It is not only that in generalized opinion these attacks tend no longer to be considered as "crimes"; paradoxically they assume the nature of "rights", to the point that the State is called upon to give them legal recognition and to make them available through the free services of health-care personnel
Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection.
In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to "take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it".
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
The Constitution is the wrong place to look for our rights. We don't get them from a document, or a government. Keep spewing the lie, folks! Almost everyone believes it now.
“The Hammer” knew when he had an opportunity to save Christendom.
The SC has a small window now, too. I wonder if they even care. Some people like to talk and read about historic action, but don’t ever have the guts to do anything when they get the chance.
I wonder how many people could have stopped Hitler or any number of other despots, but didn’t.
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
ONE NATION UNDER GOD
ping and thanks Dr. Smith.
It is in the Bill of Rights, article four.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.Shalom b'shem Yah'shua
The former is correct. The latter (bolded) is morally equivalent to the view that law is necessary to create the New Soviet Man or the Perfected Aryan Race.
The right is explicitly acknowledged in the 4th Amend. The initial phrase in the 4th refers specifically to the right: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,..."
"Smith: The right to privacy, when originally formulated, referred to the right to have such things as ones journal or conversations kept private."
This is ridiculous, since they explicitly included persons, houses and effects. The right extended to everything, not just one's journal, or conversations.
"In 1965, in Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court found constitutional protection for the sale, distribution and use of contraceptives"
Here's a summary from Wiki:
"Although the Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention "privacy", Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority that the right was to be found in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections. Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment to defend the Supreme Court's ruling. Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote a concurring opinion in which he argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Byron White also wrote a concurrence based on the due process clause."
The only Justice to get it right was Potter Stewart. "Justice Stewart famously called the Connecticut statute "an uncommonly silly law", but argued that it was nevertheless constitutional."