Posted on 05/11/2022 6:59:01 PM PDT by Morgana
The leaked draft of Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which has sent shock waves across the United States, indicates that a majority of Supreme Court justices will likely overturn the constitutional right to an abortion granted in Roe v. Wade. Employing unusually harsh language, Alito declared that “Roe and Planned Parenthood v.Casey must be overruled” because of the decisions’ “abuse of judicial authority.”
“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” Alito wrote, and its “reasoning was exceptionally weak.”
He also asserted that neither abortion nor privacy is mentioned in the text of the Constitution, nor should they be considered to be “deeply rooted in the Nation’s history or traditions” so as to be worthy of protection.
As a professor of constitutional law who has taught about reproductive rights for more than 20 years, I argue that Alito’s legal reasoning leaves out several established constitutional principles also not mentioned in the text – such as separation of powers and executive privilege – as well as rights that conservatives hold near and dear like the right to marry and parental rights.
Alito’s claim that a right to an abortion “was entirely unknown in American law” until Roe is unfounded. Historically, abortion was not completely illegal, even in Puritan New England. The first abortion restrictions were enacted in the U.S. in the 1820s.
Even then, they generally outlawed abortions only after “quickening,” the early equivalence of fetal viability – the ability to survive outside the mother’s womb. Alito’s legal rationales aside, the legal debate over abortion is as much a religious dispute as it is a constitutional one. Religious opposition
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
According to Jewish tradition a fetus is not considered viable until it graduates from Medical School.
According to Jewish tradition a fetus is not considered viable until it graduates from Medical School.
It’s stupid making it religious. Just plain murder.
The dude claims that the Catholic Church didn’t have any teaching on abortion before the 16th Century. BS.
The Catholic Church explicitly proscribed abortion since before the Bible was written. From the Didache (c. 65AD):
“Chapter 2. The Second Commandment: Grave Sin Forbidden. And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born...”
Source: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html
Because there was no need to, for it was against the Lord's law.
Oh, goodie! Another thoroughly stupid Yapoo article.
It’s really not a Religious Issue. We all know that murder is wrong except in self defense. Period!!
The old New England argument he uses is like justifying stealing beer from the store by pointing out Mom told you not to steal candy. She didn’t make a rule not to steal beer, after all.
I am pro-life because God is.
All a person needs is simple understanding & consideration of human life, to be pro-life. A woman hosts another life for 9 months. A woman doesn’t have a penis because she has a male baby. Not her body.
You don’t have to be religious.
If the court granted the right then the court can take it away.
bump
Even if I were the most hardcore atheist on the planet, I would still be pro-life. The issue at it’s core is that it is the unjust and savage murder of the most innocent of human lives— the baby inside it’s mother’s womb. This is where every abortion debate should focus. Every other argument against it, no matter how legitimate, is still a secondary diversion to the real issue.
And that is another weakness of the author's argument!
https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/athenagoras.html
ATHENAGORAS: Circa 175-190 AD
[TRANSLATED BY THE REV. B. P. PRATTEN.]
A PLEA FOR THE CHRISTIANS BY ATHENAGORAS THE ATHENIAN: PHILOSOPHER AND CHRISTIAN
To the Emperors Marcus Aurelius Anoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus, conquerors of Armenia and Sarmatia, and more than all, philosophers.
(He disputes the charges that Christians Murder and then commit cannibalism, a common charge due to a misunderstanding of the sacrement.) Chapter XXXV "snip...For when they know that we cannot endure even to see a man put to death, though justly; who of them can accuse us of murder or cannibalism? Who does not reckon among the things of greatest interest the contests of gladiators and wild beasts, especially those which are given by you? But we, deeming that to see a man put to death is much the same as killing him, have abjured such spectacles. How, then, when we do not even look on, lest we should contract guilt and pollution, can we put people to death? And when we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God s for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder?...snip"
True. Canaanites would have loved abortion.
Funny, but false.
And I’m afraid some idiot will take you seriously.
Under Jewish law, abortion is forbidden unless carrying the child to term will almost certainly result in the death of the mother (eg and ectopic pregnancy).
At the moment of conception a new being comes into existence with the characteristic of constantly replicating its own cells according to the coding of its DNA. It has unique DNA that, with the exception of identical twins, no other being has ever or will ever again have. Those are defining characteristics of a discrete living being. Its DNA is specifically human which categorically makes it a living human being.The question of whether it has a spirit, a soul or a mind may not be possible to answer with science but science does answer, without equivocation, that it is an individual living human being from the moment of conception or at least very shortly after when the two half-strands of DNA combine.
If you were a hardcore atheist, on what basis would you protect innocent human life but kill innocent birds and animals?
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.