Abortion

[palerider]

So you are a moral relativist then?

No.

Have you? Perhaps because its illogical, people keep questioning it. BEfore we delve more into your verbal sophistry, what exactly do you think the law is based on?

Yes I have. Perhaps it is easier for you to cloud the issue than deal with what I have said in a straight forward manner. Our law is based on our constutution.

So you are a moral relativist then?

Perhaps you don't know what a moral relativist is. Did I not say that I don't think abortion is right anywhere? I didn't say abortion is bad here but ok if other people say it is ok. I said that I can not effect the law in other countries.

As such, law has been written in regards to abortion, it is legal. Wether you personally consider it wrong or right is as a non-issue. Since the law already allows it. I'm really confused to what your issue is.

A court decision does not constitute law. Law is written and legislated by the elected representatives of the people. The supreme court justices are not elected representatives of the people.

 

[palerider]

Does the law recognize a human fetus as a person?

The roe decision does denies that a human fetus is a person. To the best of my knowledge there is no law that denies that they are persons. The fact that at this time their personhood is denied is irrelavent to the fact of their personhood. Do you believe that blacks were not human beings because the court of the time said that they weren't or did they make a mistake and with it, a terrible miscarriage of justice?

Does the right to liberty and happiness come after the right to life, if so, what do you base that on?

Yes they do. Primarily it is a legal issue and secondarily, it is a logical issue. Of what value woud a right to liberty and happiness be to you if you had no right to live?

Legal language is very specific and always has been. In our founding documents our inalienable rights are laid out in the order they are for a particular reason. In a legal document, when issues are listed sequentially, their relative importance is established by that sequence. Since liberty and pursuit of happiness come after life, liberty and happiness are secondary to life and our law reflects as much. The rights of no individual supercededs your right to live.

No I don't have some special right to live, neither do you. I want to live, as I'm sure you do.

If you have no special right to live, why then, is it against the law for me to kill you? You may not choose to recognize your right, but that does not mean that it does not exist.

Yes, there are certain rights that others have that supersede my own personal needs or wants, I also extend that right unto animals. I have risked my life for others, because their right to life superseded mine, they were more important than I.

Needs or wants are not your life. And that you extend rights to animals in your personal life that they do not actually have is your personal choice and not a matter of the law. I also extend rights to animals in my care far beyond any right they actually have but again, that is my choice. I have risked my life for other's as well, but again, that was my choice, not because their life was "actually" more valuable than mine. To suggest that one life is more valuable than another is an open invitation for abuse.

If your job was to protect the president, couldn't we reasonably say that the Presidents right to life, superseded yours, in as such that you would take a bullet for him? [/quote}

If I applied for the job, I would necessarily be told what the job entailed and if at the moment of truth, I did not sacrifice my life for him, I would not be in any trouble with the law and would be in no danger of being imprisoned for not sacrificing my life for a life that was more valuable than my own since only I can decide if my life is worth less than another.

Yes there are many valid reasons for me to kill that has nothing to do with you directly threatening my life or health. If someone killed my sister, I would kill them, they did not threaten me.

Your choice. Of course, you would answer to the law for doing so.

If someone attempted to steal my car or rob my house, I would kill them, even if they did not attempt to harm me.

Perhaps you should review the laws with regard to trespassing and simple theft. Again, you could kill them but you would answer to the law for doing so.

If someone attacked a friend of mine, I would have no qualms killing them.

Whether or not you would find yourself imprisoned would be dependent upon the severity of the attack. If for example, your friend was involved in a fist fight and was on his feet and you hit his attacker in the head with a 2x4 and killed him, you would face manslaughter charges. If, on the other hand, your friend was down and senseless and his attacker continued to beat him, you would be justified as you would be defending his right to live.

But more importantly, going by your logic, since every birth comes with a chance of the mother's death or long term health effects to the mother, would you agree with me then, that every mother has the right to choose wether she wants to go through with the abortion, and take the life of the unborn that could quite possibly take hers?

The chance of death due to pregnancy is roughly 12 in 100,000. Go into any given neighborhood and kill someone who looks like they may represent a danger to you and try to explain to a judge that the person you killed represented a 12 in 100,000 chance of killing you.

If a board of qualified doctors states that carrying a pregnancy is a danger to the mother, I have no problem with her defending her life. She has the right to defend her life even if the one who is threatenting her is not doing so with intent. A 12 in 100,000 chance of danger, however, is not a valid reason to kill another human being.

 

[palerider]

Well said!

But not a valid argument. That he doesn't recognize his inalienable right to live does not mean that it does not exist.

And we have already been through the odds argument. Go and kill someone and tell the judge that they represented a 12 in 100,000 chance of killing you.

 

[palerider]

ArmChair... the guy would have Birth control pills removed from the market and severe legal penalties imposed for their sale, distribution or use because a Birth control pill is a microscopic abortion. If he wouldn't what's he saying... some abortions at early stages are OK. That's what pro-choice says!!!!!!!!!

The guy would have birth control pills that are contraceptives rather than abortifacients. I know you have trouble with biology but you could at least try and be honest in your argument. If you can demonstrate in any real way that the offspring of two human beings is at some time (very early for example) not a human being, then you have a valid argument. If you can't, however, you are simply saying that it is OK to kill a human being if they are young enough.

There's really no talking to someone like this. There's no reasoning. You know there's some religious dogma in there somewhere no matter what he says. This is his perfect world.

We have been through this and I know that you would rather argue against religion than the law and logic. There is no religion in my argument so stop trying to put it there.

Abstinence['/quote]

Do you believe that women are rutting animals with no self control?

No Birth Control Pills

Birth control pills that are strictly contraceptive with no abortifacient properties.

No abortions (except he's willing to go with... to save the life of the mother... but not rape and incest victims)

In the case of rape and incest, a crime has been committed and someone should face the full force of the law. By what logic, however, do you reach the conclusion that the one truely innocent party should be the one to forfiet his or her life? Do you carry that logic into other crimes. Do you favor executing some 3rd party who is not guilty when certain crimes have been committed or is this a "special" (C O U (hypocritical) G H) case?

Can you even imagine how out of touch with the reality of the real world one has to be to see this as a good & gonna happen thing? I mean come on you gotta hope there's no girls in his world. This is like chastity belt times revisited.

How out of touch with reality does one have to be to believe that killing human beings because they are less than convenient is a good thing? Tell me, as our technology progresses, are you going to be ok with terminating chidren because they are going to have a likleyhood of being gay, or will have the wrong eye color or curly hair, or fair skin or simply the wrong sex?

 

[top gun]

I don't really want to participate in this discussion because I think Mr. Pale is an abusive, despicable misogynist and a man with a secret agenda. Be that as it may, sometimes one has to wade through sh*t despite the foul smell.

If I understand Mr. Pale's position correctly, as soon as a man ejaculates inside a fertile woman, that woman and her life are owned by the fetus. (1)Would you allow a woman to abort a fetus if there was a better than even chance of the fetus causing her death?

(2)As I understand his position, even if a woman is raped, she still must give over her life to the fetus at least until birth, correct?

If my understanding of Mr. Pale's position is correct, then any woman becomes the automatic de facto slave of any man who can impregnate her, at least until the fetus is delivered. In light of the fact that men have a huge advantage in size and strength over women, that men are biologically equipped to force an unwilling woman to become impregnated, and that men are psychologically oriented to believe that this is an acceptable activity, then women are stripped of control over their greatest ability and gift--that of being able to produce a child within the confines of a loving relationship that THEY choose.

This is a very partriarchal attitude derived--in this culture--directly from the desert religions and in other cultures from other traditions. This is an exercise in power, no less than the torture that Mr. Pale advocates. His is a very Old Testament religious position despite his protestations to non-religious motivation. I know that nothing I write will touch Mr. Pale, but instead I address my remarks to all the rest of the people (all men, as far as I know) on this thread.

And of course you are absolutely correct my friend.

Others probably don't know but we've spoken before and I know you have some disdain for abortion yourself. And I also know how hard it is to personally dislike something yet be a stand up of enough person to still see its importance for others. I like to think I'm in that boat also.

It takes awhile but eventually all the cards come out on the table where everyone can see directly to where all this "baby killing" rhetoric was really headed.

If Roe was ever to be overturned immediately the same over zealous over reaching and personally invasive government/religious tactics would be used to take every single traditional Birth Control Pill off the market! And women who obtained the pill from other sources or other countries could be charged with manslaughter... yes I said manslaughter. The fertilized egg is a microscopic human being that's not being allowed to attach to the woman's uterus would be the cry.

HEALTH ISSUES: The egg is fertilized in the outer part of the fallopian tube, generally within 12 hours of ovulation. After it is fertilized, the egg travels down the fallopian tube. The fertilized egg grows as it travels. It doubles, then grows to four cells and then to eight cells as it enters the uterus.

It's religious dogma straight word for word out of the Catholic play book. Anyone can easily look it up. Pedophile priest molesting innocent little children... not a problem. The mandate that a cell has "rights" the split second it's fertilized and those "rights" immediately supersede those of a fully functioning adult woman... well of course. We have credibility issues here.

Sure we'll have straw man arguments presented about how pharmaceutical companies will just have to come out with anti ovulation drugs instead of traditional Birth Control Pills. No harm to women can possibly come of that. I mean that's an easy and safe thing to do that the medical profession has probably been holding back because we all know they just hate profits. But then again that side never thinks about the woman so I guess it's understandable.

The only good thing I see coming out of this discussion really is that the hand has now been overplayed to the point where all can see the unreality of the majority of the American people and especially women ever allowing Roe to be overturned whether they agree with abortion or not.

 

[palerider]

I don't really want to participate in this discussion because I think Mr. Pale is an abusive, despicable misogynist and a man with a secret agenda. Be that as it may, sometimes one has to wade through sh*t despite the foul smell.

In typical fashion, you are unable to discuss the issue without falling back to your vile personal attacks. You call me abusive but I have never attacked either you or anyone else in such a manner as you have attacked me; highlighting in stark relief your blatant hypocricy.

If I understand Mr. Pale's position correctly, as soon as a man ejaculates inside a fertile woman, that woman and her life are owned by the fetus. (1)Would you allow a woman to abort a fetus if there was a better than even chance of the fetus causing her death?

Clearly, you don't understand. I don't think that it is so much that you can't, but rather that you are being deliberately obtuse which, in my opinion, is far worse than simply not being able to understand.

First off, ejaculation does not mean pregnancy. Second, being pregnant does not mean that your child "owns" your life. To characterize pregnancy as such is no more than hysterical hand wringing. And I have repeated over and over that I believe it is a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy to defend her life as surely as it is her right to defend it against anyone else who is threatening it. The rate of death due to pregnancy in this country is about 12 per 100,000. Simply being pregnant does not represent enough of a risk to justify killing.

(2)As I understand his position, even if a woman is raped, she still must give over her life to the fetus at least until birth, correct?

More hysterical handwinging. "Give over her life"? Is everyting an appeal to emotion with you. I have asked before and you dodged the question; What crime has the child comitted that its life should be forfiet?

If my understanding of Mr. Pale's position is correct, then any woman becomes the automatic de facto slave of any man who can impregnate her, at least until the fetus is delivered.

We have already established that you don't understand. We have established that you deliberately mischaracterize in an attempt to arouse emotion.

Do you understand what a slave is? If one is a slave, one is owned. One is property. One can be done with, whatever one's owner decides, and one may do nothing or own nothing without one's owner's position. The word de facto means in fact, or in reality. Since women are clearly not made slaves by the mere fact of pregnancy, it is clear that you are grossly exagerating in a hysterical fit of handwringing.

In light of the fact that men have a huge advantage in size and strength over women, that men are biologically equipped to force an unwilling woman to become impregnated, and that men are psychologically oriented to believe that this is an acceptable activity, then women are stripped of control over their greatest ability and gift--that of being able to produce a child within the confines of a loving relationship that THEY choose.

It is clear that you do not particularly like men but why take out your impotent anger at us on a defenseless child?

Barely 1% of abortions are because of rape or incest. Are you prepared to denounce all rape that is not due to rape or incest or a real threat to the mother's life or is all this talk of rape just more of your hypocricy?

His is a very Old Testament religious position despite his protestations to non-religious motivation. I know that nothing I write will touch Mr. Pale, but instead I address my remarks to all the rest of the people (all men, as far as I know) on this thread.

I know that you and top gun would much rather argue against religion but you won't get such arguments from me. You are a hysterical woman who argues from a postion of pure emotion and emotional appeals and gross exageration andas such, are unable to make an honest argument.

 

[palerider]

And of course you are absolutely correct my friend.

Hysterical emotionalism is correct? Do you believe that a woman who is pregnant is, in reality, a slave to a man whether she is married to him or not? Do keep in mind the reality of slavery when you answer.

It takes awhile but eventually all the cards come out on the table where everyone can see directly to where all this "baby killing" rhetoric was really headed.

In my mind it is headed towards ending the killing of innocent children. Where exactly do you think it is headed?

If Roe was ever to be overturned immediately the same over zealous over reaching and personally invasive government/religious tactics would be used to take every single traditional Birth Control Pill off the market! And women who obtained the pill from other sources or other countries could be charged with manslaughter... yes I said manslaughter. The fertilized egg is a microscopic human being that's not being allowed to attach to the woman's uterus would be the cry.

Since we are not allowed to simply kill people before they have had their day in court, any drug that kills a human being deliberately would constitute manslaughter. This isn't rocket science. Do you really believe that it is ok to grant 14th amendment protections to one child and deny them to antoher based on no more than age? If you do, by what logic do you reach such a conclusion?

It's religious dogma straight word for word out of the Catholic play book. Anyone can easily look it up. Pedophile priest molesting innocent little children... not a problem. The mandate that a cell has "rights" the split second it's fertilized and those "rights" immediately supersede those of a fully functioning adult woman... well of course. We have credibility issues here.

Not being catholic, I don't see your point, and who exactly has said that it is ok for a priest to molest children. Personally, I would see them rot in prison for the rest of their lives in the general population of the most vile of prisons.

And the split second fertilization is complete, a being exists that is exactly as human as you. Prove otherwise and you will have an argument and won't be a hypocrit for singling out one group to deny the right to live.

Sure we'll have straw man arguments presented about how pharmaceutical companies will just have to come out with anti ovulation drugs instead of traditional Birth Control Pills. No harm to women can possibly come of that. I mean that's an easy and safe thing to do that the medical profession has probably been holding back because we all know they just hate profits. But then again that side never thinks about the woman so I guess it's understandable.

You prefer abortificients?

 

[numinus]

Taking religion out of the equation leaves "morality" up to the people. On the choice issue that's old news that has been decided and legal for decades now.

Catholicism has always uphold the primacy of an individual's conscience.

 

[numinus]

Murder is against the law. I support choice.

You need the sponsorship of the state to define your morality?

 

[ArmChair General]

No.

Then why are you afraid to answer the original question?

Yes I have. Perhaps it is easier for you to cloud the issue than deal with what I have said in a straight forward manner. Our law is based on our constutution.

Well, since the Constitution is law, you didn't answer the question.

Perhaps you don't know what a moral relativist is. Did I not say that I don't think abortion is right anywhere? I didn't say abortion is bad here but ok if other people say it is ok. I said that I can not effect the law in other countries.

Oh I know exactly what it is. And no you did not say that you think abortion is not right anywhere. When asked, you said that you didn't know the laws in other countries and could not judge them. The reason you said that, is because you didn't want to have to explain to why you feel that abortion is wrong, because you understand that if you start getting to issues of morality and ethics you will lose. So you want to keep it with the law. IF the law in Canada sais all abortions are ok, by your own arguments you have to be ok with that, because its legal there. Now if you actually take a stand and explain the REAL reasons you believe abortion is wrong, we can get away from this verbal wrestling and actually talk about the issue.

So if your not a relativist, then is abortion wrong, no matter what the law sais or not? and why?

A court decision does not constitute law. Law is written and legislated by the elected representatives of the people. The supreme court justices are not elected representatives of the people.

You are throwing me for a loop. There doesnt have to be a law dealing with abortion, thats what makes it legal. Similiarly there is no law allowing me too watch TV at night. We can reason, that since abortion is NOT illegal in the United States, that according to the law, killing a fetus is ok.

So, obviously, not all killing is illegal. Now, whether or not you feel the law is right or wrong, is the issue. But if your going to make a case against abortion you need to explain why you think abortion is wrong. Saying its all about the law as we can see, just doesn't make much sense.

And according to your own logic, wether its right or wrong, just doesnt matter. Unless you'd like to explain why you feel its wrong.

 

[ArmChair General]

The roe decision does denies that a human fetus is a person. To the best of my knowledge there is no law that denies that they are persons. The fact that at this time their personhood is denied is irrelavent to the fact of their personhood. Do you believe that blacks were not human beings because the court of the time said that they weren't or did they make a mistake and with it, a terrible miscarriage of justice?

Is there a law in the US that makes killing a human fetus illegal?

Yes they do. Primarily it is a legal issue and secondarily, it is a logical issue. Of what value woud a right to liberty and happiness be to you if you had no right to live?

What value is life, if you have no liberty or happiness?

Legal language is very specific and always has been. In our founding documents our inalienable rights are laid out in the order they are for a particular reason. In a legal document, when issues are listed sequentially, their relative importance is established by that sequence. Since liberty and pursuit of happiness come after life, liberty and happiness are secondary to life and our law reflects as much. The rights of no individual supercededs your right to live.

Thats a very interesting interpretation. One that I disagree with.

If you have no special right to live, why then, is it against the law for me to kill you? You may not choose to recognize your right, but that does not mean that it does not exist.

It is not against the law for you to kill me. It is against the law for you to kill me for certain reasons. You may kill me in some situations.

Needs or wants are not your life. And that you extend rights to animals in your personal life that they do not actually have is your personal choice and not a matter of the law. I also extend rights to animals in my care far beyond any right they actually have but again, that is my choice. I have risked my life for other's as well, but again, that was my choice, not because their life was "actually" more valuable than mine. To suggest that one life is more valuable than another is an open invitation for abuse.

If I applied for the job, I would necessarily be told what the job entailed and if at the moment of truth, I did not sacrifice my life for him, I would not be in any trouble with the law and would be in no danger of being imprisoned for not sacrificing my life for a life that was more valuable than my own since only I can decide if my life is worth less than another.

This is perhaps one of the biggest problems with Americans. They all beileve that they are special. The truth is PaleRider, that if you died right now, the world would be unaffected. The same is true for 99% of Americans. However, if the President died right now, the world would be greatly affected. Your life is worth much much less than his is.

Wether you choose to accept that is irrelevant to the matter.

Your choice. Of course, you would answer to the law for doing so.

Perhaps you should review the laws with regard to trespassing and simple theft. Again, you could kill them but you would answer to the law for doing so.

Whether or not you would find yourself imprisoned would be dependent upon the severity of the attack. If for example, your friend was involved in a fist fight and was on his feet and you hit his attacker in the head with a 2x4 and killed him, you would face manslaughter charges. If, on the other hand, your friend was down and senseless and his attacker continued to beat him, you would be justified as you would be defending his right to live.

The point i was making, wasn't to dispute wether or not I would suffer consequences for my actions. It was to explain my own personal thought process and how I would personally feel. IN other words, I answered your questions. Next time if you want to amend your question to offer the stipulation of 'without getting in trouble with the law' please do so.

However, as I've pointed out, as it stands now. I could kill as many fetus' as my heart desired and not get into any trouble at all with the law.

The chance of death due to pregnancy is roughly 12 in 100,000. Go into any given neighborhood and kill someone who looks like they may represent a danger to you and try to explain to a judge that the person you killed represented a 12 in 100,000 chance of killing you.

How low would the odds have to be for you to say that abortion was acceptable?

If a board of qualified doctors states that carrying a pregnancy is a danger to the mother, I have no problem with her defending her life. She has the right to defend her life even if the one who is threatenting her is not doing so with intent. A 12 in 100,000 chance of danger, however, is not a valid reason to kill another human being.

WHy is not a valid reason to kill another human being?

 

[palerider]

Then why are you afraid to answer the original question?

What original question? Is all killing wrong? If that is it, then I have answered it. No. Not all killing is wrong.

Well, since the Constitution is law, you didn't answer the question.

Not to offend, but I would rather talk to someone who is not very bright, than a bright person who is deliberately obtuse.

Oh I know exactly what it is. And no you did not say that you think abortion is not right anywhere. When asked, you said that you didn't know the laws in other countries and could not judge them.

Maybe you aren't a good reader. I said:

"I don't think abortion is right anywhere unless the mother's life or long term health is in danger. I don't live in other countries and as such, don't really have any say there."

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17872&postcount=353

The reason you said that, is because you didn't want to have to explain to why you feel that abortion is wrong, because you understand that if you start getting to issues of morality and ethics you will lose.

How about you explain why you deliberately distorted what I said. There it is in black and white. I said as clearly as possible that I don't think abortion is right anywhere and you said that was not what I said. Why did you feel the need to do that?

So you want to keep it with the law. IF the law in Canada sais all abortions are ok, by your own arguments you have to be ok with that, because its legal there. Now if you actually take a stand and explain the REAL reasons you believe abortion is wrong, we can get away from this verbal wrestling and actually talk about the issue.

If law is legislated in Canada, or anywhere else for that matter states that the right of unborn human beings to live is denied until such time as they are born or are viable, then the people of that country have had their say. The people's representatives in England, for example, wrote law that made abortion illegal, but they didn't explicitly enumerate that the right of unborn human beings to live is denied until a certain time and as a result, the knowledge that technology has brought has outstripped the law and they are heading for trouble with the wording of their law. They simply assumed that unborns were not actually human beings which is not the case at all.

So if your not a relativist, then is abortion wrong, no matter what the law sais or not? and why?

Yes, abortion is wrong and always will be wrong. Making a thing legal does not make it right. If, however, the representatives of the people write and legislate the law according to the law, then right or wrong, the people have had their say. Law that dodges the issue rather than face its purpose is another issue entirely.

You are throwing me for a loop. There doesnt have to be a law dealing with abortion, thats what makes it legal. Similiarly there is no law allowing me too watch TV at night. We can reason, that since abortion is NOT illegal in the United States, that according to the law, killing a fetus is ok.

The 14th amendment states explicitly: "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

Refer to any legal dictionary and you will find that the legal definition of person is "a human being" or a particular type of corporate entity but I don't think that anyone is arguing that unborns are corporations. Since in the eyes of the law one need only be a human being in order to be a person, and under the 14th amendment all persons (human beings) lives are protected until they have had their day in court, law must be written that specifically enumerates that the right to live is denied from human beings until such time as they are born or become viable, and describe why the right is being denied.

No if you can demonstrate that unborns are not human beings, by all means do so but unless you can, they have every right to the protection of the 14th amendment that you do.

So, obviously, not all killing is illegal. Now, whether or not you feel the law is right or wrong, is the issue. But if your going to make a case against abortion you need to explain why you think abortion is wrong. Saying its all about the law as we can see, just doesn't make much sense.

I have explained it in detail. Do you need for me to draw you a picture? It is the nature of our legal system that if a right is to be denied from any individual or group, law must specifically enumerate from whom the right is being denied, which right is being denied, and for what reason it is being denied.

And according to your own logic, wether its right or wrong, just doesnt matter. Unless you'd like to explain why you feel its wrong.

My argument isn't about right and wrong. My argument is about the law. Legislate from congress a law that denies the right to live from unborn human beings until such time as they are born and you won't hear this argument from me. As it stands today, however, abortion is unconstitutional and the worst human rights violation that has ever occured in the US.

Is there a law in the US that makes killing a human fetus illegal?

There is law that makes makes it illegal for one human being to kill another human being for reasons other than self defense. Fetus, blastocyst, embryo, etc. etc. etc. are nothing but words we use to describe a human being at a particular stage of his or her development or life no different than child, infant, toddler, teenager or old geezer.

What value is life, if you have no liberty or happiness?

I couldn't answer for anyone but myself. If you want a more general answer, ask a necromancer or gypsy. You asked if the right to live superceded the right to liberty or happiness. I answered and explained why it does.

Thats a very interesting interpretation. One that I disagree with.

Dissagree all you like. Then talk with a lawyer and find out that you are wrong anyway. It was not an interpretation, it is simply how it is.

It is not against the law for you to kill me. It is against the law for you to kill me for certain reasons. You may kill me in some situations.

It is against the law for me to kill you if you are not threatening my life or long term health. There are some states that allow one to kill another when a crime is being comitted but no direct threat is evident. Those laws, however, are facing serious challenges in the appeals courts. In any event, I can not kill you for reasons that amount to no more than convenience to me.

This is perhaps one of the biggest problems with Americans. They all beileve that they are special. The truth is PaleRider, that if you died right now, the world would be unaffected. The same is true for 99% of Americans. However, if the President died right now, the world would be greatly affected. Your life is worth much much less than his is.

If I died, then most of the world would remain unaffected. But if you or I or anyone else could be killed by another individual for any, or no reason, without legal consequence the world would be on a downhill spiral from which it may never escape.

And I don't accept that the present president's life is more valuable than mine. Nor would I accept that more than a handfull of lives on earth in my lifetime have been more valuable than mine

The point i was making, wasn't to dispute wether or not I would suffer consequences for my actions. It was to explain my own personal thought process and how I would personally feel.

The decision to kill another is always a product of individual thought processes. The consequences of doing so is a product of the law.

However, as I've pointed out, as it stands now. I could kill as many fetus' as my heart desired and not get into any trouble at all with the law.

Yes you could which is exactly why this debate exists. 200 years ago, you could buy and kill as many blacks as you wanted without legal consequence as well. Even though it was legal, it was unconstitutional and a gross human rights violation.

How low would the odds have to be for you to say that abortion was acceptable?

Medicine is at a state now that doctors can anticipate problems well in advance. In fact, most women who wil lhave problems with pregnancy know about thier risks before they ever become pregnant.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Catholicism has always uphold the primacy of an individual's conscience.

Exept where birth control is concerned and then it has been consistent church policy to condemn birth control of any sort except abstinence. Women have been excommunicated for having an abortion.

 

[ArmChair General]

What original question? Is all killing wrong? If that is it, then I have answered it. No. Not all killing is wrong.

Then why is Abortion wrong?

Not to offend, but I would rather talk to someone who is not very bright, than a bright person who is deliberately obtuse.

I apologize, I was originally giving you the benefit of the doubt. Here let me explain the obvious fallacy's in your argument.

1. If all law comes from the Constitution, where does Constitutional law come from?

2. If all law comes from the Constitution, where in the Constitution does it say that everyone has the right to life?

Maybe you aren't a good reader. I said:

"I don't think abortion is right anywhere unless the mother's life or long term health is in danger. I don't live in other countries and as such, don't really have any say there."

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17872&postcount=353

Actually, I may have missed that. Im glad you admit that you believe that abortion is wrong. Now please explain why its still wrong, even in a nation that allows it, like the UNited States?

How about you explain why you deliberately distorted what I said. There it is in black and white. I said as clearly as possible that I don't think abortion is right anywhere and you said that was not what I said. Why did you feel the need to do that?

I didn't do it deliberately. You may not realize the glaring contradictions in your argument that make it difficult to discern what it is your saying. My attempts were to understand your argument, which you aren't being very clear about. However, now that we both agree, that you beileve that abortion is wrong, I want you to explain why it is wrong.

If law is legislated in Canada, or anywhere else for that matter states that the right of unborn human beings to live is denied until such time as they are born or are viable, then the people of that country have had their say. The people's representatives in England, for example, wrote law that made abortion illegal, but they didn't explicitly enumerate that the right of unborn human beings to live is denied until a certain time and as a result, the knowledge that technology has brought has outstripped the law and they are heading for trouble with the wording of their law. They simply assumed that unborns were not actually human beings which is not the case at all.

Good point. However, once again we run into the problem, that all killing is not wrong. Therefore, just because you kill a fetus or an unborn, it is not necessarily wrong. So even if Science does update our understanding in this situation, science does not equate to law.

Yes, abortion is wrong and always will be wrong. Making a thing legal does not make it right. If, however, the representatives of the people write and legislate the law according to the law, then right or wrong, the people have had their say. Law that dodges the issue rather than face its purpose is another issue entirely.

OK, so then if abortion is always wrong, no matter what the law says, then why is it wrong.

The 14th amendment states explicitly: "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

That has nothing to do with a mother terminating her pregnancy though. A mother is not the state. However, by legislating that the mother is unable to terminate her pregnancy, then it is depriving her of her liberty.

Refer to any legal dictionary and you will find that the legal definition of person is "a human being" or a particular type of corporate entity but I don't think that anyone is arguing that unborns are corporations. Since in the eyes of the law one need only be a human being in order to be a person, and under the 14th amendment all persons (human beings) lives are protected until they have had their day in court, law must be written that specifically enumerates that the right to live is denied from human beings until such time as they are born or become viable, and describe why the right is being denied.

Thats great, though I don't see the relevance.

No if you can demonstrate that unborns are not human beings, by all means do so but unless you can, they have every right to the protection of the 14th amendment that you do.

Your changing the subject, I simply want to know why you feel that abortion is wrong.

I have explained it in detail. Do you need for me to draw you a picture? It is the nature of our legal system that if a right is to be denied from any individual or group, law must specifically enumerate from whom the right is being denied, which right is being denied, and for what reason it is being denied.

But you just said that it doesnt matter what the law sais, all abortion is wrong regardless. I want to know why?

My argument isn't about right and wrong. My argument is about the law. Legislate from congress a law that denies the right to live from unborn human beings until such time as they are born and you won't hear this argument from me. As it stands today, however, abortion is unconstitutional and the worst human rights violation that has ever occured in the US.

Here you go contradicting yourself again. If your argument isn't about right and wrong, then how can you say that abortion is wrong, no matter what the law sais?

There is law that makes makes it illegal for one human being to kill another human being for reasons other than self defense. Fetus, blastocyst, embryo, etc. etc. etc. are nothing but words we use to describe a human being at a particular stage of his or her development or life no different than child, infant, toddler, teenager or old geezer.

Why is it wrong to kill anyone?

I couldn't answer for anyone but myself. If you want a more general answer, ask a necromancer or gypsy. You asked if the right to live superceded the right to liberty or happiness. I answered and explained why it does.

Why do you need to consult a necromancer or gypsy to ask if life is worth living if you have no liberty or happyness? Our founding fathers felt that life came secondary to liberty and happyness.

Dissagree all you like. Then talk with a lawyer and find out that you are wrong anyway. It was not an interpretation, it is simply how it is.

I don't need to discuss with a lawyer what the spirit of the Declaration of Independence is, and the reasoning behind the Revolutionary war. And I don't mean the reasoning from the Congress or the rich people that funded it. I mean the average citizen who fought. Yet, we're running on a tangent that has nothing to do with the matter at hand.

It is against the law for me to kill you if you are not threatening my life or long term health. There are some states that allow one to kill another when a crime is being comitted but no direct threat is evident. Those laws, however, are facing serious challenges in the appeals courts. In any event, I can not kill you for reasons that amount to no more than convenience to me.

Yet, every unborn child threatens the life and longterm health of the mother does it not?

If I died, then most of the world would remain unaffected. But if you or I or anyone else could be killed by another individual for any, or no reason, without legal consequence the world would be on a downhill spiral from which it may never escape.

Abortion has been allowed for quite some time, and I don't see this downward spiral you are speaking of.

And I don't accept that the present president's life is more valuable than mine. Nor would I accept that more than a handfull of lives on earth in my lifetime have been more valuable than mine

Thats because you as most Americans, believe that you are special. You are not special.

The decision to kill another is always a product of individual thought processes. The consequences of doing so is a product of the law.

And how do we formulate law?

Yes you could which is exactly why this debate exists. 200 years ago, you could buy and kill as many blacks as you wanted without legal consequence as well. Even though it was legal, it was unconstitutional and a gross human rights violation.

Yes and our sphere of moral understanding evolved to the point where we realized that slavery was wrong. So we made laws that reflected that. So please explain why abortion is wrong.

Medicine is at a state now that doctors can anticipate problems well in advance. In fact, most women who wil lhave problems with pregnancy know about thier risks before they ever become pregnant.

Modern Science is great isn't it.

 

[palerider]

Then why is Abortion wrong?

You don't seem to be grasping my position. In the US, (which is the only country that I may have any effect on with regard to the laws), abortion, as it stands is unconstitutional and a human rights violation. While I have personal views with regard to the inherent rightness or wrongness of abortion, my personal views are not part of my argument.

I apologize, I was originally giving you the benefit of the doubt. Here let me explain the obvious fallacy's in your argument.

1. If all law comes from the Constitution, where does Constitutional law come from?

Constitutional law is not a body of law as in real estate law or a set of statutes. Constitutional law is a theory of law concerned with what is and is not constitutional.

2. If all law comes from the Constitution, where in the Constitution does it say that everyone has the right to life?

Law does not come from the constitution. The constitution is, for lack of a better description, the by laws laid out by the founders by which the entity called the USA would protect the rights of its citizens. Law comes from the lawmakers but must operate within the constitution and not deny rights unless it enumerates which right, from whom it is to be withheld, and for what reason.

Actually, I may have missed that. Im glad you admit that you believe that abortion is wrong. Now please explain why its still wrong, even in a nation that allows it, like the UNited States?

It doesn't matter why I think it is wrong as that is not the basis of my argument. I don't have to agree or disagree with a think to argue for or against it any more than a lawyer has to agree or disagree with his client. I argue abortion because it is unconstitutional and a human rights violation. Write law that denies the right to live from human beings until such time as they are born or are viable and you won't see me arguing this point.

I didn't do it deliberately. You may not realize the glaring contradictions in your argument that make it difficult to discern what it is your saying. My attempts were to understand your argument, which you aren't being very clear about. However, now that we both agree, that you beileve that abortion is wrong, I want you to explain why it is wrong.

I am perfectly clear. If there are contradictions present, it is between what you want my argument to be and what it actually is. And once again, my personal beliefs are not the issue here., the law is the issue here.

Good point. However, once again we run into the problem, that all killing is not wrong. Therefore, just because you kill a fetus or an unborn, it is not necessarily wrong. So even if Science does update our understanding in this situation, science does not equate to law.

But it does narrow what we know from broad strokes to fine points. When roe was written, based on what we knew at the time it was possible to make an argument of sorts that unborns were not human beings. Roe was decided on the basis that unborns were not human beings and therefore not persons since according to the law, one need only be a human being in order to be a person. Science has reduced that broad knowledge that allowed that unborns might not be human beings to a fine point that makes them undeniably human beings.

That being the case, law that applies to entities that were not thought to be human beings simply can not be fairly applied to human beings.

OK, so then if abortion is always wrong, no matter what the law says, then why is it wrong.

Once again, my personal beliefs are not part of this discussion. I know you wish they were because feelings and beliefs are so easy to argue against. My position is based in the law which is not so easy to get around. If I didn't think that I could win this debate without dragging my feelings, or my beliefs or my morals into it, I would not enter it. This is why a pro choicer can't win because their entire position is based on what they feel rather than what is.

That has nothing to do with a mother terminating her pregnancy though. A mother is not the state. However, by legislating that the mother is unable to terminate her pregnancy, then it is depriving her of her liberty.

If the state allows individuals to decide to kill an individual, the state is allowing its citizens to be denied their right to live without due process. See lynching law.

With regard to her liberty. All rights are secondary to the right to live.

Thats great, though I don't see the relevance.

Most pro choicers when faced with the fact that unborns are human beings and the 14th amendment immediately jump on the personhood issue without realizing that in the eyes of the law, human beings are persons. Pardon me if I misjudged you and you are not going to try to make an issue out of the word person.

Your changing the subject, I simply want to know why you feel that abortion is wrong.

I am never going to tell you why abortion is wrong. It is no more germain to the issue than a lawyers personal feelings about any issue he is arguing in court.

But you just said that it doesnt matter what the law sais, all abortion is wrong regardless. I want to know why?

I want to know the winning lotto numbers for tomorrow night. I don't play lotto but if you know the numbers and give them to me, I will tell you why I believe abortion is wrong. Otherwise, lets just stick to the law.

Here you go contradicting yourself again. If your argument isn't about right and wrong, then how can you say that abortion is wrong, no matter what the law sais?

For the purposes of this discussion, abortion is wrong because it is unconstitutional and a gross human rights violation.

Why is it wrong to kill anyone?

If you want to have a philosophical discussion, feel free to start a thread. I may join in or not.

Why do you need to consult a necromancer or gypsy to ask if life is worth living if you have no liberty or happyness? Our founding fathers felt that life came secondary to liberty and happyness.

I have no right to determine for you whether your life is worth living or not. If you don't think yours is worth living or might not be worth living in the future, feel free to end it. I, however, won't make that decision and act on it for you.

And our founders did not feel that life came secondary to liberty and happiness since they wrote it first. The legal language is what it is and it hasn't changed in the respect of listing the order of importance since long before our founders wrote their document. Even if they didn't really believe that life came first, it wouldn't matter because since they wrote it first, every item in the list after it is in decending order of importance. I doubt very seriously that they were unaware of the signifigance of placing life first in the order though.

I don't need to discuss with a lawyer what the spirit of the Declaration of Independence is, and the reasoning behind the Revolutionary war. And I don't mean the reasoning from the Congress or the rich people that funded it. I mean the average citizen who fought. Yet, we're running on a tangent that has nothing to do with the matter at hand.

None the less. The order in which they are written has a definite and undeniable signifigance.

Yet, every unborn child threatens the life and longterm health of the mother does it not?

Every driver on the road represents a threat to your life or long term health. You may not, however, take action against them without legal consequence unless they represent a more immediate threat to your life or long term health.

Abortion has been allowed for quite some time, and I don't see this downward spiral you are speaking of.

The observation was not about abortion specifically but now that you mention it, we, as a society certainly do have less respect for the lives of our fellows than we did prior to roe.

Thats because you as most Americans, believe that you are special. You are not special.

But I did come into being with a right to live and it is the responsibility of the government to protect that right and punish anyone who disregards that right.

And how do we formulate law?

Via the debate and vote of the houses of congress subject to the veto of the president.

Yes and our sphere of moral understanding evolved to the point where we realized that slavery was wrong. So we made laws that reflected that. So please explain why abortion is wrong.

My personal beliefs are not part of this discussion. I know that feelings and such are much more easily argued against than reality but I would rather stay out of that "touchy feely" sphere and stick entirely to reason.

If you want to go there though, how about you explain the reasoning behind your belief that it is OK to kill another human being for reasons that amount to no more than convenience.