Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: wagglebee
A Constitutional framework wherein change is accommodated and there is a mechanism to hash out the proper role of a limited government of enumerated powers that respects the rights of man is moral relativism? Uh....no. It is not.

Yes, the 75% figure I cited previously was from a survey of American couples that answered that they used birth control methods other than “none” and “rhythm”.

The founding fathers envisioned a government where the people were sovereign, and what a majority of the people thought would be reflected (if Constitutional) in the ideals and goals of their Representation.

If you feel such laws against contraception were Constitutional (and thus compatible with a government of limited and enumerated powers that respects the natural rights of man), and you are against use of contraception, why are you not for enacting laws against contraception?

You feel that the decision striking them down was incorrect, yet you do not wish to correct the error?

Have we finally found a member of the Society for Preservation of Law Incorrectly Decided? A membership of ONE? LOL!

Amusing!

182 posted on 10/26/2010 12:59:56 PM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies ]


To: allmendream; Dr. Brian Kopp; trisham; DJ MacWoW; little jeremiah; mlizzy; Coleus; narses; ...
A Constitutional framework wherein change is accommodated and there is a mechanism to hash out the proper role of a limited government of enumerated powers that respects the rights of man is moral relativism? Uh....no. It is not.

Let me refresh your memory, here is what you wrote in post #179:

Our interpretation of what the natural rights of man entails in its intersection with the law has quite obviously changed,

That sounds a lot like moral relativism.

The founding fathers envisioned a government where the people were sovereign, and what a majority of the people thought would be reflected (if Constitutional) in the ideals and goals of their Representation.

Really? You've got some evidence that the Founding Fathers believed in a government where a majority of the population determined everything?

If you feel such laws against contraception were Constitutional (and thus compatible with a government of limited and enumerated powers that respects the natural rights of man), and you are against use of contraception, why are you not for enacting laws against contraception?

There are a number of things that I am in favor of or opposition to, that doesn't mean that I believe these things should be legislated.

You feel that the decision striking them down was incorrect, yet you do not wish to correct the error?

First of all, this thread is about a decision by the Anglican Church nearly 80 years ago, I'm not even sure how the Supreme Court got brought into it.

Secondly, yes I believe that Griswold v. Connecticut was one of the worst SCOTUS rulings ever AND it set the stage for the murder of 52 million innocent Americans. There are no "penumbras" or "emanations" of privacy in the Constitution, it simply isn't there and the fact that the Court had to mention "penumbras" and "emanations" is an acknowledgement that it isn't there.

However, my feelings about Griswold DO NOT mean that I believe contraception should be illegal.

184 posted on 10/26/2010 1:19:31 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies ]

To: allmendream; wagglebee
The founding fathers envisioned a government where the people were sovereign, and what a majority of the people thought would be reflected (if Constitutional) in the ideals and goals of their Representation.

Thay also said many times that this government will only work if the people are moral and religious. It will not work with feral hedonist atheists. It will fall apart. They way things are heading there is every chance that in a decade or so consensual cannibalism and no age of consent needed for sex acts will desired by the majority. That is, if the headline dive into the abyss is not stopped.

185 posted on 10/26/2010 1:22:14 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson