Posted on 10/23/2010 1:50:52 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
Until the Anglican Lambeth Conference of 1930 no Christian denomination had ever said that contraception could ever be objectively right. The Washington Post, in an editorial on March 22, 1931, said of the Federal Council of Churches' endorsement of Lambeth:
“It is impossible to reconcile the doctrine of the divine institution of marriage with any modernistic plan for the mechanical regulation of or suppression of human life. The Church must either reject the plain teachings of the Bible or reject schemes for the ‘ scientific’ production of human souls.
Carried to its logical conclusion, the committee’s report, if carried into effect, would sound the death knell of marriage as a holy institution by establishing degrading practices which would encourage indiscriminate immorality. The suggestion that the use of legalized contraceptives would be ‘ careful and restrained’ is preposterous.”
One wrong doesn't excuse a greater wrong.
If Roe v Wade were overturned, the issue would be up to the States.
Because it is completely incompatible with this statement you made in post #103:
I don't believe the State has any authority to abridge amend or fail to recognize the natural rights of man. That which is forbidden to the Federal Government in recognition of our natural rights, is similarly forbidden to the State Government.
Why is it that on the one hand you affirm that the states do not have the authority to take away natural rights, but on the other hand you suggest that abortion be returned to the states?
Do YOU think that each state should get to decide if abortion is legal within the state? YES or NO.
Do I have to explain it to you AGAIN? Are you really THAT dense?
States have no authority to take away natural rights. That is something that every American can hopefully agree upon.
If Roe vs Wade were overturned, it would be a finding that there WAS no natural right to an abortion, and thus States could pass laws against it.
Where does that seem like an incompatibility other than in your inability to think clearly?
You haven't actually explained anything, YOUR statements are conflicting.
States have no authority to take away natural rights. That is something that every American can hopefully agree upon.
Yes we agree on that.
If Roe vs Wade were overturned, it would be a finding that there WAS no natural right to an abortion, and thus States could pass laws against it.
However, states would also have the option of NOT passing laws and they would thus be taking away natural rights through inaction. (This is an example of the conflicting statements that I mentioned earlier in this post.)
Where does that seem like an incompatibility other than in your inability to think clearly?
My thinking is quite clear, YOU are supporting a pro-choice by state policy.
The "let each state decide who is actually a person" policy was last tried a century and a half ago and the results were disasterous.
The "let each state decide who is actually a person" policy was last tried a century and a half ago and the results were disasterous.
*********************************
Agreed. As many of us have asserted in the past "pro-choice" is "pro-abortion" is "murder".
That is a legal matter, not support for a State that would leave abortion legal.
But I see where you are coming from - you are once again trying to make me into your strawman pro-choice libertarian that you would prefer to argue against.
A rather pitiful performance, about what I would expect from you though.
mark
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Is that not mind-reading and attributing to me a motive and position I do not hold to?
How about pinging someone if you are going to quote them, is that too much to expect.
Did you or did you not write this:
If Roe vs Wade were overturned, it would be a finding that there WAS no natural right to an abortion, and thus States could pass laws against it.
That is advocating a policy where each state gets to decide on abortion.
If Roe v Wade were overturned it would be up to the States to either pass anti-abortion measures or not. Pointing that out doesn't mean that I support such a reality, let alone that I would support States continuing to allow abortion.
It is just pointing out reality.
Amazing to me that someone directly arguing that the decisions that struck down anti-contraception laws is somehow in no way shape or form an endorsement that the law should be changed - and yet I point out the reality that if Roe were struck down the decision would be up to the States - and suddenly I am endorsing a that States continue to allow abortion!
Cognitive dissonance much?
Amazing to me that someone directly arguing that the decisions that struck down anti-contraception laws WERE WRONG is somehow in no way shape or form an endorsement that the law should be changed - and yet I point out the reality that if Roe were struck down the decision would be up to the States - and suddenly I am endorsing a that States continue to allow abortion!
Cognitive dissonance much?
So, you DO NOT believe that the states have the authority to keep abortion legal?
Would you support a Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe in which the Court declares the unborn to be persons who are entitled to constitutional rights?
Amazing to me that someone directly arguing that the decisions that struck down anti-contraception laws is somehow in no way shape or form an endorsement that the law should be changed
Nevertheless, no such argument has been made.
yet I point out the reality that if Roe were struck down the decision would be up to the States - and suddenly I am endorsing a that States continue to allow abortion!
All I was doing was pointing out your conflicting statements.
Cognitive dissonance much?
Are you directing this question at yourself or are you making it personal?
I support a Constitutional amendment for the right to life.
The argument was made that the decisions striking down laws against contraception were wrong WAS made - and yet it was somehow a bridge to far for me to conclude that this was also an argument that the law should be changed.
Yet nobody wanted to say that it was logically consistent to argue that the law was wrong, yet should remain unchanged. The preservation of incorrect law stance isn't one anyone was willing to claim.
And yet I point out the REALITY that if Roe were overturned it would be up to the States, and suddenly you want to make me out to be Pro-Choice and supporting States keeping abortion legal?
Absolutely ridiculous!!!!
But again, good luck convincing 75% of Americans that what they do in their bedroom is “evil”, and that the government has a compelling interest in regulation of such and that such regulation would not be in violation of their natural rights, and is consistent with advocation of a small government of limited and enumerated powers!
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Actually, that depends on the ruling.
But again, good luck convincing 75% of Americans that what they do in their bedroom is “evil”, and that the government has a compelling interest in regulation of such and that such regulation would not be in violation of their natural rights, and is consistent with advocation of a small government of limited and enumerated powers!
You have yet to show me where I have ever advocated this.
Also, as I pointed out yesterday, ALL of the states had morality laws two centuries ago and the Founding Fathers didn't seem to have any problem with them. Why do you think that was?
You have argued that such laws against contraception were not in violation of American citizens natural rights and defended the laws against them.
Back to the OLD law dodge again? While attempting to maintain the fiction that you are not actually FOR the old laws against contraception even!
Previously laws against interracial marriage were not seen to be a violation of the natural rights of man - we as a Republic now have a new view of such laws and their impact upon the natural rights of man. You agreed that these laws were unjust and needed to be struck down.
As such it seems obvious that a law must stand or fall upon its own merits, not upon the idea that because it was done previously it should be A-OK going forward.
Nonsense, there is NOTHING to stop them from overturning Roe on the basis that the unborn were persons with rights.
The FACT that the opinion in Roe brings up this scenario makes it all the more likely.
You have argued that such laws against contraception were not in violation of American citizens natural rights and defended the laws against them.
Yes, but that IS NOT advocating bringing the laws back.
Back to the OLD law dodge again? While attempting to maintain the fiction that you are not actually FOR the old laws against contraception even!
Whatever.
Previously laws against interracial marriage were not seen to be a violation of the natural rights of man - we as a Republic now have a new view of such laws and their impact upon the natural rights of man. You agreed that these laws were unjust and needed to be struck down.
Do you have a point?
As such it seems obvious that a law must stand or fall upon its own merits, not upon the idea that because it was done previously it should be A-OK going forward.
Your previous arguments have been about limited government and natural rights (I would prefer to say God-given, but we'll use your term). Have the definitions of EITHER of these changed in the past two centuries?
Natural rights are God given.
The definitions of limited government and natural rights have not changed. Our interpretation of what the natural rights of man entails in its intersection with the law has quite obviously changed, in a system that was designed to acknowledge those rights, as well as to Constitutionally accommodate change, and to hash out what the proper role is of a limited government of enumerated powers that respects the natural rights of man.
But good luck convincing 75% of Americans that what they do in the bedroom is “evil” and subject to Government regulation, and that the regulation would not at all be a violation of their natural rights, and that such regulation is compatible with a limited government of enumerated powers.
So if you don't see laws against contraception as a violation of natural rights, and as compatible with a government of limited and enumerated powers. WHY oh WHY are you not actually for passing such laws again?
Pragmatism? Practicality? Realism?
************************
Ever heard of the expression "you're making my case"?
While it doesn't exactly fit here, and regardless of the fact that no one has argued to make contraception illegal, your posts seem to insist that we should do so.
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.