Does the fetus have the right to live by constitution?

ricechickie · #**151** (**permalink**) 04-08-2008, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by funktacular

Yes it is. Killers may not view human life or a soul as significant as they killed people. Fortunately we have things called laws to stop or arrest those who do not respect human life. Why? Our society clearly operates on the premise that there is something special, unique and noble in being human, the philosophical basis for such a conclusion grows increasingly vague. Almost everyone lives on the assumption that human life does matter, but if you press them, very few are able to tell you why. Even the earth-worshippers who decry the destructive environmental influence of the human species rarely put their rhetoric into action and actually kill themselves. People can say that human beings are no more valuable than slugs, but nobody really lives like that. We are all born with the innate conviction that our life does matter. It's the only way a decent society can survive.

Yes, laws reflect our society's value on human life, but the laws don't mandate that each individual does everything possible to maintain life. Meaning, that we aren't each expected to hold all lives at the highest value.

funktacular · #**152** (**permalink**) 04-08-2008, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ricechickie

Meaning, that we aren't each expected to hold all lives at the highest value.

There have been at least two other instances in American history in which specific groups of human beings were stripped of their rights of personhood as a means of justifying their horrible mistreatment. African-Americans and Native-Americans both felt the brunt of a system which denied their humanity, stripped their personhood and subjected them to horrors beyond measure. While the legal framework that made such injustice possible has now been removed, it remains firmly in place for unborn Americans.

There remains one, and only one, group of human beings in the U.S. today for which being human is not enough. The inconvenience of their existence has resulted in a legal loophole of shameful proportions. What is a person? A person is a human being (unless, of course, you haven't been born yet, in which case we'll define personhood in any way possible so as to exclude you, kill you and forget you).

Welcome to America

ricechickie · #**153** (**permalink**) 04-08-2008, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by funktacular

There have been at least two other instances in American history in which specific groups of human beings were stripped of their rights of personhood as a means of justifying their horrible mistreatment. African-Americans and Native-Americans both felt the brunt of a system which denied their humanity, stripped their personhood and subjected them to horrors beyond measure. While the legal framework that made such injustice possible has now been removed, it remains firmly in place for unborn Americans.

There remains one, and only one, group of human beings in the U.S. today for which being human is not enough. The inconvenience of their existence has resulted in a legal loophole of shameful proportions. What is a person? A person is a human being (unless, of course, you haven't been born yet, in which case we'll define personhood in any way possible so as to exclude you, kill you and forget you).

Welcome to America

There is a difference. Unborn Americans aren't systematically targeted by U.S. policies for oppression. Instead, "unborn Americans," who do not lead independent lives, who do not contribute (yet) to our society, are left in the care of their mothers, who must decide for themselves, their family, and yes, for their unborn American.

funktacular · #**154** (**permalink**) 04-08-2008, 05:12 PM

One of the rationales abortion advocates have for stripping embryos and fetuses of their rights of personhood is this issue of dependency. "Since a fetus can't survive on its own," they argue, "it has no inherent right to life". What's the problem with this argument? It could just as easily be extended to cover the whole of humanity. There isn't a person alive anywhere who is radically independent from this biosphere in which we live. We are all dependent beings. Some of us are less dependent than others, but we are all dependent. The differences in dependencies that separate fetuses from the rest of us are differences of degree, not of kind.

We must never forget that newborn babies, too, are utterly dependent upon their parents for survival. They are helpless and will die if left to themselves. Such dependency doesn't make them non-persons, and it shouldn't make unborn children non-persons either. Human beings outside the womb who must rely on kidney machines or pace-makers or insulin shots for their survival do not lose their rights of personhood for such dependency. Neither should human beings inside the womb lose their rights of personhood for being dependent upon an umbilical cord for their survival.

What is most absurd about this whole line of thinking is the fact that dependency should merit more protection under the law, not less! This kind of reasoning is an utter perversion of the natural parental instinct. The younger and more dependent a child is, the more care and compassion we have for them. The U.S. Office of Juvenille Justice and Delinquency Prevention expresses it well when they say, "Homicides are always tragic, but our sympathies are heightened when the victim is a young child or adolescent. Thus, the deaths of juveniles raise understandable public concerns." The nation is far more outraged at violence directed towards children than at violence directed towards other adults. The reason is simple. Children are more helpless, and less capable of defending themselves. And the younger the child is the truer this becomes. How we ever got to the place of using dependency against children rather than for children is a tragedy of staggering proportions.

ricechickie · #**155** (**permalink**) 04-08-2008, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by funktacular

One of the rationales abortion advocates have for stripping embryos and fetuses of their rights of personhood is this issue of dependency. "Since a fetus can't survive on its own," they argue, "it has no inherent right to life". What's the problem with this argument? It could just as easily be extended to cover the whole of humanity. There isn't a person alive anywhere who is radically independent from this biosphere in which we live. We are all dependent beings. Some of us are less dependent than others, but we are all dependent. The differences in dependencies that separate fetuses from the rest of us are differences of degree, not of kind.

We must never forget that newborn babies, too, are utterly dependent upon their parents for survival. They are helpless and will die if left to themselves. Such dependency doesn't make them non-persons, and it shouldn't make unborn children non-persons either. Human beings outside the womb who must rely on kidney machines or pace-makers or insulin shots for their survival do not lose their rights of personhood for such dependency. Neither should human beings inside the womb lose their rights of personhood for being dependent upon an umbilical cord for their survival.

The difference being that while others who are dependent can change on whom they are dependent, the unborn are dependent upon one person only, and cannot survive in any other environment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by funktacular

What is most absurd about this whole line of thinking is the fact that dependency should merit more protection under the law, not less! This kind of reasoning is an utter perversion of the natural parental instinct. The younger and more dependent a child is, the more care and compassion we have for them. The U.S. Office of Juvenille Justice and Delinquency Prevention expresses it well when they say, "Homicides are always tragic, but our sympathies are heightened when the victim is a young child or adolescent. Thus, the deaths of juveniles raise understandable public concerns." The nation is far more outraged at violence directed towards children than at violence directed towards other adults. The reason is simple. Children are more helpless, and less capable of defending themselves. And the younger the child is the truer this becomes. How we ever got to the place of using dependency against children rather than for children is a tragedy of staggering proportions.

Using helplessness is an appeal to emotion, not an appeal to reason. Not that I don't expect people to feel emotional about children. It is hardwired into most of us to feel compassion for children. But for those who have no such soft spot, I wouldn't force them to have children. I can't imagine that people like that would make good parents. And if the fetus is already in such a woman, I wouldn't make her bear that child.

funktacular · #**156** (**permalink**) 04-08-2008, 05:28 PM

[quote=ricechickie;368108]The difference being that while others who are dependent can change on whom they are dependent, the unborn are dependent upon one person only, and cannot survive in any other environment.QUOTE]

Embryos and fetuses live inside the womb, and newborn babies live outside the womb. Just like the distinctions that have gone before (size and development), this, too, is an inconsequential difference. Where someone lives has nothing to do with the essence of who that someone is. Moving from the bedroom to the kitchen, or from indoors to outdoors, or from your car to the mall doesn't affect your personhood in the least. Personhood stems from inclusion in the human species not from the location in which you reside.

For the entire duration of pregnancy, the tiny unborn child is a human being all it's own. It is dependent upon its mother for many life-sustaining functions, but it is certainly not part of its mothers body. Any attempt to disqualify unborn children from receiving their due rights of personhood because they live in a womb rather than in a room is dishonest and unjust. Location doesn't affect the personhood of those outside the womb, and it shouldn't affect the personhood of those inside the womb.

ricechickie · #**157** (**permalink**) 04-08-2008, 05:41 PM

[quote=funktacular;368118]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ricechickie

The difference being that while others who are dependent can change on whom they are dependent, the unborn are dependent upon one person only, and cannot survive in any other environment.QUOTE]

Embryos and fetuses live inside the womb, and newborn babies live outside the womb. Just like the distinctions that have gone before (size and development), this, too, is an inconsequential difference. Where someone lives has nothing to do with the essence of who that someone is. Moving from the bedroom to the kitchen, or from indoors to outdoors, or from your car to the mall doesn't affect your personhood in the least. Personhood stems from inclusion in the human species not from the location in which you reside.

For the entire duration of pregnancy, the tiny unborn child is a human being all it's own. It is dependent upon its mother for many life-sustaining functions, but it is certainly not part of its mothers body. Any attempt to disqualify unborn children from receiving their due rights of personhood because they live in a womb rather than in a room is dishonest and unjust. Location doesn't affect the personhood of those outside the womb, and it shouldn't affect the personhood of those inside the womb.

Just because you say that location is inconsequential doesn't make it so. Once a newborn is outside of the womb, the parents may transfer responsibility of it to someone else (whether for a few hours, as in a babysitter, or for the rest of its life, as in giving it up for adoption).

There is NO SUCH OPTION during pregnancy. That makes the woman the sole decider for that fetus.

satv365 · #**158** (**permalink**) 04-08-2008, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wvpeach

The supreme court has stuck down state bans on abortion satv.

So it appears unless you reform the federal government and the supreme court who seem to think they have the right to tell the states what to do your out of luck.

Now me I agree with you. I hate that blacks were enslaved. But would have had to fight on the souths side during the civil war. The federal government does not take precedence over state law as far as I am concerned. But you can't prove that by the federal laws and the way the supreme court has sided with the federal government.

State governance I am all for.

Cut the federal government back to size is the only way to cure what ails this country.

Simple solution. Write an amendment that says the Constitution is not a living document and, in fact..

Needs a Congressional Vote to be changed and not the swing of a judge's gavel. Oh, but I do believe it says that in there somewhere.

What should that lead you conclude? That our Government is not in fact abiding by the Constitution on anything lately. Our Government, is in fact, illegal. It needs to be put in check, I agree. You just need to convince the people in the middle of the Bread and Circuses they have grown accustomed to.

wvpeach · #**159** (**permalink**) 04-08-2008, 09:24 PM

Good luck with that satv

I have been trying for the last 30 years to convince people the government is out of control.

Nobody will listen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by satv365

Simple solution. Write an amendment that says the Constitution is not a living document and, in fact..

Needs a Congressional Vote to be changed and not the swing of a judge's gavel. Oh, but I do believe it says that in there somewhere.

What should that lead you conclude? That our Government is not in fact abiding by the Constitution on anything lately. Our Government, is in fact, illegal. It needs to be put in check, I agree. You just need to convince the people in the middle of the Bread and Circuses they have grown accustomed to.

PaleRider · #**160** (**permalink**) 04-09-2008, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wvpeach

Take a look at the links you provided nut case. Most of them are not my own , they come from learned biblical scholars who speak about the issue.

When you bring someone else's words into the discussion because you can't speak for yourself, then you are presenting those words as proof of your argument. And they are clearly not from "learned" biblical scholars. If you knew half as much about the bible as you claim, then you would know that the Exodus quote that keeps popping up is not a literal translation of the Torah. It is a bastardized translation that changes the meaning of the verse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wvpeach

I provided them mostly for you who obviously has never bothered to read the bible yourself in the hope that since you don't want to take my word for it you would listen to men far more versed in the bible than either you or I .

That is the thing peach. What you presented was from a corrupt translation. People who have no real knowledge of the Bible read it and beleive it represents what the Bible says and are decieved.

One of two things has happened peach, you tell me which. Either you have deliberately decieved people by quoting people who are using corrupted translations of the bible in an effort to make your point, or you don't know nearly as much about the Bible as you claim and have been decieved yourself because you are unable to recognize a corrupt translation when you see it.

Which is it because obviously, a corrupt translation has been used?

Quote:

Originally Posted by wvpeach

These links come from places like My Jewish Learning, 1Thomas Bokenkotter, A Concise History of the Catholic Church, Doubleday, 1990, p. 51.Abortion," Encyclopedia Americana, Americana Corporation, 1971.Rabbi Charles Briskin
January 31, 2003

Some are in my own words, but most are not as I felt men of faith who knew the bible would carry more weight among some people here.

If you are going to quote "men of faith" then you should make sure that they actually are "men of faith" and not decievers. In one instance you represented the verse from Exodus as an analysis by someone of the Jewish faith. Since the quote was from an inaccurate translation of the Torah, it is clear that it simply is not true. A rabbi could read Hebrew and therefore would not need to use a Christian translation and if he did, he would recognized a corrupted translation as was used.

For example: In this post from you from "my Jewish learning" it references the Exodus verse as follows:

"The Jewish discussion about abortion begins with a biblical text. Exodus 21:22-23 discusses a situation in which two men are fighting. During the fight, one of the men accidentally hits a pregnant woman. The Torah says that if the woman is killed then, “a nefesh shall be given for a nefesh (a life shall be given for a life).” The man who struck her is considered a murderer and is punished accordingly. If, however, the woman miscarries but does not die, the man must pay monetary damages. He is not liable for murder because the fetus is not considered a nefesh, a human being."

This clearly is either from someone who claims to be a rabbi but is not, or someone who has a deliberate intent to decieve. The important idea is highlighted in red.

You claim to be familiar with the King James Version of the Bible and yet, you didn't recognize the very important difference between what the actual verse says and the corrupted meaning inferred to the verse above.

King James Version, the verse reads:

22If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

There is no mention of a miscarriage here. The King James tranlsation suggests an early delivery of a healthy child. The mischief mentioned includes the death of either the child or the woman.

In the New American Standard Bible, (a respectable translation) the verse reads:

22"If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall (A)pay as the judges decide.

In Young's Literal Translation, the verse reads:

22`And when men strive, and have smitten a pregnant woman, and her children have come out, and there is no mischief, he is certainly fined, as the husband of the woman doth lay upon him, and he hath given through the judges;

And in Darby's Translation, the verse reads:

22And if men strive together, and strike a woman with child, so that she be delivered, and no mischief happen, he shall in any case be fined, according as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and shall give it as the judges estimate.

Of course, none of these alone prove anything. The test is a comparison to the Torah which is the source. I don't know if you have ever read the Torah but if you actually looked at the Torah, you would find that the phrase that your bastardized bible translates as "she miscarries as a result" actually reads reads "w˚yase û ye ladêhâ". In Hebrew, the literal translation is "the child comes forth". The New American Standard Bible does make a note of this literal translation in the margins.

The verb 'yase is used over 1,000 times in the Torah but isn't translated to mean miscarriage in a single instance. Why then, would the corrupt translation used by your "Jewish" source translate it to mean miscarriage in this one instance?

You are the one who brought it here peach. You presented it as credible information and it was not. So did you do it on purpose with the intent to decieve or were you decieved yourself?

Quote:

Originally Posted by wvpeach

And by the way palerider your proven a liar again. I did not use the verses from exodus ten times in the links your provided, they weren't even used ten times by the scholars whose links I provided . That is all in your imagination . I told you your buddy bluedog brought those verses up and tried to say a man should be killed because he caused a miscarriage accidentally. I said he was reading the verses wrong and provided him with 4 biblical scholars opinion besides my own that he was reading them wrong.

The verse is either quoted or referenced in each of the links I provided and I invite anyone to double check me. I don't lie. Both you and bluedog were wrong. Bluedog, however, didn't bring corrupt scripture here in an attempt to prove his point. You did that and I am interested to know whether you did it on purpose or whether you were decieved yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wvpeach

Nor should it matter how many times we discuss the same verses if we are discussing the bible.

It matters a lot when you are using, or referencing a corrupt translation that changes the original meaning in an effort to support an argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wvpeach

I know it just kills you palerider because some people who know the bible and serve Christ know that God is not allowing little souls to be frozen in fertility clinics across this world.

If you knew the Bible peach, you wouldn't be bringing corrupt translations here in an attempt to prove your point. And by referencing corrupt translations peach, it is not Christ that you are serving. You are either deliberately presenting a corrupt message, or you have been decieved into presenting a corrupt message. Either way, it isn't Christ that is being served.

And you have yet to provide any evidence that unborns do not have souls.