Roe vs Wade Repercussions

Odë:hgöd

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
1,538
Age
80
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.
The US Supreme Court's decision didn't outlaw abortions. It simply revealed that
abortions are not a true Constitutional right nor have they ever been a true
Constitutional right. The 1972 Court overstepped its bounds by associating
abortions with the right to privacy when there is no right to privacy in the US
Constitution.

States now have the authority to define their own abortion laws; which is where
abortion controls were supposed to be centralized in the first place in accord with
the Tenth Amendment; which says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited
by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

_
 

Fritz Kobus

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 11, 2021
Messages
961
Location
Too Close to Detroit MI
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Is there not a right to life in the Constitution? Then the Supreme Court would be perfectly in order to ban abortion nationwide on that basis. The problem of a pregnancy that might kill the mother probably could be handled under the doctrine of "competing harms":
Conduct which the actor believes to be necessary to avoid harm to himself or another is justifiable if the desirability and urgency of avoiding such harm outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the statute defining the offense charged. The desirability and urgency of such conduct may not rest upon considerations pertaining to the morality and advisability of such statute, either in its general or particular application.

However, the current Supreme Court decision is a step in the right direction. Had they out and out banned abortion nationwide, the rioting would be orders of magnitude worse, so it seems to me.
 

Lees

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2022
Messages
2,182
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Is there not a right to life in the Constitution? Then the Supreme Court would be perfectly in order to ban abortion nationwide on that basis. The problem of a pregnancy that might kill the mother probably could be handled under the doctrine of "competing harms":


However, the current Supreme Court decision is a step in the right direction. Had they out and out banned abortion nationwide, the rioting would be orders of magnitude worse, so it seems to me.

No, the Supreme Court would not have been perfectly in order to ban aborition nationwide. Because the States are the final rule for their state.

In other words, if the Federal govt. wants to create a law, but a state is against that law, then the state can refuse...according to the Constitution.

Most states usually comply with the order of the Supreme Court, but they don't have to.

It's interesting isn't it? For 50 years states have complied more or less with the ruling allowing abortion. But what do the liberal anti-christian, anti-god, states do now with this ruling. They will not comply. They want their abortion nationwide.

See? This is the same thing the South faced with the Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court in 1857. It did'nt matter what the Supreme Court said. The yanks and abolitionists will have their way.

History always repeats. Yall learn nothing from it.

Lees
 

Odë:hgöd

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
1,538
Age
80
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.
Is there not a right to life in the Constitution?

No: that right is found in the Declaration Of Independence; which is not a
governing document. It's merely a letter of intent.



Then the Supreme Court would be perfectly in order to ban . . . .

The US Supreme Court is a section of the Judicial branch. The power to make laws
falls within the purview of the Legislative branch. The Court's role is only to declare
whether legislation is Constitutionally permissible. In other words: the Court does
not have power to ban.
_
 

Fritz Kobus

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 11, 2021
Messages
961
Location
Too Close to Detroit MI
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
True, the court cannot ban something, it can only declare if it is constitutional or not. So let's see what the constitution says,

Amendment XIV Section 1.

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.
So I maintain that the part I underlined means that under the 14th Amendment, abortion is not constitutional because an unborn person is still a person. Never mind the clause before it regarding citizens (which by the first sentence have to first be born) because the semicolon separates the clauses, so that you cannot attach "citizen form the prior clause.

If then, murder of any person (born or preborn) is unconstitutional , then states cannot allow murder of preborn persons. In that sense, the Supreme Court does not ban abortion, but the Constitution does.
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
True, the court cannot ban something, it can only declare if it is constitutional or not. So let's see what the constitution says,


So I maintain that the part I underlined means that under the 14th Amendment, abortion is not constitutional because an unborn person is still a person. Never mind the clause before it regarding citizens (which by the first sentence have to first be born) because the semicolon separates the clauses, so that you cannot attach "citizen form the prior clause.

If then, murder of any person (born or preborn) is unconstitutional , then states cannot allow murder of preborn persons. In that sense, the Supreme Court does not ban abortion, but the Constitution does.
It comes down to the LEGAL definition of a “person”.
If the unborn is a person, then to legally and deliberately terminate his/her life would require a Court Order (due process). Pro-abortion states could still pass laws that made it easier to obtain the needed Court Order.
 

Odë:hgöd

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
1,538
Age
80
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.
The 14th Amendment does not apply to children conceived in the United States: it
only applies to children either born or naturalized here, viz: citizens. Babies still in
the womb are not yet citizens.
_
 
Last edited:

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I don't think it's moral to kill a non US citizen but immoral to kill a US citizen. I don't thing the morality here depends on national citizenship.


.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Abortion....


I'll keep my morality to just 4 points. And try to do so in a way non-religious people can also understand.


FIRST: SCIENCE. There is MUCH talk about "follow the science" (perhaps the secular religion?). “I just say what Science does,” they insist. Well, as once was said, "To claim that a fetus is a human IF the mother wants it but not if the mother doesn't isn't science." IF that "whatever" the day before birth is NOT a human being, a homo sapiens, then what is it?" A cockroach? A butterfly? I want to know, what does SCIENCE say the species is? But I'm a layman....my doctorate is not in biology … and when I see the ultrasound of a cute little baby sucking her thumb, it just seems to me there's a baby there. And when mother has a baby shower, a gender reveal, when she tells us the name, when she shares pictures of the ultrasound, it seems to me SHE thinks so, too. To ME, defining species by whether such is "wanted" is not science. To me, to agree that that one I’m looking at in the ultrasound sucking her thumb is not a Homo Sapiens, not human, but rather is a butterfly (or whatever) well, they should show the science that proves that if they insist that’s what science says. Frankly, I think science is more on the pro-life side.



SECOND: PROPERTY. We have this philosophy, this morality deep in the American soul that humans can be property. We saw this in full bloom 150 plus years ago as many claimed that the African is a human (impossible to claim otherwise) BUT in some cases, just PROPERTY. There's an owner and owners can do with their PROPERTY as they please, even "terminate" such. I hope even non-Christians agree this is immoral. And we (as a society and nation) dealt with that 150 years ago (although it took a literal war) and declared, loud and clear, NO human is property, NO ONE owns another human. But here we are again.... The slogans are just regurgitations of the pro-slavery ones. "MY this... MY that..." Until it's proven to me that an unborn I see in the ultrasound sucking her thumb is just a lifeless THING (like a coffee mug) or a living non-human (perhaps a bunny rabbit), then it seems to me we likely have a human... and thus she's not property! And there is no owner! Now, acknowledging this, some have a variant; they insist, "Yes, she's human and not property - but she's a DEVELOPING human and it's moral to "terminate" a human who is still developing." Ah. But a 12 year-old girl is still developing too so the morality they embrace applies just as much after birth as before.



THIRD: WRONG DOESN'T CORRECT WRONG. Proponents of abortions dwell on a sad, tragic reality that we MUST not evade: There are horrible situations! We live in a fallen, sinful, broken world where ____ happens. Bad happens to women and men, girls and boys, Blacks and Whites, religious and non-religious - perhaps through NO fault of their own. There are horrible, sad, tragic and very REAL stories. No one argues otherwise. But some seem to hold that the proper response is to look for the most innocent party in this and kill them. I'd argue that two wrongs don't make a right, it just makes a bigger wrong. Instead of punishing the child, we need to help the mother. I reject the sharp either/or of the pro-abortion side, the sharp division they make. We need to "be there" for BOTH mother and child, for ALL victims, for ALL threatened and abused. Those tragic stories about mothers suggest help for the mother, not killing a child.



FOURTH: HUMAN RIGHTS. Much talk is made of "rights" these days. Even ones in the Constitution that aren't in the Constitution. There is a basic American view that there are inalienable rights granted by the Creator. We'd agree on some: Freedom of speech, for example. But NONE OF THEM matters at all if there is no right to life. If my LIFE is taken away, what difference does it make if I have freedom of speech? All rights depend on one right: the right to be, the right to exist, the right to life. Again, I know the response: “But some humans are just property, and property has no rights.” But we know from history that any can reduce humans to just property: Hitler and the Jews, A lot of Americans and African slaves, many have been victims of this "human but property" morality. We need to embrace human rights....and that they all completely, fully, entirely depend on one right: the right to life, to exist, to be. It's a human right they have simply by virtue of being human rather than snakes.

I do hope we (as a society) can get past the politics and slogans and DEAL with a huge issue, one that kills more people than cancer in America, twice as many every year as died in the entire Second World War. This is an enormous moral issue… and with or without faith, it must be addressed.



Thank you for hearing me out.



.
 

Fritz Kobus

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 11, 2021
Messages
961
Location
Too Close to Detroit MI
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.
The 14th Amendment does not apply to children conceived in the United States: it
only applies to children either born or naturalized here, viz: citizens, viz: babies
still in the womb are not yet citizens.
_
Not citizens, but still they are persons.
 

Odë:hgöd

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
1,538
Age
80
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.
I don't think it's moral to kill a non US citizen but immoral to kill a US citizen. I
don't thing the morality here depends on national citizenship.

USA citizens aren't governed by morals, they are governed by law. Morals are matters
of conscience, and they vary from person to person. So if the USA were governed
by morals, we'd have anarchy; and that's much worse than irate folks chanting,
bellowing, shrieking, and spraying spittle.
_
 

Fritz Kobus

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 11, 2021
Messages
961
Location
Too Close to Detroit MI
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
USA citizens aren't governed by morals, they are governed by law. Morals are matters
of conscience, and they vary from person to person. So if the USA were governed
by morals, we'd have anarchy; and that's much worse than irate folks chanting,
bellowing, shrieking, and spraying spittle.
_
But that law is supposed to be based on morals, and the only valid morals are those written in the Holy Bible. Nobody else can make up morals because if evolution is true, then truly nothing is immoral. If evolution is true then murder and rape are perfectly okay as they help promote survival of the fittest which is the mantra of the evolutionists.
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,695
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Abortion....


I'll keep my morality to just 4 points. And try to do so in a way non-religious people can also understand.


FIRST: SCIENCE. There is MUCH talk about "follow the science" (perhaps the secular religion?). “I just say what Science does,” they insist. Well, as once was said, "To claim that a fetus is a human IF the mother wants it but not if the mother doesn't isn't science." IF that "whatever" the day before birth is NOT a human being, a homo sapiens, then what is it?" A cockroach? A butterfly? I want to know, what does SCIENCE say the species is? But I'm a layman....my doctorate is not in biology … and when I see the ultrasound of a cute little baby sucking her thumb, it just seems to me there's a baby there. And when mother has a baby shower, a gender reveal, when she tells us the name, when she shares pictures of the ultrasound, it seems to me SHE thinks so, too. To ME, defining species by whether such is "wanted" is not science. To me, to agree that that one I’m looking at in the ultrasound sucking her thumb is not a Homo Sapiens, not human, but rather is a butterfly (or whatever) well, they should show the science that proves that if they insist that’s what science says. Frankly, I think science is more on the pro-life side.

Further to this, if that thing in the womb can switch between being a useless clump of cells and a human being based on nothing more than the womb owner's wishes, what magically happens at birth to change that? Is birth the "collapsing event" that turns all possible scenarios into a single actual scenario, much like observing Schrodingers subatomic particles? Or should we allow the mother (but not the father, obviously) to change her mind after birth and allow that human child to turn into some other thing that has no value and can be terminated for no reason?
 

Odë:hgöd

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
1,538
Age
80
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.
But that law is supposed to be based on morals, and the only valid morals are those
written in the Holy Bible.


The First Amendment to the US Constitution prevents the Federal government from
favoring one religion over all others.

For example: were Washington to adopt the Bible's morals into law, it would have
to adopt the morals of every religion's holy book: e.g. Islam, Hinduism,
Mormonism, and Buddhism, etc, etc.
_
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.



The First Amendment to the US Constitution prevents the Federal government from
favoring one religion over all others.

For example: were Washington to adopt the Bible's morals into law, it would have
to adopt the morals of every religion's holy book: e.g. Islam, Hinduism,
Mormonism, and Buddhism, etc, etc.
_
Washington has adopted the Bible's morals numerous times when making law. That isn't the issue with the Constitution.
 
Last edited:

Fritz Kobus

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 11, 2021
Messages
961
Location
Too Close to Detroit MI
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.



The First Amendment to the US Constitution prevents the Federal government from
favoring one religion over all others.

For example: were Washington to adopt the Bible's morals into law, it would have
to adopt the morals of every religion's holy book: e.g. Islam, Hinduism,
Mormonism, and Buddhism, etc, etc.
_

First Amendment

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Nothing in the above says that the government can't favor one religion and guess which one would have been the favored one in the framer's minds:

The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahomedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution (the vice and pest of former ages), and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age… Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the first amendment to it… the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State, so far as was not incompatible with the previous rights of conscience and the freedom of religious Worship. An attempt to level all religions and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation. (Joseph Story)
The Real Meaning of the First Amendment - The American Vision
 

Odë:hgöd

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
1,538
Age
80
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.
Washington has adopted the Bible's morals numerous times when making law. That
isn't the issue with the Constitution.

These laws related to morality that you allege Washington adopted from the Bible's
morals: does the legislation reference the books, chapters and verses from whence
the morals were adopted? If you know of any that do, please list some examples 'cause
this I have to see.

Thank You.
_
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
These laws related to morality that you allege Washington adopted from the Bible's
morals: does the legislation reference the books, chapters and verses from whence
the morals were adopted? If you know of any that do, please list some examples 'cause
this I have to see.

Thank You.
_
Offhand, I'd say "no," but of course the point wasn't so narrowly framed in the preceding posts. The fact is that our Western systems of law are indebted to Christian concepts of morality that are not universal--concerning marriage, inheritance, property, and on and on.

If some of these laws do not pay overt homage to the origin of the concept being protected, it's still the case that it's usually part of the heritage of Christian people who created the nations I'm referring to, and that's also the case with the American "Founding Fathers" even though they are often seen to have been freethinkers, tolerant of diverse viewpoints, etc.
 

Odë:hgöd

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
1,538
Age
80
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.
Many of the laws in free countries are derived from what is sometimes called
natural law, a.k.a. universal law; described by Rom 2:14-15 where it says:

"For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law,
these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of
the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between
themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them"

The "work of the law" was an event that took place way back there when Adam
tasted the forbidden fruit.


Gen 3:22 . . And the Lord God said: Behold, the man is become as one of us, to
know good and evil

However, it's possible to desensitize one's conscience (1Tim 4:1-2) and also
possible to resist it (Rom 1:21-32) and thus become an inhuman monster, e.g. Kim
Jong-Un, Robert Mugabe, Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Mao Zedong, Adolf
Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Xi Jinping.
_
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,760
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.
Many of the laws in free countries are derived from what is sometimes called
natural law, a.k.a. universal law; described by Rom 2:14-15 where it says:

...In other words, a concept of law that is derived from Judeo-Christian thinking.
 
Top Bottom