This thread was started to relieve an off topic discussion from another thread. I will more or less be playing devils advocate here and the views expressed may or may not be my own. If you have any questions about that, ask me before you attack me, please. I'll be responding primarily to funktacular on this thread so please don't be offended if seemingly ignored.

Funk, you wanna start or should I? I'd rather you did, myself.

__________________
S.O.S. ------ United We Stand, Divided We Fall

Od course it isn't constitutional, lets examine the constitutionality of the right of all human beings (including unborns) to live.

"...We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,..."

This passage is from the Declaration of Independence. It was, and is a legal document, and it does have real bearing on this legal matter, and others.

The Declaration was, undeniably, the constitutional law of this nation for certain purposes. It freed the people from their loyalty to the king of England for example. In fact, it was declared so by the judicial tribunals of this country. No American during the Revolutionary war, or since could be legally tried on this soil for treason to the king. It stands to reason that if the Declaration were the constitutional law of the nation for that purpose, then it was also the constitutional law for the purpose of recognizing and establishing, as law, the inalienable right of everyone on these shores to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness does it not?

The lawfulness of the people disavowing their loyalty to the king was agreed upon by the people of this nation and that act was made legal by the instrument that declared that the rebellion; and it’s authority rested squarely upon, and was, in itself a consequence of the right that all men had to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

If the act of rebellion against the king was determined to be lawful, then it becomes very difficult to argue that the principles that legalized the act did not become the law. Furthermore, when the country ratified the act of freeing themselves from the crown, did they not also, by definition, ratify and acknowledge the principles that they declared made the revolution legal?

So, whether the Declaration was the law for a year, or just one day, it established that in this nation, all men had an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. From that point forward, for anyone claiming otherwise, the burden falls upon them to establish that the right to life has been constitutionally taken away, and to do that, he (or she) is going to have to show a deliberate constitutional description of the particular individuals who have had their inalienable right to life abolished.

Simply stated, the people of this country, in the instrument by which they first announced their political independence from the king and declared their right to establish a government of their own also declared that the inalienable right of all men to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness was a ”SELF EVIDENT TRUTH”.

Self evident truths, except those which are explicitly denied are taken for granted and constitute a fundamental part of all constitutions, compacts and systems of government. If we did not take for granted self evident truths it would be impossible for any orderly government to be established because it would be impossible to make an actual inventory of all of the self evident truths that are to be taken into account in the administration of a government. This is especially true of governments as we have here in the US that are founded upon a contract. It is impossible in a contract of government to list all of the self evident truths that would have to be acted upon in the administration of the law and therefore they are all taken for granted EXCEPT for the ones that have been plainly denied.

The principle that self evident truths (even those not enumerated) make a part of all laws and contracts unless they are clearly refused is not only necessary to the very existence of a civil society, but it is a prerequisite to the administration of justice in each and every case that may arise out of a contract or other arrangement between individuals. As with government, it would be impossible for us to make contracts at all if it were going to be necessary to list each and every self evident truth that might have some bearing on their contract before a judge. Because of this, self evident truths are taken for granted out of legal necessity.

Governments have no more right to deny self evident truths than individuals in any case. To deny that self evident truths are part of the law is no different than arguing that self evident deception is part of the law.

So if, according to our founders, it is a self evident truth that all men have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that truth must be present in all of our laws and all of our constitutions except in caes where it has been unmistakably and precicely denied.

At this point, it falls upon you to prove (if you wish to continue the argument) that the people of this country have at any time, in their constitution, or by any other means have retracted and denied the self evident truth that all men have an inalienable right to life.

And while you are at it, maybe you can show me where in the Constitution there is an explicit provision that denies an inalienable right to life to humans who are as of yet unborn. Absent such an explicit provision in the constitution, any state or federal law that restricts any group of individual's inalienable right to life would be patently unconstitutional.

I took the time also to look up men in a dictionary of the time. The oldest one I could find was published in 1828 so I doubt that the meaning of the word had changed that much in the scant 50 years since it was used by the founders. In that dictionary the word men is described as "persons; people; mankind; in an indefinite sense."

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

Yeah...... what he said.

__________________
If you were born after 1972 you are a Survivor of the Abortion Holocaust. 1/3 of your generation has been killed by abortion in America!

McCain/Palin 2008! = NObama

LMAO funk, too funny. I was really hoing to hear specifically your views, cause I've already been round this with PR on another thread. But ok, if you share PR's opinion, I will plow through it and reply.

__________________
S.O.S. ------ United We Stand, Divided We Fall

Actually, we haven't been around on this issue. You made reference to the constitution, I replied with this and you never answered. That was on 06/02/06.

While you are forming your rebuttal, keep in mind that the nature of our constitution and legal system is such that if a right, or rights, are to be withheld from an individual or a group, which right is being withheld, who it is being withheld from, and the reason it is being withheld must be specifically enumerated into the law.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

Really? Hmmm, I musta been dreaming.... Oh wait... here it is...
Look here

I would say that I have responded... many times. I guess you missed the part where I said "on another thread". ***shakes head sadly***

While you are forming your rebuttal, keep in mind that the nature of our constitution and legal system is such that if a right, or rights, are to be withheld from an individual or a group, which right is being withheld, who it is being withheld from, and the reason it is being withheld must be specifically enumerated into the law.[/quote]

I know my job here, thank you. And the basis for my rebuttal lies in the link above that I apparently never wrote, But I will refine it when I have time.

__________________
S.O.S. ------ United We Stand, Divided We Fall

The constitutionality of abortion is dependant on whether or not a fetus is considered to be a human being. Now I'm not a biologist, but in the first trimester the fetus is little more than a loosely organized clump of cells. Not a human, so abortion is okay. In the second trimeser it starts to get iffy, but if the fetus still has no thought it is not a human. By the third trimester it is really becoming questionable, but the fetus is still a part of the mother's body, not an independant human being.

It is one of the most morally reprehensible actions that a person can take, but if the fetus isn't a human being, it is not a person and therefore not entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Just my opinion, if science says otherwise I would rather not remain ignorant.

__________________
“In my lifetime, we've gone from Eisenhower to George W. Bush. We've gone from John F. Kennedy to Al Gore. If this is evolution, I believe that in twelve years, we'll be voting for plants.�
-Lewis Black

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
-Benjamin Franklin

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. "
-Thomas Jefferson

I know my job here, thank you. And the basis for my rebuttal lies in the link above that I apparently never wrote, But I will refine it when I have time.[/quote]

I was refering to this specific argument made on page 10, post 92 in which I was answering your post 87 in which you so graciously reminded me that you had provided me with a link to a seminar on the constitution. You did not answer this specific argument in that thread which was why I brought it here. what is it with you?

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

T.W. Sadler, LANGMAN’S MEDICAL EMBRYOLOGY (John N. Gardner ed., 6th ed. (1990): "the proposition that an unborn child is a human being from conception is “supported by standard textbooks on embryology or human biology"

Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, HUMAN EMBRYOLOGY & TERATOLOGY , (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55. "Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human being is thereby formed"

E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, PATHOLOGY OF THE FETUS AND THE INFANT, 3d ed. (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975), vii. "Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new human being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."

I can provide reference to other medical and developmental biology textbooks. To date, I have yet to find any credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being.

By the way, science is also clear on the issue of whether or not an unborn is part of its mother's body. It is not.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

"As far as your logical fallicy shit - shove it. I am a woman."...naturemomma

As surprising as this may be to some people, there is no debate within the medical community as to when life begins. Life begins at conception. Therefore, every "succesful" abortion ends the life of a living human being, and we're not asking you to take our word for it. Consider the testimony below from an assortment of leading embryology text books.



The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed.
Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18.

"[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."



Essentials of Human Embryology
William J. Larsen, (New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998), 1-17.

"In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. ... Fertilization takes place in the oviduct ... resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point... This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."



Human Embryology & Teratology
Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996), 5-55.

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed... Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments... The zygote ... is a unicellular embryo... "The ill-defined and inaccurate term pre-embryo, which includes the embryonic disc, is said either to end with the appearance of the primitive streak or ... to include neurulation. The term is not used in this book."


Adding to the consensus of contemporary textbooks, is the testimony of older medical texts as well:


Human Embryology, 3rd ed.
Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.

"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitues the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."


Briological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics
J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Friedman, (Philadelphia: W.B. Sanders, 1974), 17.

"The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life."


Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3d ed.
E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975), vii.

"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."
In addition to the consistent testimony found in medical textbooks, there is some equally conclusive evidence that exists on the public record. In 1981, a United States Senate judiciary subcommittee received the following testimony from a collection of medical experts (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981):

Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth
Harvard University Medical School

"It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception."


Dr. Alfred M. Bongioanni
Professor of Pediatrics and Obstetrics, University of Pennsylvania

"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception."


Dr. Jerome LeJeune
Professor of Genetics, University of Descartes

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."


Professor Hymie Gordon
Mayo Clinic

"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."


Dr. Watson A. Bowes
University of Colorado Medical School

"The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter – the beginning is conception."

The official Senate report reached this conclusion:


Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.

This, of course, should come as no surprise since the American Medical Association (AMA) declared as far back as 1857 that "the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being” is a matter of science. Despite the “popular ignorance...that the fetus is not alive till after the period of quickening.” Doctors knew it during the 1800's and doctors know it today. Human life begins at conception.

__________________
If you were born after 1972 you are a Survivor of the Abortion Holocaust. 1/3 of your generation has been killed by abortion in America!

McCain/Palin 2008! = NObama