Posted on 06/10/2004 2:21:32 AM PDT by MadIvan
Edited on 07/06/2004 6:39:43 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
On "rule of men" grounds, perhaps not; but our Constitution (as already noted) establishes a rule of law.
Betty, you're simply making an unsupported circular argument, claiming that your view of our Constitution on abortion trumps the USSC's. You need to reread our basic documents on the issue, imo.
tpaine, you're missing the point. The Constitution itself is totally silent on the issue of abortion law; all it says is that it is the duty of government (to the full extent of the powers delegated to it by the people) to guarantee and protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens, and that it must afford equal protection of the laws to all its citizens.
My argument is well supported (I can give you more), and it hardly seems circular in its reasoning to me. For I start with the Constitution, understand what the Framers were up to, try to lay some of that information on the table here as evidence, and then draw some logical conclusions.
You say my "view" does not "trump" USSC's.
Well kiddo, who's working for whom here? Who made USSC my "master?" If they do their job right -- under the Constitution -- then I have no grievance at all. But the fact remains: I have a grievance, and it is because they are entirely beyond the restraint of constitutional jurisprudence these days, and have been so for nigh on 40 years by now, maybe more.
So if the Constitution can't restrain them, and it seems they will not restrain themselves -- then what, o fellow citizen???
There is a difference between "my" view and that of the "bare majority" of the SCOTUS justices who gave us Roe v. Wade -- usurping the authority of the people in the process. And that is: Unlike these justices, I love my country, our rule of law as founded in the Constitution (that is to say, in the thoughts and values of the Framers/Founders), our glorious and honorable American traditions -- and our historical experience together as one people, one nation, "under God," going clear back to the early seventeenth century....
Good grief, tpaine -- did you sleep through all of last week? If you ever wanted to see our great American values and traditions on immaculate display, Ronald Reagan's memorial week was incomparably the best time to do it -- 21-gun salutes; Ruffles and Flourishes; Hail to the Chief; The Battle Hymn of the Republic; Amazing Grace; Ave Maria (Schubert); the Missing Man Formation; "Black Jack," the riderless horse with Ronald Reagan's personal riding boots in the stirrups (facing backwards, of course); the eight-horse funeral cortege; the lying in state (respose) at the Capitol; the invocation from T. S. Eliot (from his play Murder in the Cathedral) at the State Funeral on Wednesday; taps; bagpipes; The Lord's Prayer; religious ceremonial...and so forth.
tpaine, what you saw last week was AMERICA. And the rest of the world saw it, too. I'm proud to be an American. For some strange reason, I find it eerie to find you (of all people) standing on the side of the Supreme Court, and not on the side of a fellow patriot. FWIW.
Me too betty. You are preaching to the choir, and it is becoming a bit irritating, -- again.
For some strange reason, I find it eerie to find you (of all people) standing on the side of the Supreme Court, and not on the side of a fellow patriot. FWIW.
I'm standing on the side of what I see as our Constitutional rule of law, betty. For what its worth, I find it weird that you find that "eerie".
I think we are about done now.
See you around kiddo.
Seems about right and just to me, tpaine. But if you ever change your mind, I'm still your friend -- at least in my own mind and heart.
You continue to ignore the fact that this thread is about embryos that are not within a woman's uterus - she has no uterus to empty, thus any purported penumbral dilemma of privacy vs. life and liberty is not relevant.
These embryos are of the human species: they are men, in the sense that that word is a generic term for the species. As such, the embryos have the right not to be killed. Where does R v W affect these embryos except as an extreme extrapolation?
The right not to be killed is fragile, as you have shown. When other men decide that some men are not quite as human enough for protection under the law, we end up with a weakening of the rights of all. Chief Justice Taney argued that Dred Scot did not have the right to life and liberty, so the abolutionists were breaking the law and at risk of prison and fines. Chief Justice Blackmun decided that the "non-viable" do not have the right not to be killed when the woman whose womb they depend on for life does not want them to live, and so it has been the "non-viable" at other stages in life and in other circumstances are deemed not to have the right to life.
The rights of humans are inalienable and exist from their creation as human. This means from fertilization or manipulation/germination in the laboratory.
It's not the devotion, but the acts of aggression that kills and enslaves. Mother Teresa and Ghandi, not to mention Jesus Christ show the falseness of Kestler's opinion.
The rights of humans are inalienable and come to exist as viability is attained in a pregnancy/gestation. Fertilization or manipulation/germination in a laboratory 'creates' nothing but a fertilized embryo with the potential of becoming human being.
The moral majorities aggressive devotion to a 'states rights' position on most such crucial issues is leading to our societies being "collectivized" just as much as any 'secular' bogeyman of Giffords.
"The continuous disasters of man's history are mainly due to his excessive capacity and urge to become identified with a tribe, nation, church or cause, and to espouse its credo uncritically and enthusiastically, even if its tenets are contrary to reason, devoid of self-interest and detrimental to the claims of self-preservation.
We are thus driven to the unfashionable conclusion that the trouble with our species is not an excess of aggression, but an excess capacity for fanatical devotion. -Arthur Koestler-
It's not the devotion, but the acts of aggression that kills and enslaves. Mother Teresa and Gandhi, not to mention Jesus Christ show the falseness of Koestler's opinion.
267 hocndoc
Most of mankind is 'aggressively, even fanatically devoted' to their 'cause'. -- Granted, our saints are rare exceptions to that rule, -- so rare that they serve to prove Koestler's point.
Now, that's an opinion, one you won't find in any biology book, and you'll have to work hard to find it even in R v W, which has nothing to do with embryos outside the womb, since it only dealt with abortion.
As to those humans with less aggression and more devotion, I meet them every day.
great post!! There's a real good essay calling those who advocate embryonic stem cells frauds at
http://reasonmclucus.tripod.com/stem_71804.html
Probably not. If Nancy is in favor, so would the Great Communicator.
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.