Jump to content

SovereignGraceSingles

Welcome to SovereignGraceSingles.com. Where Reformed Faith and Romance Come Together! We are the only Christian dating website for Christian Singles in the Reformed Faith worldwide. Our focus is to bring together Christian singles of all ages. Reformed single Christian men and women who wish to meet other Reformed Christian singles for spiritually, like-minded, loving relationships.

SovereignGraceSingles

Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” - Genesis 2:18

SovereignGraceSingles

Meet Like Minded Believers Can two walk together except they be agreed? - Amos 3:3

SovereignGraceSingles

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.

SovereignGraceSingles

SGS offers a "fenced" community: both for private single members and also a public Protestant forums open to Bible-believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene-derived Christian Church.
Faber

The U.S. Supreme Court and "precedent"

Recommended Posts

Faber

With (even before) the selection of Brett Kavanaugh to fill the U.S. Supreme Court's vacancy due to the retirement of Anthony Kennedy I have been hearing quite a bit from certain people about the need for justices to always go by precedent in making their decisions. Since the infamous Roe v. Wade decision seems to be under assault (overthrow?) this demand for adhering to precedent grows louder.

 

I would point out that "precedent" is not (and should not be) set in stone.

Here are just two examples as to why it should not be looked upon as an absolute determiner when it comes to deciding current cases.

1. In 1857 the U.S. Supreme Court issued its infamous decision stating that slaves are not people but property.[*1] 

2. In 1896 the U.S. Supreme Court issued its infamous decision concerning "separate but equal."[*2]

 

If any person was ever to become a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court I would not want them to go by the "precedent" from these decisions.[*3]

 

 

 

[*1] Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia

 

[*2] Plessy v. Ferguson - Wikipedia

 

[*3] Thankfully both decisions are no longer the law of the land. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Potluck

Therein lies the problem with Roe vs Wade. 

The constitution does not address abortion. 

Share this post


Link to post
RazeontheRock

If nobody had said a peep about "overturning Roe v Wade," there wouldn't be nearly so much opposition. That's a dumb move, and it'll never happen. Women were dying from illicit abortions, we're not going back to that.

Abortions have been reduced, and it's being further scrutinized. Under what conditions it is or isn't legal is where the battle really lies.

Planned Parenthood is losing funding due to their radical agenda; that's a real battle too!

 

Should we take up a betting pool, if Trump's nominee gets voted in?  Meanwhile lots of other appointments including Judges still need to get through ...

Share this post


Link to post
Uncle Siggy
3 hours ago, RazeontheRock said:

If nobody had said a peep about "overturning Roe v Wade," there wouldn't be nearly so much opposition. That's a dumb move, and it'll never happen. Women were dying from illicit abortions, we're not going back to that.

Abortions have been reduced, and it's being further scrutinized. Under what conditions it is or isn't legal is where the battle really lies.

Planned Parenthood is losing funding due to their radical agenda; that's a real battle too!

 

Should we take up a betting pool, if Trump's nominee gets voted in?  Meanwhile lots of other appointments including Judges still need to get through ...

We don't need Roe vs Wade it should be left up to each individual state as to if they want to allow it or not. It was another one of those decisions based on "You aren't smart/responsible enough to take care of yourself so we'll pander to you to get your vote". Feminism and the sexual revolution is what caused this mess both of which seem to be losing their hold because more women are realizing it's causing them trouble. ("The Chickens are coming home to roost").

 

I have no doubt some states will ban abortion but the rest will still allow it, I would say a 35/15 split with 35 still allowing it. The way I see it is if you don't like the laws/rules of your state either move or stay and propose legislation to change them, not get some activist judges to force it down everybody's throat...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Potluck
3 hours ago, RazeontheRock said:

If nobody had said a peep about "overturning Roe v Wade," there wouldn't be nearly so much opposition.

The dems have used tactics like that for a long time. Pelosi said it's the end of civilization if he's confirmed.

Remember when the Republicans were accused of wanting to push granny over a cliff?

We've had numerous doomsday predictions from the left after Trump got into office that never came to pass and I think people are finally wising up to the left's ridiculous rhetoric, especially after all the left wing media hysteria and "less than accurate reporting" during the past couple years. 

 

It all pleases the left base but other than that I seriously doubt their doomsday prediction concerning Roe vs Wade is going to have much affect on women voters. And they have been insulting women who didn't vote according to ID politics far too often.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Faber

I just saw the video and I thought to myself that if anyone criticized it for its violence the response would be that it accurately reflects what they think would happen. But I wonder if something would be allowed on television that showed what takes place during an actual abortion such as this:

 

Warning: It is quite graphic from 10:55 to 14:40

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Notice what was said at 17:02 to 17:13.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
theophilus
7 hours ago, RazeontheRock said:

Women were dying from illicit abortions, we're not going back to that.

Unborn children are dying from abortions, whether they are legal or illegal.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
RazeontheRock
2 hours ago, Civilwarbuff said:

 

Somehow I missed that kerfuffle. So your point here is that fake news isn't so new? Privatizing most things the government tries to do would be helpful. An exception to this is our jails

Share this post


Link to post
Civilwarbuff

Actually I posted it because it is funny but it does demonstrate that democrat political ads have been over the top for years......no reason to expect that to change simply because they are now out of power.  To the contrary, as we have all seen (especially in the SCOTUS pick even before it was announced) it only gets worse.  Nothing in the world more reactionary than a politician who is afraid of losing their job.

Share this post


Link to post
Becky
Moderator
8 hours ago, RazeontheRock said:

If nobody had said a peep about "overturning Roe v Wade," there wouldn't be nearly so much opposition. That's a dumb move, and it'll never happen. Women were dying from illicit abortions, we're not going back to that.

Abortions have been reduced, and it's being further scrutinized. Under what conditions it is or isn't legal is where the battle really lies.

Planned Parenthood is losing funding due to their radical agenda; that's a real battle too!

 

Should we take up a betting pool, if Trump's nominee gets voted in?  Meanwhile lots of other appointments including Judges still need to get through ...

Your post reads like you approve of murder . Do you have Biblical backing for such approval? 

Share this post


Link to post
William
Staff
9 hours ago, RazeontheRock said:

Women were dying from illicit abortions, we're not going back to that.

Your argument is that we should make it safer to murder innocent life? It is like arguing that suicide bombers risk their own lives taking the life of the innocent therefore we should offer technology (IDEs) to suicide bombers that makes their objective safer.

 

9 hours ago, RazeontheRock said:

Abortions have been reduced, and it's being further scrutinized. Under what conditions it is or isn't legal is where the battle really lies.

Under what conditions is it morally acceptable to murder? While I agree that there is a deeper underlying issue to a woman or party that risks their life or freedom to murder the innocent the magistrate or government is ordained to become a stumbling block to the unrighteous and to actively seek out evil and combat it. There's nothing more evil than murder. Imagine how much further abortion would be reduced if abortion was criminalized and the general public was reeducated. If a woman has to go to great lengths to conspire against another human being (baby) it should be easier to prosecute all that were involved.

 

I went to a "pro-choice" group and asked, when is it okay to flick a baby Joey (fetus) from off its mother (Kangaroo)? You wouldn't believe the hateful responses I received:

 

Kangaroo.gif.0d24dd1ae177b7b6ccc21009bb1c6b8e.gif

 

Clearly in their minds this was more than a lump of cells:

 

Kangaroo.thumb.jpg.03c2fe6cd3ac8fcd2e498f080d6ee2c5.jpg

 

Amazing that people show compassion for a different species and have a sense of morality when it comes to animals but not humans.

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Potluck

If memory serves abortion was sold to the public as protection for the life of the mother if the pregnancy was a life threatening situation.

Boy, it didn't take long before it became a contraceptive last resort and of course abortion for convenience of the mother's living. From life-threatening to living without the inconvenience of raising a child.

 

I often wonder about adoption though. We don't hear much of anything about it when the topic of abortion is brought up here or in the media. Is it possible that adoption laws need a closer look or is there some other problem that means it's largely ignored?

Share this post


Link to post
RazeontheRock
On 7/11/2018 at 10:37 AM, Becky said:

Your post reads like you approve of murder . Do you have Biblical backing for such approval? 

I didn't say anything about approval, or Scripture. Just basic facts of a secular government.

Share this post


Link to post
RazeontheRock
On 7/11/2018 at 11:18 AM, William said:

Your argument is that we should make it safer to murder innocent life?

 

I'm glad you asked that as a question because no, I didn't say that. That's already been accomplished, I don't see any need for more of that.

Quote

 

Under what conditions is it morally acceptable to murder? 

That's a pertinent question to the issue. There are those that would like to make abortion illegal in all cases; that's not going to get broad enough support to be anything but dead in the water.

The first thing that will get the most agreement is situations where the Mother's life is at risk. Please notice that this isn't the catch phrase of "a woman's right to choose," but it does legitimately fall under the umbrella of "women's health." 

 

The next most widely accepted case is rape. There are some that would like to illegalize abortion in the case of rape; can you consider that humane? Note that there are Mothers who would choose to give birth to their children in both these cases, or die trying. I think the word "choice" might have a reasonable application here.

 

Incest is usually mentioned separately, which I think is pretentious. If a Mother wants to abort her baby due to incest, isn't it fair to conclude it was rape? On second thought don't answer that; the Biblical standard of 'an honor society' could apply here, whereby we consider she was raped.

 

The real battleground is gestation period, and we've been making some considerable headway there! The ruling has been viability for some time, and that keeps getting younger. And some States are pushing it younger than that. That's good, but there's also a time when you legitimately don't know you're pregnant yet. 8-12 weeks as a cutoff point is going to meet more resistance than say 13-22 weeks, which is where the real debate is now.

 

Then of course you have the other extreme of the spectrum, absolute monsters like Killary who are in favor of "partial birth abortion;" might as well just put them in front of a steamroller for their first birthday present.

 

Quote

WhileI agree that there is a deeper underlying issue to a woman or party that risks their life or freedom to murder the innocent the magistrate or government is ordained to become a stumbling block to the unrighteous and to actively seek out evil and combat it. There's nothing more evil than murder. Imagine how much further abortion would be reduced if abortion was criminalized and the general public was reeducated. If a woman has to go to great lengths to conspire against another human being (baby) it should be easier to prosecute all that were involved.

I also have been known to be an idealist, but pragmatism accomplishes more where the masses are involved. 

 

Quote

 

Amazing that people show compassion for a different species and have a sense of morality when it comes to animals but not humans.

 

God bless,

William

 

Absolutely! We live in a sin sick world. As part of Roe v Wade, SCOTUS penned that determining the unborn are ""persons" would make their ruling irrelevant. Nobody's followed up with that. A 6-3 majority in SCOTUS might revisit that, but shouting that fact from the rooftops helps nothing, and raises as much opposition as possible. That is ...  not wise.

Share this post


Link to post
William
Staff
3 hours ago, RazeontheRock said:

I'm glad you asked that as a question because no, I didn't say that. That's already been accomplished, I don't see any need for more of that.

That's a pertinent question to the issue. There are those that would like to make abortion illegal in all cases; that's not going to get broad enough support to be anything but dead in the water.

The first thing that will get the most agreement is situations where the Mother's life is at risk. Please notice that this isn't the catch phrase of "a woman's right to choose," but it does legitimately fall under the umbrella of "women's health." 

 

The next most widely accepted case is rape. There are some that would like to illegalize abortion in the case of rape; can you consider that humane? Note that there are Mothers who would choose to give birth to their children in both these cases, or die trying. I think the word "choice" might have a reasonable application here.

 

Incest is usually mentioned separately, which I think is pretentious. If a Mother wants to abort her baby due to incest, isn't it fair to conclude it was rape? On second thought don't answer that; the Biblical standard of 'an honor society' could apply here, whereby we consider she was raped.

 

The real battleground is gestation period, and we've been making some considerable headway there! The ruling has been viability for some time, and that keeps getting younger. And some States are pushing it younger than that. That's good, but there's also a time when you legitimately don't know you're pregnant yet. 8-12 weeks as a cutoff point is going to meet more resistance than say 13-22 weeks, which is where the real debate is now.

 

Then of course you have the other extreme of the spectrum, absolute monsters like Killary who are in favor of "partial birth abortion;" might as well just put them in front of a steamroller for their first birthday present.

 

I also have been known to be an idealist, but pragmatism accomplishes more where the masses are involved. 

 

 

Absolutely! We live in a sin sick world. As part of Roe v Wade, SCOTUS penned that determining the unborn are ""persons" would make their ruling irrelevant. Nobody's followed up with that. A 6-3 majority in SCOTUS might revisit that, but shouting that fact from the rooftops helps nothing, and raises as much opposition as possible. That is ...  not wise.

And we (Christians) and/or Conservatives would never gain support by parroting the left's poster child arguments. Lemme be gracious and suggest that 10% of all abortions are performed because of combined rape, incest, or the mother's life is in danger. If a "persons" right to life were extended to the unborn which resulted in the mother's loss of life and that number raised to a definite 10% of those denied abortion how many persons would be saved out of 57,000,000 persons murdered since Roe v Wade? 

 

And you dodged the question, when is it morally right to commit murder?

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
RazeontheRock

We agree that cases of rape, incest, or the Mother's likely death in childbirth are a small minority of legal abortions in the US. And I suspect there are solid statistics for this, so we don't have to guess. And it wouldn't surprise me that the number proves to be less than 10%.

 

My point is that by vocally glossing over these rare exceptions and loudly going for the jugular of "illegalizing abortion," the goal is obstructed. It galvanizes the opposition. Is that wise? 

 

Are we winning every battle by so much that we can afford to be foolish? Why don't we leave that for Pelosi? And Maxine Waters. And Elizabeth Warren. And Chuck Schumer. One should think they'd self destruct and sanity would prevail; the fact that this isn't happening should inform us that the values and morals you and I share do not have clear majority support.

 

Since that is true, what difference does it make that you and I agree morally? Scripture is the source of such things, and I find it has great clarity. And yet, we don't live in a theocracy. Our secular government means Biblical sentiment does not automatically prevail, legislatively.

 

For the sake of academics, Biblical precept separates murder from killing, with murder being both sin and what we would label today as criminal. That the unborn "lack personhood" before the eyes of the law is a travesty of injustice, in proportions that dwarf Hitler's holocaust. (Btw the first soldier into battle on D-Day was my great Uncle, and he inspired his troops to plunge headfirst into that suicide mission in terms of fighting for the oppressed. I come from a long line of people that are impossible to kill and I've proven that many times myself; I'm telling you the battle plan currently engaged in sucks, that's all)

It's sleight of hand that the unborn isn't recognized as a "person;" you know it, and I know it. This difference means that before the eyes of the law, abortion kills babies but doesn't murder anyone. God is not impressed with such technicality, nor is He fooled.

 

That doesn't change the fact that loose lips sink ships, and tipping your hand to such a fierce opponent isn't wise. We could've all kept mum about the abortion issue and seen SCOTUS stacked with a 6-3 majority, passing pretty easily because ALL of Trump's 25 possible picks are highly qualified. "Godliness with contentment is great gain." Wouldn't that be FAR better? Yes. Yes it would. That's what I've said in this thread, and I don't see how there can be any possible confusion about that.

 

We still might see Kavanaugh confirmed. We can hope, pray, and fund the legal (and media!) fight for that. His confirmation will now only come via the fiercest opposition "the swamp" can muster, solely due to being so vocal about 'illegalizing abortion' when that isn't even really the goal. (We're all reasonable enough to allow for the exceptions that probably don't amount to 10%)  And that particular victory won't accomplish anything more due to the ferocity of the fight. It simply diverts resources away from other areas where it's needed. It's bad strategy. We shouldn't be looking to win a battle of attrition when the "coastal elites" have so much wealth. We should be saavy.

 

It's too late for that on this issue, but the same principle may pop up again.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...