F
fix
Guest
I understand. I do it for the lurkers who may read something and think more deeply than the relativistic silliness we have been reading on these abortion threads.
- Status
M
miguel
Guest
This is kind of a strawman. No one is arguing for that. To mitigate inevitable abuses of power, the framers provided for checks and balances. As an example, the President nominates justices for the Supreme Court with the advice and consent of the Senate. No doubt each branch would prefer having sole authority over this function. But that isn’t the way the framers set it up. Another example is Congressional regulation of the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in Article III, Section 2. This power was clearly given to Congress to control abuses of power by the judiciary, lest anyone think the judiciary has final say on all matters. And we all know acts of Congress are frequently challenged for their constitutionality and these challenges are brought before federal Court for judgement. This function of the judiciary is a check against abuses of legislative power.
J
jrgiancola
Guest
Roe v. Wade is not the law of the land. The law of the land is contained in the subsequent decisions which defined Roe more narrowly. I’ve already given you one citation: Planned Parenthood v. Casey written by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Our Constitution is the finest secular legal document ever written to establish a democratic government in the history of mankind. The Supreme Court’s constitutional function is to interpret that document and defend the rights of American citizens. One of those rights is to be free from excessive governmental interference into the private lives of those citizens. I would narrow abortion law further than the Supreme Court has done. However, I would not ban it; as I’ve already stated, a woman who is going to lose her life unless she has an abortion has a right to an abortion; that woman also has a RIGHT TO LIFE. But I would rather see abortion law stay exactly as it is now, than dissolve our Constitution. I refuse to give up my constitutional rights and live under “Big Brother.” Certain aspects of my life are PRIVATE, and I will not live in a country that cannot draw the line and respect my private, personal decisions. Any of you who want to dissolve our constitutional form of government, or our Constitution, need to move out of the country. The Constitution is the foundation of America; love it, or get out.
F
fix
Guest
The constitution is not the problem.
W
Worthy5
Guest
.
Please Fix, please tell us what it means. Please tell us why you are correct and Chief Justice John Marshall was wrong.
J
JimG
Guest
At some point in the future, the Court is going to acknowledge that Roe was wrongly decided, and tactfully return the matter to the States. Lincoln said that the nation could not continue to survive half-slave and half-free, and did not acknowledge the Court’s contrary opinion as an inevitable dictum from on high. Neither can this nation or any nation continue to survive while it accepts with equanimity the genocide of its next generation of citizens. The only question in my mind is whether the Court or the country will change soon enough to save the nation from devolution into chaos and war.
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
Can you see the future Jim?
J
JimG
Guest
Here is President Thomas Jefferson writing in reaction to the Court’s decision in Marbury v Madison:
“The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches.”
And
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”Source:
landmarkcases.org/marbury/jefferson.html
I wonder whether even Justice Marshall could have found a right to abortion in the Constitution. It seems that, if one looks close enough, anything can be found.
“The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches.”
And
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”Source:
landmarkcases.org/marbury/jefferson.html
I wonder whether even Justice Marshall could have found a right to abortion in the Constitution. It seems that, if one looks close enough, anything can be found.
J
JimG
Guest
No more than could Lincoln. And yet he made a judgment about the future effects of preserving the existing law. All law is made for the future, and affects it for good or ill.
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
F
fix
Guest
The court has authority, but may misuse its authority. The statement does not say the court is right as in they may trump logic and right reason..
Please Fix, please tell us what it means. Please tell us why you are correct and Chief Justice John Marshall was wrong.
Just has Jesus told Pilot he had authority, that did not mean he excercised his authority correctly.
J
JimG
Guest
I hope that law will be restored.
But it doesn’t take a prophet to foresee disastrous effects from the mass killing of a large percent of our next generation. Perhaps even Blackmun could have predicted that. I doubt that he foresaw a million abortions per year for convenience. If he did, so much the worse.
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
“law will be restored” - my point about language proved
the number of abortions still doesn’t mean that the law will be changed to what you desire
given that at least some “Pro-Life” people think that the COCP is morally equivalent to partial-birth abortio and/or last trimester abortion, I don’t think it’ll ever happen
the number of abortions still doesn’t mean that the law will be changed to what you desire
given that at least some “Pro-Life” people think that the COCP is morally equivalent to partial-birth abortio and/or last trimester abortion, I don’t think it’ll ever happen
J
JimG
Guest
You don’t think the Court will ever overturn Roe? It has already modified Roe, rejecting some parts of it, and there are some justices who believe that it was wrongly decided. The only thing that ensures its preservation for at least awhile was the election of Barack Obama, who will ensure that pro-abortion justices are nominated to fill vacancies, and will nominate pro-abortion judges to lower courts to put them in a position for future SCOTUS nomination. It’s ironic–we have come down to being a nation of men, not law. But the Court’s abortion decisions are at least as contentious, if not more so, than such decisions as Dred Scott, and the contention will continue into the future.“law will be restored” - my point about language proved
the number of abortions still doesn’t mean that the law will be changed to what you desire
given that at least some “Pro-Life” people think that the COCP is morally equivalent to partial-birth abortio and/or last trimester abortion, I don’t think it’ll ever happen
Social consequences are hard to predict, yet Pope Paul VI who tossed off a few predictions of social ills if contraception became widespread, turned out to be spot-on. The consequences of eliminating one-fourth of each generation ought to be rather easy, starting with demographic decline, economic decline, and disrespect for life at all levels. But I’m no prophet, and too old to overly worry about the consequences from a personal standpoint. Still, I think that either the law will change or the country will continue it’s slide. I hope that I’m wrong about the effects of widespread abortion, but I don’t see how bad social effects can be avoided.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Doc Keele
So you don’t know the famous saw about doing the same thing and expecting different results?
I know Oliver Hardy’s famous saw: “Where there’s a will, there’s a way!”
So you don’t know the famous saw about doing the same thing and expecting different results?
I know Oliver Hardy’s famous saw: “Where there’s a will, there’s a way!”
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
jrgiancola
*But I would rather see abortion law stay exactly as it is now, than dissolve our Constitution. I refuse to give up my constitutional rights and live under “Big Brother.” Certain aspects of my life are PRIVATE, and I will not live in a country that cannot draw the line and respect my private, personal decisions. Any of you who want to dissolve our constitutional form of government, or our Constitution, need to move out of the country. The Constitution is the foundation of America; love it, or get out. *
Another straw man fallacy. We are not talking about dissolving the Consitution. We are talking about dealing with those who would pervert the Constitution. The pro-choice partisans are not aptly named: they give the unborn child no choice but to die. Some choice.
Common sense: we do not kill our children. Some people are impervious to common sense.
*But I would rather see abortion law stay exactly as it is now, than dissolve our Constitution. I refuse to give up my constitutional rights and live under “Big Brother.” Certain aspects of my life are PRIVATE, and I will not live in a country that cannot draw the line and respect my private, personal decisions. Any of you who want to dissolve our constitutional form of government, or our Constitution, need to move out of the country. The Constitution is the foundation of America; love it, or get out. *
Another straw man fallacy. We are not talking about dissolving the Consitution. We are talking about dealing with those who would pervert the Constitution. The pro-choice partisans are not aptly named: they give the unborn child no choice but to die. Some choice.
Common sense: we do not kill our children. Some people are impervious to common sense.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Personally, I would welcome a national debate on overturning Roe v Wade. Today the debate would have to be fully aired, with people testifying from all the professions and walks of life, as it was not done in the secrecy of Supreme Court chambers for Roe v Wade.
I believe those who are pro-life are in an infinitely better position to carry the day. Let the far left Femninists shriek about the Gestapo techniques of the Far Right. Follow that with the showing of a real abortion, as the baby’s limbs are torn from his torso and her head is crushed. Who are the mindless Nazis? Doctors in ancient times took a Hippocratic oath not to commit abortions, but they now do so routinely and for pay … murder for hire.
Murder for hire protected by the police power of the State. No choice for the child. Who are the real Nazis?
Common sense mantra: we do not kill our children.
I believe those who are pro-life are in an infinitely better position to carry the day. Let the far left Femninists shriek about the Gestapo techniques of the Far Right. Follow that with the showing of a real abortion, as the baby’s limbs are torn from his torso and her head is crushed. Who are the mindless Nazis? Doctors in ancient times took a Hippocratic oath not to commit abortions, but they now do so routinely and for pay … murder for hire.
Murder for hire protected by the police power of the State. No choice for the child. Who are the real Nazis?
Common sense mantra: we do not kill our children.
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
Nice dream, Charlemagne.
F
fix
Guest
Which strong arguments? Please list them.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.
F
fix
Guest
Here is the pro abort reasoning. The court said so. Ok, then it must be legitimate.
- Status