 |
Tut, I was merely addressing ex's argument that "Simply put, when the child's rights are in conflict with the mothers, the mother wins."
What "mother's rights" - plural - conflict with the child's enumerated right to life? Only one, but then abortion proponents don't consider the child in the womb to be a person.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Basically, just because rights are not enumerated doesn't mean they don't exist. So you have pretty much answered your own question here. If the unborn child did have natural rights then there would be a conflict of rights.
Unfortunately, Ex is probably correct. Up until a certain stage of development the mother basically wins. The "Roe v Wade" decision also includes the right of the individual to have freedom from intervention by the state in matters of privacy.
I'm not a lawyer, but that's how is see it.
Tiut
I did not know there was legal code describing when human life exists . If that can be done before birth than why can't the Leviathan decide what age a human should forfeit that right to life ?The United States of Logan's Run.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You're splitting hairs. The courts decided that a human wasn't a human unless it could sustain itself outside the womb. That's the LEGAL concept. Who's to say WHERE along the line it should exist, if it should exist at all. But as long as the court has determined WHEN it is, and they have, like Citizens United, you're going to need a LAW to change it.
You can't get that law now, but hold on to your britches... This upcoming cycle might very well give you the chance.
excon
Yeah the court making law ,that is the problem with the imperial judiciary... well we know that the baby can survive outside the womb long before that legal right to abort. When Roe was decide ,viability was at 24-28 weeks . However , 14 states have no restrictions on late term abortions ;and we know that as an Illinois Senator ,the President supported killing babies who had survived the abortion procedure.
Again ;if viability defines life then why can't it apply with the elderly and the infirmed ? There are plenty of people who only live because of the care others give them ,
"Again ;if viability defines life then why can't it apply with the elderly and the infirmed ? There are plenty of people who only live because of the care others give them"
Great question Tom, why can't it? Here's one reason,
Democurmudgeon: Meals on Wheels Funding cut to prevent Pentagon cuts.
You remember him don't you?
For the pass 30 years, as a NATION, we have killed and killed millions of our own unborn kind because many of us have wanted a sexual revolution of casual sex, free sex or contraceptive sex only to have meaningless and emotionless sex because of self-gratification only, using each other for sex without the kind of endearing love to sustain a couple in creating the most fundamental unit of society…a family.
By choices or agency men leaving a trail of feminine broken hearts and fatherless innocent children left behind…who got a female pregnant then lied, denied or disappeared to avoid accountability, as it takes two in making this kind of error in judgment. Mothers abandon their unwanted children too, not as often, but still equally accountable. Many refuse to see that the only answer is abstinence until emotionally and financially prepared to sustain a marriage and family…therefore truly making this a better world for the children allowed to live, not always depending on the policies of government to do it. By the way, I'm offended at “Julia” she isn't even realistic for the majority of woman and my life hasn't been a cartoon! As we should all know, (paraphrasing) without public morality there can be no private virtue, something that begin in all of us along the way now lost in the masses.
Tal ,The problem is that you are so locked into this mentality that if the government doesn't feed the elderly that they won't get fed . I assure you that any cuts proposed won't put a dent in the program compared to the waste and fraud inherent in such a big government program. The same can be said of school lunches, hospital and nursing home meal programs .The food discarded would feed twice the number of recipients.
It never ceases to amaze me this attitude that if the government doesn't do it ,it doesn't get done.
Julia applies to many women if not you, and with more than a 50% divorce rate, I bet there are a lot of females (and males) with children who can use some help.
I mean when coporations lean down, or banks screw up, millions of grown people and children get caught in a lurch. Poverty can change your mind no matter what we believe, and have to live through. Sure you can defund the government, but then what? Will the corporations and banks build schools or buy you food or a roof over your head when your down and out, or poor? Homeless, jobless?? Four kids?
Lay off the teachers, make them poor, who teaches the kids? How do they get into an exclusive charter school that's FULL? And in the burbs?
What if they lay you off, and you go get a job that's only taken applications FROM working people. Yeah your abstinance sound like the answer to EVERYTHING! All due respect. What would you do to the ones that learned that too late to be of help?
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/05/10/bloomberg_articlesM3TEP01A1I4H01-M3TPG.DTLQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Yeah let 'em eat the scraps, while you protect the rich, and build more tanks, and screw the guys who drive them and make sure you are free to dump on the poor, the sick, the old, any anyone else you don't like.
While you're at it, screw the gay soldiers too, Mitt will!
Tal, Do you know something we don't know, what has gay soldiers got to do with contraceptives, abortions or abstinence? I'm lost on that one. I haven't heard anything about "Don't ask, don't tell" being reversed or discriminating of gays from the Romney camp. I haven't had the time to read or listen to everything out there…maybe you have a point that sailed over my head.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Remember who stood for the gay soldier during the debates? NONE!! Now the congress has a bill to not allow gays soldiers to marry. Nor recognize their partners, for benefits.
House Republicans Attempt To Ban Gay Marriages On Military Bases
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hi Ex,
Mentioning Citizens United will only get me started again. But there is an important link here if you are prepared to stick with me.
Justice Scalia rightly argues that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So when he says that nowhere in the First Amendment does it say that natural rights do not apply to corporations he is correct. Nowhere does it say that freedom of speech cannot be done in association with other individuals.
Having just established this he offers up a modus tollens fallacy in the form of evidence of absence. He argues that the First Amendment was written in terms of "speech," not "speakers." "... and that its text offers no footholds for excluding the category of speaker.
If contrived rulings are the basis of this decision then it should be quite simple to come up with a ruling that gives natural rights to the unborn.
Steve can probably take heart as the same type of argument can be applied to the rights of the unborn. Nowhere does the Constitution exclude the rights of the unborn.
If a fetus was a corporation then it would have very quickly acquired some natural rights. I guess this shows where the priorities are.
Tut
Now Tut you know you are wrong. A fetus has no money thus no voiceQuote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Hi Tom,Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I could be wrong, but off the top of my head I would say that viability is not the only criteria. Not the criteria in a large majority of legal definitions anyway. On that basis the answer to your question is that the old and the infirmed are both conscious and are sensitive to pain.
Obviously that definition is not without its problems.
Tut
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Hit the nail on the head. This is the American way.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
What is the american way; to slay the helpless. Yes I think I have noticed that tendency, whatever gets in the gun sightsQuote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
No, that money gets the voice. It's all about money and appearing wealthy.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Right back at you . Both your countries murder babies too.
Ok.
We not only murder babies, we murder everybody,
Stand Your Ground: Florida voters support law - Sun Sentinel
Age is only a number apparently!
Quite a leap from believing in your right to self-defense to "we murder everybody."
Where is this thread headed now... I'm not sure we want to go there? Other issues in other countries…? Maybe another thread for that.
One Quote to share and I'm assuming some of you have seen it flying across the Internet and it's a point of view about life, about life out there and life here.
"If a single living cell was found on a distant planet, scientists would exclaim that we have found life elsewhere in the universe...
So why is a single living cell found in the womb of a pregnant woman not considered life?”
http://www.ehd.org/prenatal-images-index.php
Yes its remarkable how trends that start in the United States are slavishly followed everywhere, it is as though we must extend your definitions of freedom to include us. Freedom to commit mayhem, Freedom to commit murder, Freedom to run off at the mouth, Freedom to corrupt government, Freedom to dominate whoever you like or don't like as the case may be. You know it is remarkable how you got rid of that other freedom enshrined in your constitution, Freedom to own slaves. I cannot imagine what the world would be like with 40 million more of you exercising your freedomQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstChair
Hi F.C.
I can answer that question but it may take a little time to present both sides of the argument.
If we accept that abortion is a moral issue (which it probably is) then we can look at it in three possible ways.
Basically, we can look at the debate in a few ways. Pro-abortion supporters tend to cite what is called a naturalistic explanation for their actions. In other words, our judgements as to whether certain actions right or wrong can ultimately be reduced to scientific explanations.
They agree that a single living cell is life. This living cell might divide into a billion living cells, but they would say it is still just life. The problem is that the cells haven't developed into a sentient being as yet. This is where the scientific definition comes into it. Science claims that it can tell us when a fetus becomes conscious. Once it becomes conscious it is regarded as sentient. I don't know what this translates into weeks and/or months; you could look that up.
We don't need to go to another planet to find life. Most people tread on insects and don't give it a second thought. We slaughter animals for food. Some people do give this a second thought but generally speaking most people are happy with this be cause there is the knowledge that most other life forms are not conscious in the way humans are.
Personally I am against abortion because I take what is called the emotivist position. Without going into too much detail I don't think that moral judgements in this particular instance can be reduced to scientific explanations.
In a nutshell no one know what consciousness actually is. If we don't know what consciousness is how can we claim to know the point when a living thing becomes sentient?
Tut
P.S.
There is a non-naturalist explanation as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstChair
I think its not an issue of definition, but how we treat the fact that it is life, as Tut points out, none of us has a problem stepping on bugs, and that's life too! Maybe the answer lies in how we treat other humans, and NOT compare that with "other" life! Since we consider ourselves as unique and separate beings from one another, then maybe recognizing and tolerating each others beliefs, and opinions as valid, and valued equally is a start.
Without respecting each others views, everything devolves into right and wrong, and creates conflict, NOT reasoned resolutions. Facts or beliefs fall by the wayside as powers that be take on side, or another, further stifling reasoned resolutions as communications are but rhetorical exclamations, and NOT debate.
That's no way to move forward. I respectfully submit, that if innocent life is so precious, why is it not as precious as it matures, and grows, or starts its descent-back to non existence?
I am unaware of any law that says someone already born can be murdered , Tal ,there is no compromise on this issue . How could there be ? Either you believe that there is human life in the womb that has a right to life ,or you don't .Quote:
Without respecting each others views, everything devolves into right and wrong, and creates conflict, NOT reasoned resolutions. Facts or beliefs fall by the wayside as powers that be take on side, or another, further stifling reasoned resolutions as communications are but rhetorical exclamations, and NOT debate.
That's no way to move forward. I respectfully submit, that if innocent life is so precious, why is it not as precious as it matures, and grows, or starts its descent-back to non existence?
If its NOT your womb, then I believe you should mind your own business, and if you are NOT going to be responsible for that life in the womb, then you cannot, or should not force that responsibility on the womb owner! I maybe against abortions, but I have NO womb. Neither do you.
The death penalty is legalized killing by the state, and WAR, is legalized on the federal level, and stand your ground is legalized killing if you feel like it, and none of the above is applied in a fair or reasonable way. At least not in my view.
I said murder ,not killing .
Define the difference!!
Murder is an unjustified killing.
Abortions are not against the law, murder is! Justification is left to a jury, or your own conscious. Not to an individual with an opinion or belief. Not a group of individuals with a shared opinion or belief.
Whether abortion is legalised murder is a question of whether your legislature has any moral fibre or not.
The judiciary of the US Supreme courts have alreay said its legal. States disagree. They make laws that make abortions hard, if not impossible within their state, but that only stops the poor and working poor, because money can buy many things, including an abortion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Hi Clete,
The legal system is bound by the legislation of the state country. In places where abortion is legal there would be a cut off point where an abortion can legally be performed. After this period (whatever the number of weeks/months) the procedure MAY be subject to criminal code. I use the word may because there are always extenuating circumstances.
A women who wanted an abortion at, say 8 weeks, would not be charged with murder in a state that has legal abortion. This is regardless of the fact that the judge may well feel this is tantamount to murder. If it so happens that an abortion is performed after the designated time for that particular state, then it MAY be a criminal act. Again this is regardless of what the judge thinks.
That's my understanding of how the law would work. Perhaps someone else may know the legal side of things better than myself.
A womb use to be a safe and warm place for an unborn at all stages of development... yet doctors go inside as intruders and killers taking the life of the developing baby making it the most dangerous place for unwanted growing and viable babies. Perhaps in some place in some space of time, if it is only for a moment, even the next life, all of us as humans might be allowed to hear what the screams and cries of all those babies sound like when they express in unison, the moment they were murdered. Because it is men's law does not make it God's law.
Here's how they kill viable babies! Actually in my opinion all stages are viable in a baby's development inside the womb. They feel pain beginning at 16 weeks in the womb or at least that is the earliest detection. We kill or allowed to be killed our own kind. What has happened to the sanctity of human life in this world of every nation, country and people?
"Doctors on Fetal Pain"
http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com/Quote:
"Abortion at 20 weeks
Despite the fetus's advanced development at 20 weeks, the following abortion procedures are used:
■Dilation and Evacuation (D&E): Sharp-edged instruments are used to grasp, twist, and tear the baby's body into pieces. This continues until the child's entire body is removed from the womb. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Kennedy describes the procedure saying, “The fetus, in many cases, dies just as a human adult or child would: It bleeds to death as it is torn limb from limb.”
■Digoxin abortion: A drug called digoxin is injected directly into the baby's heart, giving the fetus a fatal heart attack. The dead baby is then removed from his or her mother by dismemberment.
■Saline abortion: Salt water is injected into the womb through the mother's abdomen. The fetus swallows this fluid, is poisoned, and dies in a process that sometimes takes 24 hours.
■Partial-birth abortion (D&X): The baby is delivered feet first, up to the head, which is then punctured at the base of the skull. The brain is then suctioned out, killing the child. (A federal ban on this method was upheld in 2007.)"
Abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thanks for making the case for FREE contraceptives. Then we don't have to cause all that pain right?? Yet many who support NO abortions also are against contraceptives and we know forced abstinence never has worked through out history any where in the world.
What's next, forced sterilization?
Don't run to the ridiculous Tal just because you begin to see the evils of abortion, contraception is a different if related issue. The whole argument exists because we exist in a heddonistic society which has no moral values and the excuse that the Surpreme Court says it is legal is no excuse. The Surpeme Court is a not an arbiteur of public morals Not everything that is legal is desirable
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:43 AM. |