Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: EternalVigilance
"Yeah, I’ve heard these arguments before."

But have you understood them?

“If you promote the idea that states have the right to decide if unalienable rights are alienable, you’re removing every legal, moral and intellectual argument for overturning Roe in the first place, and for ending it in the states in the second place.”

Can you say non sequitur? This is a load of crap. Roe was wrongly decided because it told a lie about the contents of the Constitution. Abortion is wrong and there is no right to do wrong. That doesn’t mean that the states have to prohibit, let alone criminalize abortion. They are under no obligation to prohibit every wrong. The Constitution does not purport to deal with every injustice, not even all the grievous ones. For the most part it leaves state governments free to deal with injustice as they see fit. Failing to deal with an issue at the federal level is entirely irrelevant to the debate over how it should be dealt with at the state level.

“The only true method for ending abortion in this country is for every single citizen who reveres God, and respects the value of those made in His image, to withdraw all political support from every single politician who will not understand and act upon the simple truth that a babe in the womb is a person, and is therefore protected by our Constitution.”

Keep me posted on how you get on with that strategy. I’ve got an appointment back on the planet Earth. “

134 posted on 11/16/2007 8:34:32 PM PST by fluffdaddy (we don't need no stinking taglines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies ]


To: fluffdaddy
The Constitution does not purport to deal with every injustice

It does deal, very directly, in the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments, with the fact that innocent persons MAY NOT have their lives taken from them.

A simple yes or not question: Is a baby a PERSON, before they've passed through the birth canal?

Because Blackmun stated very clearly in Roe vs. Wade that if they were, they were protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment.

Do you agree with Blackmun?

If your answer is "no," you can't possibly ascribe to the idea that states have any right to allow abortion under any circumstances.

135 posted on 11/16/2007 8:51:15 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Our God-given rights, and those of our posterity, are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies ]

To: fluffdaddy
But have you understood them?

Perfectly.

137 posted on 11/16/2007 8:56:07 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Our God-given rights, and those of our posterity, are not open to debate, negotiation or compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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