Doesn't this declaration prove that protecting life is the governements primary duty includes banning abortion

Doesn't this declaration prove that protecting life is the governements primary duty includes banning abortion Topic: Doesn't this declaration prove that protecting life is the governements primary duty includes banning abortion
June 19, 2019 / By Stormie
Question: “WE hold these Truth's to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are Instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.” Did you ever notice that without the first of the Rights mentioned, the right to life, that no other rights can be had? Did you also notice that in this statement it is the primary goal of government to protect these rights, starting with the right to life? Is it not the governments duty to get involved in matters, such as protecting life, in fact it is their primary duty, in which if they lack in their job, they have utterly failed? Source(s): The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution Sun Spot, right you are. however remember we do not create when a person is a person, though we decide what our opinion is on that matter, though often for convenient reasons that we hide from especially ourselves. Ciniful, you asked how a supposed law against abortion would be carried out. Well the law alone will curb many from doing so without need of prosecution. If the obvious cases are prosecuted there will be little need to check out every claimed "miscarriage". Ciniful, as for my desire to adopt I do desire to adopt but alas I am a single male and that makes it next to impossible to adopt since the adoption rate is for every adoptable baby forty more parents are waiting in line. joey12074... If you read carefully I did not asker my own question, though I did imply my answer how I framed the question. joey12074..., majority of one particular group of justices who were not appointed by the people. And if you read carefully the rights are "unalienable". In other words they are not only universal but by that fact, unchangeable. Just so you all know medical science will tell you life begins at conception. If you want to argue what a human being is based on some other criteria, well... that's another stories, often times..."How Convenient" (said like the Church Lady). It is all to easy to be "Pro-Choice" when you aren't the one being killed. The pre-born are killed precisely because they do not have the power to stop it. Speaking for those who cannot speak for themselves is a noble cause which I wish I could have faith in humanity to do more of. marksatgu..., Truth or untrue, two wrongs do not make a right. mike225, you are right that I did not quote from the consitution but something much more important, the foundation of the constitution, in which all law rests. mike225, it is also interesting to note that both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are often put in the same book as if they are meant to be inseparably intertwined. Why do you think that is? mike225, not every element in the Declaration of Independence is directly related to Constitutional law but the passage cited certainly was the rhyme and reason for the founding fathers to continue with their pursuits and create the Constitution. I would say without this passage's fundamental principle their would be no Constitution as we know it. mike225, Well we know that you are in law school specializing in constitutional law. Kudos for you. I wonder as part of your studies were you required to read the Declaration of Indepence and if so, I wonder why that is. Crzypvt, I appreciate your answer and find you had a few good points. I too agree the "Pro-Choicers" will debreed themselves out. However a child is a child and no matter who has it, even a demographic we dislike, we should fight to save lives. Crzypvt, by the way I have more lawyer friends than you can point a stick at so let's not try to pull rank too much. My point is not that you can go into a court and say see here in the declaration therefore yada yada yada. My point is this passage in the declaration is the whole reasoning behind the constitution so it would be asinine, even from a legal point, to ignore its principles. Crzypvt, you study constitution law and the DOL is not required reading. I find it hard to believe, maybe it is school depended. But if it is true all I can do is shake my head at the state of the world. And it not the first time I've had to do just that. Crzypvt, Just like the historian gives a slant on the history presented so does the law school. I'd be willing to bet my dollars to your donuts that at another time in place you would have had a very different schooling. Have you ever wondered about that, being a product of your environment? Opps, the top three were meant for mike225 I need to be careful with the copy and paste. mike225, I'm sure you could find others that are or did study constitutional law that would agree with me that the DOL should be considered when trying to interpret the Constitution. In law precedence is a BIG deal. In the DOL’s case it gives hints as to what the founding fathers were thinking. How can the justices interpret the law unless they had some idea of what the founding fathers were thinking? The more information one has the better one can make informed decisions. I'm sure it happens all the time when outside facts are brought in to help Justices to figure out how to interpret law. mike225, as for splitting hairs and women dying in the process, abortion was not legal for many many years and woman in life threating situation had abortions without any great problem. Even though I am convinced that this is true have you ever heard the phrase, "Hard cases make bad law"? Jarod R, your answer did not necessarily answer my question exactly but I appreciate your sentiments. I agree mostly but think if a woman gets pregnant from rape she should get emergency contraception immediately. A woman has between 5-14 days after sexual intercourse to do so. That gives plenty of time to act responsibly. To make an exception in these cases is a bit of a double standard. A life is a life no matter how it was conceived. One should not have to suffer for the wrongs of another. In essence two wrongs do not make a right.
Advertisement
Best Answer

Best Answers: Doesn't this declaration prove that protecting life is the governements primary duty includes banning abortion

Rachael Rachael | 3 days ago
The Declaration of Independence is not controlling law. The Constitution is. However, the part you are quoting is not part of the Constitution, it is part of the Declaration of Independence. You're way off-base arguing that the Constitution is rooted in the Declaration of Independence. Have you ever read the DoI? It contains a list of wrongs committed by the English Sovereign. The spirit of the document is not to give birth to the Constitution (some 15 years later), but to let the English govt know that the colonies were separating. Because it is NOT controlling law, it can not be referenced in legal arguments such as yours, and therefore, your argument is invalid! Because publishers recognize the documents as historical items in the history of the United States. Further, do you really think it is a strong argument to say that because two documents are published together that they are "inseparably intwertwined" and thus imply that they serve the same purpose? Coincidentally, one does *not* find the DoI in a book on Constitutional Law. Ever wonder why that is? You're missing the point (or perhaps you're dodging it). You cannot point to that passage when making a legal argument. You can't. You might as well point to Mother Goose or Tolkein. The DoI is not even considered common law. It has no influence on US law! And, does it really matter whether I've read the damn DoI??? I've read it plenty of times, but there has never been an assigned reading of any part of it for law school. (Wonder why *that* is.) Your initial question says that your source was "The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution." Just what part of the Constitution are you referencing in your poor legal analysis? If you have so many lawyer friends, ask them about how weak your silly argument is because of your notion that it is "asinine" to ignore its principles. Haha, it's not that the law school is poorly educating its students; it's that the law school teaches LAW, and the Declaration is not LAW. Neither does the law school require readings from Magna Carta, even though it had a most profound effect on the Declaration, which you argue inspired the Constitution. Look, on a moral level, I despise abortion. But, there is a social necessity for it in the US. If the government were to somehow find the power to ban abortions, it would also give itself the power to allow them in certain situations. Then hairs start getting split. Women seeking an abortion would have to file a court petition for it, using judicial resources. If the woman's life is in imminent danger from the pregnancy, she may suffer injury from the delay. It would complicate the whole damn process.
👍 154 | 👎 3
Did you like the answer? Doesn't this declaration prove that protecting life is the governements primary duty includes banning abortion Share with your friends
Rachael Originally Answered: How can i make a thesis about Edgar Allan Poe that includes his life and his writing? help me! :]?
I have done a little research for you; it's up to you now to use it to answer your question: I’m sure you’ll find examples that will help the creative juices to flow. What is the Decoder all about? The Poe Decoder is a project started by a small group of Poe enthusiasts to make criticism and information on Poe and his work available on the Internet. The growing collection of essays in the Poe Decoder is written by qualified people with a great interest in Edgar Allan Poe. We want to provide you with accurate facts on one of the greatest American writers ever, and once and for all put an end to all the lies and rumors that surround his person. http://www.poedecoder.com/

Melany Melany
Well, that is part of the argument...yes. However... it is STILL opinion (and often religiously affiliated) on whether or not a fetus or some other stage in the reproduction cycle can be considered a LIFE. Thats the problem. I completely agree that a Government takes on a role of protecting its people (i.e. their lives) from harm (hence, Police, Natl. Guard, etc) but can they really protect a "life" if it isnt considered a "life" by some or many? Until then, they can only sit by and watch. I am not taking sides. Just offering some facts. :o) Your topic is very interesting though and I am sure has been thought of on many occasions. I just don't think a govt can protect a life that to them ...well....doesn't exist. If the govt WERE to agree that a fetus or whatever is a life, or that at 6 months or so into the development stage it can be considered no longer a piece of matter but a living being, than I could see severe limitations of abortions, etc. But if it were to cut-off or limit abortions for ALL stages of the development cycle, it could be attributed to religious beliefs, and we all know the whole seperation of Church and Stage stuff (which I am a firm believer in, especially in these times of religious tension.... a govt sponsored religion would benefit no one).
👍 60 | 👎 -5

Leann Leann
The current labels for abortion is fine. Pro choice is the label for those who want the woman to decide if she should have an abortion. This doesn't necessarily mean that a pro choicer agrees with abortion. They agree with choice. Pro lifer is against abortion at all stages of the game. Many abortion clinics will only do abortions 1st trimester, not after. Your right 7 months is far to late for one. Although I am pro choice I can't think of a good reason for abortion. However if one must occur the earlier the better. An abortion for the sake of birth control is the worst ever reason. As far as the ban on partial birth abortion that was one of the few things that Bush did correctly.
👍 58 | 👎 -13

Joetta Joetta
Moot point. The arguement with abortion has to do with when a fetus can be defined as "life". A non viable fetus doesn't fit the status of "born persons" that are entitled to rights, sorry. Hey look, I caught a red herring!! Okay, for the sake of argument, consider this for a second. Let's say abortion is criminalized again, which it never will be with more than 50 per cent of the population being pro-choice, but anyhow .... let's say it was. How on earth would that be regulated? How can you justify the added expense of security and investigative officers to check into every miscarriage and ensure it was not the mothers fault? Would you offer prison terms for women who chose to abort, and who would then pay the support of her already present children? Who will take all of those unwanted children when the parents don't want them? Who will pay to feed them, clothe them, house them? How many unwanted children have you adopted? If you're so concerned with the well being of these 'babies', then I'm naturally curious how many born, viable children you're concerned about? Knowing that abortion being criminalized would dramatically increase the population of children, how many will you be opening your home and wallet to?
👍 56 | 👎 -21

Gay Gay
Seeing as abortion was made legal not through law but by Judaical mandate, it is a favorite of certain radical groups in America. Well i have to say that i am not in favor of abortion, but looking at it from a demographic standpoint. Our good friends who are very much in favor of abortion are exercising their rights to use it. And in that respect i say more power to them. This is a generation of hippies that are slowly aging. They are also not having children. So slowly our blue friends are making themselves obsolete. They are being breed out, due to the intervention they preach. Well this is an issue that has very little to do with reality. Sooner rather than later the great advocates of abortion will find that they are too old and out numbered to really do anything about it. On a final note i would like to point out something that a police friend of mine brought to my attention. If you were to kill a pregnant woman, you would be tried on two counts of murder. This of course flys in the face of the when life begins crowd, but shows where the hearts of the American people rests. Until we can vote on this topic, i can just say that if you would like an abortion just visit a support group for the people who have had one. Never before i have seen a more shattered group of women. Thanks
👍 54 | 👎 -29

Gay Originally Answered: I'm writing a pro-life abortion argument paper.?
Start it with this TRUE STORY; Pam knows about the pain of considering abortion. More than 21 years ago, she and her husband, Bob, were serving as missionaries to the Philippines and praying for a fifth child. Pam contracted amoebic dysentery, an infection of the intestine caused by a parasite found in a contaminated food or drink. She entered into a coma and was treated with strong antibiotics before they discovered she was pregnant. Doctors urged her to abort the baby for her own safety and told her that the medicines had caused irreversible damage to her baby. She refused the abortion and cited her Christian faith as the reason for her hope that her son would be born without the devastating disabilities physicians predicted. The doctors "didn't think of it as a life, they thought of it as a mass of fetal tissue," Pam said. While pregnant, Pam nearly lost their baby four times but refused to consider abortion. She recalled making a pledge to God with her husband, "If you will give us a son, we'll name him 'Timothy,' and we'll make him a preacher." Pam ultimately spent the last two months of her pregnancy in bed and, eventually, gave birth to a health baby boy August 14, 1987. Pam's youngest son is indeed a preacher. He preaches in prisons, makes hospital visits, and serves with his father's ministry in the Philippines . He also plays football. Pam's son is Tim Tebow. Last year, the University of Florida 's star quarterback, became the first sophomore in history to win college football's highest award, the Heisman Trophy. Tim's notoriety and the family's inspiring story have given Pam numerous opportunities to speak on behalf of women's centers across the country. She was the keynote speaker at the Oct. 23, 2008, benefit banquet for two Louisville ministries. A Woman's Choice Resource Center offers such services as free pregnancy tests, post-abortion counseling, adoption information, and material support. Necole's Place is a companion ministry that provides support services for women in need. Several Louisville-area Kentucky Baptist churches and Long Run Baptist Association help support both ministries. A Woman's Choice board chairman, John Schmitt, reported at the banquet that in the 20 years since the resource center opened, 4,500 children have been saved from abortion -- 400 in this year alone. Speaking of the thousands of lives saved, Pam Tebow said, "That just blows my mind. Every little baby you save matters."
Advertisement

If you have your own answer to the question Doesn't this declaration prove that protecting life is the governements primary duty includes banning abortion, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.