A Conception's Right To Life

[top gun]

Rational is apparently whatever you or Chip define it to be, it appears. Whatever anyone else finds rational will be rejected by you unless it conforms with what you think. Shall we discuss the meaning of the word 'is'?

I'd just let Chip & palerider suffer in the silence of knowing that Roe is completely safe and will be even more established with I'm expecting added protections during President Obama's terms.

All you'll get from them is that everyone else except them, even the Supreme Court is not able to form a rational and fair decision... and they'll keep repeating their old worn out argument that everyone has heard for 36 years and is ignored by the high court.

I just pop into this thread a couple times a year to point just how terribly out of touch with the reality of the situation they are.

It's just a good dig to say... See just like I said last year and the year before and the year before... nothing has changed Roe is the decision.

My wife's niece is actually a security escort at a clinic in Indiana. She said Clinic Creepers could not be weirder looking losers if there was a casting call for weird looking loosers. She calls them... the dirty trench coat & crayon sign guys!

These couple of guys in here are just venting because they know they can't ever win. Women are to big a voting block and would never let it happen.

George Carlin had these guys pegged EXACTLY right...

 

[The Scotsman]

Palerider you are obviously very passionate in your views and it is amusing as well as interesting reading your comments. I found it oddly disconcerting though that you see this purely as an intellectual excersice. For example you make no mention of or allude to any right of the mother, may I enquire why? Do the social and environmental circumstances or conditions within which she exists mean nothing to you? The basis of your stance is human rights so what of the human rights of the mother?

I can understand and indeed sympathise with your views but on balance I find that the ultimate descision regards a mothers right to judge over her unborn baby should be hers and hers alone. Indeed I think that is why the law is framed thus, perhaps it was recognised that the law has no right to be so intrusive?

Sam made an interesting observation.....

Whatever anyone else finds rational will be rejected by you unless it conforms with what you think.

A trivial matter but you made the comment "A court case currently stands and a court case that was decided on a flawed and obviously incorrect assumption." A landmark case with considered oppinion dismissed with such confidence and presumption.........or perhaps just grandstanding......anyway as I said a mere bagatelle.

 

[palerider]

Rational is apparently whatever you or Chip define it to be, it appears. Whatever anyone else finds rational will be rejected by you unless it conforms with what you think. Shall we discuss the meaning of the word 'is'?

Allowing one human being to kill another human being without judicial review and without legal consequence for any or no reason is not rational and any argument that supports such by default can not be rational. You admitted this when you made your feeble and failed attempt to prove that unborns were not human beings. Having failed that, you again, simply claim that your arguments are rational and falsely claim that we arbitrarily decide what is rational and what is not.

Tell me, which part of your support for allowing one human being to kill another without judicial review and without legal consequence for any or no reason do you believe is rational?

 

[palerider]

George Carlin had these guys pegged EXACTLY right...

And like your argument, good ole georges is chock full of lies, misrepresentations and logical fallacies. He would't last a minute in an actual debate. His sophistries would be exposed and torn down as quickly as yours.

 

[Chip]

Hi mate - as tricky as these issues are I don't see it in exactly those black and white terms.

There's nothing "tricky" about this matter -- it's actually very straightforward: a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception, as state-of-the-art DNA and life science has presented, and thus to intentionally kill that person when that person is not threatening the life of that person's mother is ... the sociological act of murder.

It really is that simple.

Nothing "tricky" about it ... though it will probably "appear" tricky to pro-abortionists who can't deal with the implications of the truth of it.

I guess I'm thinking of it in terms of definition and in terms of cirumstances rather than religious, political or social idealogical dogma.

Not from the context of your post, you're not.

You're obviously thinking of this matter from the social ideological perspective of the pro-abortionist mindset ...

... With the political agenda ...

... Of religiously seeking ...

... To dogmatically defend the heinous Roe v. Wade.

The only circumstances you're attempting to consider are those you vainly seek to justify murderous abortion.

And you're probably wondering how you can twist definitions the way the other pro-abortionists do to prevent the truth of the personhood of the newly conceived from becoming common knowledge.

But ... that's just my guess.

For example you mentioned "human rights" which is a recent concept and seems to be a moveable feast - today's human rights may not be the same as tomorrow.

How creative of you.

You cite change as an example of your attempt to reduce human rights to a passing fancy of a relatively meaningless notion ...

... All, of course, to keep your convenient murderous abortion legal.

You don't really mean to disparage human rights, I mean after all they've done for you in your little island of the world; the Magna Charta, English Bill of Rights, etc., that may have kept your ancestors out of undue imprisonment and kept your heirs alive long enough to result in ... you.

No, you're just attempting to spin some kind of sophistry of the moment, ironically, to justify the very murderous killing from convenience that was outlawed sufficient to perhaps give you a chance to ... be.

You are in error though, obviously -- human rights are ancient, and they existed long before they were legally safeguarded. Now, it is time to take our new-found scientific knowledge and apply the safeguarding of those rights, starting with the foundational right to life, to newly conceived people.

Since it appears you lack a fundamental understanding of the three categories of rights -- life, security of person, and freedom of action -- here is a link to a primer on the matter: The Realities of Rights.

Happy reading.

Likewise religious or social positions change etc etc..

Irrelevant.

The changing of religious positions is irrelevant to the scientific fact of the truth that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live that person's life at the moment of conception.

And the changing of social positions is also irrelevant to the scientific fact of the truth that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live that person's life at the moment of conception.

Now what is relevant is the ever-changing progress of science, science which declared unconjecturably a little over three decades ago that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live that person's life at the moment of conception.

You may wish to return to the opening post in this thread for a review of the true and accurate science and it's very germane and relevant truth, a truth which will stand the test of change for all time.

However, the will of the individual is exactly that; private and personal.

Really?

Then wouldn't it be well of everyone to respect the will of the newly conceived individual, to keep that person's privacy and personal business out of the hands of deadly abortuaries?

I would think so.

But of course you're really only interested in keeping the potential murderer's will sacred, private and "personal".

A bit hypocritical of you to arbitrarily choose sides like this, isn't it?

Circumstances dictate the decisions (in the context of this discussion) an individual makes and people ain't perfect and make mistakes.

Murder is a pretty big "mistake", don't you think, Scotsman?

But, I guess nobody's perfect.

Nevertheless, there are a lot of imperfect people in prision for that crime, the commiting of murder against pre-natals and post natals alike.

I'm sure those murderers thought, in their typical moral relative utilitarian sophistrical ways of thinking, that the "circumstances" justified the murder.

Thankfully, however, civilized humanity doesn't tolerate "circumstances" as an excuse for murder.

If murder is the guilty verdict ... the penalty is still enacted ... no matter what excusive "circumstances" the murderer cites.

Because a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception, abortion, for the circumstance of convenient and the like, is, by definition, the sociological behavior of murder.

In time, no "circumstances" for the murder of pre-natals will be tolerated ...

... Thanks to science, of course.

So you may say "Why make an unborn child pay for those mistakes!"

Well, not exactly.

We say: "why make a pre-natal person pay for those mistakes of others ... with that person's very life"!

Again, you seem to suffer a lack of knowledge of the basic structure of human rights ... though my guess is that you don't really suffer such a lack of knowledge, you just want to self-delude and delude others into thinking that you don't grasp the fundaments of human rights.

No, I'm pretty sure you get it, that the right to life comes first and foundational, paramount and unviolable, and thus most certainly supercedes the right to freedom of action.

Indeed, that's obvious ... or a lot of murderers would have gotten off scot-free by simply saying "it's my freedom of action right to murder someone if I conveniently say it is".

Wow -- I wonder if you really meant to become a surrogate defense attorney in a class action on behalf of murderers, Scotsman?

I can't imagine that's the company you'd want to keep in this discussion.

 

[Chip]

Well thats a hard enough choice for the woman but it is her body and she should at least have control over that.

Yep, and if I recall, that's just what Dr. Mengele said in his defense, that "it's my body and I should at least have control over that ... to murder and disect whatever Jews I can".



Once again, you post as if you don't get it, that the right to life is paramount, and no one, no one, has the right to own another person's life to murder them at whim.

In reality, unless her pre-natal offspring is directly and immediately threatening her very life and no other recourse is rational, she has no right of any kind to murder that person.

Chip quite rightly mentioned contraception

What I mentioned was new state-of-the-art conception prevention pharmaceuticals that are currently being developed.

I did not mention "contraception", and I didn't mention current out-dated methods of birth control that murder newly conceived people.

I justed wanted to make that clear.

and I would absolutely agree with his point that contraception is preferable to abortion - no argument!

Uh, let's just make this perfectly clear, that current birth control products that use progestin (most birth control pills) are designed to function as an abortificient, meaning that they actually commit abortion, murderous abortion by design and intent.

We will simply have to do away with those products once Roe v. Wade is overturned.

So it would behoove everyone to push those pharmaceutical companies, maybe even back them vigorously financially, to bring the new state-of-the-art conception prevention pharmaceuticals to market ASAP!

But again sometimes it doesn't work out like that - life is hard and sometimes difficult choices have to be made.

Oh oh -- here comes some more irrational justification for murder.

"Life is hard" ... therefore murderous abortion should be allowed.

"Sometimes difficult choices have to be made" ... therefore a man and a woman who create an offspring they don't want to even give up for adoption should just be allowed to commit murderous abortion.

Well, thanks to science's revelation a few decades ago that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live that person's life at the moment of conception, it won't be long before these phrases will turn differently.

"Life is hard" ... so he/she who commits murderous abortion will "enjoy" a hard life in prison.

"Sometimes difficult choices have to be made" ... so let's see now, which prison is the least overcrowded ... ... .

The thing about the sophistry web you spin, Scotsman, is how easy it is to be caught up in it yourself.

I personally feel that the only one that can make such a deeply defining decision is the woman herself.

In the old days, forty years ago at least, if a woman killed her baby shortly after that baby's birth, simply because she didn't want to raise a child (or even hassle putting the baby up for adoption) she could be indicted for murder, and understandably so.

Now you may feel that when a woman chooses to murder her offspring for economic and temporal convenience that doing so is a "deeply defining decision", but your spin is outrageously laughable.

It's not a "deeply defining decision" to murder someone ... or else those who murdered all those Jews during WWII were quite deeply defined.

The cowardly act of murderous abortion deeply defines no one.

Indeed, as a counselor, I can tell you of the devastating damage a woman does to herself, both physiologically and neuropsychologically, when she commits murderous abortion. The guilt, whether she allows it to surface or she stuffs it out of consciousness and into her body, can cause the most hideous damage you can possibly imagine.

The "deeply defining decision" sophistry, is simply that -- sophistry ... in this case, a lie that attempts to encourage debilitating self-destructive behavior.

....yes well.... I think that the arguments put forward so far are admirable

You are, of course, obviously referring to the sophistry based laughable postings of other moral relativist utilitarian pro-abortionists in this thread.

Of course you would find these sophistries "admirable", birds of a feather and all, you know.

That you find them admirable is both irrelevant ... and embarrassing for you.

and indeed quite agree with the current laws as they stand.

Actually, they don't agree with all law.

People who have murdered pre-natals living in the woman they murdered are rightly serving sentences for multiple counts of murder, a count of murder for each person they murdered, the murder of both post and pre-natal people they murdered.

Your other "admirable" posters are posting in disagreement with that law, saying, in effect, that no murder count should be charged for the murder of a pre-natal person.

They are in obvious conflict with the law on that matter.

But again, laws "as they stand" aren't the religious gods you obviously want to make them to protect you advocaters of murderous abortion.

There was once a law allowing slavery ... but, like the fate that will soon befall Roe v. Wade, that "law" too fell.

And just because the ancient church religiously sided with the old erroneous doctrine that the Sun revolved around Earth, doesn't mean that's the right and true side to side with.

You can hide behind the skirt of mommy law if you want, Scotsman, but when courageous people once again armed with the scientific truth eventually repeal that so-called "law", then where will you hide in the argument? I doubt there will be any skirts left to conceal murderous abortion.

I think those have been proposed and argued by people far more eloquent than I.

Yes ... there are indeed more eloquent sophisters than you ... not that it will eventually matter all that much soon, as the eloquent facts of the scientific truth that a person, a unique individual human being, begins to live at the moment of conception, is the greatest and most persuasive kind of eloquence, as history clearly presents.

.... Frankly Sir, its as good a reason as using religious dogma or human rights etc. etc. to buttress a personal oppion for those in favour of the right to life.

But since no one is using your religious dogma in support of the foundational human right to life, your statement here is erroneous.

And since what is really happening is that we pro-lifers and anti-abortionists are citing both science and the realities of human rights, DNA and life science and the foundational right to life, it is our humble opinion that such references speak for themselves ... though I'm sure you want to debunk them on "opinion" grounds.

Everything everyone posts here is opinion -- the fact that something posted is opinion is irrelevant.

What matters is that mine and Paleriders opinions are scientific and historically fact based and present the truth of the relevant matter ...

... And your opinions, and the opinions of your pro-abortionist cohorts are falsity-based sophistry, deserving of the projected criticism with which you inaccurately attempt to label us.

I mean, after all, a case in point is that Palerider and I have posted unconjecturably accurate science in context, and none of you pro-abortionists have ...

... Though I keep imploring you all to "again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it" ... but none of you do.

I wonder why.

 

[Chip]

Rational is apparently whatever you or Chip define it to be, it appears.

Erroneous.

But what "appears" to you is obviously seen through rose-colored sophister's glasses.

Palerider and I have posted accurate and relevant science and the reality of human rights, the rational common sense approach to discussing the matter.

You and your pro-abortionist cohorts, on the other hand, have whined on and on and posted obvious sophistry ... an unconjecturably irrational approach to argumentation.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

Whatever anyone else finds rational will be rejected by you unless it conforms with what you think.

Erroneous.

I realize that in your moral relativist utilitarian world, where everything is subject to disection ad nauseum in an attempt to "re-define" away harsh realities that are absolutely too much for you to bear, like an inconvenient hangnail, or the like, that the common-place word "rational" is sophistrically subject to your debate.

But, in truth, you only want to pounce on absolute irrelevancies merely to divertively digress from the truth of murderous abortion that you just can't handle emotionally and the fact that you have absolutely nothing scientifically or rights-based reality-wise to counter our effective, accurate, obviously rational arguments.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

Shall we discuss the meaning of the word 'is'?

No, as digressively diverting attention from the winning argument of the opening post to meander masturbatively about absolute nothings is simply not in order.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

 

[Chip]

I'd just let Chip & palerider suffer in the silence of knowing that Roe is completely safe and will be even more established with I'm expecting added protections during President Obama's terms. All you'll get from them is that everyone else except them, even the Supreme Court is not able to form a rational and fair decision... and they'll keep repeating their old worn out argument that everyone has heard for 36 years and is ignored by the high court. I just pop into this thread a couple times a year to point just how terribly out of touch with the reality of the situation they are. It's just a good dig to say... See just like I said last year and the year before and the year before... nothing has changed Roe is the decision. My wife's niece is actually a security escort at a clinic in Indiana. She said Clinic Creepers could not be weirder looking losers if there was a casting call for weird looking loosers. She calls them... the dirty trench coat & crayon sign guys! These couple of guys in here are just venting because they know they can't ever win. Women are to big a voting block and would never let it happen. George Carlin had these guys pegged EXACTLY right...

Translation: "Rah, rah, sis boom bah -- go team go -- goooooo murderers -- Yay!!!"



Your court jester cheerleading is meaninglessly irrelevant, Top Gun.

I do, however, find your wife's niece's murderous abortion henchwoman role additionally revealing ... as it attests to just how many controlling women in your life are responsible for you codependently keeping your pair hidden in a drawer.

Again, if you have a clear accurate on-point scientifically formulated refutation to the opening post, then please post it.

 

[The Scotsman]

indeed.....so Chip, disgarding all the clutter and verbage in the above and irrespective of all other mutterings about Jewish holocausts.. etc. your stance is that the mother has no rights at all and any other action is simply murder. Your initial post was a spliced together summary of the work undertaken by scientists and it shows that humans can indeed create other humans (life) but....so what!! All you've done is comment upon what everyone knows........ women grow babies...... yay women.

Okay now we move into the assigning rights phase i.e. what controls what....

However, the right to life supercedes security of person, and thus the right to life of the newly conceived person rightly holds sway over the woman's claim of security of person.

This is the crux of your position. I am interested what happens if the growing baby is threatening the life of the mother? kill the mother? or kill the baby or let both die?

But, in truth, you only want to pounce on absolute irrelevancies merely to divertively digress from the truth of murderous abortion that you just can't handle emotionally and the fact that you have absolutely nothing scientifically or rights-based reality-wise to counter our effective, accurate, obviously rational arguments.

oh pahleeeaaase.......look this frenzied raving just puts people off - in truth its boring........ hysterical but boring.

ttfn

 

[palerider]

Palerider you are obviously very passionate in your views and it is amusing as well as interesting reading your comments. I found it oddly disconcerting though that you see this purely as an intellectual excersice. For example you make no mention of or allude to any right of the mother, may I enquire why? Do the social and environmental circumstances or conditions within which she exists mean nothing to you? The basis of your stance is human rights so what of the human rights of the mother?

Then you aren't fully aware of my position. The abortion issue represents a clash of rights between individuals. Under our legal system, when a clash of rights exists, the rights of the one must give way to the more fundamental rights of the other. The right to live, being the most fundamental right of all outweighs all other rights unless one is an imminent threat to the life of another in which case, self defense is justifiable.

If a woman's life is iin genuine danger, then she does have the right to kill in self defense, even if the one threatening her life bears no ill intent.

I can understand and indeed sympathise with your views but on balance I find that the ultimate descision regards a mothers right to judge over her unborn baby should be hers and hers alone. Indeed I think that is why the law is framed thus, perhaps it was recognised that the law has no right to be so intrusive?

Are you saying that you believe that she owns another human being? Perhaps a refresher visit to the Constitution is in order for you.

A trivial matter but you made the comment "A court case currently stands and a court case that was decided on a flawed and obviously incorrect assumption." A landmark case with considered oppinion dismissed with such confidence and presumption.........or perhaps just grandstanding......anyway as I said a mere bagatelle.

Check your history to see how often landmark cases are overturned by subsequent generations. Being a landmark case is no inidcation that it was a good decision. All too often, landmark cases are landmark cases because they fill an agenda as was the case with roe. You speak of the "considered" opinion of roe. Have you ever read the case transcripts or the majority decision. There is a reason that a very large number of legal scholars, even those who are pro choice believe that roe is the worst decision the court has ever made. It casts about thousands of years in history looking for justification, it attempts to justify itself based on biblical passages and on and on. The supreme court is supposed to decide the CONSTITUTIONALITY of cases, not cast about through world history in an attempt to justify a decision that fits a pre existiing agenda.

I believe I have been through this before, but I will go through it again lest you continue to believe that I am simply dismissing the roe for some personal reason.

From the roe decision:

Such an action, however, would appear to be one to vindicate the parents' interest and is thus consistent with the view that the fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life.

This "assumption" is the basis for the roe decision and it has long since been proven wrong.



"Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term." Pp. 147-164.

For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

In assessing the State's interest, recognition may be given to the less rigid claim that as long as at least potential life is involved, the State may assert interests beyond the protection of the pregnant woman alone.

The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life.

Those striking down state laws have generally scrutinized the State's interests in protecting health and potential life, and have concluded that neither interest justified broad limitations on the reasons for which a physician and his pregnant patient might decide that she should have an abortion in the early stages of pregnancy

As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved.

We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life.

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability.

The fact is that whenever the child was mentioned by the court, it was called a potential human life. In order to justify their decision, they had to assume that the unborn was not a human being because they knew perfectly well that to admit that the child was alive and human was to admit that it was a living human being and in the eyes of the law, all living human beings are persons and all persons in this country are entitled to the protection of the 14th amendment.

The court created a theoretical right for a woman to terminate a potential human life. They did not fabricate a right for a woman to kill a living human being. Their assumption was clearly wrong and in the decision itself, they admit that should legal precedent for the personhood of the unborn ever come to exist, that roe will collapse as unconstitutional. That legal precedent now exists in a rather large body of state law, federal law, an both state and federal case law.

I have poured over both the transcripts, the majority decision, and the miniority decision of roe attempting to rationalize the decision. At one time, I held the indefensible pro choice positon. Now I welcome you to visit roe and try attempt to make a rational defense of it. Hell, compare roe to other decisions. There are distinct differences in the use of language and the logic by which a finding is made. There are no other cases that cast about in ancient history in an attempt to justify a decision. By and large, supreme cases are justified by case law and the constitution itself. roe stands out like a leison on the face of the court in its agenda based motive. Legal experts have been trying since the decision was made and all attempts stink of sophistry and doubletalk.

 

[The Scotsman]

Firstly Sir, without wishing to sound condescending in any way, thank you for the polite response.

The right to live, being the most fundamental right of all outweighs all other rights unless one is an imminent threat to the life of another in which case, self defense is justifiable.

I agree. I also see other circumstances as well which can impinge upon that basic right. As I alluded to earlier I think consideration has to be given to personal, economic or social circumstances. I understand that these can even include lifestyle choices which I find pretty abhorrent and would agree that in circumstances like this I would not feel opposed to abortions being denied.

Check your history to see how often landmark cases are overturned by subsequent generations.

... good point well made, and I'm sure that if the majority view followed your oppinion it would be challenged in court and more than likely the law would be changed.

You speak of the "considered" opinion of roe. Have you ever read the case transcripts or the majority decision.

...some. Strangely enough the fact that they trawled around looking at the historical contexts, laws and practises is why I think that the consideration should stand the test of time is it draws upon many different contexts and legal systems etc.

I would just mention that being British I am not so familiar with the US constitution or Roe. Life is a bit simpler in the UK as laws reflect the wishes of the people following representations to Members of Parliament. We are not encumbered by a written constitution (thank god!!!)

The current UK laws regarding abortion were under free vote in 1967 and are updated from time to time but the majority view is that abortion should be legal. I can thus generalise and moralise with on the topic but you probably need to have in-depth discussions on constitutional issues which are best left with your countrymen/women.

 

[palerider]

I agree. I also see other circumstances as well which can impinge upon that basic right. As I alluded to earlier I think consideration has to be given to personal, economic or social circumstances. I understand that these can even include lifestyle choices which I find pretty abhorrent and would agree that in circumstances like this I would not feel opposed to abortions being denied.

Name a circumstance, personal, economic, or social in which you believe my right to, whatever, outweighs your very right to live. Any circumstance in which you attempt to justify killing unborns must be applicable across the board to all human beings because of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Unless, of course, you can demonstrate in some credible way that unborns are not living human beings, in which case, the constitution doesn't apply to them.

.. good point well made, and I'm sure that if the majority view followed your oppinion it would be challenged in court and more than likely the law would be changed.

Upon what basis? Basis is the problem with roe in the first place and basis would continue to be a problem for all subsequent generations. Only a court with a pre existing agenda could find basis for roe and considering the nature of our constitution, the only basis may be found in the the assumption that unborns are not human beings.

...some. Strangely enough the fact that they trawled around looking at the historical contexts, laws and practises is why I think that the consideration should stand the test of time is it draws upon many different contexts and legal systems etc.

Casting about through history looking for justification is not a luxury that the supreme court is supposed to have at its disposal. The supreme court is supposed to be limited to determining the constitutionality of laws and the constitutional application of law with regard to clashes of rights between individuals. World history, and foriegn legal decisions have no bearing on constitutionality. Further, if a judicial body, even your own, is allowed to 'brouse" through hstory seeking justification, they can effectively ignore your own governing documents and justify practically anything. Does your high court routinely brouse history seeking justification for actions that your governing documents don't support?

I would just mention that being British I am not so familiar with the US constitution or Roe. Life is a bit simpler in the UK as laws reflect the wishes of the people following representations to Members of Parliament. We are not encumbered by a written constitution (thank god!!!)

Abortion has not been such a contentious issue in your part of the world because your duely elected representatives wrote and legislated law that made abortion legal. In effect, the people had their say with regard to abortion. Not so here. Our say was denied by 5 unelected, unaccountable judges. Of course even in your part of the world, trouble is brewing because the laws that allow abortion don't specifically deny the right to live from human beings and the more we learn, the more undeniable the fact that unborns at any stage of development becomes.

The current UK laws regarding abortion were under free vote in 1967 and are updated from time to time but the majority view is that abortion should be legal. I can thus generalise and moralise with on the topic but you probably need to have in-depth discussions on constitutional issues which are best left with your countrymen/women.

Again, You the people had your say via your duely elected representatives. That is not the case here and if one can believe the polls, even those generated by pro choice organizations, the chance of law being passed that allows abortion on demand as is the case now is just about nil. The great majority favor much heavier restriction on abortion.

 

[top gun]

And like your argument, good ole georges is chock full of lies, misrepresentations and logical fallacies. He would't last a minute in an actual debate. His sophistries would be exposed and torn down as quickly as yours.

Unfortunately for you just like the way you run from the reality that innocent women and children are killed as collateral damage in battle without any right for them to first get a judicial review... or in the thousands of cases where people in a vegetative state and no longer "VIABLE" to live on their own without outside means of life support it's the next of kin not the government who decides whether to pull the plug or not...

George would have put you out like the butt of an old cigarette! Just like Planned Parenthood does...

 

[palerider]

Unfortunately for you just like the way you run from the reality that innocent women and children are killed as collateral damage in battle without any right for them to first get a judicial review... or in the thousands of cases where people in a vegetative state and no longer "VIABLE" to live on their own without outside means of life support it's the next of kin not the government who decides whether to pull the plug or not...[/qquote]

Sorry top gun. It is you who is running from reality. It is you who fails to see that your abortion on demand position is in a very small and shrinking minority. It is you who can not, for the life of you, offer up a rational defense of your position. It is you who stands impotently by repeating "its legal, it's legal, it's legal as if that represented any sort of argument at all.

And always, it is you who must resort to logical fallacy in a vain attempt to rationalize your stance as logical fallacy is all that you have so long as you avoid the facts. And in the end, you are left trying to equate those who are so sick or injured that no reasonable hope of their recovery exists to those who are perfectly healthy.

Refer to your constitution. You have a right to live, not a right to have extrordinary measures taken on your behalf should you become so sick or injured that no reasonable hope exists for your recovery. Your arguments fail on every possible level and yet, you hold to them like a red faced bible thumper.

George would have put you out like the butt of an old cigarette! Just like Planned Parenthood does...

George would lose as surely as you. His arguments are no arguments at all, just like yours.

 

[palerider]

George would have put you out like the butt of an old cigarette! Just like Planned Parenthood does...[/COLOR]

Maybe you would like to try and rationally defend any of george's "jokes" or pp for that matter.