Excon,

Here is the full text of the 14th Amendment.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The due process clause, listed in Section 1, does not mention a right to privacy. Nor does any other part of the 14th Amendment. Or for that matter, any other part of the Constitution. Due process does not indicate some right to privacy. What due process protects is the sanctity of PRIVATE CONTRACTS. But nowhere is there an enumeration of a right to privacy.

Furthermore, you seem to emphasize the "due process" clause of section 1, but you clearly ignore the "Citizenship" clause.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

This clearly states that due process rights do NOT apply to illegal aliens or foreign-born enemies of there USA. Such rights are guaranteed ONLY to US citizens, whether natural born or naturalized. Yet you want us to extend due process rights to those sitting in Gitmo and to illegal aliens.

To use your own wording against you,

Quote:

---

When it comes to issues you don't believe in, you dismiss the relevance the Constitution has on those issues... But, when it comes to Constitutional rights you support, then you know the Constitution pretty good.

---

And it is especially egregious when you try to do so with non-existant rights that are made up out of whole cloth.

BTW, John Kerry SHOULD have been elliminated as a candidate for President on the basis of Section 3. He is a former military officer who has acted in rebellion against the military and the government of the USA, met with and gave comfort to enemies of the USA, and participated in civil unrest against the USA. Ergo, he should never have been allowed to be elected to the Senate, much less run for President.

(One might argue the same about Barack Obama, who has met with and given aid and comfort to Bill Ayers and Burnadette Dorn, avowed enemies of the US government and known terrorist leaders of the Weatherman Underground. But I won't go there.)

Elliot

Quote:

---

I say that it is a state issue, not a federal one. Let the people decide what their state's laws should be on abortion. Roe V. Wade was a case of legislation through Judicial fiat. The federal government is not supposed to have a say on this issue. Let the states decide.

---

I still say it is not a Fed or State issue. It is an individual issue. NO gov is supposed to have a say on this issue.

Quote:

---

And turning your argument back on itself, I find it interesting that those who claim to be "pro-choice" are only pro-choice on abortion.

---

Not true, a blanket statement. And before you turn my argument back on me, address my original argument.

Quote:

---

They never seem to be pro-choice on whether other people should own a gun, other people should keep the money they earn, which schools other people's children should go to, what prayers can be said in public, and what forms of art can be exhibitted in public buildings.

---

I am a pro-choice when it comes to abortion.
I am also pro-choice on all these issues you listed. It's not to say that some of the more dangerous choices (guns) should not be heavely regulated. I am extremely pro-choice when it comes to who you marry. That is another area, the gov has no business being.

Quote:

---

"Stay out of my bedroom", apparently doesn't apply to "Stay out of my wallet" or "Stay out of my gun-rack".

---

Not sure what you mean by this.

Quote:

---

And taking a slightly different argument, the same people who are most ardently in favor of abortion rights for women to kill unborn children also seem to be the ones most in favor of protecting the rights of murderers and rapists to live.

---

Again, not true. Blanket statement.

Quote:

---

It is okay to kill innocent, unborn, helpless babies, but adult murderers and rapists must be protected?

---

This is the sarcasm I was referring too earlier. It doesn't help your case. It's just your warped view.

Sorry, but I wasn't being sarcastic. That is exactly how I view the position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Sorry, but I wasn't being sarcastic. That is exactly how I view the position.

---

Are you going to address any other issues? Like why in the world should the state have a say in whether a woman has an abortion or if someone marries a same sex partner.

Hello again, c:

You got him nailed! He's a keep the government out of your wallet kind of guy. But, when it comes to your bedroom, government SHOULD have a say.

excon

The founders believed in the concept of a civil society . I have heard the defense often that although someone is a libertarian that they are not anarchists .

That civil society did not just emerge but was the product of generations of human experience and reasoning . A moral order was vital for a civil society to function. That was an integral part of what establishes a cultural identity . Thus there is a balance between unfettered individual rights and government authority.

Madison put it this way in Federalist #51
In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

The Preamble of the Constitution states it's broad goal is preserving a right to life. That presumes an imperitive to defending of a life over the abstract women's right to choice .

But they also set up a Federal system where conflicting social issues were to be decided at the local State level ;by the people ;not an oligarchy in black robes. Anyone pleased with the Roe decision should be aware that the Supreme Court has changed it's mind before and will do so again on issues that they have no real business being in anyway.

In fact ,the founders again made it clear in Federalist 45 the relevant constitutional principle :
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. ..... ... The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.

Issues of sexual morality belong in the category of "the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people."

That is why it was wrong for the Court to rule on Roe;and it was right that the people of California had a right to decide issues of gay marriage.

[

I

Quote:

---

ssues of sexual morality belong in the category of "the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people."

---

How does same sex marriage concern your life liberty or property?

See my last sentence... it is a State issue... even the gay rights people understand that .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

see my last sentence ...it is a State issue .......even the gay rights people understand that .

---

I got that part. I just don't see how that becomes a state issue. It does not take away the rights, well being, etc. of the states citizens. It should not even be up for debate. How does it inflict harm of any kind?

The question is not if the state has the right to either allow or deny same sex marriage but if the people of a civil society have that right to define marriage and decide who has that right. My opinion is that it is not unalienable that marriage is a right at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

but if the people of a civil society have that right to define marriage and decide who has that right.

---

Hello again, tom:

If there are right's being handed out, they must be handed out equally - to every citizen - not just to the ones whom you decide should have 'em. That's what the Constitution of your civil society says. Really, it does.

So no, you can't decide who has a right and who doesn't.

excon

I think that reforms to entitlement programs like social security and welfare are needed to help get out of the deficit. A national sales tax of about 7% would not be popular, but I think it is necessary to get the U.S. out of debt. Canada was hopelessly in debt until the Good and Services tax was introduced in 1991. Soon after the tax was introduced, Canada was one of the few countries in the world to have budget surpluses until the financial crisis started.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

And it is especially aggregious when you try to do so with non-existant rights that are made up out of whole cloth.

---

Hello again, El:

I can't help it if the Supreme Court didn't know where to find the right of privacy. It's in the Fourth Amendment, not the Fourteenth... But, it IS in there.

excon

Without rehashing the whole debate again . You are wrong . Marriage is a not a right that has to be equally applied. There are specific guildelines established that qualifies people for the institution... always were ,always will be . Just ask the Mormons if you don't believe me. The fact is ;and I explained it in another thred ,that marriage is a religious institution as well as state sanctioned .My religion does not think heterosexual and same sex marriages are equal and the state sanctioning same sex marriage would force my church to violate that premise and be open to violations of it's 1st amendment rights.

You think I'm wrong ? The church finds itself already in similar circumstances in issues of administering health care and charitible services. As an example ,the archdiocese of Boston eventually closed down its adoption program, because the state of Massachusetts insisted that every adoption agency in the state must allow same-sex couples to adopt. A Methodist organization in New Jersey lost part of its tax-exempt status because it refused to allow two lesbian couples to use their facility for a civil union ceremony.

A wedding photographer in New Mexico was found guilty of discrimination by the state's Human Rights Commission and ordered to pay $6,000 because she declined the business of a lesbian couple. She didn't want to take photos of their commitment ceremony.

State laws that protect gays from discrimination include some religious exemptions for reasons such as this. But treating the "marriages" as equal removes the exemptions under the guise of "equal rights" .

If you tell me that you think the state should get out of the marriage business I'd probably be willing to make compromises . If you tell me that there are various benefits associated with the contractual union of people that are denied same sex unions now including Social Security survivor benefits, tax-free inheritance, spousal immigration rights I would not disagree . But these issues of equal distribution of benefits could be conferred by federally recognized civil unions.

The debate over this issue itself has evolved and civil society will reach this compromise that protects religious freedom and the civil rights of the gays eventually if the courts stay out of it .

The institutions of civil society acknowledge heterosexual marriages on the basis of historical and cultural preferences dating back millennia.. most likely predating established governments . The government didn't decide this; society did. Government recognition of traditional marriage was not a change forced upon society, but rather a legal recognition and codification of what society had already established.

Further it was an absolute absurd decision by the California Supreme Court to rule that a Constitutional amendment properly passed by the state's people was unconstitutional . How do you even come to that conclusion ? Could the US Supreme Court rule whether an amendment properly passed is itself unconstitutional ?

That is one of the reasons I mentioned that the courts are out of control and need to be reigned in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Further it was an absolute absurd decision by the California Supreme Court to rule that a Constitutional amendment properly passed by the state's people was unconstitutional . How do you even come to that conclusion ? Could the US Supreme Court rule whether an amendment properly passed is itself unconstitutional?

---

Quote:

---

If there are right's being handed out, they must be handed out equally - to every citizen - not just to the ones whom you decide should have 'em. That's what the Constitution of your civil society says. Really, it does.

---

Hello again, tom:

I know you think there should be special rights for heterosexuals, but the Constitution says otherwise. I know it's getting old, but...

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution says... "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges of immunities of citizens on the United States..." it goes on, of course, to say that no state may "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws... "

Consequently, the state of California can't do that - even if they tried to do it by amending their Constitution...

Now, I know that you think "equal" means that heterosexual people are more "equal" than homosexuals. I got it... I suggest, however, that the words in the Constitution are crystal clear.

Excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again,

It's true. That tom guy really keeps us on the straight and narrow... Here we go:

(1) Fix the economy.
a. reform health care
1. throw the insurance companies OUT, and make the gov the single payer.

They tried that in Canada and their Supreme Court in 2005 allowed private pay, because "Access to a waiting list is not access to health care," wrote Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin for the 4-3 Court

Featured Article - WSJ.com.

I do think if it is done right - i would be in favor

Proposal of the Physicians' Working Group for Single-Payer National Health Insurance | Physicians for a National Health Program

But if it done like this

Health care hinges on Senate insiders - Carrie Budoff Brown - POLITICO.com

The senators in the room include Baucus, Grassley, Kennedy, Hatch and Sens. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), Michael B. Enzi (R-Wyo.), Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Judd Gregg (R-N.H.).


i would be very very scared :eek: None are doctors or nurses or epidemiologists or have MPH. Notice that, that AIG screw up, Dodd is on the short list !




b. reform energy
1. make it green, and make it an alternate to fossil fuel.


More rhetoric? Where is the beef?
Clean coal, nuclear, hydroelectric, offshore drilling

How about this :)

http://www.kentucky.com/181/story/729639.html

Lose weight, keep healthy and reduce your utilities while being green.





c. reform entitlements
1. They are growing faster than we can pay for them... We either need to raise SS and Medicare taxes, or lower services.



or raise the age, cut out fraud.




d. re-regulate
1. We must end the market tilt toward the rich.



As ET has mentioned - FAIR TAX

Fair Tax Reform

"Democrats scream on one hand about the wealthy but they don't pay their fair share of tax at all. Tehresa Heinz Kerry and her Husband( John Kerry) paid a net 12% on their tax returns shared during the last Presidential race.
Millions in investment income and wages and they pay only 12%. On investment income they paid ZERO toward supporting Social Security and Medicare. Why? There is no payroll tax on investment income"







(3) Rebuild the infrastructure.
1. We need roads and bridges to work.


I would go further and make the entire country free wireless acess :)




(3) Reform immigration.
1. We should stop trying to keep ourselves WHITE.



I agree, open the doors, no quota.
BUT : background, medical check ups first. Also fingerprint, dna, and national ID.
Now that may seem like alot but we already have soc sec #s so I don't think National ID # is any big deal.



excon

---

I'm glad someone other than us righty's have some ideas ;)







G&P

Quote:

---

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution says... "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges of immunities of citizens on the United States..." it goes on, of course, to say that no state may "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws... "

Consequently, the state of California can't do that - even if they tried to do it by amending their Constitution...

---

If that were the case then there would've been no need for the 19th Amendment since equal protection would've meant women couldn't be denied the equal right to vote.

Ex
Your interpretation of the 14th is flawed. Are you now saying that there is nothing to stop a future court from declaring there is no “compelling state interest for equal protection purposes” in banning polygamy,or incestuous marriages ? Under you're version of equal protection all laws restricting those marriages must also be struck .

John A. Bingham ;the author of the 14th said that the 14th “takes from no State any right that ever pertained to it.” Well defining marriage has been a State right since the beginning of the nation... and states still reserve that right after the 14th passed.

I will remind you that both Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy ;who both voted in the majority in the Lawrence v Texas decision said they would've voted the other side if the law had applied to marriage.

Baker v. Nelson ;a same sex marriage law suit that made it to SCOTUS was thrown out because the court deamed it a state issue. In other words THERE IS NO COMPELLING FEDERAL QUESTION in marriage.

Hello again, tom:

I'd sure love a chance to argue this WITH YOU before the Supremes... I'd kick your butt.

excon

So where is the Constitutional protection for the as yet not born?

As I posted earlier, and no one challenged my statement, that is a perfect human life needing ONLY a few weeks time to breathe on its own.

Where are the advocates for these US Citizens?

Why is a mother allowed to hire an assassin to kill her baby?

Don't say that this does not pertain to the OP because it DOES. More taxpayers will certainly help the economy in the future. You DO think we have a future, don't you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

So where is the Constitutional protection for the as yet not born? Where are the advocates for these US Citizens?

---

Hello gal:

Look, I'd like the law to allow me to smoke pot anywhere I choose. But, no matter what I'd like, the law says otherwise...

Same with you. In fact, being from the law and order party, you should be an advocate for LAW, instead of wishing the law was different.

You ask where the Constitutional protection for the unborn is? I don't know. It's NOT in the Constitution. That's where these rights come from - the ONLY place.

Wishing the law were different doesn't cut it.

excon

Ex
That would be fun. Would that be the Supremes before or after they invented penumbras, formed by emanations ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Ex
that would be fun. Would that be the Supremes before or after they invented penumbras, formed by emanations ?

---

So often, I have no idea what you are talking about. Now, let me get my dictionary.:D

I have no idea what that means either . But that was the language in a court decision(Griswold v Connecticut ) that greatly expanded the meaning of all amendment and provision in the Constitution beyond what was intended . It has been an essential tool of those who believe in an evolving Constitution ;or as they call it a "living ,breathing " Constitution.

Lawyers across America had to pull out their dictionaries when reading Griswold for the first time also so you are not alone . A" penumbra" is an astronomical term describing the partial shadow in an eclipse or the edge of a sunspot... and it is another way to describe something unclear or uncertain. “Emanation” is a scientific term for gas made from radioactive decay — it also means “an emission.”
Justice William O. Douglas wrote in the decision that “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.”

Hello again,

It means simply, that the Supreme Court found a right to privacy embodied in the Constitution even though it wasn't enumerated.

They found it in the "due process" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but I think it's in the Fourth Amendment where they say a citizen shall be "secure in his papers and effects against unreasonable search and seizure".

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cozyk

Are you going to address any other issues? Like why in the world should the state have a say in whether a woman has an abortion or if someone marries a same sex partner.

---

I'll address abortion, since that was the topic of our conversation:

The purpose of government... any government... is to protect the innocent. That is, in fact, the only real purpose of the government, from a sociological perspective. The fact that governments do other things besides protecting the innocent doesn't change the fact that this is government's true purpose. There is no other purpose to government. Otherwise, why form a government (or society, for that matter) in the first place?

That said, who is more innocent and in need of protection than an unborn child?

Therefore, the government has a responsibility, a duty, to protect innocent unborn children. THAT is what gives them the right to address the issue of abortion.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cozyk

I got that part. I just don't see how that becomes a state issue. It does not take away the rights, well being, etc. of the states citizens. It should not even be up for debate. How does it inflict harm of any kind?

---

What it does is create a new set of "rights" that have never existed before, for the purpose of a specific group of people. Never before in history has there been a "right" of men to marry men or women to marry women. It is being created now specifically for the Gay community. That technically makes it a violation of the Constitution's "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment. Thus, it must be addressed by the government. Furthermore, since it is not an issue enumerated by the Constitution as belonging to the Federal government, it becomes a states rights issue.

The creation of a new set of rights for a specific group is by its nature a danger. Any time a specific group gets special rights it is a danger.

Furthermore, any time that rules are changed it creates issues of unintended consequences, which are usually dangerous and detrimental, specifically because they ARE unintended.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, El:

I can't help it if the Supreme Court didn't know where to find the right of privacy. It's in the Fourth Amendment, not the Fourteenth... But, it IS in there.

excon

---

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The 4th Amendment protects against search and seizure except with probable cause and warrant. It does NOT guarantee "privacy".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

It is being created now specifically for the Gay community. That technically makes it a violation of the Constitution's "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment. Any time a specific group gets special rights it is a danger.

---

Hello again, El:

There's NO creation here. Nobody is MAKING new law. There are NO proposals on the table. Nobody is creating ANYTHING.

The "creation" of the conflict, if there is one, started when citizens attempted to secure their RIGHTS under the Constitution, and they were denied by the state... THAT'S what created this problem...

Saying that there's a new set of rights, is like saying we created a new set of rights for black people when we passed the Equal Rights Amendment... We didn't do that...

Gay marriage wouldn't be a new set of rights either... It would be simply letting one group of American citizens share in the rights that the OTHER group of citizens has always had.

excon

Excon, I disagree.

Until now, any man had the right to marry any woman he wished to marry. Until now any woman had the right to marry any man she wished to marry. There was NO LEGAL RIGHT FOR A MAN TO MARRY A MAN OR A WOMAN TO MARRY A WOMAN. In fact, most state constitutions specifically defined marriage as between a man and a woman. No man was permitted to marry another man, and no woman was permitted to marry another woman. PERIOD.

NOW we are creating a new set of rules wherein man is permitted to marry man and woman is permitted to marry woman. This IS A NEW SET OF LAWS AND RULES THAT HAVE NEVER EXISTED IN OUR HISTORY. That fact cannot be denied. This is a new set of rules, a new set of "rights" that did not exist before. By trying to redefine marriage, they are trying to create a new set of rights that do not exist and never have before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

In fact, most state constitutions specifically defined marriage as between a man and a woman. No man was permitted to marry another man, and no woman was permitted to marry another woman. PERIOD.

---

Hello again, El:

And, I disagree with you. You're wrong. Most state constitutions didn't define marriage as between a man and a woman. Those that do, did it specifically to deny homosexuals the rights they themselves enjoy.

That, in and of itself, is abhorrent, as was prop 8 in California. But, I have no fear. My wonderful country, although slow to do so, has always included the unpopular into the political mainstream. I have no doubt that this is going to happen here in spite of religious zealots like yourself.

What a wonderful country we live in... Women now have rights who didn't usta... Black people have rights they didn't usta... Pretty soon, gay people will have rights they didn't usta have either. God bless the USA.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello gal:

Look, I'd like the law to allow me to smoke pot anywhere I choose. But, no matter what I'd like, the law says otherwise...

Same with you. In fact, being from the law and order party, you should be an advocate for LAW, instead of wishing the law was different.

You ask where the Constitutional protection for the unborn is? I dunno. It's NOT in the Constitution. That's where these rights come from - the ONLY place.

Wishing the law were different doesn't cut it.

excon

---

I'll tell you where the not yet born are protected in the Constitution. It is where the Constution says that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property except as punishment for crime.

The obstinate, unscientific attitude that denys the personhood of that baby is in violation of the constirution. And it is based on totally SELFISH motives, with only a very few exceptions.

All we need are legislators that will write laws defining the personhood of the baby.

Hello again, gal:

The problem is when abortion is outlawed, only outlaws will have abortions. I was around when that was the norm.
I did time in prison with guys who sought illegal abortions for their girlfriends, because their girlfriends couldn't get a legal abortion... I did time with abortionists who killed women with dirty coat hangers because women couldn't get a legal abortion... And, the woman's prison across the way was filled to the top with women who sought illegal means to end their pregnancies.

I don't disagree with you about the baby, but the bad old days were worse. There is no easy answer.

excon

Ex, surely you're not going to tell us that illegal abortions ran into the millions are you?

You say you do not disagree with me about the babies, so that means you recognize that they are being murdered, and that is against the law everywhere.

The difference now is that we let the murderers go free along with those who hired them.

I did intend to show the connection between abortion and the OP, but apologize that the subject has turned so drastically.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

Ex, surely you're not gonna tell us that illegal abortions ran into the millions are you?

---

Hello again, gal:

No, not then... But they would today if we outlawed them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

You say you do not disagree with me about the babies, so that means you recognize that they are being murdered, and that is against the law everywhere

---

Murder is a legal term. Legally, a fetus isn't a person, and isn't capable of being murdered. I don't disagree that a fetus is killed, but "killing", per se, isn't against the law.

It's NOT a good argument. There is NO good argument for either side.

excon

Are you a person, when you don't know you are a person?

One of the cornerstones that you are a person is the awareness that you are a person. An embryo is a bunch of live cells clustered together.
When I was 6 weeks pregnant. I referred to this pin point of cells as "my baby". Why? Because I perceived it that way.
I wanted a child and I put all my emotions into calling this my baby. The pin point of cells didn't have a clue that it was anything and if I had miscarried, I would have mourned for it. On the other hand, the cell cluster couldn't have cared less.

These cells were not conscious, feeling thinking, aware, hungry, full, cold, hot, tired, refreshed human beings. It was just a cluster of cells.

I guess what I am trying to say is that whether an embryo is a person or not is in the eye of the beholder. Not in the reality of what it actually is. A cluster of cells.

I'm probably going to get a lot of grief about this, but I'm braced and ready. Guess it's safe to say the religious zealots are horrified.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, gal:

The problem is when abortion is outlawed, only outlaws will have abortions. I was around when that was the norm.

---

Yeah... and there were a lot fewer of them than there are now. Clearly this was a case where illegalization DID work.

Quote:

---

I did time in prison with guys who sought illegal abortions for their girlfriends, because their girlfriends couldn't get a legal abortion...

---

Boo hoo. Sorry, but I can't get all worked up about guys who sought illegal abortions for their girlfriends. They knew the law, they broke the law. They aren't innocent victims.

Quote:

---

I did time with abortionists who killed women with dirty coat hangers because women couldn't get a legal abortion... And, the woman's prison across the way was filled to the top with women who sought illegal means to end their pregnancies.

---

Again, boo hoo. I have no great sadness for the murderers who killed the women. Nor can I work up huge sympathy for the women who decided to murder their unborn babies in order to erase their own screw-ups. We're not talking about rape cases here, for which the women should not have to bear the consequences of the rapists actions. Nor are we talking about incest cases, where again, the woman should not bear the consequences of others who take advantage of her. But in cases where the woman and man decided to have sex, and then regretted it afterward, why should I condone their breaking the law? They KNEW the consequences of their actions. They knew what would happen. They chose to do it anyway and they got pregnant. They got scared, and instead of dealing with it, they decided to abort. They took their mistake out on an innocent baby and murdered it. Which just proves that they were too immature to have made the decision in the first place.

I've got no regrets over those people being in jail. They weren't some innocent flowers with no other options. They had choices every step of the way. They could have chosen not to have sex. They could have chosen to use a condom or some other birth control. They could have chosen not to have an abortion. They could have chosen to bring the child to term and raise it themselves. They could have chosen to put the child up for adoption. They CHOSE their actions. They weren't forced. You do the crime, you do the crime.

Quote:

---

I don't disagree with you about the baby, but the bad old days were worse. There is no easy answer.

Excon

---

Define worse.

According to Planned Parenthood, the number of abortions in the USA in 1973 was 744,600. In 2004, that number was 1,293,000. According to Right to Life, the number of abortions in the USA since legalization in 1973 is approximately 49,552,000. The teen pregnancy rate has increased from 49.4 per 1,000 to 99.2 per 1,000. The abortion rate has increased from 19.9 per 1,000 to 43.8 per 1,000.

These statistics seem MUCH worse to me than in 1972. Legalizing abortion hasn't made things better. It's made them worse. It took away the stigma of teen pregnancy, and has resulted in an increase in teen pregnancy, and a resultant increase in teen abortion. You can't take away the consequences of bad behavior and expect that it will result in better behavior. Especially when it results in the deaths of innocents.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cozyk

Are you a person, when you don't know you are a person?

One of the cornerstones that you are a person is the awareness that you are a person. An embryo is a bunch of live cells clustered together.
When I was 6 weeks pregnant. I referred to this pin point of cells as "my baby". Why? Because I perceived it that way.
I wanted a child and I put all my emotions into calling this my baby. The pin point of cells didn't have a clue that it was anything and if I had miscarried, I would have mourned for it. On the other hand, the cell cluster couldn't have cared less.

These cells were not conscious, feeling thinking, aware, hungry, full, cold, hot, tired, refreshed human beings. It was just a cluster of cells.

I guess what I am trying to say is that whether an embryo is a person or not is in the eye of the beholder. Not in the reality of what it actually is. A cluster of cells.

I'm probably going to get a lot of grief about this, but I'm braced and ready. Guess it's safe to say the religious zealots are horrified.

---

Are you saying that when the child can feel pain, respond to sound and light, move around it is not a person?

I ain't buying it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cozyk

Are you a person, when you don't know you are a person?

One of the cornerstones that you are a person is the awareness that you are a person.

---

Who created that standard?

Most babies are not self aware for the first several months of life. According to some journals I have read, self-awareness develops at 15-20 months. By your definition, abortion would be legal until the baby is 1 1/4 to almost 2 years old.

Dogs and cats are not self-aware. They have no cognition as we understand it. They are animals. If I attempted to kill your pet dog or cat, however, I am pretty sure you would be against that fact.

Life, in science, is defined by having all or most of the following:

Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature. This is true of a fetus.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life. As you have said, this is true of a fetus as well.
Metabolism: Consumption of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life. A fetus absorbs energy from its mother's placenta and converts it to energy.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish. A fetus grows.
Adaptation: The ability to change over a period in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present. Feti change in response to their environment.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and chemotaxis. This has been proven to exist in a fetus by any mother who has talked to their unborn baby or played music, or had to walk around the room to get the baby to go to sleep and stop kicking mommy.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth. This occurs later in life upon achieving puberty, but it does occur.

Others seem to include ambulation in that list... the ability to move. I again point to the kicking and turning of the fetus in the womb.

The fetus is alive by any scientific definition.

Quote:

---

An embryo is a bunch of live cells clustered together.
When I was 6 weeks pregnant. I referred to this pin point of cells as "my baby". Why? Because I perceived it that way.

---

That's an important perception. However, please keep in mind that many of those cells are the neurological system of the baby.

I wanted a child and I put all my emotions into calling this my baby. The pin point of cells didn't have a clue that it was anything and if I had miscarried, I would have mourned for it. On the other hand, the cell cluster couldn't have cared less.[/quote]

How do you know?

Leaving the scientific jargon aside for a moment, there is an Orthodox Jewish beliefe that a baby spends the entire time in the womb learning the Torah from an Angel. Upon exiting the womb, the Angel touches the upper lip of the baby and makes it forget (this is the Jewish explanation of why our upper lips have an indentation). If this story is to be believed, then the baby certainly has senmtience, awareness, and would be rather disappointed to never be born. I doubt that the story is true in the literal sense... but who knows. Just as I don't know what happens after death because I have never experienced it, I don't know what happens before birth because I forgot it. I don't know what we can feel, think or do inside the womb, and neither do you.

Quote:

---

These cells were not conscious, feeling thinking, aware, hungry, full, cold, hot, tired, refreshed human beings. It was just a cluster of cells.

---

Then why are there pictures of unborn babies sucking their thumbs? Sucking is a comforting action performed by babies. If the baby isn't uncomfortable, why is it sucking its thumb?

Also, when my wife went into labor with my son, we had to go through an emergency cesarean section because of a prolapsed chord. I was watching the fetal heart monitor, and it is very clear that the baby was experiencing distress during the pregnancy. My daughter was born in a natural pregnancy. I watched her fetal monitor as well, and she too showed signs of activity. Unborn babies clearly have feelings of some sort and seem to react to stimuli. I think you are very wrong about this.

Quote:

---

I guess what I am trying to say is that whether an embryo is a person or not is in the eye of the beholder. Not in the reality of what it actually is. A cluster of cells.

---

I disagree. I think it's very cut and dry, and not open to interpretation at all.

Quote:

---

I'm probably going to get a lot of grief about this, but I'm braced and ready. Guess it's safe to say the religious zealots are horrified.

---

Not horrified. Just a bit disappointed that something so obvious to me as the existence of life is so easy for you to miss.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galveston

Are you saying that when the child can feel pain, respond to sound and light, move around it is not a person?

I ain't buying it.

---

I'm saying it is not a child . It is a cluster of cells. It's no more a child than the live cells in your big toe. WE are the ones that name it a child. It's not a child yet.

I would not agree with abortions being done at full term or near it. At this point it is no longer an embryo but a full fledged human being. But at the beginning of a pregnancy, for pro-life folks to say, "you are murdering innocent babies" is just wrong. They use that inflammatory phrase to shore up their position on abortion. They should put half of that energy and uproar into protecting babies that have already been born, to stupid abusive people that should never have had a child in the first place. Where are the marchers for that?

Believe me, I've witnessed these poor children born to these kinds of parents. Many times mom and dad aren't married. There are drugs, violence, abuse, mom and dad having knock down drag outs in front of these kids and leaving them feeling scared, anxious, lonely, and unsafe. It is a shame that just any old idiot can bear children.

There are a lot of things that are worse than never being born in the first place. Ask the fly swatting children in starving countries with their bloated bellies. Ask Lisa Steinberg I don't say this to diminish the value of her life but to speak of the horror that was her life. Thank God her spirit is at peace now.

I say, if you are going to raise cane about the abortion of cell clusters, save a little of that energy for the actual children that are victims of their unfortunate circumstances.

Oh boy, here it comes.

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Who created that standard?

---

What standard?

Quote:

---

Most babies are not self aware for the first several months of life. According to some journals I have read, self-awareness develops at 15-20 months. By your definition, abortion would be legal until the baby is 1 1/4 to almost 2 years old.

---

I see what you are trying to say, but you know good and well this is way off base.
I don't condone killing babies that have been born into this world. I don't condone "killing babies" that are viable to live outside the womb. When I speak of abortion, I'm speaking of early term when cells are just dividing, dividing again, and again.

Quote:

---

Dogs and cats are not self-aware. They have no cognition as we understand it. They are animals. If I attempted to kill your pet dog or cat, however, I am pretty sure you would be against that fact.

---

You are way off base again. These are living creatures in this world. They are totally aware. I think you know what I mean and keep throwing out ridiculous things for lack of a better argument.

Quote:

---

Life, in science, is defined by having all or most of the following:

---

I'm not going to quote all the stuff you copied from somewhere because after reading the first few statements, it just became bla, bla, bla.

Quote:

---

Leaving the scientific jargon aside for a moment, there is an Orthodox Jewish beliefe that a baby spends the entire time in the womb learning the Torah from an Angel. Upon exiting the womb, the Angel touches the upper lip of the baby and makes it forget (this is the Jewish explanation of why our upper lips have an indentation). If this story is to be believed, then the baby certainly has senmtience, awareness, and would be rather disappointed to never be born. I doubt that the story is true in the literal sense... but who knows. Just as I don't know what happens after death because I have never experienced it, I don't know what happens before birth because I forgot it. I don't know what we can feel, think or do inside the womb, and neither do you.

---

You are right about that, none of us knows. I think we can make a pretty practical assumption though that clusters of cells don't have emotional feelings, feel physical pain or experience traumatic memories.

Quote:

---

Then why are there pictures of unborn babies sucking their thumbs? Sucking is a comforting action performed by babies. If the baby isn't uncomfortable, why is it sucking its thumb?

---

Because by that point, they ARE babies and they operate with instinct and reflex.

Quote:

---

Also, when my wife went into labor with my son, we had to go through an emergency cesarean section because of a prolapsed chord. I was watching the fetal heart monitor, and it is very clear that the baby was experiencing distress during the pregnancy. My daughter was born in a natural pregnancy. I watched her fetal monitor as well, and she too showed signs of activity. Unborn babies clearly have feelings of some sort and seem to react to stimuli. I think you are very wrong about this.

---

I've had a couple of children myself so I have some experience in this arena. Remember, I'm not talking about fully formed babies. I'm talking about early term abortions.