Abortion

[Zylstra]

The constituition lays out what is desirable for this nation to protect.

In the opinions of the writers. Desirability is a matter of opinon.

You can demonstrate what all people find desirable?

Are you under the impression that only things that have bearing on the matter may be proven?

So you admit that your posts are irrelevant? Why are you posting, then?

If you feel otherwise, feel free to prove it.

Both brain death and the mind are physical. Each can be measured. Brain death is recognized as the end of a person's life, not of the self.

Actually, there's a reason brain death and medical death are listed seperately

It is interesting how you attempt to compare perfectly healthy unborns with those who are so sick or injured that no reasonable hope of recovery exists in an effort to prove your point. If your argument were valid, would you really need to compare the healty to the sick or injured?

Why do you rely on eootional rhetoric instead of addressing my points?

Nope. Rights are protected by the constitution.

You implied otherwise

There is no constitutional demand that extraordinary measures be taken on your behalf if you are so sick or injured that no reasonable hope for your recovery exists. Letting one die if no reasonable hope of recovery exists is an entirely different kettle of fish from killing.
.

You implied that there's no right because it's not in the Constitution. Funny that the 9th amendment didn't occur to you

 

[Zylstra]

Sorry, hitler was a socialist.

And a racist social conservative

And there can be no gay marriage as marriage is an arrangement between men and women.

Ask an anthropologist

The consitution is classical liberalism incarnate.

Not quite. Classical liberal principles would reject slavery

 

[Zylstra]

A child born with no head would probably not be alive. A child born with no brain (ancepaly) however, is a human being and is recognized as such by both the law and medicine. With regard to the braindead, again, you have a right to live, but no right to have extraordinary measures taken on your behalf if you are so sick or injured that no hope exists for your recovery.

The braindead don't always die from it. They die from dehydration, usually.

 

[Zylstra]

I suggest that you learn the difference between classical liberalism and modern liberalism. Classical liberalism is what is known as conservativism today.

Wrong. Classical liberalism is liberalism/ classical liberalism.


'Conservatism" refers to no ideology

Look at the constitution and you will see the tenets of classical liberalism and conservativism.

The FF were far from conservative in most regards

conservatives were called Torries

 

[Zylstra]

Fetuses are humans, but they are not sentient, so, wether the constitution says so or not, the mother's rights should override the fetuse's rights.

Hell, the parents are entrusted to make all decisions for the child for some after birth.

 

[Zylstra]

If you torture a chicken, it wont feel anything because they are unable to comprehend pain.

Source?

 

[Zylstra]

A child with ancephaly can not be simply euthanized. To do so would constitute murder. A doctor can legally let them die as they have no right to extraordinary measures being taken on their behalf

So If I let my child starve because I took no extraordinary measures to save its life, it's not murder?

Or if I refuse to get it medical treatment?


Oops, wrong again- it's still murder, as evidence by court cases against parents of kids who did because the parents trusted their god and not the doctors

 

[palerider]

In the opinions of the writers. Desirability is a matter of opinon.

You can demonstrate what all people find desirable?

If you have a problem with the constitution, perhaps you are in the wrong country. Or perhaps you shoud be working for amendments. So long as it reads as it does, however, the law itself stymies your argument.

So you admit that your posts are irrelevant? Why are you posting, then?

I have no idea what you are getting at. Is english your second language?

Actually, there's a reason brain death and medical death are listed seperately

Listed where?

Why do you rely on eootional rhetoric instead of addressing my points?

You have made no points. You have engaged in several logical fallacies, but fallacies do not constitute points.

You implied otherwise

I am straight forward. If I mean to say a thing, I say it. My posts require no interpretation on your part.

You implied that there's no right because it's not in the Constitution. Funny that the 9th amendment didn't occur to you

Feel free to name the state and produce the law that establishes a right to have extraordinary measures taken on your behalf if you are so sick or injured that no reasonable hope for your recovery exists.

Your argument is clearly going nowhere. At what stage of this are you going to try and make a valid point or offer up a rational defense for your position?

And a racist social conservative

Better research some more. By the way, it is liberalism that is blatantly racist. Affirmative action for example, what could possibly be more racist than to suggest that blacks need special favors because they just can't make it on their own?

Ask an anthropologist

I have. Now I invite you to name the society, either present or historical, that used the same name for arrangements between men and women and couples of the same sex. Feel free to provide a credible source.

Not quite. Classical liberal principles would reject slavery

Which part of the constitution supports slavery? I have read it numerous times and just don't find support for slavery anywhere in there. Slavery was acceptable then because it was eroneously thought that blacks were not human beings. Strangely enough, that is precisely the justification the roe court gave for abortion on demand. The assumption that unborns were something other than human beings.

They did acnkowledge, however, that should their assumption be proven wrong or if legal precedent should come into being that establishes the personhood of the unborn, that their decision must be struck down as unconstitutional. Both have come to pass.

 

[palerider]

Wrong. Classical liberalism is liberalism/ classical liberalism.


'Conservatism" refers to no ideology


The FF were far from conservative in most regards

conservatives were called Torries

You lack historical context.

I ask again, would you enjoy living under a strict interpretation of the constitution. If the constitution represents liberal thought, then surely you would. My bet is that you would call it draconian tyrany.

 

[palerider]

So If I let my child starve because I took no extraordinary measures to save its life, it's not murder?

Again, you fail to differentiate the difference between healthy and so sick or injured that no hope for recovery exists.

Or if I refuse to get it medical treatment?

Legal precedent exists. All you have to do is look it up.

Oops, wrong again- it's still murder, as evidence by court cases against parents of kids who did because the parents trusted their god and not the doctors

And again, you fail to recognze the difference between hope for recovery and no hope for recovery.

 

[dahermit]

Again, you are addressing legal issues, not scientific ones. Science is pragmatic. If life is absent, it is either dead or inorganic. If it was alive and is reanimated, then it is now alive. There is no conflict, simply a different understanding; that being that death is not necessarily a permanant condition. And again, this frozen/reanimated embryo issue is now 4 decades old. If an actual struggle or disagreement existed, it would be well known and addressed by now.

You have more twists and dodges than the court fool. When you say you like it when people "slink away", obviously you never consider that they have become tired of your continual dodges. I give up. I am not slinking away; I have just arrived at the same conclusion as others who have left. It is pointless to continue in the face of your continued denials.

 

[dahermit]

Cognitive Sciences Laboratory. Sounds important, rational, and credible doesn't it? I took a moment to check them out and it turns out that it is a back stairs playroom for moonbats. Here is their own mission statement. Did you know this was the sort of operation you were referencing to speak for the actual scientific community?

The mission of the Cognitive Sciences Laboratory is three-fold. To use the tools of modern behavioral, physiological, and physical sciences to:

1. Determine which parapsychological phenomena can be validated under strict laboratory conditions.
2. Understand their mechanisms.
3. Examine the degree to which they might contribute to practical applications.

Hardly representatives of the scientific community. Hardly the sort of place to determine whether or not any "struggle" exists within the scientific community over the definition of death. Hardly the sort of place one would expect a rational person to reference with regard to actual scientific questions.

A laboratory dedicated to the exploration of parapsychological phenomena? Really.

To determine if any parapsychological phenomena exist is a scientific question. It was studied by scientists employed by the CIA for years. Despite your attempt to discredit the University, by characterizing it as "dedicated to the exploration of parapsychological phenomena", it studies other scientific areas as well. How are they not credible testing to see If "parapsychological phenomena can be validated...", while at the same time you have stated that you believe that humans have "souls". If they were researching the possibility of humans having souls, would that be far different from what they are doing in one particular study?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You have more twists and dodges than the court fool. When you say you like it when people "slink away", obviously you never consider that they have become tired of your continual dodges. I give up. I am not slinking away; I have just arrived at the same conclusion as others who have left. It is pointless to continue in the face of your continued denials.

Our pale friend delights in wallowing in the minutiae of sematic confection. I agree with him largely, but even I think that where he's concerned I'd have to consider retroactive birth control.

 

[dahermit]

Again, you are addressing legal issues, not scientific ones. Science is pragmatic. If life is absent, it is either dead or inorganic. If it was alive and is reanimated, then it is now alive. There is no conflict, simply a different understanding; that being that death is not necessarily a permanant condition. And again, this frozen/reanimated embryo issue is now 4 decades old. If an actual struggle or disagreement existed, it would be well known and addressed by now.

Do you speak for the scientific community? Or is it just the opinion of some "moonbat" who has concluded that humans have such a thing as "souls"? Given the unscientific belief in souls, now you choose to make declarations as to scientific definitions. Such unashamed arrogance.

 

[dahermit]

Our pale friend delights in wallowing in the minutiae of sematic confection. I agree with him largely, but even I think that where he's concerned I'd have to consider retroactive birth control.

I have to disagree. He is an outstanding example of how Christan beliefs make for a finer human being. But humanity will not have suffer him indefinitely; he loves himself so much that at some point, he will try to kiss his own behind and likely break his own neck. In any event, I am done with him. I am going back to debating with his twin, "always".