Does the fetus have the right to live by constitution?

PaleRider · #**111** (**permalink**) 04-07-2008, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ricechickie

And yet you fail to point out where my logic falls short. If, indeed, the woman doesn't "own" the fetus, then who does? It's not an independent being, so it can't "own" itself. No one else can grow that fetus. In terms of ownership, either the woman owns the fetus, or it owns her (meaning that its survival trumps her wants and needs, and EVERY decision is made in the interests of the fetus).

Your logical fallacy is that you are assuming that one owns the other. No human being can own another human being in this country. Since both are human beings, there is a conflict of rights. When ever there is a conflict of rights in this country the greater right trumps the lesser right. If you want to process mercury in your back yard, my right to live trumps your right to process mercury. The right to live outweighs any right that you care to claim. If the child is a human being then it has a right to live and its right to live outweighs your right to not be inconvenienced. Feel free to prove that it is not a human being.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ricechickie

You make assumptions based on your desire to preserve the life of the unborn at any cost, and show no similar concern for the woman who carries the unborn baby.

That is not a true statement. If the child represents a real and imment threat to your life, then you have the right to defend your life and terminate a pregnancy. Otherwise, the child's right to live outweighs any right that you might care to claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ricechickie

Your argument is that the "innocent life" takes precedence. And mine is that the life already being lived takes precedence.

Another logical fallacy. If the pregnancy is normal, then the woman's life isn't being threatened. In that case, you are placing convenience over the very right to live and your right to not be inconvenienced doesn't outweigh anyone's right to live.

Moggy · #**112** (**permalink**) 04-07-2008, 05:21 AM

[quote=PaleRider;365155]

Quote:

But we are not all the same. To the uneducated eye we may all appear to be the same, but that is the lack of education speaking, not any actual fact.

Yes we are, and that's my point. Its about life, as soon as you deny life, you deny the right to life. I think you mis-understood my first post.
It does matter if that life is a kitten or puppy, or even a lizard.
Secondly, I was also pointing out that all life comes from one origin, your a Bio-Chemist, surely you understand that.

Quote:

Did I call you a biggot or did I point out that making assumptions based on appearances is the argument of a prejudiced biggot? There is a difference. Now you actually have begun to call names which according to your rules makes you a loser.

Your words,"How they look is the argument of a prejudiced biggot", so its an obivous slight on your part.
That once again is the point, we can use science to disect the differences, but in the end we, you, me the tree, the ocean and most of all the planet Earth, are all but one and the same. You being a Chemist would understand Evolution according to Darwin.

Quote:

By the way, simply because you are made of the same stuff doesn't make you the same. Once more, a deduction founded on a complete misunderstanding of the science.

We are that same, once again.
We are just different branch's of the same tree, your leaf only see's the western sun, my leaf see's the eastern sun.

I'm not sure your really understanding where I'm coming from Palerider.

PaleRider · #**113** (**permalink**) 04-07-2008, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moggy

Secondly, I was also pointing out that all life comes from one origin, your a Bio-Chemist, surely you understand that.

When I talk about the unborn, I am, of course, talking about the life of an individual human being which does have a definite beginning and end as opposed to the "great wheel" or whatever philosophical concept you care to invoke when the science gets to complicated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moggy

That once again is the point, we can use science to disect the differences, but in the end we, you, me the tree, the ocean and most of all the planet Earth, are all but one and the same. You being a Chemist would understand Evolution according to Darwin.

That may be your philosophy, but not mine. I know beyond doubt that we are not the same. And if you adhere to Darwin and the survival of the fittest, then difference and superiority is necessary for survival.

Personally, I don't adhere to macroevolution. Too many holes to be considered seriously. Microevolution as Darwin observed, sure. We can see it all around us.

Lexi · #**114** (**permalink**) 04-07-2008, 05:40 AM

So even the ones that put out these "facts" contridict each other and we're supposed to believe any of them? To funny..

Moggy · #**115** (**permalink**) 04-07-2008, 05:50 AM

Quote:

That may be your philosophy, but not mine. I know beyond doubt that we are not the same. And if you adhere to Darwin and the survival of the fittest, then difference and superiority is necessary for survival.

Have you ever watched a tree grow?
Reason I ask, is that if you have noticed, its branches are positioned to gain the maxium light or nutrients to allow the tree to live. Branches it no longer needs, it actually cuts of supple to these branches, which eventually wither and die. Now, take that concept to Planet Earth. If the trees,animals,insects and humans are but just branches of Planet earth, then it stand to logical conclusion, that Planet Earth, would do anything to maximise its chance of survival. Can ya see that laaddie?

Quote:

Personally, I don't adhere to macroevolution. Too many holes to be considered seriously. Microevolution as Darwin observed, sure. We can see it all around us

Yes we can, and isn't facinating, it makes me believe more and more in the Creator.

Moggy · #**116** (**permalink**) 04-07-2008, 05:59 AM

Ya haven't runaway on me Laddie? Hoots man!

garyw3 · #**117** (**permalink**) 04-07-2008, 08:54 AM

current technology trumps any past court ruling, and the proof is in some of the recent rulings regarding partial birth. a fetus can now live outside of the womb at a much earlier development than they could 35yrs.ago or even 10-15yrs. ago due to advancements in (science) and technology. as for the womans health, inconvience does not qualify as a life or death reason for an abortion!!!

wvpeach · #**118** (**permalink**) 04-07-2008, 08:56 AM

LOL, I assure you that if palerider, O mr wonder liar, told you he is a bio chemist he is lying. He might wash some test tubes for a bio chemist, but that is as far as he goes.

LOL a bio chemist would know a lot more about everything than palerider does. Palerider can barely make rational thoughts . let alone understand the science of chemistry.

[quote=Moggy;366000]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaleRider

Yes we are, and that's my point. Its about life, as soon as you deny life, you deny the right to life. I think you mis-understood my first post.
It does matter if that life is a kitten or puppy, or even a lizard.
Secondly, I was also pointing out that all life comes from one origin, your a Bio-Chemist, surely you understand that.

Your words,"How they look is the argument of a prejudiced biggot", so its an obivous slight on your part.
That once again is the point, we can use science to disect the differences, but in the end we, you, me the tree, the ocean and most of all the planet Earth, are all but one and the same. You being a Chemist would understand Evolution according to Darwin.

We are that same, once again.
We are just different branch's of the same tree, your leaf only see's the western sun, my leaf see's the eastern sun.

I'm not sure your really understanding where I'm coming from Palerider.

oceanbreeze · #**119** (**permalink**) 04-07-2008, 09:02 AM

Today 06:56 AM
wvpeach This user is on your Ignore List

True Love Waits

PaleRider · #**120** (**permalink**) 04-07-2008, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moggy

Have you ever watched a tree grow?
Reason I ask, is that if you have noticed, its branches are positioned to gain the maxium light or nutrients to allow the tree to live. Branches it no longer needs, it actually cuts of supple to these branches, which eventually wither and die.

Yep. I have watched trees grow. In fact, I can point out some oaks and maples that I carved my initials into back in the 1950's. I have never seen limbs shed deliberately by a tree though. It makes a nice story, but I am afraid that I have never seen it and am unaware of any tree whose geometry is such that each and every limb isn't positioned to maximum efficiency.

Maybe you could provide some botanical texts on this subject.