Ex
That would be fun. Would that be the Supremes before or after they invented penumbras, formed by emanations ?
|
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.:DQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
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
I'll address abortion, since that was the topic of our conversation:Quote:
Originally Posted by cozyk
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by cozyk
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
"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."Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
The 4th Amendment protects against search and seizure except with probable cause and warrant. It does NOT guarantee "privacy".
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
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.
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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.
Hello again, gal:Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
No, not then... But they would today if we outlawed them.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.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
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.
Yeah... and there were a lot fewer of them than there are now. Clearly this was a case where illegalization DID work.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
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 in prison with guys who sought illegal abortions for their girlfriends, because their girlfriends couldn't get a legal abortion...
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.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.
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.
Define worse.Quote:
I don't disagree with you about the baby, but the bad old days were worse. There is no easy answer.
Excon
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
Are you saying that when the child can feel pain, respond to sound and light, move around it is not a person?Quote:
Originally Posted by cozyk
I ain't buying it.
Who created that standard?Quote:
Originally Posted by cozyk
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.
That's an important perception. However, please keep in mind that many of those cells are the neurological system of the baby.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.
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.
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?Quote:
These cells were not conscious, feeling thinking, aware, hungry, full, cold, hot, tired, refreshed human beings. It was just a cluster of cells.
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 disagree. I think it's very cut and dry, and not open to interpretation at all.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.
Not horrified. Just a bit disappointed that something so obvious to me as the existence of life is so easy for you to miss.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.
Elliot
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by galveston
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]What standard?Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
I see what you are trying to say, but you know good and well this is way off base.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 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.
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:
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.
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:
Life, in science, is defined by having all or most of the following:
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:
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.
Because by that point, they ARE babies and they operate with instinct and reflex.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?
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.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.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:10 AM. |