TexasCHLforum.com

sjfcontrol wrote:

gigag04 wrote:Haha proponents of abortion are as rabid as the gun rights activists yet wih no constitutional backing...

Seriously?

First, I thought the Supremes gave abortion "constitutional backing" in Roe v. Wade.

Second, I don't appreciate being called "rabid".

I don't think you're rabid on that.....just wrong is all, but hey, we each have a right to our opinion, right?

Regarding constitutional backing, whether or not you agree with the decision, it is on thin ice and only stands because a SCOTUS judge expanded the meaning of the Constitution to include something it does not say. We normally decry attacks against the 2nd Amendment because they are based in things the Constitution does not say. The pro-abortion side of the debate has to reach for "penumbras" and "emanations" (the words that Justice Blackmun used in the Roe majority opinion) from other previous SCOTUS decisions—most specifically Estelle T. Griswold and C. Lee Buxton v. Connecticut—in order to make their point.

Now, let me preface by saying that whatever my personal religious inclinations (evangelical Christian and extremely pro-life), the libertarian in me says that government should have no part in this at all—no part in regulating it, no part in forbidding it, no part in providing it, no part in facilitating it, including no part in passing laws which require some of my taxes be used to fund something to which I am vehemently opposed. If proponents want me to keep my hands of their uteri (a preposterous image if there ever was one.....why would I want to touch someone's uterus?), then the flip side to that is that they can bloody well keep their hands off my wallet in the pursuit of the right to kill their babies......and Roe v. Wade never made it a requirement that I have to help pay for it.

So you and I disagree on abortion......that's the American way, isn't it?......that we can have strongly held disagreement about a deeply troubling issue, and yet not be at one another's throats about it?

The problem with "penumbras" and "emanations" is that they really are a slippery slope to all kinds of evil. In all actuality, the Constitution is silent on the subject of abortion, and as far as I am concerned, that means that government has no business being involved in it. Consider this: we know for certain fact two things about the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution:

1. The Founders deliberately wrote it in the language of the common man because they were planning to circulate it for mass consumption (which they DID do) so that all Americans who could read would be able to know the structure of their new government. We know that they did this and, as importantly, why they did this, because they left us writings explaining why they had written it the way they did.
2. They deliberately avoided creating any mystery about the reasons for the Constitution ("...in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."), and then, just in case there were any questions, they published writings like the Federalist Papers to explain in intricate detail exactly what they meant.

The cardinal sin in all interpretive writing, whether one is interpreting scripture, or the Constitution, is to try and decipher the text within the modern idiomatic context, rather than using the common meaning of the words at the time and in the idiomatic context in which they were written. For instance, no serious Biblical scholar attempts to interpret the meaning of scripture without referencing the original writings in the Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew—just to make sure that their interpretation is correct. Furthermore, the serious Biblical scholar has to have some familiarity with the historical context in which the particular piece of scripture takes place. To the serious Biblical scholar, it is a matter of spiritual importance as well as literary importance.........if this is God's word, then he or she had better get it right, n'est pas?

This is how we must interpret the Constitution. For hypothetical example, if the word "gay" appeared in the text of the Constitution, we would HAVE to understand what it meant in the late 18th century (light-hearted, festive, happy), not what it means today (homosexual); otherwise any interpretation of the document would be based on a flawed understanding of the language and also a flawed understanding of the Founders' intent.

So, when A) we have a 2nd Amendment which very clearly defines the right to keep and bear arms, gives its justification (a well regulated militia), and states that the right shall not be infringed (not even a tiny little bit); and B) we have documents like the Federalist Papers explaining exactly what the word "militia" means in the late 18th century context, and C) when we have other contemporary writings describing exactly what is meant by the term "well-regulated," it then becomes impossible to draw any other conclusion about the meaning of the 2nd Amendment than the most libertarian interpretation. Therefore, gun-grabbers must themselves reach for "penumbras" and "emanations," many of which are from other SCOTUS cases, and at least some of which were incorrectly decided (SCOTUS has a history of getting it wrong and reversing itself later.......can we all say "Dred Scott" anyone???), in order to make some of the preposterous arguments they make in order to trample on an enumerated right......

.....and any supposed right to abortion is not enumerated......

So yeah, it's the current law of the land. So was the Dred Scott decision at one time. Perhaps in time, SCOTUS will come to its senses. Like it did with Dred Scott. Or not. The truth is that I have little faith in the Court or the other two brances of government any longer. But just understand that the "penumbras" and "emanations" used to justify Roe v. Wade in 1973 are just as much hokum as those used to justify Dred Scott 116 years earlier in 1857.

Now, you can certainly disagree with all of that, and we can still be friends.....and we'll just have to agree to disagree.

......

I had so hoped that this thread would not become a discussion of the rightness or wrongness of abortion, or that members might call one another names, intentionally or not. I posted the link because the quote was hilarious. Nothing more and nothing less. As I stated in my OP, I didn't want this to be a flame war. I'm going to bow out at this point.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

gigag04 wrote:Haha proponents of abortion are as rabid as the gun rights activists yet wih no constitutional backing...

Seriously?

First, I thought the Supremes gave abortion "constitutional backing" in Roe v. Wade.

Second, I don't appreciate being called "rabid".

I don't think you're rabid on that.....just wrong is all, but hey, we each have a right to our opinion, right?

TAM -- you DO realize I was complaining about being called a "rabid" gun rights advocate, right????

sjfcontrol wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

gigag04 wrote:Haha proponents of abortion are as rabid as the gun rights activists yet wih no constitutional backing...

Seriously?

First, I thought the Supremes gave abortion "constitutional backing" in Roe v. Wade.

Second, I don't appreciate being called "rabid".

I don't think you're rabid on that.....just wrong is all, but hey, we each have a right to our opinion, right?

TAM -- you DO realize I was complaining about being called a "rabid" gun rights advocate, right????

The Supremes had nothing to do with Roe vs. Wade, although they were popular in the 60's.

The Supreme Court had everything to do with Roe vs. Wade. They heard the case, decided, and wrote their decision, which was then held to the rest of the country.

And they were wrong.

The Constitution does NOT address the process of abortion at all. One may infer from certain portions of the Constitution that the unborn were recognized as fully people, or rather that, the Founding Fathers never gave the issue any thought, because "of -course-" they're people, why would anyone act otherwise (see my snippets from Amendment 5 below)? But that is inferring the unstated from other statements with only peripheral application.

What is NOT in dispute is the text of Amendments 5, 9, and 10.

I'm snipping a couple of phrases from Amendment 5, but here is the whole text, with the pertinent parts underlined.
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Take the second phrase first. "Deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." It does not include this as a following phrase to the bits about criminal cases and self-incrimination; rather, this phrase is -of equal value- in the sentence. Take any of these phrases out, and the sentence still makes sense; none rely on the others. Therefore, such depriving without due process is prohibited, both inside and outside the courtroom. And the first phrase I underlined? That lays out what "due process" is - a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.
One can hardly argue that the aborted unborn are "deprived of life." One can also hardly argue that they are given any sort of due process. There's no Grand Jury in an abortion clinic. What remains is whether or not the unborn are considered "persons."

Amendment 9 declares, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." So, just because the Constitution doesn't mention abortion with the other rights, does not mean -in and of itself- that no right exists. HOWEVER, it ALSO does not mean that the unborn have no right to life, just because the born do! While it's taken for granted that someone born is a "person," Amendment 9 tells the federal government they -CANNOT- deny this protection to the unborn, based on the rights of the born! But then it doesn't give any further guidance, unfortunately.
Amendment 9 is the "and all the other rights we didn't bother writing down" amendment. It basically says, "look elsewhere for this," and then falls silent on the issue.

Which sends us to Amendment 10.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
There is no mention of abortion rights, nor of rights of the unborn, in the Constitution. Neither does it make any mention whatsoever of the power to permit, regulate, or prohibit abortion. For that matter, it does not give the federal government any power to regulate murder! Logically, it follows that this is an issue left to the States, and the People, who have voted repeatedly and consistently to prohibit abortion, just as We the People have consistently and repeatedly outlawed murder. And rights being rights, once given, one recognized, they cannot, should not, be reversed. We recognized that the unborn have a right to life, one which the "mother" cannot deny. But Roe vs. Wade undid that, violating both the rights of the unborn, AND the rights of the People, in order to grant a "right to privacy" that is somehow, specifically, limited to abortion, and not any other medical decision, nor to any other aspect of our lives.

We the People have decided "who a person is." And yet, in clear violation of both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution, our decisions, our right to decide, has been overruled and stymied, reversed, starting from a Supreme Court decision, and flowing downhill like a sewer bursting.

Don't try making the claim the Supreme Court had nothing to do with it. They had everything to do with it, and they violated the Constitution and their Oath of Office in doing so.

i beg to diifer in your opinion. as per the constution not all "people" were created with equal rights see the 13th,14th and 15th.

No, your point actually meshes with mine. I'm not claiming the Constitution gave or recognized equal rights to all. What it DID do is delineate that, once established, a right cannot be removed, nor does the federal government have any say in what is or is not a right, -absent- the creation of a specific amendment, which must-needs be approved by the People as well as the government. Thus, -because- the federal government could not unilaterally grant rights, the Constitution needed amendment, in order to protect these rights through codification. But that codification in the Constitution did not -create- the rights delineated in the 13th, 14th, or 15th Amendments; it merely established a Constitutional recognition of them. The rights codified were validated through the recognition of the People, and the States, who bear that responsibility and power, and who approved the Amendments.

sjfcontrol wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

gigag04 wrote:Haha proponents of abortion are as rabid as the gun rights activists yet wih no constitutional backing...

Seriously?

First, I thought the Supremes gave abortion "constitutional backing" in Roe v. Wade.

Second, I don't appreciate being called "rabid".

I don't think you're rabid on that.....just wrong is all, but hey, we each have a right to our opinion, right?

TAM -- you DO realize I was complaining about being called a "rabid" gun rights advocate, right????

I guessed I misunderstood you.

No wonder it is always 5 o'clock at my house!

I think the missed Supreme's comment is so far winning this thread with everything TAM posted a close second.

gigag04 wrote:I think the missed Supreme's comment is so far winning this thread with everything TAM posted a close second.

yep...and it sailed right over someone's head...

gigag04 wrote:I think the missed Supreme's comment is so far winning this thread with everything TAM posted a close second.