Is Lawrence Worse Than Roe?

CRISIS Magazine - e-Letter ^ | 6/27/03 | Deal Hudson

[lentulusgracchus]

Re vera, cara mea, mea nil refert.

Nobis autem interest. Apud nos ergo res. Quid tibi?

[Natural Law]

You really frighten me. You are a later day Sanhedrin. In your zeal to curry favor with God, by second guessing his decision to give every person free will, you are willing to establish legal precedent giving any majority religion the legal power to impose it's moral code on non-believers.

[Natural Law]

You have completely missed the point of the US Constitution. You said "No other amendment to the Constitution created those rights." The Constitution did not create any rights, it limited Governments rights to infringe on them. Anything not specifically prohibited is reserved to the people, even things you and I find disgusting

[cherrycapital]

"Reason" in the sense of "purpose" is not the same word as "reason" in the sense given, obviously.

[cherrycapital]

This is starting to resemble a slippery slope argument. A refusal of the Supreme Court to validate a patently outrageous law does not represent the end of all democracy. It merely places a needed check on the passions of the mob.

[Natural Law]

See to your own salvation. You are not here to judge, but to be judged.

[Natural Law]

Are you trying to argue both sides of the arguement? I have opposed your secular intrusions on constitutional grounds. Now your are attacking my references to religion as anti-constitutional.

I detest duplicitness in all forms. Just like the liberal who wishes to use government and someone elses money to fight social wrongs you want to use the government to fight moral wrongs. Or is it you care more about who is right instead of what is right.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Question: "Is Lawrence Worse Than Roe?"

Response: Both decisions reflect an underlying viciousness on the part of the so called leadership.

[ReaganWarrior]

Slippery slope may not be the best term to use in this discussion. . . . LOL at self (LOLAS ?)

[lentulusgracchus]

The scope of the ability for libertarians to legislate in the spirit of Mill has now been limited to only those laws which equally serve the interests of the socialists.

That is an interesting observation. Thank you for the post. I think we're largely in agreement on this one.