The pro-life common sense clincher

[Charlemagne_II]

Doc Keele

Try to concede a point if you cannot get around it.

It’s clear you cannot get around it.

Thanks anyway for your participation.

 

[Doc_Keele]

You’ve never made a relevant point

argumentum ad irritatum

No doub you think you’ve won lots of arguments with your “clinchers”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Common sense: we do not kill our children.

Some get it right away. Others don’t get it until they’ve heard it as often as they’ve heard the ugly dim-witted cliche that a woman’s right to privacy includes her right to kill her child.

Or heard it as often as that other chronic cliche that limited government means endowing every mother with the legal right to kill her child.

No common sense there.

 

[Doc_Keele]

 

[Worthy5]

Charlemagne II;6372420]

Hardly a convincing answer. A double homicide means two people killed. This is a no spin zone. Please respect that

.

Charles, it was not meant to be a convincing answer to you. No response to you is convincing—your more interested in grandstanding rather than discussing an important topic. Your passion though is appreciated.

Your reliance on the Peterson case does you nothing here. This poster’s arguments were never based on morality nor denied that a life begins at conception and that abortion is not morally wrong. In the Peterson case, the govt is regulating the act of an adult male on a pregnant female. Roe has nothing to do with that— the regulating of the women and the early fetus is a different type of intrusion by govt.
]

For the umpteenth time, it means** not **using the Courts or Congress to make legal the killing of persons in the womb … 50 million plus to date!

There you go again, you keep wanting to frame the pro-choice position as pro-abortion and that the govt has no other means to address the problem–not true. God Bless.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Worthy5

Your reliance on the Peterson case does you nothing here.

On the contrary. It point out, as Charles Dickens pointed out, that the law is an *** (rhymes with gas).

How can it be common sense that a mother should be legally protected in the killing of her own child in the womb, while a father who kills his own child in the womb can be convicted of murdering that child?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist, Chapter 51

“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ***—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.”

 

[exoflare]

Here is your problem: Rehnquist was in the 7-2 minority.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

 

[Worthy5]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

No my friend, the Supreme Court, given its authority, decides a case to resolve an issue of civil law. It is not trying to establish the truth or falsity of a proposition. Thus, your fallacy has no application here.

 

[DaddyLarry]

To paraphrase Stuart Chase who said, “For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don’t believe, no proof is possible.”: For those who are convinced that abortion is wrong, no clincher is necessary, but for those who want abortion on demand, no clincher is possible.

 

[exoflare]

No my friend, the Supreme Court, given its authority, decides a case to resolve an issue of civil law. It is not trying to establish the truth or falsity of a proposition. Thus, your fallacy has no application here.

I don’t think anyone here was disputing what the Supreme Court had ruled, or the current legality of abortion, anyway so I’m not really sure why you would even bring that up. But that wasn’t even the point of the OP (if I understand correctly) in the first place - the OP was referring to moral arguments, not to legality.

 

[Worthy5]

exoflare;6375087]I don’t think anyone here was disputing what the Supreme Court had ruled, or the current legality of abortion, anyway so I’m not really sure why you would even bring that up. But that wasn’t even the point of the OP (if I understand correctly) in the first place - the OP was referring to moral arguments, not to legality.

That has been discussed—the " pro-life" position when discussed is working on the assumption that if abortion is moral wrong then it should be outlawed----thus the legal issue is raised. God Bless

 

[Doc_Keele]

To paraphrase Stuart Chase who said, “For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don’t believe, no proof is possible.”: For those who are convinced that abortion is wrong, no clincher is necessary, but for those who want abortion on demand, no clincher is possible.

So it’s a matter of faith in other words?
No rational arguments are necessary?

 

[miguel]

That has been discussed—the " pro-life" position when discussed is working on the assumption that if abortion is moral wrong then it should be outlawed----thus the legal issue is raised. God Bless

The prolife position is not that all moral wrongs should be outlawed. It’s that unborn persons have a constitutional right to equal protection of the laws.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

DaddyLarry

• For those who are convinced that abortion is wrong, no clincher is necessary, but for those who want abortion on demand, no clincher is possible. *

A conversation about abortion is useful for those who are sitting on the fence, who are confused and don’t know for sure which way to land. An appeal to common sense may be the most helpful way for them.

We do not kill our children.

The pro-choice people certainly cannot claim it is common sense that we should kill our children. I have never heard one say that.

 

[Worthy5]

miguel;6375969]The prolife position is not that all moral wrongs should be outlawed.

Is that what was said? There are several basis for protecting life—moral, equal protection, civil order-----no one disputes this but those that use the moral basis make the assumption that if it is immoral it must necessarily be outlawed.

It’s that unborn persons have a constitutional right to equal protection of the laws.

This is playing hide the ball----shifting the basis for regulating abortion. As indicated, your statement is one justification—in fact a very good one. But…equal protection is counter balanced (just like the other rationales) by the policy of limited govt and personal autonomy.

The Court made the classification that the early fetus was not a person entitled to the above legal protection given the intrusive nature of such govt action. God Bless

 

[exoflare]

That has been discussed—the " pro-life" position when discussed is working on the assumption that if abortion is moral wrong then it should be outlawed----thus the legal issue is raised. God Bless

Okay. I haven’t really kept up with the whole thread so I wasn’t sure if that was brought up.

Worthy5:

Here is your problem: Rehnquist was in the 7-2 minority.

What I still don’t understand, then, is this - In a discussion of whether or not abortion should be outlawed, rather than whether or not it is currently outlawed, how does a judge’s being in the minority pose any sort of a “problem” with his argument? That would only make sense IF you presuppose that Supreme Court majority decisions are never wrong (which is why I posted that fallacy). Otherwise there would be no reason to immediately dismiss the argument without even looking at simply because they were in the minority.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Worthy5

But…equal protection is counter balanced (just like the other rationales) by the policy of limited govt and personal autonomy.

Once again the “limited government and personal autonomy” mantras.

Nothing trumps the “right to life.” That is the common sense mantra.

Agreeing with Blackmun does not advance your argument. You could advance your argument by offering a reason why, in **your **mind, the right to life is trumped by the right of privacy or the right to a limited government.

Speaking of which, we now have Democrats who want the next health care bill to fund abortions. How is *that *limited government … using taxpayer’s money to kill off the next generation of citizens?

 

[Worthy5]

=Charlemagne II;6376457]

Once again the “limited government and personal autonomy” mantras.

And your " common sense" is not a mantra.

Nothing trumps the “right to life.” That is the common sense mantra.

Okay you made that judgment in saying govt should take over the completely in this area----this poster never said that was not a reasonable position to take.

Agreeing with Blackmun does not advance your argument. You could advance your argument by offering a reason why, in **your **mind, the right to life is trumped by the right of privacy or the right to a limited government.

Well, ultimately is it is a value judgment or moreover a sense that more harm comes from the expansive use of govt police power in this circumstance than not. Further, govt can use other means to help women make better decisions here.

Speaking of which, we now have Democrats who want the next health care bill to fund abortions. How is *that *limited government … using taxpayer’s money to kill off the next generation of citizens?

Is this on topic?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Here is an excerpt from Justice Byron White’s dissenting vote on Roe v Wade. Very much in the way of common sense.

*The Court, for the most part, sustains this position: during the period prior to the time the fetus becomes viable, the Constitution of the United States values the convenience, whim, or caprice of the putative mother more than the life or potential life of the fetus; the Constitution, therefore, guarantees the right to an abortion as against any state law or policy seeking to protect the fetus from an abortion not prompted by more compelling reasons of the mother.

With all due respect, I dissent. I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers [410 U.S. 222] and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally dissentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.

The Court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries. Whether or not I might agree with that marshaling of values, I can in no event join the Court’s judgment because I find no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States. In a sensitive area such as this, involving as it does issues over which reasonable men may easily and heatedly differ, I cannot accept the Court’s exercise of its clear power of choice by interposing a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it. This issue, for the most part, should be left with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs.*