Posted on 11/19/2007 5:32:58 AM PST by the tongue
I am reminded of the exchange in The Man for All Seasons:
More : There's no law against that!
Roper: There is, God's law!
More: Then let God arrest him!
Wife: While you talk he's gone!
More: And go he should, if he were the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down (and you're just the man to do it!), do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?
Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
You have Roper's attitude toward our Constitution: cut it down to get after evil.
By all means Federalize all crimes, since they are all issues of morality, and let's make anger a capital offense in keeping with Our Lord's words, and after we recriminalize adultery, we can criminalize flirting and lascivious looks as well. And let's do it all by Constitutional amendment like we did when we decided to go after 'demon rum'. /sarcasm
Roe should be oveturned, and abortion should be a crime in every state of the Union, but it is a matter for the states to decide. If one wants to hue the line of the Orthodox and Latin churches and make no distinction between 'formed and unformed', while another makes such a distinction; one state is absolute in its prohibition, while, another allows exceptions for rape and incest; and the like, then the law in the matter will be like that on every other major immorality our society sees fit to have the government suppress--adapted to local circumstance, state by state--and our Constitution will be intact to the protection of us all.
I have no doubt that the Founders ALSO would not have wanted the Constitution to be used to settle partisan political issues - which is why they specifically rejected using the Constitution to legislate on the issue of slavery.
I do NOT consider pushing for an HLA to be a "real" pro-life position. I consider it to be a "made for TV" position which can rally the troops and make politicians look like they're "doing something", while yet not ever actually getting anything done on the issue. Pushing for an HLA has not saved a single baby's life - and if people were TRULY pro-life, they'd stop the windmill tilting and start utilising the proper, rule-of-law mechanism provided for dealing with issues such as this, which is the Constitutionally-encoded federalism that is meant to direct our governmental system.
Federalism will save babies' lives - pushing for a never-to-be-obtained HLA will not. Federalism has the additional advantage of actually respecting the intent of the law of the land while also actually getting something done. The USA is supposed to be a federally-joined conglomeration of 50 separate States (capital S) who unite for common defence and protection. Approaching abortion from an HLA standpoint is not only stupid policy, abortion-wise, but is also completely contrary to the whole ideological framework of the Constitition. If the Founders had wanted us to be a unitary state with provinces instead of States, they'd have simply modeled us off of France and been done with it.
Don't forget - while the unborn are morally valuabel people - they are not MORE morally valuable than the rest of us. I don't support setting the precedent of undermining the guaranteer of ALL our rights (the Constitution) on the premise of protecting the rights of some.
Just reading the text of the Constitution doesn’t give you the context. I’m a big believer in original intent (the intent of the RATIFIERS), and the intent was a limited federal government with enumerated powers, with the 10th clarifying that without a doubt.
We currently have a WRONG Supreme Court decision saying that the states are disallowed from restricting abortions anywhere.
Would it be better to stick to your strong moral stance and demand that it be outlawed everywhere, and get NOWHERE with that,
or to return it to the states (which would nearly immediately reduce abortions in many states)? Fight it state to state, until you have 3/4 (ratification number) agreeing, THEN go for the amendment.
Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Was it FD Thompson, or Madison?
We have to respect the Constitution not only when it comforts, but when it pinches.
Murder is defined state-by-state, as are all other crimes which embody points of morality from the Decalogue, as are marriage and divorce. Does it violate the 14th Amendment if an incident is defined to be justifiable homicide in one state without a duty to retreat law, but would be 2nd degree murder in another where the definition of self-defense includes a duty to retreat?
We don’t have a Christian Emperor anymore. We have a Constitutional republic, which, in the face of confessional disunity, left moral matters close to the people, with the several states.
The 14th Amendment begin:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States..."
How are the unborn persons covered? Ask guru Ron Paul and get back to me!
(To save posting space see post #34 for why the 13th & 15th Amendments also fail to cover the unborn.)
It is obvious that life begins at conception, both biologically and logically.
The only point of dispute is whether this life is the life of a person.
Every legal criterion so far employed is vague on when exactly an unborn person's personhood comes into existence: you can murder them the moment before they are born with a doctor's note, you can murder them without a doctor's note if you think they aren't viable, etc.
It bears a striking similarity to the formerly endless debate over whether and in what circumstances a black man was a essentially a piece of furniture or a person with rights.
The fact is that there is no reliable arbitrary test of personhood: the one thing all persons have in common is that of being conceived a human being. All else is special circumstance.
All of which is besides the point: it would be intolerable for the federal government to be charged with equally protecting the lives of all persons and yet be at the mercy of the states as to who constitutes a person in which jurisdiction.
It is charging the federal government with an obligation and then depriving it of the means of fulfilling it.
The “when life begins” argument is so fallacious...
OK, if something “begins”, it means it “isn’t” prior to that point.
This is a binary switch from off to on, and there is only one point where this bright line can be defined (unless you can determine when God puts the soul into the baby) and that is at conception.
Yes, it would be most just (and ideal) to pass a Human Life Amendment protecting the life of the unborn. The slavery example is truly a valid one. However, such an amendment process requires both: 1) a 2/3 affirmative vote in each House of Congress and 2) the approval of 3/4 of the states.
Even though one can argue that this is not right or just, this issue must, as a matter of process to stand the test of time, go through the states. My goodness, remember we had to fight a civil war over slavery to get the 14th Amendment. And we're going to demand that a candidate for POTUS, in this culture, declare that they are going to do it unilaterally?!
This is why it is import to read the entire document.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
No one is arguing that the unborn are citizens. There are persons and there are citizens. All citizens are persons, not all persons are citizens (i.e. those who are not yet born, those who have not been naturalized).
The 14th Amendment protects all persons, not just citizens, from being deprived of life without due process of law.
(2) The 15th Amendment does not apply to the unborn because it is specifically written to apply to citizens, not all persons.
What the "when life begins" people are debating is personhood, not life.
Under the theory that the Fourteenth Amendment applies to unborn persons (and I agree that the most rational conclusion is that it does), the states most certainly do have a role to play.
The Fourteenth Amendment essentially mades the killing of unborn persons homicide, for legal purposes.
States certainly have a role in determining how to classify homicides, what punishments should apply, when appropriate, for different types of homicide, etc.
And states differ, from state to state, in how their laws work governing homicide. In some states, if you shoot someone who has broken into your house, and of whom you can make a rational case for some fear of harm, you’re good to go. In my state of Maryland, unless you can demonstrate that you couldn’t flee from the aggressor, you can be charged with murder.
sitetest
It does if any party is denied the due process of law.
We don’t have a Christian Emperor anymore. We have a Constitutional republic, which, in the face of confessional disunity, left moral matters close to the people, with the several states.
(1) It isn't a matter of Christian doctrine. It is obvious from empirically observed phenomenon that life begins at conception. It is equally obvious that any attempt to separate human life from human personhood according to empirical criteria collapses into incoherence.
(2) The federal government does not leave slavery "close to the people."
(3) The most basic function of any government, Christian or secular, is to defend the lives of the people whom it claims to govern.
“Personhood” :
The point at which one person’s right to life overshadows another person’s convenience.
Correct. I would expect that different states would have differing legal codes regarding murder under these circumstances. Of course, there would be federal grounds to test whether or not these codes met the burden of providing the unborn equal protection under the law.
you touch on a serious issue. Many who advocate isolationism in the name of the constitution must literally not get out much.
They must be people who do not have much reason to cross state lines beyond tourism. Full faith and credit is a firm constitutional principle, as is the commerce clause.
It will not be 53 regional standards, it will be 53 NATIONAL standards (guam, DC and puerto rico are the 3)
This is the same identical issue on marriage.
That said, federal regulations of limiting abortion as much as possible are the most logical political path for right now rather than an amendment.
"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property..."
The 14th defines citizens but it does not specifially define persons. Yet it speaks of "persons born or naturalized" in the US as opposed to person born or naturalized someplace else.
Its prohibitions directed to the states was therefore to include person born or naturalized anywhere. NOT THE UNBORN!
"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property..."
The 14th defines citizens but it does not specifially define persons. Yet it speaks of "persons born or naturalized" in the US as opposed to person born or naturalized someplace else.
Its prohibitions directed to the states was therefore to include person born or naturalized anywhere. NOT THE UNBORN!
Killing babies is wrong. They are being killed in all 50 states as I write. reversing roe would be a huge first step in changing that. There will be no amendment.
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.