Alito loves the old Witch Hunters

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
106,534
54,698
1
"Born human beings?!" And here I thought it was sufficient to just call people "human beings." But not if you want to accord a fetus the legal status of a "human being." So, instead of "fetus" and "human being" (two descriptors that have a long history of use and a basis in science), we now have "unborn human being" and "born human being."

Moreover, what Jerry does NOT say is perhaps more disturbing than what he DOES say. He does not explicitly say in his post how far back he wants to extend his concept of "unborn human being," but his other, prior posts make that very clear. He wants it to go back to conception at the minimum. "Life begins at conception." Ergo, a zygote is an "unborn human being" meriting equal rights with a "born human being."

Like NJ, I suspect that Jerry takes it back even farther. Human eggs and sperm are the building blocks of human life, so they, too, merit treatment as "unborn human beings," no? NJ's reference to jerking off constituting "murder" may seem a bit coarse, but he has a point. These pro-life folks are hardly going to be satisfied with limits on surgical abortion. Medically induced abortion (via pills) and contraceptives (particularly the morning after pill) are next up on their hit list.

And to be clear, I have no problem with Jerry holding that belief. It stems in large part from his Catholic faith. It's a free country, and he should have the right to not only hold but practice that belief. For himself and his family. When he seeks to impose his belief on me, I take issue with it.
fair thoughts LB. But in spelling this out, you did concede that there are other opinions that are valid and you cannot prove them wrong (nor can they prove you wrong). Which is, of course, the SCOTUS ruling. Bottom line is that you agree with the ruling as we know it so far.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
19,361
22,003
1
fair thoughts LB. But in spelling this out, you did concede that there are other opinions that are valid and you cannot prove them wrong (nor can they prove you wrong). Which is, of course, the SCOTUS ruling. Bottom line is that you agree with the ruling as we know it so far.
My chiropractor told me in Washington state they can deliver babies, set broken bones, and do minor surgery along with prescribing certain drugs. All because the state legislature wrote it into law due to a sparse population back in the day. This requires those fellows learn a little more for their license test.
It seems different states have different rules about what procedures are medically allowed for things other than abortion.
 

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
46,622
20,668
1
fair thoughts LB. But in spelling this out, you did concede that there are other opinions that are valid and you cannot prove them wrong (nor can they prove you wrong). Which is, of course, the SCOTUS ruling. Bottom line is that you agree with the ruling as we know it so far.
Obli: We frequently disagree, but I give you credit for being civil and acknowledging it when you believe I have made a point.

I DO have to take issue with you a bit on the last sentence of your the above post, however. To the extent that the SCOTUS opinion can be described as acknowledging there are different points of view about a woman's right to elect an abortion, yes, I agree with the opinion. That does not exactly plow new ground.

But the heart of the opinion is its rejection of any kind of constitutional right of privacy, and its giving state legislatures the right to impose a particular view on abortion on everyone living within the borders of that state, which is what a statewide ban on abortion does. (A ban on abortion without any exceptions is all the harsher.) I do not agree with those aspects of the (draft) SC opinion. Nor does a substantial majority of Americans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2lion70

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
106,534
54,698
1
Obli: We frequently disagree, but I give you credit for being civil and acknowledging it when you believe I have made a point.

I DO have to take issue with you a bit on the last sentence of your the above post, however. To the extent that the SCOTUS opinion can be described as acknowledging there are different points of view about a woman's right to elect an abortion, yes, I agree with the opinion. That does not exactly plow new ground.

But the heart of the opinion is its rejection of any kind of constitutional right of privacy, and its giving state legislatures the right to impose a particular view on abortion on everyone living within the borders of that state, which is what a statewide ban on abortion does. (A ban on abortion without any exceptions is all the harsher.) I do not agree with those aspects of the (draft) SC opinion. Nor does a substantial majority of Americans.
I don't agree on your assertion of "privacy" in Alito's "draft". "Privacy" used in RvW, was the privacy to one's body. The problem is that this conflicts to the right of privacy for the fetus. Again, as we established, this is a matter of opinion. it does not affect gay rights or racial rights. There is not a secondary life that isn't being considered in gay and race issues. So "privacy" is used differently in the RvW decision that it would be for rights guaranteed by the constitution. Regardless, it would be left up to the voters of the state. If you live in CA or Vermont, your voted choices might be vastly different from someone living in Wyoming or Utah. And in 2022, that is hardly confining as the world is more and more mobile. If you live in Utah and want an abortion, CA is a short drive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
46,622
20,668
1
I don't agree on your assertion of "privacy" in Alito's "draft". "Privacy" used in RvW, was the privacy to one's body. The problem is that this conflicts to the right of privacy for the fetus. Again, as we established, this is a matter of opinion. it does not affect gay rights or racial rights. There is not a secondary life that isn't being considered in gay and race issues. So "privacy" is used differently in the RvW decision that it would be for rights guaranteed by the constitution. Regardless, it would be left up to the voters of the state. If you live in CA or Vermont, your voted choices might be vastly different from someone living in Wyoming or Utah. And in 2022, that is hardly confining as the world is more and more mobile. If you live in Utah and want an abortion, CA is a short drive.
I think you are mixing up the constitutional "right of privacy" with fetal rights (whatever such rights may be) in your analysis. The right of privacy in the context of an abortion is the right of the woman considering or seeking the abortion not to have others (especially the government) intruding into a personal decision concerning the woman's own bodily autonomy.,

There is certainly the competing interest of not terminating the life of the fetus, and it is not debatable that this interest becomes more compelling the farther a woman's pregnancy progresses. But I have never heard that interest described as a fetal "privacy right."

If you read the draft opinion or salient excerpts from it, Alito is pretty dismissive not only of cases like Roe and Casey, but also of the right of privacy in general. He correctly notes that it is not expressly stated in the Constitution, but that is true of all kinds of things. The Constitution is well over 200 years old.

Relatively few Americans (with the exception of Jerry and some other posters here) would assert that the government has the right to inquire into or ban a married person's use of contraceptives, but that is exactly what happened in a number of states prior to 1948, when the Griswold v. Connecticut case precluded them from doing so by finding that a right of privacy IS implicit in the Constitution. (The decision was a 7-2 decision, with the various Justices agreeing that a right of marital privacy needed to be recognized, but differing on which provision(s) of the Constitution implied it. )

The Griswold court referenced earlier cases where the Supreme Court had found personal liberties that were constitutionally protected despite not being specifically enumerated in the Constitution, such as the constitutional right to parental control over childrearing found in the early 20th century cases Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) and Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925).

As noted in the following Wikipedia excerpt, later decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court extended the principles of Griswold beyond its particular facts.

Right to birth control for unmarried couples, 1972
Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) extended its holding to unmarried couples, whereas the "right of privacy" in Griswold was said to only apply to marital relationships.[21] The argument in Eisenstadt was that it was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to deny unmarried couples the right to use contraception when married couples did have that right (under Griswold).[22] Writing for the majority, Justice Brennan wrote that Massachusetts could not enforce the law against married couples because of Griswold v. Connecticut, so the law worked "irrational discrimination" if not extended to unmarried couples as well.

Right to abortion for any woman, 1973
The reasoning and language of both Griswold and Eisenstadt were cited in the concurring opinion by Associate Justice Potter Stewart in support of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).[23] The decision in Roe struck down a Texas law that criminalized aiding a woman in getting an abortion.[24] The Court ruled that this law was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Abortion became legalized for any woman for any reason, up through the first trimester, with possible restrictions for maternal health in the second trimester (the midpoint of which is the approximate time of fetal viability). In the third trimester of pregnancy, abortion is potentially illegal with exception for the mother's health, which the court defined broadly in Doe v. Bolton.

Right to contraception for juveniles at least 16 years of age, 1977
In Carey v. Population Services International (1977) the U.S. Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional to prohibit anyone other than a licensed pharmacist to distribute nonprescription contraceptives to persons 16 years of age or over, to prohibit the distribution of nonprescription contraceptives by any adult to minors under 16 years of age, and to prohibit anyone, including licensed pharmacists, to advertise or display contraceptives. The Court also held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not allow a state to intrude on an individual's decisions on matters of procreation which is protected as privacy rights.[25]

Right to homosexual relations, 2003
Lawrence v. Texas (2003) struck down a Texas sodomy law that prohibited certain forms of intimate sexual contact between members of the same sex. Without stating a standard of review in the majority opinion, the court overruled Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), declaring that the "Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual." Justice O'Connor, who wrote a concurring opinion, framed it as an issue of rational basis review. Justice Kennedy's majority opinion, based on the liberty interest protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, stated that the Texas anti-sodomy statute touched "upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home", and attempted to "control a personal relationship that ... is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished". Thus, the Court held that adults are entitled to participate in private, consensual sexual conduct. While the opinion in Lawrence was framed in terms of the right to liberty, Kennedy described the "right to privacy" found in Griswold as the "most pertinent beginning point" in the evolution of the concepts embodied in Lawrence.[26]

Right to same-sex marriage, 2015
Griswold was also cited in a chain of cases that led the Supreme Court to legalize same-sex marriage in another landmark case, Obergefell v. Hodges.


Alito's draft opinion attempts to limit the holding of the Court in the Dobbs case to abortion only, but it is hard to see why his rejection of a constitutional right of privacy would not also provide grounds for rolling back privacy related protections in all of the other above noted contexts as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2lion70

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
106,534
54,698
1
I think you are mixing up the constitutional "right of privacy" with fetal rights (whatever such rights may be) in your analysis. The right of privacy in the context of an abortion is the right of the woman considering or seeking the abortion not to have others (especially the government) intruding into a personal decision concerning the woman's own bodily autonomy.,

There is certainly the competing interest of not terminating the life of the fetus, and it is not debatable that this interest becomes more compelling the farther a woman's pregnancy progresses. But I have never heard that interest described as a fetal "privacy right."

If you read the draft opinion or salient excerpts from it, Alito is pretty dismissive not only of cases like Roe and Casey, but also of the right of privacy in general. He correctly notes that it is not expressly stated in the Constitution, but that is true of all kinds of things. The Constitution is well over 200 years old.

Relatively few Americans (with the exception of Jerry and some other posters here) would assert that the government has the right to inquire into or ban a married person's use of contraceptives, but that is exactly what happened in a number of states prior to 1948, when the Griswold v. Connecticut case precluded them from doing so by finding that a right of privacy IS implicit in the Constitution. (The decision was a 7-2 decision, with the various Justices agreeing that a right of marital privacy needed to be recognized, but differing on which provision(s) of the Constitution implied it. )

The Griswold court referenced earlier cases where the Supreme Court had found personal liberties that were constitutionally protected despite not being specifically enumerated in the Constitution, such as the constitutional right to parental control over childrearing found in the early 20th century cases Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) and Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925).

As noted in the following Wikipedia excerpt, later decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court extended the principles of Griswold beyond its particular facts.

Right to birth control for unmarried couples, 1972
Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) extended its holding to unmarried couples, whereas the "right of privacy" in Griswold was said to only apply to marital relationships.[21] The argument in Eisenstadt was that it was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to deny unmarried couples the right to use contraception when married couples did have that right (under Griswold).[22] Writing for the majority, Justice Brennan wrote that Massachusetts could not enforce the law against married couples because of Griswold v. Connecticut, so the law worked "irrational discrimination" if not extended to unmarried couples as well.

Right to abortion for any woman, 1973
The reasoning and language of both Griswold and Eisenstadt were cited in the concurring opinion by Associate Justice Potter Stewart in support of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).[23] The decision in Roe struck down a Texas law that criminalized aiding a woman in getting an abortion.[24] The Court ruled that this law was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Abortion became legalized for any woman for any reason, up through the first trimester, with possible restrictions for maternal health in the second trimester (the midpoint of which is the approximate time of fetal viability). In the third trimester of pregnancy, abortion is potentially illegal with exception for the mother's health, which the court defined broadly in Doe v. Bolton.

Right to contraception for juveniles at least 16 years of age, 1977
In Carey v. Population Services International (1977) the U.S. Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional to prohibit anyone other than a licensed pharmacist to distribute nonprescription contraceptives to persons 16 years of age or over, to prohibit the distribution of nonprescription contraceptives by any adult to minors under 16 years of age, and to prohibit anyone, including licensed pharmacists, to advertise or display contraceptives. The Court also held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not allow a state to intrude on an individual's decisions on matters of procreation which is protected as privacy rights.[25]

Right to homosexual relations, 2003
Lawrence v. Texas (2003) struck down a Texas sodomy law that prohibited certain forms of intimate sexual contact between members of the same sex. Without stating a standard of review in the majority opinion, the court overruled Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), declaring that the "Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual." Justice O'Connor, who wrote a concurring opinion, framed it as an issue of rational basis review. Justice Kennedy's majority opinion, based on the liberty interest protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, stated that the Texas anti-sodomy statute touched "upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home", and attempted to "control a personal relationship that ... is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished". Thus, the Court held that adults are entitled to participate in private, consensual sexual conduct. While the opinion in Lawrence was framed in terms of the right to liberty, Kennedy described the "right to privacy" found in Griswold as the "most pertinent beginning point" in the evolution of the concepts embodied in Lawrence.[26]

Right to same-sex marriage, 2015
Griswold was also cited in a chain of cases that led the Supreme Court to legalize same-sex marriage in another landmark case, Obergefell v. Hodges.


Alito's draft opinion attempts to limit the holding of the Court in the Dobbs case to abortion only, but it is hard to see why his rejection of a constitutional right of privacy would not also provide grounds for rolling back privacy related protections in all of the other above noted contexts as well.
Good stuff but it is clear that the "right to privacy" needs to be better and further defined especially in 2022 terms when medical records and just about everything else is available on the WWW. I'll give you an example. My neighbor is a dentist and constantly gets requests for patient records from the govt. He only gives them up. Yet, the local community passed a law stating that they need to have access, for the fire department, of any and all rooms. They wanted him to give up a key to his records room. he cited patient confidentiality. They told him they didn't care and fined him. He eventually won in court but spend several thousand dollars on attorneys. Other dentists told him to just give up the key. In any case, the city comes back to him all the time citing community records for prescription drugs and chronic issues that are commonly shared by doctors and hospital networks to assure that a prescription doesn't collide with another prescription the patient is on. Or, that a symptom being treated at the ER is not just a side effect of a prescription drug.

Obviously, any definition of privacy needs to be revisited since the WWW became ubiquitous.
 

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
46,622
20,668
1
Life begins at conception , there’s no question about that. The question is, can we consider it a human being at that time? However the beginning is at conception.
The criteria we would use to consider it a human being would you file things like is there a thinking process going on, does it potentially feel emotions or have human interaction, does it feel and react to stimuli such as pain or comfort? All of that wood way to the fact of whether or not we will Collett a human being at that point but there’s no argument that life begins at conception because without conception there will be no baby born.
It appears that you are at odds with your church's position on this.

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America​

The official position of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America states that “abortion prior to viability [of a fetus] should not be prohibited by law or by lack of public funding” but that abortion after the point of fetal viability should be prohibited except when the life of a mother is threatened or when fetal abnormalities pose a fatal threat to a newborn.
 

psuted

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Nov 26, 2010
26,432
21,142
1
Non-viable means unable to sustain itself outside the womb of the female that it resides in. Without the woman the fetus cannot survive on its own. Something like a plant in your garden that will die if you don't care for it.

Even a baby or small child won’t survive if you don’t care for it. Your plant analogy is insulting, insensitive, and shows no regard whatsoever for human life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

Pardlion

Well-Known Member
Nov 10, 2014
8,554
10,645
1
Some of the sources for Justice Alito sure didn't think much good about women - witches.

Justice Alito Cited a Few Cromwellian Nightmares In His Draft Opinion​

On the walls of the Massachusetts State House, there are portraits of past governors going all the way back to John Winthrop’s establishment of the colony back in 1630. And, let me tell you, these are some truly terrifying old white dudes, in their black suits with those high, ruffly collars. A casual visitor from, say, Mars would conclude that, in its early days, the Commonwealth (God save it!) was presided over by a succession of vampire ice sculptures.

I thought about these cats on Wednesday night when Lawrence O’Donnell explained to his audience that, in his now-infamous draft opinion, Justice Samuel Alito cited the work of one Sir Edward Cooke who, in 16-freaking-44, declared abortion to be a crime. O’Donnell made the salient point that Cooke also was deeply involved in actual witch trials, so maybe we can do better for legal theory in 2022 than a guy who practiced law under Charles I.

This prompted curiosity as to what other Cromwellian nightmares contributed to an opinion eliminating a constitutional right in the United States of America in 21st century. Lo and behold, right after citing Cook, Alito summoned the ghost of Sir Matthew Hale, who was a real beauty, bless his heart, several times throughout his draft. For example:


Hale also was a witch hunter, sending women off to the loving arms of judicial murder. And, finally, Hale was fundamental to the development of the legal theory that there was no such thing as marital rape.


Hale’s argument prevailed everywhere in the United States until the 1990s, and it still informs sentences in benighted jurisdictions to this day. It’s important to remember that Hale is still considered to be one of the giants of Western jurisprudence. (Where is gender studies when you need it?) He certainly had a deft political hand, navigating the English Civil War without taking a firm position on either side. Hale advised Charles I during the latter’s trial and yet subsequently, he was made a judge by Oliver Cromwell. And this, from a contemporaneous account of one of Hale’s witch trials, is an indication of how this giant of the law did business.


Alito writes extensively in his decision about how rights have to be “deeply rooted” in American law in order to be considered valid. He does this in an opinion that is “deeply rooted” in the misogyny of the 17th century, I’m surprised he didn’t make the plaintiffs in the case close their fists.
I’m ok with this as long as he didn’t cite that democrat slave owner, Thomas Jefferson.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,469
9,404
1
Agreed. And there is no definitive agreement on "when life begins". You can listen to 100 people, define a dozen definitions, and none are right or wrong. And while one can say "it is the woman's decision", I'd make several other arguments. First, what is a woman? Second, why doesn't the father have a say? Third, why does the woman's life trump that of the fetus? Fourth, why does a pregnant woman losing a child by means of violence constitute murder/manslaughter while abortion is often considered just birth control?

All good questions. Don't look to pro-abort activists for coherent answers though. Their shtick is to bray (or shriek) canned talking points. As a group, this is a vicious and hateful bunch. Just watch them in action...protected by their Dem-Media sponsors in the Party of Death.

I think the only logical answer to when "life begins" comes from biology. It begins at conception. We're talking about a living organism of the human species after all...with a heart beating at 5-6 weeks into pregnancy...a human life by any other name.

So the real debate is the question of "when does meaningful life" begin. And when you start giving others the power to assign their own concepts of "meaningful" to the lives of others, you've placed yourself on a slippery slope indeed. In fact, the pro-aborts have slid a very long way down that hill.

Moreover, the purposeful ending of human life by violence is called killing. Unlike some pro-lifers, I don't use the word "murder" in reference to abortion because there's too much freight attached to it. "Killing" is a biologically accurate word and quite sufficient to describe the act.

At the end of the day, the issue hinges on the questions of what is the value of human life and from where does that value come. Ultimately, the meaning of life arises from its value, and its value arises from its Author.
 

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
46,622
20,668
1
I think the only logical answer to when "life begins" comes from biology. It begins at conception. We're talking about a living organism of the human species after all...with a heart beating at 5-6 weeks into pregnancy...a human life by any other name.
Jerry: Your position is pretty rigid for someone who styles himself as up to speed on Catholic tradition. But, then again, the same could be said for Sam Alito, another conservative Catholic. For centuries, Catholic doctrine regarded abortion as a sin, but not as murder. The Church taught that abortion was not homicide until "ensoulment," which occurred at quickening. The precise timeline was hotly debated, but in 1591, the papacy declared that ensoulment occurred at 144 days after conception, or roughly 20 weeks into a pregnancy.

It would take more than two centuries after that until Pope Pius IX declared that life begins at conception. But even then, Catholic arguments about the "culture of life" weren't championed until Pope Paul VI came out with his encyclical, "Humanae Vitae," in 1968.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
19,361
22,003
1
All good questions. Don't look to pro-abort activists for coherent answers though. Their shtick is to bray (or shriek) canned talking points. As a group, this is a vicious and hateful bunch. Just watch them in action...protected by their Dem-Media sponsors in the Party of Death.

I think the only logical answer to when "life begins" comes from biology. It begins at conception. We're talking about a living organism of the human species after all...with a heart beating at 5-6 weeks into pregnancy...a human life by any other name.

So the real debate is the question of "when does meaningful life" begin. And when you start giving others the power to assign their own concepts of "meaningful" to the lives of others, you've placed yourself on a slippery slope indeed. In fact, the pro-aborts have slid a very long way down that hill.

Moreover, the purposeful ending of human life by violence is called killing. Unlike some pro-lifers, I don't use the word "murder" in reference to abortion because there's too much freight attached to it. "Killing" is a biologically accurate word and quite sufficient to describe the act.

At the end of the day, the issue hinges on the questions of what is the value of human life and from where does that value come. Ultimately, the meaning of life arises from its value, and its value arises from its Author.
Totally agree.
 

Jerry

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
4,469
9,404
1
Jerry: Your position is pretty rigid for someone who styles himself as up to speed on Catholic tradition. But, then again, the same could be said for Sam Alito, another conservative Catholic. For centuries, Catholic doctrine regarded abortion as a sin, but not as murder. The Church taught that abortion was not homicide until "ensoulment," which occurred at quickening. The precise timeline was hotly debated, but in 1591, the papacy declared that ensoulment occurred at 144 days after conception, or roughly 20 weeks into a pregnancy.

It would take more than two centuries after that until Pope Pius IX declared that life begins at conception. But even then, Catholic arguments about the "culture of life" weren't championed until Pope Paul VI came out with his encyclical, "Humanae Vitae," in 1968.

Laf, the Catholic teaching on abortion is crystal clear and has been consistent from the beginning when the Didache, the Church's first catechism dating back to approximately 80 AD, declared, and I quote: You shall not procure abortion. You shall not destroy a newborn child.

Those very same strictures are reflected in the current Catechism, paragraphs 2270-71, which has this to say on the topic:

>>2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73

My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74


2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75

God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76<<


Keep in mind that Christianity burst on the scene in a world where abortion and infanticide were practiced on a wide scale....even legally sanctioned.

Now in its death throes, Western Civilization returns to the barbarism of ages ago and dubs it moral enlightenment. But the wheels are fast coming off the cart, my friend.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

TN Lion

Well-Known Member
Sep 6, 2001
33,036
12,649
1
Some of the sources for Justice Alito sure didn't think much good about women - witches.

Justice Alito Cited a Few Cromwellian Nightmares In His Draft Opinion​

On the walls of the Massachusetts State House, there are portraits of past governors going all the way back to John Winthrop’s establishment of the colony back in 1630. And, let me tell you, these are some truly terrifying old white dudes, in their black suits with those high, ruffly collars. A casual visitor from, say, Mars would conclude that, in its early days, the Commonwealth (God save it!) was presided over by a succession of vampire ice sculptures.

I thought about these cats on Wednesday night when Lawrence O’Donnell explained to his audience that, in his now-infamous draft opinion, Justice Samuel Alito cited the work of one Sir Edward Cooke who, in 16-freaking-44, declared abortion to be a crime. O’Donnell made the salient point that Cooke also was deeply involved in actual witch trials, so maybe we can do better for legal theory in 2022 than a guy who practiced law under Charles I.

This prompted curiosity as to what other Cromwellian nightmares contributed to an opinion eliminating a constitutional right in the United States of America in 21st century. Lo and behold, right after citing Cook, Alito summoned the ghost of Sir Matthew Hale, who was a real beauty, bless his heart, several times throughout his draft. For example:


Hale also was a witch hunter, sending women off to the loving arms of judicial murder. And, finally, Hale was fundamental to the development of the legal theory that there was no such thing as marital rape.


Hale’s argument prevailed everywhere in the United States until the 1990s, and it still informs sentences in benighted jurisdictions to this day. It’s important to remember that Hale is still considered to be one of the giants of Western jurisprudence. (Where is gender studies when you need it?) He certainly had a deft political hand, navigating the English Civil War without taking a firm position on either side. Hale advised Charles I during the latter’s trial and yet subsequently, he was made a judge by Oliver Cromwell. And this, from a contemporaneous account of one of Hale’s witch trials, is an indication of how this giant of the law did business.


Alito writes extensively in his decision about how rights have to be “deeply rooted” in American law in order to be considered valid. He does this in an opinion that is “deeply rooted” in the misogyny of the 17th century, I’m surprised he didn’t make the plaintiffs in the case close their fists.
Yep, got it. You are on record as a supporter of political candidates who would allow the murder of a baby up until the moment of birth. Search your soul, my friend.