|
|
|
 |
Donate Here By Secure Server
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! Thanks Registered |
|
Posted on 01/22/2003 4:25:39 PM PST by Mr. Silverback
You almost have to feel sorry for Harry Blackmun. He is in the unenviable position of forever being judged in light of his single worst act. In 1973, Blackmun wrote the majority opinion for Roe vs. Wade -- the case in which the Supreme Court legalized abortion. In recent years, Blackmun had specifically stated that the Roe decision was made on purely constitutional grounds, without the influence of any particular moral or political agenda. However, when one looks at the poor reasoning used to prop up this decision, his statement becomes less believable. What agenda influenced Blackmun (and the six justices who agreed with him) I cannot say, but this surely was not a decision made with objective consideration of the facts.
The majority opinion asserted that there was no need for the Court to consider whether a fetus is a person. One wonders how seven Justices could deliberately avoid the only question worth considering in relation to the abortion issue. If a fetus is a person, then there are just as few reasons that would justify killing it as to justify killing your next-door neighbor. If not, the State would have as little place banning abortion as banning liposuction; both would merely be the removal of unwanted tissue. By putting aside this all-important question, the Court was free to put aside the findings of science and draw support from a truly odd source -- a bunch of long-dead heathens who'd never heard of science.
For some reason, Blackmun felt the need to point out that ancient cultures had no prohibitions against abortion. Again, the disconnect with basic logic is breathtaking. While considering an issue involving the boundaries of individual rights, the Court partially based its conclusion on the habits of societies that recognized no individual rights. While considering a case with profound implications for bio-ethics, they sought guidance in the wisdom of people who thought that the bowel was the seat of human emotion, which gives new meaning to the phrase "You move me." One might as well base nuclear energy policy on the work habits of Mayan pyramid builders.
Blackmun, et. al., based the right to abort on the right to privacy, which they found in the 14th Amendment, or perhaps the 9th, they couldn't be sure. Ironically, the 14th Amendment should have protected the unborn, since states that no person may be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process. The Court's approach of finding a right to kill in an amendment that protects life was a new one. Previous Courts had simply declared people ineligible when 14th Amendment protection would have been inconvenient. When cheap labor was needed, Africans were declared "beings of a lesser order." When cheap elbowroom was needed, Native Americans were excluded from legal personhood. Now it was the unborn's turn. See no person, hear no person, speak no person.
On the day Harry Blackmun died, President Clinton said of him, "He loved mercy, loved the law, and he is now walking humbly with his God." I can't be certain of Blackmun's eternal destiny; despite his well-known work in the field of Biblical adultery loopholes, the President's credentials as a theologian are shaky at best. We can be sure, though, that history will extend little grace to him. Rather than a lover of mercy, he will be remembered as a man who was proud of his role in enabling the torturous deaths of millions. Rather than a lover of the law, he will be remembered as a man who took laws established to protect the innocent and twisted them until they only protected iniquity. Roe vs. Wade, Blackmun's black mark, will reduce all his other work to a mere footnote, and this is something we should all remember when we decide how to treat our fellow humans. Some bad choices have the potential to stain us indelibly, and reduce everything else we've done to irrelevance.
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
|
|
|
|
|
Donate Here By Secure Server
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! Thanks Registered |
|
ROE v. WADE, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) REHNQUIST, dissenting.
To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. Conn. Stat., Tit. 22, 14, 16. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth [410 U.S. 113, 175] Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. 1 While many States have amended or updated [410 U.S. 113, 176] their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today. 2 Indeed, the Texas statute struck down today was, as the majority notes, first enacted in 1857 [410 U.S. 113, 177] and "has remained substantially unchanged to the present time." Ante, at 119.
The Origin and Scope of Roe -- Professor Douglas W. Kmiec presents letters and records of correspondence between members of the Roe court that reveal questionable motivations as well as a fundamental disrespect for normal principles of judicial restraint.
Well, you gotta consider who said this, and HIS version of "mercy," "law," "humble" and "God" before giving it any real weight. Ex42 isn't exactly an expert in any of those fields.
Please correct me if I got this wrong.
As is pointed out in the next line of the essay:
"I can't be certain of Blackmun's eternal destiny; despite his well-known work in the field of Biblical adultery loopholes, the President's credentials as a theologian are shaky at best."
Remember, this was written not long after impeachment, when it was learned Clinton had invoked such "loopholes" as "It's not really adultery if you never achieve vaginal penetration."
While considering a case with profound implications for bio-ethics, they sought guidance in the wisdom of people who thought that the bowel was the seat of human emotion, which gives new meaning to the phrase "You move me." One might as well base nuclear energy policy on the work habits of Mayan pyramid builders.
Of course, this is simple stupidity. If a fetus isn't alive, there's absolutely no reason to kill it (there's no reason for abortion).
They've been very successful at framing the argument for decades - of making the argument about "choice." As far as logic, they have none.
Here's where it gets really interesting: The only actual evidence from the plaintiff in the Doe case was an affidavitt(sp?) which stated that she would suffer a mental breakdown if she had to give birth to a fourth child. She claims it was forged, she never saw it until after the case, and she never sought an abortion.
And of course, many of us know the more publicized story of how Norma "Roe" McCorvey went looking for an abortion, not even wanting to change Texas law, and was used to set the American Holocaust in motion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.