 |
|

02-28-2008, 04:12 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,666
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by marmalade6
1. The personhood of a fetus/embryo is under discussion and not yet set by law.
|
That is the whole purpose of this discussion. To explore the constitutionality of the roe decision. The fact is, however, that personhood has been established. People are in jail today having been charged , convicted, and sentenced for both manslaugher and murder in the deaths of unborns. In this country, you can not even be charged for manslaughter or murder, much less convicted and sentenced unless you have killed a person. I don't believe that it was the judicial system's intention to establish personhood for the unborn, but that is what they have done and at this point, it is a bit late to try and put the geni back in the bottle. The court is waiting for cases to work their way through the lower courts even as we speak. You may not like it, but it is what it is. Even justice Ginsburg sees the writing on the wall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marmalade6
2. You argue that through my own actions, I put fetus into a totally dependent situaton. Yes, so to speak, but to clarify, such situation wouldn't exist w/o the sperm owner's input, which neither of us may have anticipated, and which you have yet addressed. And, the fact is is that you could put me out within hours, at landing, while I am facing nine months of life abeyance activity comprised of thought, caring, nurturing that you would have in effect been responsible for. There is no correlation, here.
|
Failure to adequately consider all of the possible consequences of a particular course of action is not a valid reason to kill another human being. The problem with all pro choice arguments is that you assume that unborns are not human beings when the fact is that legal precedent establishing their personhood is growing all of the time. If you can't make an argument for killing unborns that you can apply to killing anyone else, then your argument must fail since you have not proved that unborns are not living human beings. You must prove that unborns are not human beings before you can make a valid case for killing them for any other reason than self defense.
__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi
|

03-02-2008, 03:42 AM
|
|
Political Guru
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 787
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaleRider
That is the whole purpose of this discussion. To explore the constitutionality of the roe decision. The fact is, however, that personhood has been established. People are in jail today having been charged , convicted, and sentenced for both manslaugher and murder in the deaths of unborns. In this country, you can not even be charged for manslaughter or murder, much less convicted and sentenced unless you have killed a person. I don't believe that it was the judicial system's intention to establish personhood for the unborn, but that is what they have done and at this point, it is a bit late to try and put the geni back in the bottle. The court is waiting for cases to work their way through the lower courts even as we speak. You may not like it, but it is what it is. Even justice Ginsburg sees the writing on the wall.
Failure to adequately consider all of the possible consequences of a particular course of action is not a valid reason to kill another human being. The problem with all pro choice arguments is that you assume that unborns are not human beings when the fact is that legal precedent establishing their personhood is growing all of the time. If you can't make an argument for killing unborns that you can apply to killing anyone else, then your argument must fail since you have not proved that unborns are not living human beings. You must prove that unborns are not human beings before you can make a valid case for killing them for any other reason than self defense.
|
But, don't you see, nothing you have written proves personhood of a fetus at less than 22-28 weeks.
What you've given are opinions. Opinions have legal standing, but they are not material, factual proof.
Actually, personhood itself is a concept. Not even a theory. That we are so intent on making a harsh vindictive law based on a concept, should trouble all of us.
Last edited by marmalade6 : 03-02-2008 at 04:02 AM.
|

03-02-2008, 06:52 AM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,666
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by marmalade6
But, don't you see, nothing you have written proves personhood of a fetus at less than 22-28 weeks.
|
But I have given overwhelming proof that we are living human beings from the time we are concieved. If you look in a legal dictionary (I have already provided definitions from several) the legal definition of person is "a human being". The law doesn't place any prerequisites upon being a person except that one be a human being.
Further, the fact that people have been charged, tried, and sentenced for the death of an unborn is legal precedent for the personhood of the unborn. You can't be jailed for manslaughter or murder in this country unless you have killed a person. I doubt that establishing legal personhood of the unborn is what the court that decided the first case of manslaughter for killing an unborn had in mind (it was a liberal court) but that is what happened none the less.
The fact is that because of that ruling, and all of the subsequent ruling, the supreme court now has legal precedent for the personhood of the unborn and in his majority decision on roe, justice Blackmun stated without equivocation that if the personhood of the unborn is ever established, then roe must be struck down as it will have no basis. That is the legal fact marmalade, and you can deny it until the cows come home, but it is not going to change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marmalade6
What you've given are opinions. Opinions have legal standing, but they are not material, factual proof.
|
With regard to us being alive and human beings from the time we are concieved, I have given proof. Your denial doesn't change what we are and the fact that you have been completely unable to provide any credible science that says otherwise damns your argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marmalade6
Actually, personhood itself is a concept. Not even a theory. That we are so intent on making a harsh vindictive law based on a concept, should trouble all of us.
|
Since you have been completely unable to demonstrate in any way at all beyond your unsubstantiated opinion that we are not living human beings from the tiime we are concieved, any law that allows a woman to kill her child without legal consequence for any reason she may choose is far more vindictive than a law that protects the right of the child to live. Unless, of course, you can frame your argument in such a way as to allow the killing of any individual without legal consequence for any reason.
You simply have to prove that unborns are not living human beings before you can make a rational argument for killing them for any reason without legal consequence.
__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi
Last edited by PaleRider : 03-02-2008 at 06:56 AM.
|

03-02-2008, 09:30 AM
|
|
Seasoned Veteran
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 72
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaleRider
You simply have to prove that unborns are not living human beings before you can make a rational argument for killing them for any reason without legal consequence.
|
What name an "unborn" is called does not affect the question. YOU have to prove that criminalizing abortion is a benefit to society. Not just that abortion is moral or immoral, but that it causes chaos, disorder, disruption to society to allow it.
|

03-02-2008, 10:34 AM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,666
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyse wyfe
What name an "unborn" is called does not affect the question. YOU have to prove that criminalizing abortion is a benefit to society. Not just that abortion is moral or immoral, but that it causes chaos, disorder, disruption to society to allow it.
|
Our right to live is not based on a benefit to society. Our right to live is an inalienable right and you have it whether you personally are a benefit to socety or not.
Criminalizing abortion is certainly a benefit to the million unborns who are denied their most basic human right ever year in this country alone.
__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi
|

03-06-2008, 04:01 PM
|
 |
Political Junkie
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: florida
Posts: 275
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by StormanNorman
Actually, Roe v. Wade made no law....the Judiciary doesn't make laws in this country...it interprets them and the Constitution.
The judiciary doesn't send things to Congress.
Why? Why is it not a fedaral issue since it seems to involve federally mandated rights via the Constitution? Just ask Pale.
|
How can you interpret anything in the constitution as condoning abortion.
This is not a privacy issue.If it is then is an adult having sex with a willing minor a privacy issue?
Where does the constitution mention abortion if it doesn't they made law from the bench which is illegal
|

03-06-2008, 04:18 PM
|
 |
Political Junkie
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: florida
Posts: 275
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carson
The truth is making a law against abortion will not stop abortions only cause more deaths in the mothers, but I guess you think death is less serious than an emotional problem
|
You miss the fact that this is not a constitutional issue and should not be a federal law this should be a state issue.
The supreme court was wrong in legislating from the bench they are not to make law that is what congress does.
|

05-20-2008, 07:01 PM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,846
|
|
.............
__________________
GOD BLESS AMERICA
|

05-27-2008, 02:04 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Merrimack, NH
Posts: 2,556
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaleRider
Our right to live is not based on a benefit to society. Our right to live is an inalienable right and you have it whether you personally are a benefit to socety or not.
Criminalizing abortion is certainly a benefit to the million unborns who are denied their most basic human right ever year in this country alone.
|
So, how do you decide which women to enslave to serve the rights of the 400,000 thousand human being sitting in freezers in the US?
And if the legal definition of human is as you want it to be, then shouldn't I be able to obtain a few frozen embryos, and then deduct them off my income tax as dependents for as long as I keep them frozen and thus "alive"? (I'm single, male, and 60 - I can only wish that I could have had some low cost dependents for the past two decades to cut my taxes.)
|

05-27-2008, 02:41 PM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,846
|
|
haha. What a classic false dichotomy you pose you stupid piece of shit.
__________________
GOD BLESS AMERICA
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|