Congress moves to restrict court rulings on God

[robertcloud]

Regardless, a man or woman's sexual behavior is not an issue of much importance to me. I do feel that there is dignity in human life, and I feel that unabashed and superfluous sex detracts from that dignity. I feel that loose sexuality is dangerous both for the engaging parties, and for any life conceived.

Contraception is a lesser evil than abortion obviously. My problem is with the SCOTUS judges, shielded from the public, who voided laws passed in the legislature across the country. I would not have a problem if the constitution explicitly addressed the issue of abortion, but it does not. I would not have a problem with the legality of the issue if a constitutional amendment legalizing abortion was passed, but the SCOTUS stepped outside the bounds of traditional jurisprudence, and I feel this is improper and tragic.

 

[Steeplerot]

Try something besides missionary, or get a real woman.Your ideas of "superflous" sex acts will change overnight.

But then good sex also involves using your head too...your loss...

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: robertcloud
Regardless, a man or woman's sexual behavior is not an issue of much importance to me. I do feel that there is dignity in human life, and I feel that unabashed and superfluous sex detracts from that dignity. I feel that loose sexuality is dangerous both for the engaging parties, and for any life conceived.

Contraception is a lesser evil than abortion obviously. My problem is with the SCOTUS judges, shielded from the public, who voided laws passed in the legislature across the country. I would not have a problem if the constitution explicitly addressed the issue of abortion, but it does not. I would not have a problem with the legality of the issue if a constitutional amendment legalizing abortion was passed, but the SCOTUS stepped outside the bounds of traditional jurisprudence, and I feel this is improper and tragic.

It seemed to me that the Bible has no degrees of evil. Where did you get the idea that contraception is a lesser evil than abortion?

The Constitution does not need to explicitly address abortion, since all specific laws must be consistent with the general spirit of the Constitution. SCOTUS was within its bounds to rule that abortion is a private act, as this is addressed by the Constitution.

I don't know why people like to hide their true arguments, but I'm sure the only reason you say that you would have no problem with abortion if a Constitutional amendment was passed is: (1) This has no chance of happening, and (2) You know such specific amendments do not belong there in the first place.

There's no need to hide behind this curtain of bullsh!t. I wish more people here would stop being disingenuous in their posts (like Riprorin...).

 

[robertcloud]

It could be argued that abortion is a matter of privacy, but the matter is so incendiary and controversial, and the Constitution's right to privacy is so ambiguous when applied to this case, that the SCOTUS should have deferred to the modus operandi of the states, the majority of which had laws which made abortion illegal.

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: robertcloud
It could be argued that abortion is a matter of privacy, but the matter is so incendiary and controversial, and the Constitution's right to privacy is so ambiguous when applied to this case, that the SCOTUS should have deferred to the modus operandi of the states, the majority of which had laws which made abortion illegal.

It seems to be a common mistake people make around here that when an issue is "incendiary and controversial" it should be left up to the judgement of the states. Nowhere in the Constitution can such a principle be found, we only see that powers not expressly given to the federal gov't are left to the states. In fact, I believe it is very important for the federal gov't to address these incendiary and controversial issues itself.

It is SCOTUS's job to interpret the Constitution and remove the ambiguity from it through its rulings. There is no need to remove this Constitutionally given authority from SCOTUS and give it to the states. SCOTUS works from its past precedent and from the Constitution. The approval/disapproval of the states can be used in support of a well-formed argument, but the judgement of the states cannot become an argument in and of itself.

 

[robertcloud]

In a representative democracy, the power of the government comes from the people. Anti-abortion laws had been passed by the people. The SCOTUS, a miniscule representation of the nation, delegetimized traditional jurisprudence(letting the legislature, thusly the people, create the laws). In matters of great importance to the nation, it is proper that they be settled by the people because the power of the laws are derived from the people. The SCOTUS bypassed the legitimate legislative procedure to impose a devisive agenda.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: robertcloud
In a representative democracy, the power of the government comes from the people. Anti-abortion laws had been passed by the people. The SCOTUS, a miniscule representation of the nation, delegetimized traditional jurisprudence(letting the legislature, thusly the people, create the laws). In matters of great importance to the nation, it is proper that they be settled by the people because the power of the laws are derived from the people. The SCOTUS bypassed the legitimate legislative procedure to impose a devisive agenda.

The SCOTUS did not all by itself make the decision. It used the highest Law of the Land, the Constitution, to guide its' decision. No one is above the Law, especially the Constitution, whether that be the President, those in Congress, or even the "Majority" of Citizens.