That relies on the presumption that life begins at conception. That presumption is problematic. tommylotto on November 7, 2007 at 11:57 PM

It’s only problematic to politicians.

Human life begins at conception. Duh! You’re now qualified for a biology degree. The question is when does PROTECTED human life begin. Right now it begins at birth. That’s an utterly irrational position fueled by the assasins in the abortuaries.

Viola!

Does anybody have an idea as to why this particular story is still posted here?
OBX Pete on November 9, 2007 at 9:33 AM

Because Fred is a lying fake and this thread makes that perfectly clear even to the most rabid groupie. Leaving it up is an invaluable service to the American people and the good of the country.

I guess it is just to give the trolls something to do!
God bless ‘em!

That relies on the presumption that life begins at conception. That presumption is problematic.

tommylotto on November 7, 2007 at 11:57 PM

Boy you said a mouthful right there.

tommylotto on November 7, 2007 at 11:57 PM

That was the hypothetical I was wondering about.

If, in Fred’s world, life begins at conception, is it consistent with the constitution for the states to decide the legality of abortion?

It is shocking that a court would not just require that all state make abortion illegal.

csdeven on November 7, 2007 at 1:44 PM

That relies on the presumption that life begins at conception. That presumption is problematic.

coyoterex on November 7, 2007 at 2:53 PM

He isn’t 100% pro-life like he claims. He’s pro-life lite. A pro-choice federalist.

It is shocking that a court would not just require that all state make abortion illegal.

Yeah, I knew that. I meant the 5th. Would that change anything?

csdeven on November 7, 2007 at 12:12 PM

I seriously doubt it, it would in my opinion still come down to being able to find something to base a “Priory” ruling on. Tommy is quite correct about the importance of “Priory rulings” in our legal system. They are not bullet proof involute statutes, but they do function as a guarantee that the same standard will be used for every citizen. Without the concept of “Priory rulings” virtually every judicial ruling becomes a new law, which would violate the concept of laws being enacted as the sole discretion of the legislative branch of government.

Furthermore the “Grandfathering” concept is extremely tricky because it has the very distinct possibility of violating the ex post facto rule. Basically our legal system says that you cannot charge an individual with a crime that was not a crime at the time of the action regardless of whether the law was changed at a later date.

doriangrey on November 7, 2007 at 11:42 AM

Yeah, I knew that. I meant the 5th. Would that change anything?

If it were to be ruled that life begins at birth, is that really how it would play out? I know that lawyering is skill in nuancing interpretations, but wouldn’t there be a point in time that judges would just use common sense and rule that “Life, Liberty, etc” is all the constitution needs to rule abortion unconstitutional?

csdeven on November 7, 2007 at 11:24 AM

The problem of course is…that “Life, Liberty, etc” isn’t in the constitution and because it isn’t in the constitution it cannot be used to determine the constitutionality of any law.

The only possible way that the Declaration of Independence could in my opinion be used would be if (Tommy would really have a much better idea on this one) you could get a “priory” ruling that the DoI substituted as a rights guaranteeing document during the 12 or so years required to construct the US Constitution and get it ratified.

Quite honestly I don’t see that happening since I believe that the articles of confederation were employed during that time as the rights guaranteeing document.

doriangrey on November 7, 2007 at 10:22 AM

If it were to be ruled that life begins at birth, is that really how it would play out? I know that lawyering is skill in nuancing interpretations, but wouldn’t there be a point in time that judges would just use common sense and rule that “Life, Liberty, etc” is all the constitution needs to rule abortion unconstitutional?

If not, I am sure many Americans, even those who are pro-choice, would be surprised at that rational.

Another twist to this……if a gene could be found that causes homosexuality, the gay community, who normally marches in the pro-choice marches, would suddenly become pro-life in the blink of an eye and would be marching hand in hand with the evangelicals. THAT would be a sight!

So what part of the constitution protects us from being murdered?

csdeven on November 6, 2007 at 4:06 PM

It doesn’t, as Tommy quite correctly pointed out the Constitution never addressed this point because murder was already a de facto standard of common law. However what he was a little less clear about is that even under common law standards the actual definition of what constituted murder varied from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

What might have been defined as murder in one jurisdiction might easily be defined as self-defense of misadventure in another jurisdiction. Alexander Hamilton’s death for example was considered death by misadventure according to common law when then Vice President Aaron Burr shot and killed him in a duel.

This did not stop other jurisdictions within both New York and New Jersey from filing murder charges against Burr. Interestingly enough though the judiciary in Washington D.C. fully accepted the common law definition of death by misadventure and allowed him to finish out the remaining two years of his term as Vice President without incident.

So, could we grandfather in the unborn to the ranks of those protected from murder? (If it was decided that birth begins at conception)

csdeven on November 6, 2007 at 5:18 PM

Probably not in the grandfathering sense, since that would create a unacceptable ex post facto situation. It is conceivable however that should life be ruled to begin at conception that abortion could be ruled illegal under the DoI’s “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” clause. However since the DoI isn’t the constitution it could not be the basis for declaring abortion unconstitutional.

As Tommy said since the Constitution gives no guidance on this issue the subject is not going to be quickly or easily resolved. Other than a very loose interpretation of the DoI’s “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” clause I really don’t see any way that a constitutional amendment could be justified. This would suffer pretty much from the same malady that Roe v Wade suffers from. In that it creates out of thin air a right not previously enumerated in the constitution.

There currently is no amendment that defines murder and any attempt to create a prohibition of abortion via constitutional amendment would be doing exactly that in direct violation of the “States Rights” clause.

Murder is a Common Law crime. That’s is what I have been trying to explain to hollowpoint.
tommylotto on November 6, 2007 at 5:06 PM

And in what jurisdiction is murder not codified as a crime? Are you suggesting that one could be convicted for violating a non-existant law by citing unwritten common law?

Common Law might be the basis for the framework of our legal system, but the tradition does not override statute or remove the obligation to make judicial judgements based on written law.

tommylotto on November 6, 2007 at 9:03 AM

I agree with what you are saying. Especially this:

I think Roe was one of the worst reasoned opinions ever written. It was completely results oriented

The Court has a duty to correct its mistakes. The key is to appoint judges who are willing to do it.

tommylotto on November 6, 2007 at 5:06 PM

So, could we grandfather in the unborn to the ranks of those protected from murder? (If it was decided that birth begins at conception)