The pro-life common sense clincher

[Charlemagne_II]

fix

Here is the pro abort reasoning. The court said so. Ok, then it must be legitimate.

Exactly. The confusion of legal with legitimate. Slavery was legal, but not legitimate. Abortion the same. Please don’t task the pro-choice people with thinking this through. They are all too willing to let Blackmun do their thinking for them … and then call it “robust.”

 

[JimG]

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.

We don’t even need is a national debate. Right now, public opinion rejects the reasons given for most abortions performed. All that’s needed is to return legislative power to the states and the people thereof to make law, as they did up until 1973.

 

[LittleSoldier]

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.

I agree. I also intend to squish it between my teeth, as all true jello lovers do.

Actually, I would like to point out (again) that a court in one country in this world does not make legal decisions for the entire world and that its decisions on the legality of abortion may conflict with God’s law - the one about the sanctity of all human life.

As a Catholic, I will not adhere to an immoral law, no matter where that law originates and no matter how many courts in how many countries decide for how many reasons to agree the law is constitutional, or valid, or whatever.

An immoral law is an immoral law and all the rhetoric, pontificating, and spouting of nonsense will not change that. The laws “protecting” the “rights” of women to obtain abortions are immoral. Plain and simple.

Someday it will change. God’s law will not. Eventually we will all have to follow God’s law. But it saddens me to see how cheap life is in this world and how much damage murdering our unborn children while maiming their parents is occurring world-wide.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[LittleSoldier]

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.

I beg to differ. Your prochoice position is “about what govt role in relation to the problem is.” Many other “prochoicers” don’t see any problem at all, and many see the position without any emphasis on law.

You can disagree with the prolife position, but in a universe ruled by a loving God, the prochoice position will eventually disappear.

You can also dismiss me, and I may very well leave (although not voluntarily) but you can’t dismiss the prolife position quite so readily.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.

 

[Spirithound]

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.

What robust pro-choice arguments? Justice Blackmun is making more posts on this thread than I am! It appears to me that he is being appealed to because that poster believes Blackmun was correct to opine as he did, and primarily because he was on the Court, and secondarily because he was in the majority.

It should be clear, however that being in the majority does not make one right. I acknowledge that abortion is considered a constitutional right in the US. I acknowledge that the Supreme Court had the authority to interpret the Constitution as they did. I do NOT, however, acknowledge that they made the correct judgement. For me, and for all pro-lifers, the right to life must trump the right to privacy.

If I am missing a key pro-choice argument, please inform me. Simply a link to the relevant post would suffice. But please don’t just tell me that I don’t get it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

JimG

*We don’t even need is a national debate. Right now, public opinion rejects the reasons given for most abortions performed. All that’s needed is to return legislative power to the states and the people thereof to make law, as they did up until 1973. *

It would be nice to think we could pull it off without a national debate, but I’m afraid the liberal media and academia and all their assorted allies will pile on if ever there is a law introduced, or a constitutional amendment, or a Supreme court challenge.

Why are there now five Catholics on the Supreme Court? That has never happened in the history of the country … or at a time when they were more needed.

 

[jrgiancola]

The case of “Marbury v. Madison” confirmed that the US Supreme Court is the SOLE interpreter of the Constitution. Stop making legal statements if you do not know the law.

Unlike some of you, I will not live in any country governed by a religion. Church and state must be separated.

I also will not sit back and watch the slow unraveling of my right to privacy because some pro-life zealots care nothing about anything but abortion.

If Communist China banned abortion, would any of you want to live there rather than here?

 

[JimG]

JimG

*We don’t even need is a national debate. Right now, public opinion rejects the reasons given for most abortions performed. All that’s needed is to return legislative power to the states and the people thereof to make law, as they did up until 1973. *

It would be nice to think we could pull it off without a national debate, but I’m afraid the liberal media and academia and all their assorted allies will pile on if ever there is a law introduced, or a constitutional amendment, or a Supreme court challenge.

You are probably right. I was only pointing out that popular opinion on what abortion law ought to allow, is right now, far more restrictive than the actual law imposed on all 50 states by the SCOTUS. When asked the concrete circumstances in which abortion ought to be allowed, and the gestational time it should be allowed, I think most state legislatures, even most popular referendums, would be more restrictive than Roe and Doe, which allows abortion virtually on demand.

 

[JimG]

The case of “Marbury v. Madison” confirmed that the US Supreme Court is the SOLE interpreter of the Constitution. Stop making legal statements if you do not know the law.

Unlike some of you, I will not live in any country governed by a religion. Church and state must be separated.

I also will not sit back and watch the slow unraveling of my right to privacy because some pro-life zealots care nothing about anything but abortion.

If Communist China banned abortion, would any of you want to live there rather than here?

There is nothing in abortion statutes up to 1973 which could be construed as in opposition to the separation of church and state. Did any of the state legislatures which regulated abortion seek to impose religious doctrine? No, they sought to regulate the practice of abortion. Even Roe v Wade conceded that the state had an interest in preserving fetal life; of course it took away that ability in Doe v Bolton.

In post 582 I quoted Thomas Jefferson’s opinion of the Marbury v Madison decision. I doubt that one is in any danger of being overturned. Yet it did result in the three branches no longer being co-equal, by granting a superior power to the Court; or rather, the Court granted it to itself.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jrgiancola

Unlike some of you, I will not live in any country governed by a religion. Church and state must be separated.

They are. They have been. They always will be.

Abortion is not by definition a religious issue. It is a moral issue, and moral issues can be settled without recourse to religion (though religion surely cultivates a moral sense). Some atheists agree with Catholics that abortion is a profound evil in our society.

The issue is not whether religion will govern this country, but whether common sense will govern it. This matter was discussed much earlier in the thread. Apparently you joined us late and want us to go all through it again?

Common sense: we do not kill our children.

 

[Spirithound]

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.”

I’m sure that the Legislative and Executive branches could still exercise authority regarding whether a law abides by the Constitution. If a Legislature determines that a law contravenes the Constitution, it repeals the law. If the President sees the law as unconstitutional, he does not sign it.

 

[exoflare]

I’m almost surprised how many people, and even some “Catholics”, here are so passionate about arguing for the right to murder your children.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

exoflare

Almost surprised?

Seriously, I get your point. Common sense is not fashionable today.

 

[LittleSoldier]

The case of “Marbury v. Madison” confirmed that the US Supreme Court is the SOLE interpreter of the Constitution. Stop making legal statements if you do not know the law.

Unlike some of you, I will not live in any country governed by a religion. Church and state must be separated.

I also will not sit back and watch the slow unraveling of my right to privacy because some pro-life zealots care nothing about anything but abortion.

If Communist China banned abortion, would any of you want to live there rather than here?

Why are you a Catholic?

Also, if Communist China banned abortion, I believe they would be correct in doing so. The American Supreme Court erred with Roe v. Wade. The Court was wrong.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis!

 

[jrgiancola]

The Supreme Court is not the more powerful of the three branches. Congress can impeach a Supreme Court justice; the President nominates a justice, Congress must approve it. Congress can impeach a President. The President has inherent Presidential powers. All three branches keep the others in check. Just because you don’t agree with a decision, doesn’t mean the Supreme Court is out of control. The Supreme Court said racial segregation is unconstitutional (a liberal court, by the way). Would you consider that out of control? There are many decisions I agree with, many I disagree with. Nobody can get their way all the time; that’s called a dictatorship. Some of you seem to want one, and some of you seem to want to be that dictator.

Why am I a Catholic? Because our church contains the most true and complete revelations from God: the Holy Trinity, the complete divinity and humanity of Christ, the Eucharist, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, the Papacy founded upon Christ’s commission to Peter, the Sacraments. No other church can compare, although the Orthodox churches come close. Does being a Catholic mean that I have to agree with everything the church teaches? I think not. Compare pre-Vatican II doctrines with post-Vatican II doctrines. Many ancient dogmas were either discarded or changed; the entire Mass was not only written in the vernacular, but many parts of it were changed or omitted, such as the prayer for the conversion of the Jews. Our church is a living church, not a dead one like so many of the others and, being a living church, it is not afraid to re-evaluate its positions from time to time. We no longer consider Galileo a heretic; we no longer accept the “6-day creation” except as a metaphor (of course, God did create the universe, probably in six intervals of time, but certainly not in 6-24 hour days, although He could have if He had wanted to). I love our church; but I do disagree with a few of its doctrines. I have rarely met a Catholic who agrees with everything. I don’t like taking communion in my hand; should I stop taking communion? I don’t think so. As a Catholic who believes 98-99% of the church’s teachings, I think that makes me more of a Catholic than most I’ve met in my lifetime.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jrgiancola

As a Catholic who believes 98-99% of the church’s teachings, I think that makes me more of a Catholic than most I’ve met in my lifetime.

Do you believe abortion is a profound evil in our society? Yes or no.

Do you believe it is common sense that the law should allow us to kill our children? Yes or no.

This is not a spin zone.

 

[fix]

T Nobody can get their way all the time; that’s called a dictatorship. Some of you seem to want one, and some of you seem to want to be that dictator.

We have a type of dictatorship right now. It is called the dictatorship of relativism. It has infected many, including Catholics.

Does being a Catholic mean that I have to agree with everything the church teaches? I think not.

Actually, it does. At least if we want to be in full communion.

Compare pre-Vatican II doctrines with post-Vatican II doctrines. Many ancient dogmas were either discarded or changed;

This is incorrect.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

jrgiancola

*Nobody can get their way all the time; that’s called a dictatorship. Some of you seem to want one, and some of you seem to want to be that dictator. *

Ask the unborn boys and girls about their lives being snuffed out by the dictatorship of relativism … by the police power of the state being used to protect the butchers who murdered them.

Ask the murdered unborn babies about the dictatorship of the Femi-Nazis.

 

[Doc_Keele]

What robust pro-choice arguments? Justice Blackmun is making more posts on this thread than I am! It appears to me that he is being appealed to because that poster believes Blackmun was correct to opine as he did, and primarily because he was on the Court, and secondarily because he was in the majority.

It should be clear, however that being in the majority does not make one right. I acknowledge that abortion is considered a constitutional right in the US. I acknowledge that the Supreme Court had the authority to interpret the Constitution as they did. I do NOT, however, acknowledge that they made the correct judgement. For me, and for all pro-lifers, the right to life must trump the right to privacy.

If I am missing a key pro-choice argument, please inform me. Simply a link to the relevant post would suffice. But please don’t just tell me that I don’t get it.

You’re positing further straw man arguments. I really don’t have time, Spirithound, I have a paper to write which I had hoped might benefit from the (name removed by moderator)ut of people who could argue properly the Church’s position. If there is someone here who can, they haven’t posted yet.

The thread is about the Pro-Life Clincher, not the Pro-Choice Clincher. I haven’t said there IS a Pro-Choice Clincher, and since that is not my position I’m not sure I would be expected to know all the key pro-choice arguments. They’re easy enough to find if you really want to find them, try looking in philosophy and medical ethics journals like I have to do?

 

[JimG]

The pro-life position is easy enough to find as well, if you want to research it. Try here, for example. all.org/article.php?id=11522 There are 148 articles on abortion alone. Why do I have the impression that none of them would satisfy you?

The facts of the matter are pretty straightforward. Every new individual of the human species has its beginning at conception, and is continuous as a distinct individual of the human species from conception to death. I call that individual a human being.

The pro-life position is that all human beings have the right not to be killed.

The pro-choice position entails trying to make distinctions between human beings so that some may be killed and some may not. Or in denying personhood to some human beings with the same result.