done.

They don’t have the authority; God does.

 

[miguel]

That is good. One problem though, you are not the Supreme Court.

I’m not a slave either.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Worthy5

*What a particular poster wants is not the subject of the thread? You wanted a legal Pro-life " clincher". The " Pro-choice" legal position has, to a degree, been presented. *

You need to go back to the lead post for this thread.

*Has anyone ever found an approach to explaining the pro-life position that would leave the pro-choice advocates without a leg to stand on? I mean a really convincing case that can stop all discussion dead in its tracks because the pro-choicers have no answer? *

Justice Blackmun and the legal issue is not even mentioned. The question to be discussed is a common sense answer to the pro-choice position. Justice Blackmun had no common sense. The notion that a privacy right exists in the Constitution to kill one’s child is certainly not common sense.

The real common sense position to take is that we must not kill our children.

Do you have an answer to that common sense? It certainly isn’t **common sense **that we have the right to kill our children … is it?

 

[Doc_Keele]

Charlemagne, you claim to want a “clincher”, but keep repeating this mantra of “commonsense”. Has this worked so far? NO. When people have tried to explain why this and other tactics are not “clinchers”, you have not received that advice in the spirit it was offered. I don’t think you’re serious, personally.
So go ahead doing the same thing that pro-life campaigners have done for years, and achieve the same results. You are perfectly free to keep on doing the same things in the hope of getting different results.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Doc Keele

You are perfectly free to keep on doing the same things in the hope of getting different results.

Thanks, but I already knew that!

 

[Doc_Keele]

Doc Keele

You are perfectly free to keep on doing the same things in the hope of getting different results.

Thanks, but I already knew that!

So you don’t know the famous saw about doing the same thing and expecting different results?
That explains a lot then:thumbsup:

 

[Spirithound]

Fellow Pro-Lifers,
I think we have underestimated our worthy opponents. Clearly we are arguing against the nine Egyptian gods of the Ennead, who are always right, no matter what they say, for as long as they say it (and of course they can change it, but when? and why?).

So, I’m just going to eat my Jell-O.

 

[Doc_Keele]

What a silly post Spirithound
…and you think that this point couldn’t be made about the Pro-Life brigade???
In a philosophical argument, you don’t want a weak argument to refute, you make the argument as strong as possible so that your refutation has some meaning. It seems to offend the Pro-Life people here that people present the pro-choice position robustly, including yourself. I find that surprising considering you’re a seminaian - aren’t you trained for robust and rigorous debate?

What I’ve seen is a succession of straw man arguments.

 

[Worthy5]

Charlemagne II;6347863]

*Has anyone ever found an approach to explaining the pro-life position that would leave the pro-choice advocates without a leg to stand on? I mean a really convincing case that can stop all discussion dead in its tracks because the pro-choicers have no answer? *

Justice Blackmun and the legal issue is not even mentioned. The question to be discussed is a common sense answer to the pro-choice position. Justice Blackmun had no common sense. The notion that a privacy right exists in the Constitution to kill one’s child is certainly not common sense.

Come on Charles you really are looking silly at this point.

The Pro-life v Pro-choice debate as normally understood is about whether abortion should be legal-----you have engaged in that discussion. Now you want to say that the " legal issue" and Roe v Wade is not pertinent.

You posted the OP, you received feedback from a " Pro-choice" perspective.

The Pro-choice position is not about the moral issue of abortion—its about what govt role in relation to the problem is. No doubt, there are pro-choice people that do not see abortion as immoral–but that really is not the legal basis for the position.

You can disagree with it, but in a limited govt society, the role of govt is open to question all the time. God Bless to you and thanks for your participation.

 

[fix]

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."

This means the court is right? No, sorry, it does not mean that at all.