Abortion??? anyone??

[Libsmasher]

Abortion is a woman's choice. Period.

Like saying murder is a man's choice. Period. Or as Obama might put it, infanticide is an abortionist's choice. Period.

Do you think anyone is interested in your unsupported opinion? No. Period.

 

[GenSeneca]

Re: The Elephant in the room.

"...my opposition to Abortion is not from a theological standpoint but from one of the belief that Individual Rights are supreme..." Not "theological", but from a "belief"?

Touche'

Yes, its a belief. One based on scientific facts and accepted historical truths.

I am not a scientist, so I am forced to take scientific findings on Faith rather than actual first hand knowledge. Unless you are a scientist in the specific field, you do the same.

I was not around for all of earths history, so I must take the findings of historians and archeologists on Faith rather than first hand knowledge.

Its my opinion, based on History, that Individual Rights are supreme and that the collective disregards an Individuals Rights at whim.

Its also my opinion, based on Science, that life begins at conception - because its at that point, one becomes an individual.

Now, if you believe your opinion is better - please present it.

 

[palerider]

Re: The Elephant in the room.

It is very apparent to me that you have a great advantage over me in knowledge, intelligence and debating skills. And, I am trying my very best to understand, and I appreciate your patience. But, if I fly away, who will read your posts?

Those who aren't trying their best to make this into a religious argument I suppose.

So, let me summerize...so if I understand your position, your argument is only a legal one, not religious. Therefore, if the medical people started referring in the literature to fetuses less than say, eight weeks as only potential human life and the constitution were amended to say a fetus only would attain human rights after that eight weeks, then you would have no problem with abortions before the term of eight weeks?

Which medical people are you referring to? I would be interested in seeing any credible science that states that an unborn is "potential human life" or some that states that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being.

As to your hypothetical constitutional amendment. Sorry, it wouldn't satisfy me. The constitution, for all that it is, is powerless to change a thing from what it is to something else for any purpose at all. Any attempt at law that does a shuck and jive with regard to what an unborn is, is no better than roe. Write a constitutional amendment that specifically denies unborn persons their most basic human rights until such time as they are born or become viable and if it is able to stand up in court, then you won't hear the same sort of argument from me. Of course, we both know that if the humanity of unborns is acknowledged, the 14th amendment would prevent any law denying them their rights. Hypotheticals are worse than useless.

I have a problem with human beings being denied their very humanity so that they can be denied their most basic human rights. Again, I really don't see what it is about my postion that you are having so much trouble understanding. I speak in plain language, I say exactly what I mean to say, and I don't dance around my position because I am afraid to state it openly.

Which part are you having a problem understanding?

 

[dahermit]

Re: The Elephant in the room.

Which medical people are you referring to? I would be interested in seeing any credible science that states that an unborn is "potential human life" or some that states that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being.

None that I know of, that is why I said: "If".

As to your hypothetical constitutional amendment. Sorry, it wouldn't satisfy me.

Why not prey tell. It would satisfy the requirement of "Law" as your basis for argument.

The constitution, for all that it is, is powerless to change a thing from what it is to something else for any purpose at all.

The 13th, amendment.
It changed the legal condition of slavery to disallowing involuntary servitude.
It changed something (slavery), that was, to something that was not...legal slavery no longer existed.

Any attempt at law that does a shuck and jive with regard to what an unborn is, is no better than roe.

Is that what constitutional amendments with which you do not agree, are? Southern slave owners would have likely had a similar view of the 13th...just, "shuck and jive."

Write a constitutional amendment that specifically denies unborn persons their most basic human rights until such time as they are born or become viable and if it is able to stand up in court, then you won't hear the same sort of argument from me. Of course, we both know that if the humanity of unborns is acknowledged, the 14th amendment would prevent any law denying them their rights.

If it were written to supersede the 14th, then I do not see any possible challenge from the law, or the basis of any other challenge, given that the Constitution is the supreme law. Given that, what "sort of argument," would you use then? A lot of us would like to know.

Hypotheticals are worse than useless.

I think that this one is bearing fruit. But then, I am limited in my intellectual ability compared to you, I willingly concede that.

 

[palerider]

Re: The Elephant in the room.

The 13th, amendment.
It changed the legal condition of slavery to disallowing involuntary servitude.
It changed something (slavery), that was, to something that was not...legal slavery no longer existed.

The 13th amendment didn't change blacks from non humans into humans. The institution of slavery presumed that blacks were not human beings and therefore had no human rights.

If it were written to supersede the 14th, then I do not see any possible challenge from the law, or the basis of any other challenge, given that the Constitution is the supreme law. Given that, what "sort of argument," would you use then? A lot of us would like to know.

I am not sure what sort of amendment could be written to supercede the 14th amendment and am even less sure that you woud get the requiste number of states to affirm such a change to the constitution; especially where the 14th amendment is concerned. The equal protection clause you know.

I have no idea what sort of argument I woud use, and am not likely to speculate until such time as the constitution is amended. My present argument serves its purpose as the facts exist today. I am not one who is prone to "what if" flights of fancy.

I think that this one is bearing fruit. But then, I am limited in my intellectual ability compared to you, I willingly concede that.

Sorry, mental masturbation is never likely to bear fruit.

 

[BigRob]

Re: The Elephant in the room.

Sorry to interrupt but I wanted to chime in with something:

All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among those rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It doesn't say we are "Born" equal, it doesn't say we attain equality at some arbitrary date after conception - We are Created equal, at conception. Its at conception that we became Individuals and its at that point of conception that we, as Individuals, obtain the "Unalienable Rights" of Man.

Science supports the fact that we are Individuals at the point of Conception... We don't become Individuals at some later date during gestation. Thus, as somone who has no religious beliefs, my opposition to Abortion is not from a theological standpoint but from one of the belief that Individual Rights are supreme.

Just for the sake of clarity. That statement comes from the Declaration of Independence, and has no legal bearing.

Not to say I disagree with your position, but that cannot be the legal argument.

 

[Mr. Carpenter]

Re: The Elephant in the room.

Its an example of where the "Greater Good" trumps an Individual's Rights. Our Rights were not meant to be this conditional and entirely at the whim of Government but that's exactly what has happened...

People have either forgotten, or haven't yet realized, that the "Greater Good" is the destroyer of Individual Liberty and the only way to guarantee the latter is by rejecting the former.

I know what you're saying GenSen, and for the most part I agree, however I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the constitution itself and other origianl laws are repleat with instances of the "greater good" outweighing individual liberties.

The constitution allows for "imminent domain", which is a case of the "greater good" outweighing individual property rights (although I strongly disagree with the way it has been abused over the past 50 years or so), the original militia act demanded that all able bodied men were in the militia, whether they wanted to be or not, and required them to show up for regular training, whether they wanted to or not, and to provide their own weapons and ammuntion for that training, whether they wanted to or not, in the name of the "greater good", and all of which would be construed by the modern liberals as an infringement on our "individual liberties".

What has happened is that the Socialist/Communist/liberals have taken the "greater good" which was originally a clearly understood duty of the founders (after all, did they not pledge their own lives, fortunes, and sacred honor for the "greater good" of Liberty?), and as with all other noble and honorable concepts, have perverted it, subverted it, twisted it, and turned it into a tool for their own heinous ends.

 

[Mr. Carpenter]

Re: The Elephant in the room.

Just for the sake of clarity. That statement comes from the Declaration of Independence, and has no legal bearing.

Not to say I disagree with your position, but that cannot be the legal argument.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you there BigRob. The DOI is a foundational document, and therefore is recognized as a legal foundation.

 

[BigRob]

Re: The Elephant in the room.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you there BigRob. The DOI is a foundational document, and therefore is recognized as a legal foundation.

I have to disagree. At best the document has been used to make a point in a court decision after the case was decided solely on its legal merits.

There is not a single case that was "specifically decided on the Declaration of Independence or its provisions." No decision has turned or can turn on the Declaration of Independence itself.

In Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901), the Court stated:

"The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "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. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government."

Reading the Constitution in the spirit of the DOI simply means that you read the Constitution. The actual wording the DOI is not a sound legal argument for anything. You cannot argue against abortion because the DOI states we have the right to life. You cannot argue against taxes because the DOI states you have the right to the pursuit of happiness.

It is simply a declaration, not a legal document.

 

[GenSeneca]

There is some confusion... I know I was quoting the DOI and I was not trying to make a legal argument, just giving my opinion... I also stated multiple times that it was simply my opinion.

Also, Dahermit, my apologies for having quoted you at all... I really was just chiming in on the discussion and didn't mean to distract you from your conversation with Palerider AND it was never my intention to comment on your post about a hypothetical amendment.

Sorry for the confusion fellas.

 

[palerider]

Re: The Elephant in the room.

Just for the sake of clarity. That statement comes from the Declaration of Independence, and has no legal bearing.

Not to say I disagree with your position, but that cannot be the legal argument.

Actually, it does have legal bearing. The Declaration of Independence was never repealed, so does, in fact, have legal standing.

The reason the Declaration still has legal standing is because it is the document that initiated the existence of the Entity known as the USA. It is, in essence, the mission statement for the entity known as the USA. The Constitution is nothing more than the set of bylaws by which the stated mission of the USA will be accomplished.

Maybe a technicality, but the legal system lives and dies by technicality.

 

[BigRob]

Re: The Elephant in the room.

Actually, it does have legal bearing. The Declaration of Independence was never repealed, so does, in fact, have legal standing.

The reason the Declaration still has legal standing is because it is the document that initiated the existence of the Entity known as the USA. It is, in essence, the mission statement for the entity known as the USA. The Constitution is nothing more than the set of bylaws by which the stated mission of the USA will be accomplished.

Maybe a technicality, but the legal system lives and dies by technicality.

No case is decided by it, and the Courts do not recognize it as such. So perhaps some technicality makes it some form of legal document, but it is not really used or recognized as such by the court.

 

[dahermit]

Re: The Elephant in the room.

I have no idea what sort of argument I woud use, and am not likely to speculate until such time as the constitution is amended. My present argument serves its purpose as the facts exist today.

Is that what your argument is? A method of arguing that is not your real motivation, but is safer than arguing what you really believe because in its pragmatism, it is a "better" position inasmuch as it is unassailable.

How is it different than: "...Meat is murder..." argument which could not withstand logical assault, so became: "Meat is unhealthy, therefore, do not eat it." The meat is murder poster did not give a damn that it was unhealthy, but persisted in that argument because it was unassailable. How would one know that that is not your Motis Operendi? Should we take your word for it?

Here is today's question: Excluding the law, what makes fetal human life worthy of protection, whereas those thus protesting are not also protesting the untimely deaths of millions of animal lives including fetal? What makes humans a special case?

 

[palerider]

Re: The Elephant in the room.

Is that what your argument is? A method of arguing that is not your real motivation, but is safer than arguing what you really believe because in its pragmatism, it is a "better" position inasmuch as it is unassailable.

I form my opinions based on the facts. Holding an opinion that flies in the face of fact is flat earth thinking if you ask me.

How is it different than: "...Meat is murder..." argument which could not withstand logical assault, so became: "Meat is unhealthy, therefore, do not eat it." The meat is murder poster did not give a damn that it was unhealthy, but persisted in that argument because it was unassailable. How would one know that that is not your Motis Operendi? Should we take your word for it?

Of course the argument is assailable. In fact, it is so assailable that a child could defeat it. Murder is defined as one human being killing another human being with intent. While you can kill animals, you can not murder one. Any argument that one can murder an animal is a logical fallacy in that it begs the question and simply assumes either a) animals are human beings or b) murder is defined as something other than one human being killing another with intent. The one who argues that meat is murder would find that his argument would collapse rather quickly when he or she was asked to prove the assumptions his argument was based upon.

Here is today's question: Excluding the law, what makes fetal human life worthy of protection, whereas those thus protesting are not also protesting the untimely deaths of millions of animal lives including fetal? What makes humans a special case?

The fact that the US was founded upon the principle that human beings have certain unalienable rights and the primary responsiblity of the US government is to protect those rights. I find no reference in our founding documents that even mention an animal's right to live. Can you point it out to me?

The suggestion of "excluding the law" is, on its face, without merit. This is a matter of law and if you can't support your postion within the law, then perhaps you should re-examine your position.

 

[dahermit]

Re: The Elephant in the room.

I form my opinions based on the facts. Holding an opinion that flies in the face of fact is flat earth thinking if you ask me.

You either read over my post too fast, or I have been giving you too much credit for intelligence. In any case, you have seem to have missed the "gist" of my post. Please read again.

Of course the argument is assailable. In fact, it is so assailable that a child could defeat it. Murder is defined as one human being killing another human being with intent. While you can kill animals, you can not murder one. Any argument that one can murder an animal is a logical fallacy in that it begs the question and simply assumes either a) animals are human beings or b) murder is defined as something other than one human being killing another with intent. The one who argues that meat is murder would find that his argument would collapse rather quickly when he or she was asked to prove the assumptions his argument was based upon.

Of course!!!! The "unassailable" position (and disingenuous one) is that meat is unhealthy to eat. Read the post again, slowly.

The fact that the US was founded upon the principle that human beings have certain unalienable rights and the primary responsiblity of the US government is to protect those rights. I find no reference in our founding documents that even mention an animal's right to live. Can you point it out to me?

Of course it is not there. Read the post again slowly.

The suggestion of "excluding the law" is, on its face, without merit. This is a matter of law and if you can't support your postion within the law, then perhaps you should re-examine your position.

Excluding the law was not a "suggestion", it was a request for clarification and the motivation for your opinion. Read the post again, slowly.