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

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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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:

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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.

---

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2012/05/10/bloomberg_articlesM3TEP01A1I4H01-M3TPG.DTL

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

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.

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

Hello again, tom:

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 gonna 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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

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 voice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

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 ,

---

Hi Tom,

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Now Tut you know you are wrong. a fetus has no money thus no voice

---

Exactly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Now Tut you know you are wrong. a fetus has no money thus no voice

---

Hit the nail on the head. This is the American way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Hit the nail on the head. This is the American way.

---

What is the american way; to slay the helpless. Yes I think I have noticed that tendency, whatever gets in the gun sights

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 sights

---

No, that money gets the voice. It's all about money and appearing wealthy.