Posted on 03/13/2009 1:32:40 PM PDT by EternalVigilance
Only because the argument I quoted (yours) makes no sense.
But you want states to be able to do exactly what you decry from the Blackmun Court. You’re not consistent in principle or logic.
It makes perfect sense. Unlike yourself, my views in this matter are logical, consistent, and in keeping with America’s most important core principles.
You're the one with visions of emanations of penumbras from the 14th Amendment.
Consistent with Blackmun and his Roe v Wade "logic."
What you call a “penumbra” is so simple, straightforward, and easy to understand that my kids understood those principles when they were about eight years old.
You simply don’t want to understand it.
In no particular are my views in line with Blackmun’s, except in his admission that if unborn babies were “persons” they were protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, which is so obvious a child could understand it.
More projection. You're the one who want both the state courts (Burke) and the Supreme Court (Blackmun) to read things into the United States Constitution that aren't there and to use such inventions to legislate from the bench.
That's the nature of Fairy Tales,
So, you disagree with Burke. Interesting.
He disagrees with the Constitution.
You have repeatedly been shown the simple, clear words of the Constitution that states its purpose of protecting the equal rights of posterity, and which guarantees the protection of the lives of those uncharged, untried and unconvicted of a capital offense. If you can't understand the simple meanings of words, pray tell how you yourself are any different than Blackmun?
In what way? He should have sided with the majority, which sanctioned the deaths of millions of American babies who had the misfortune to have a mother who was physically located in New York?
This argument was not only made by Nazi lawyers and Judges at Nuremberg, but also is advanced today by the Soviets in Eastern Europe. It was and is rejected by most western world lawyers and Judges because it conflicts with natural justice and is, in essence, irrational.
- Adrian Burke
- Adrian Burke
Unless there had been a Thomas Jefferson who was educated by a philosophy professor to know the primacy of the natural law there would be no United States of America. For, if the Declaration had been written by a pragmatist for expedient reasons we never could have enlisted the sympathies and agreement of such a large part of the then world, including members of the British Parliament in our righteous cause. They would know the pragmatic reasoning would be nothing more than pettifoggery, and had no basis in law.
We began our legal life as a Nation and a State with the guarantee that these were inalienable rights that come not from the State but from an external source of authority superior to the State which authority regulated our inalienable liberties and with which our laws and Constitutions must now conform. That authority alone establishes the norms which test the validity of State legislation. It also tests the Constitutions and the United Nations Convention against genocide which forbids any Nation or State to classify any group of living human beings as fit subjects for annihilation. In sum, there is the law which forbids such expediency. It is the inalienable right to life in the nature of the child embryo who is a human and is a living being.
Inalienable means that it is incapable of being surrendered (Websters Third New International Dictionary). Thus, the butchering of a foetus under the present law is inherently wrong, as it is an illegal interference with the life of a human being of nature.
- Adrian Burke
Chapter 127 of the Laws of 1970, authorizing abortion on demand is a resort to expediency which is recognized everywhere as the death of principle. The rationale of the majority opinion admits that customs do change and the Legislature could, if it should in the future be the attitude of the Legislature, do away with old folks and eliminate the great expense the aged are to the taxpayers. This, of course, would parallel the Hitler laws which decreed the death of all the inmates of mental hospitals and also decreed that for [p894] many purposes non-Aryans were nonpersons.
Chief Judge Lehmans understanding of inalienable rights is the only understanding that makes any sense out of the Declaration of Independence, the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights and the United Nations Convention against genocide.
- Adrian Burke
This pragmatism, of course, is masked by a contrived theory exemplified in Abele v. Markle (342 F. Supp. 800) of giving the right of privacy of the woman an absolute paramountcy over the inalienable right of the foetus to life. On that false and unsupported premise (as I shall point out later) it then cites Griswold v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479). That citation is inapposite. Here there are three people with different interests involved. The man, the woman and the foetus. The foetus has the superior right to life rather than the particular females or males concern to avoid responsibility. The proponents of abortion know that there are men who desire offspring for the joy as well as the responsibility they bring. The protection of the foetal life has been the concern of law givers even before the judicial Law of Moses, the great law giver (the Ten Commandments) down through the ages. Even in barbaric ages this was the law (see de Bracton, Sir Matthew Hale, Fleta, Sir Edward Coke, Sergeant Hawkins, Sir William Blackstone).
Under New York State law the foetus, if it is born, is entitled to posthumously share in a deceased husbands intestate estate. This legislation gives the right to the wife to unilaterally, through abortion, appropriate the husbands entire estate by preventing offspring and depriving the legally wedded husband of transmission of his blood line, name and properties to flesh of his flesh: another inalienable right.
The proponents of abortion take refuge in concocted distinctions as to what living human beings are persons and what living human beings are not persons -to justify the massacre of the innocents, over 400,000 in New York State this year. They belittle Chitty, Coke and twist the statements of Hale to try to persuade those who, as did the author of the Declaration of Independence, recognize that the natural law granted inalienable rights to human living beings. They demand that the natural law expressed in the Declaration of Independence on which the United States is founded, should be ignored for expedient reasons. The pragmatists have a remarkable capacity for bearing the suffering of others with equanimity so long as the suffering is not imposed on them. They are just as callous toward their fellow human beings (they all started as foetuses) as the parents who slaughtered their children in the earlier centuries. In that age parents engaged in wholesale slaughter of children for the same expedient reasons dictating this legislation, which is forbidden by the natural law (see P. Pringle, Hue and Cry, William Morrow and Company, Great Britain).
- Adrian Burke
There is no medical or scientific doubt that foetuses are a group of human beings not a part of his or her mother. Every respected doctor, specializing in this field, treats the unborn child as a second patient different and individually distinct from the mother. Unless we intend to indorse the totalitarian philosophy already practiced of destroying the elderly, the insane, the newly born defective child or other groups of lesser quality as defined by the state, scrap the Declaration of Independence, distort the meaning of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, we should find this legislation constitutionally invalid.
The Appellate Division arrived at the obvious contradiction that even though the foetus is a human being with a separate life from the moment of conception, it need not be considered a person under the Fifth Amendment. Again the Appellate Division adopted the theory that the State is supreme and free to degrade the inalienable rights of human beings which were not given to them by the State and cannot be diminished nor taken away by the State. The Appellate Division and the majority agree that the state, as in Nazi Germany, could decide what human beings are persons or nonpersons. Human beings are not created by any woman unilaterally only with the aid of viable semen. Men and women can have intercourse thousands of times and fail to create a foetus. The woman and the man, not only the State, are obliged to recognize the inalienable rights that issue out of the uncontroversial factors flowing out of ones humanity. There is the sanctity of human life. To pass a law authorizing foetuses destruction is akin to establishing a State religion which conflicts with the rights given to those conceived in our democracy. To state that the present law does not violate the freedom of conscience of those who believe abortion to be a crime while the public revenues and public institutions are used is to resurrect the disgraceful argument that the citizens of Nazi Germany knowing of the death camps had an individual freedom of conscience to shrug off the atrocities of Dachau, Auschwitz and the other death camps. The question answers itself once we look at that society under Hitler.
The deeper disease in this legislation is the widening gap between the American self-image of a country that values human life and the reality of a growing preoccupation of the hedonists with a competitive drive for La Dolce Vita. Because some women of means have practiced abortion for years without regard for the then existing laws or the consequences apart from death is no reason to legalize it and conduct a campaign among the poor to convince them that philosophically and biologically they can consider an unborn child as one not a distinct human being with an individual right to life.
- Adrian Burke
I’m still looking for any particular point in which he “disagrees with the Constitution,” as you claim. Help me out here.
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.