Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > Civil Rights & Abortion
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Civil Rights & Abortion Discuss "personally pro-choice but legally pro-life"? at the Political Forums; Originally Posted by jamesrage Personally pro-life but legally pro-choice doesn't make sense either. But abortionists all the time try to ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51 (permalink)  
Old 09-14-2021, 02:30 AM
Jeerleader's Avatar
Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,540
Thanks: 1,442
Thanked 2,243 Times in 1,018 Posts
Default Re: "personally pro-choice but legally pro-life"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
Personally pro-life but legally pro-choice doesn't make sense either. But abortionists all the time try to make that absurd claim.
I agree that reducing the issue down to "personally pro-life but legally pro-choice" is absurd because it excludes the actual legal aspect of whether a right to abortion should be recognized in law.

The choice legally (and by legally I mean constitutionally) isn't so binary as being either pro-life or pro-death . . . The question is, does government possess the power to dictate to the citizen in this matter of personal privacy and autonomy?

I fall on the side of NO.

That the "pro-life" side has deep religious conviction driving their position complicates the constitutional question because in reality, such influence has no place in deciding the legitimate powers of government.

In my opinion, dogma governed social/cultural conservatives are off the constitutional rails trying to codify their opposition to abortion / gay rights.

Those religion based agendas pollute their constitutional thinking with the, "where's that right in the Constitution?" legal arguments (see Justice Scalia).

This theologically forced detachment from constitutional principles puts us in the strange place where -- in their beliefs on the extent of government's powers over citizens -- dogma governed social/cultural conservatives and "the Constitution doesn't matter" leftists have much in common . . . Each see government assuming a legal position, enforcing their particular personal beliefs about what they consider to be their fellow citizen's unacceptable behavior.

Each faction then, stands arm-in-arm in opposition to fundamental constitutional principles of conferred powers and retained rights and the concept that the Bill of Rights is not the exhaustive listing of the citizen's rights and thus, at complete odds with the principles underlying the 9th Amendment.

Understanding that means that on the question of abortion, one can be personally pro-life, but accept that government possesses no legitimate power to enforce that opinion . . . and that in no way makes one an "abortionist".

.
__________________
You can’t truly call yourself “peaceful” unless you are capable of great violence.
If you are incapable of violence, you are not peaceful, you are just harmless.

Last edited by Jeerleader; 09-14-2021 at 02:42 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #52 (permalink)  
Old 09-14-2021, 03:44 AM
jamesrage's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: A place where common sense still exist.
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,244
Thanks: 2,137
Thanked 2,304 Times in 1,361 Posts
Default Re: "personally pro-choice but legally pro-life"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeerleader View Post
I agree that reducing the issue down to "personally pro-life but legally pro-choice" is absurd because it excludes the actual legal aspect of whether a right to abortion should be recognized in law.

The choice legally (and by legally I mean constitutionally) isn't so binary as being either pro-life or pro-death . . . The question is, does government possess the power to dictate to the citizen in this matter of personal privacy and autonomy?

I fall on the side of NO.

That the "pro-life" side has deep religious conviction driving their position complicates the constitutional question because in reality, such influence has no place in deciding the legitimate powers of government.

In my opinion, dogma governed social/cultural conservatives are off the constitutional rails trying to codify their opposition to abortion / gay rights.

Those religion based agendas pollute their constitutional thinking with the, "where's that right in the Constitution?" legal arguments (see Justice Scalia).

This theologically forced detachment from constitutional principles puts us in the strange place where -- in their beliefs on the extent of government's powers over citizens -- dogma governed social/cultural conservatives and "the Constitution doesn't matter" leftists have much in common . . . Each see government assuming a legal position, enforcing their particular personal beliefs about what they consider to be their fellow citizen's unacceptable behavior.

Each faction then, stands arm-in-arm in opposition to fundamental constitutional principles of conferred powers and retained rights and the concept that the Bill of Rights is not the exhaustive listing of the citizen's rights and thus, at complete odds with the principles underlying the 9th Amendment.

Understanding that means that on the question of abortion, one can be personally pro-life, but accept that government possesses no legitimate power to enforce that opinion . . . and that in no way makes one an "abortionist".

.
If you are pro-life then that means you believe that abortion is akin to murder and therefore should be illegal especially for elective purposes. So the who autonomy and privacy that abortionists use to justify abortion being legal are irrelevant issues when it come to protecting the life of a child.
__________________
"There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”—Theodore Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to jamesrage For This Useful Post:
  #53 (permalink)  
Old 09-14-2021, 12:03 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tennessee
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,324
Thanks: 14,742
Thanked 5,204 Times in 3,330 Posts
Default Re: "personally pro-choice but legally pro-life"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeerleader View Post
That the "pro-life" side has deep religious conviction driving their position complicates the constitutional question because in reality, such influence has no place in deciding the legitimate powers of government.
This is not entirely true.

Even if it were entirely true--and it is not--I would find it no more objectionable for the so-called "Religious Right" to be a determining force than for, say, the MSM to be driving the agenda.

But the fact is that only a portion of those who are pro-life are precisely that for religious reasons.

Many of us are convinced that it is a purely scientific fact to state that the unborn child (or "fetus," if you prefer) is a living human being.

If anyone could convince me otherwise, I would change positions.

Immediately!
__________________
"In his second inaugural address, [Franklin D.] Roosevelt sought 'unimagined power' to enforce the 'proper subordination' of private power to public power. He got it…"—George Will, July 8, 2007
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to pjohns For This Useful Post:
  #54 (permalink)  
Old 09-15-2021, 08:42 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 19,645
Thanks: 13,243
Thanked 14,372 Times in 8,305 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: "personally pro-choice but legally pro-life"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeerleader View Post
I agree that reducing the issue down to "personally pro-life but legally pro-choice" is absurd because it excludes the actual legal aspect of whether a right to abortion should be recognized in law.

The choice legally (and by legally I mean constitutionally) isn't so binary as being either pro-life or pro-death . . . The question is, does government possess the power to dictate to the citizen in this matter of personal privacy and autonomy?

I fall on the side of NO.

That the "pro-life" side has deep religious conviction driving their position complicates the constitutional question because in reality, such influence has no place in deciding the legitimate powers of government.

In my opinion, dogma governed social/cultural conservatives are off the constitutional rails trying to codify their opposition to abortion / gay rights.

Those religion based agendas pollute their constitutional thinking with the, "where's that right in the Constitution?" legal arguments (see Justice Scalia).

This theologically forced detachment from constitutional principles puts us in the strange place where -- in their beliefs on the extent of government's powers over citizens -- dogma governed social/cultural conservatives and "the Constitution doesn't matter" leftists have much in common . . . Each see government assuming a legal position, enforcing their particular personal beliefs about what they consider to be their fellow citizen's unacceptable behavior.

Each faction then, stands arm-in-arm in opposition to fundamental constitutional principles of conferred powers and retained rights and the concept that the Bill of Rights is not the exhaustive listing of the citizen's rights and thus, at complete odds with the principles underlying the 9th Amendment.

Understanding that means that on the question of abortion, one can be personally pro-life, but accept that government possesses no legitimate power to enforce that opinion . . . and that in no way makes one an "abortionist".

.
The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion not freedom from religion. The idea of excluding religious belief as "pollution" is an endorsement of the kind of atheist brutality that has led to the liquidation of more than 50 million unborn children with no more thought than trimming a hang nail.

Without the Declaration of Independence there would be no Constitution as we know it. The key aspect in the DOI is that our rights from our Creator not the sovereign or some jumped up dictator spouting Latin and reading penumbras from the bench. It's typical of tyrannical rulers to insist on excluding any other source of authority.
__________________
If Democrats were confident their nominee actually received more than 80 million votes they wouldn't have more troops occupying Washington, DC than Lincoln had defending the city during the Civil War. Not Joe Biden, Kim Jung Biden.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to AZRWinger For This Useful Post:
  #55 (permalink)  
Old 09-15-2021, 05:59 PM
Jeerleader's Avatar
Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,540
Thanks: 1,442
Thanked 2,243 Times in 1,018 Posts
Default Re: "personally pro-choice but legally pro-life"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
If you are pro-life then that means you believe that abortion is akin to murder and therefore should be illegal especially for elective purposes.
And that is fine to hold as a personal principle but that doesn't mean it has the force of law, until the law recognizes that the elective killing of a the unborn is a crime.

There are many state laws that make intentionally causing the death of the unborn either murder or manslaughter.. Some of those laws define "'unborn child' as any individual of the human species from fertilization until birth" and these laws exist even in the bluest states.

That some of those laws could plausibly be extended to a medical procedure (since "intentionally causing the death" is the primary factor) is why specific exemptions are stated, that, "these provisions do not apply to acts which cause the death of an unborn child if those acts were committed during any abortion to which the pregnant woman has consented or to acts which were committed pursuant to usual and customary standards of medical practice."

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesrage View Post
So the who autonomy and privacy that abortionists use to justify abortion being legal are irrelevant issues when it come to protecting the life of a child.
Not as long as those levels of justification for killing an "unborn child" exist in the law; the woman consents and the procedure follows customary standards of medical practice.

I agree that abortion is murder and I also think the carve-outs to allow murder to be charged for some acts that intentionally cause the death of an "unborn child" and leave abortion exempted, are unpersuasive morally . . . but the law is blind to moral arguments.

That is the dilemma we are in.

Personally, being opposed to abortion, I think there are arguments to be made that such carve-outs are not legally proper and essentially, charging murder for some intentional killing but not other intentional killing is inherently wrong -- because the "unborn child" being killed is innocent.

Between adults, murder charges are set aside with recognized justifications (self-defense) because taking that life was in response to illegitimate force, thus I could be persuaded abortion in the case of rape has a place.

OTOH, IMO, elective abortion for convenience has no such justification . . . But, as the law currently stands, there is no justification to enforce my personal beliefs on other citizens by law, until those -creations of law- carve-outs are eliminated.

.
__________________
You can’t truly call yourself “peaceful” unless you are capable of great violence.
If you are incapable of violence, you are not peaceful, you are just harmless.
Reply With Quote
  #56 (permalink)  
Old 09-15-2021, 06:19 PM
Jeerleader's Avatar
Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,540
Thanks: 1,442
Thanked 2,243 Times in 1,018 Posts
Default Re: "personally pro-choice but legally pro-life"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pjohns View Post
Even if it were entirely true--and it is not--I would find it no more objectionable for the so-called "Religious Right" to be a determining force than for, say, the MSM to be driving the agenda.
Who's religious right gets to impose their morality? Would you be OK with all that comes along with Sharia Law or perhaps government adopting Mahayana Buddhism and forbidding all meat eating?

As for the MSM driving the laws, I can see the new $20 bill having picture of Karl Marx smoking a joint riding sidesaddle on a rainbow farting unicorn waving a rainbow double-dong . . . In God We Trust. . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by pjohns View Post
But the fact is that only a portion of those who are pro-life are precisely that for religious reasons.
The primary lobbying and activism for the causes of the social /cultural "conservatives" comes from the religious right. There is no secular driving force politically in the anti-abortion movement worth mentioning.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pjohns View Post
Many of us are convinced that it is a purely scientific fact to state that the unborn child (or "fetus," if you prefer) is a living human being.

If anyone could convince me otherwise, I would change positions.

Immediately!
And as I state in the post above, many of the laws actually criminalizing intentionally causing the death of an "unborn child" recognize that scientific fact, defining "an unborn child as a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development". . . But then they make exceptions in that law for intentional, but under the consent of the mother abortion and the medical procedure causing that intentional death.

Can what is deemed to be an accepted medical practice be changed?
Can the legal theory that allows declaring one sort of intentionally causing intentional death of an "unborn child", be excepted out of the criminal code that criminalizes a myriad of other types of, intentionally causing the intentional death of an "unborn child" be changed?

I think so, I think there are effective legal arguments to be made to change one or both of those conditions, but, while there is a legal argument to be made for extinguishing those exceptions in law, the moral, or worse, religious arguments, obfuscates and negates it.

.
__________________
You can’t truly call yourself “peaceful” unless you are capable of great violence.
If you are incapable of violence, you are not peaceful, you are just harmless.
Reply With Quote
  #57 (permalink)  
Old 09-15-2021, 06:29 PM
Jeerleader's Avatar
Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,540
Thanks: 1,442
Thanked 2,243 Times in 1,018 Posts
Default Re: "personally pro-choice but legally pro-life"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion not freedom from religion.
True as between private citizens but the Consitution definitely guarantees freedom from religion being advocated or endorsed by government.

That definitely includes government impressing religious views, beliefs or doctrine at the behest or demand of the citizens, even if they comprise a majority.

That's what I am talking about, a belief that a religious sect or denomination can demand government enforce its beliefs, edicts or doctrine on the citizenry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
The idea of excluding religious belief as "pollution" is an endorsement of the kind of atheist brutality that has led to the liquidation of more than 50 million unborn children with no more thought than trimming a hang nail.
Lawmakers or jurists inserting their religious beliefs, is a recipe for theocracy and the destruction of the Constitution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Without the Declaration of Independence there would be no Constitution as we know it.
True.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
The key aspect in the DOI is that our rights from our Creator not the sovereign
It is wrong to think that the Declaration's "endowed by their Creator" should be read as a definitive theological statement of the founders consideration of "God" as the fountain of rights.

The statement was made to draw a sharp, unmistakable philosophical distinction between the principle of inherent rights and the King's unquestionable right to rule (based on the incredibly powerful religious doctrine of the king's divine right to rule). The King's unbridled authority is what needed to be rebutted and defeated to justify and win support for declaring independence.

This meant rejecting and discarding the premise that God directed the hand of the King which justified every illegitimate act inflicted on America.

That goal was the "key aspect" of the Declaration of Independence. Ultimately, the belief that God directed the operations of government is antithetical to the political philosophy of the Declaration of Independence (and the Constitution).

It is wrong to think the founders / framers first rejected the direct hand of God in the operation of English (and colonial) government, only to then inject theological control over the representative / constitutional republic they were creating.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
or some jumped up dictator spouting Latin and reading penumbras from the bench. It's typical of tyrannical rulers to insist on excluding any other source of authority.
And now we are back to the need of morality-based anti-abortion people to deny the principle of the 9th Amendment. The penumbral rights theory is not an ideal legal mechanism to recognize and protect the right to privacy but the theory can be defended and sustained without inventing any new rights.

The ONLY authority to guide / direct / decide the powers of the federal government is the Constitution of the United States. If by "other source of authority" you mean the Bible, then I vehemently disagree.

The ideal situation to remedy whatever deficiencies in the penumbral rights theory people see, would be for SCOTUS to revisit and overturn The Slaughterhouse Cases and reinvigorate the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th Amendment.

.
__________________
You can’t truly call yourself “peaceful” unless you are capable of great violence.
If you are incapable of violence, you are not peaceful, you are just harmless.
Reply With Quote
  #58 (permalink)  
Old 09-18-2021, 01:49 PM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tennessee
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,324
Thanks: 14,742
Thanked 5,204 Times in 3,330 Posts
Default Re: "personally pro-choice but legally pro-life"?

I can much better empathize with those who are both personally pro-choice and legally pro-choice than I can with those who wish to split the baby in half (so to speak).

At least they are being intellectually consistent...
__________________
"In his second inaugural address, [Franklin D.] Roosevelt sought 'unimagined power' to enforce the 'proper subordination' of private power to public power. He got it…"—George Will, July 8, 2007
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0