Originally Posted by PaleRider

Murder is defined as one human being killing another human being with intent. Since cancer is not a human being, it isn't murder by any stretch of the imagination. This is just one more example of the terribly flawed logic that you apply to this issue.



If you are referring to cancer cells, since they are not human beings, they can not be murdered.



Do you have any idea how stupid lines of thougt like this make you look wolf?

Originally Posted by PaleRider

Murder is defined as one human being killing another human being with intent. Since cancer is not a human being, it isn't murder by any stretch of the imagination. This is just one more example of the terribly flawed logic that you apply to this issue.



If you are referring to cancer cells, since they are not human beings, they can not be murdered.



Do you have any idea how stupid lines of thougt like this make you look wolf?

Originally Posted by naturemomma

You are confusing me with wolf on your posts. You used my name (the part where it says who originally posted the message). These errors do not help you look competent, qualified or proficient in any argument.

Originally Posted by marmalade6

It happened to me, also. I was quoting pale, but it came out Lexi. i think it's just a glitch in the forum program.

Originally Posted by marmalade6

Getting back to the Right to Privacy thing:

The Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the constitution, at least the roots of that right in the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, in the Prenumbras of the Bill of Rights, and in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments....they also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relations, child rearing and education.

But, it's thought that "The lower status of the right to privacy seriously peopardizes abortion rights in the U.S."

And, that a better constitutional arguement against a [state] abortion ban would be to say it violates the Thirteenth Amendment which protects people from Involuntary Servitude.

A person cannot be made to perform servicesfor another person against her will.

Neither Roe v. Wade nor any subsequent Supreme Court opinion has defined the bearing of a child to be something other than a form of labor. Thus any law that forces a woman to ge through the labor of nurturing a fetus involuntarily is a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.

Originally Posted by wolf_22

its been argued that you can murder anything that is alive. and cancer cells are alive. you are depriving them of their life
I was mocking you dear and yes you look very stupid.

Originally Posted by marmalade6

Getting back to the Right to Privacy thing:

The Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the constitution, at least the roots of that right in the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments, in the Prenumbras of the Bill of Rights, and in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments....they also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relations, child rearing and education.

Originally Posted by marmalade6

And, that a better constitutional arguement against a [state] abortion ban would be to say it violates the Thirteenth Amendment which protects people from Involuntary Servitude.

A person cannot be made to perform servicesfor another person against her will.

Originally Posted by marmalade6

Neither Roe v. Wade nor any subsequent Supreme Court opinion has defined the bearing of a child to be something other than a form of labor. Thus any law that forces a woman to ge through the labor of nurturing a fetus involuntarily is a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.

Originally Posted by wyse wyfe

Yes, yes, yes!

Originally Posted by PaleRider

1. An implied (or even explicit) right to privacy can not be construed as permission to kill another human being in order to maintain that privacy.

2. One has to do some pretty spectacular mental gymnastics in order to get servitude out of pregnancy. If I were to, through my own actions, put you into a situation in which you depended upon me for your very life, I could not rightly withdraw my support and claim that a requirement that I not let you die in fact made me your servant. For example, I couldn't invite you onto my airplane (I don't actually have an airplane) and then at 20,000 feet decide that I no longer want you on my plane and put you out. For that matter, even if you got abord my plane without my permission and against my wishes and I discovered you there, I could not put you out. The law requires that I let you finish the ride and then deal with you accordingly if you were not there at my invitation.

3. In the end, all rights, implied or explicit are secondary to the right to live. Thousands of cases and millions of pages of legal precedent back this up. As an individual, you can not rightly kill another human being unless that other is threatening your life.