Abortion

[ArmChair General]

Paleride, you make good points. Thanks for the argument, I appreciate your leaving personal insults out.

I may respond later after I consider what you've said, or I may not.

 

[palerider]

Paleride, you make good points. Thanks for the argument, I appreciate your leaving personal insults out.

I may respond later after I consider what you've said, or I may not.

No sweat. If you need further clarification, feel free to ask.

 

[top gun]

palerider;17962]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.

I'm just quoting what YOU said. You think the fair and correct course would be that any woman taking the traditional & current Birth Control Pill should face as you said... at least manslaughter charges. I guess "at least" means you feel even murder charges might be on the table. I'm quite sure this is what a reasonable person would expect to see happen in 2007 in America. Millions of women going up on murder/manslaughter charges for taking the current Birth Control Pill.

Of course these "other pills" you talk about don't exist... but it's a nice disguise of a nonsolution as a solution. It makes taking all current Birth Control Pills off the market seem doable when it's not... but that's the game.

I don't know how many times I can say this. An arguement can be made in either direction on what the 8 cells are that try to implant into a uterus. From a religious point of view or from some medical building blocks point of view one could say it's a microscopic human being. Remembering being 8 cells would confirm what it is for sure. Everything else is just subjective conjecture. Scientifically we can name the parts. We can't identify a soul.

The vast majority of others see it as "8 cells" that at that stage is totally reasonable to stop it's progression. Using the word killing is fine with me.

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.

I know Pale but it's painfully obvious where much of your ideology comes from you just prefer to not talk about that aspect. Only on religious grounds could someone say 8 cells have a soul. Without a soul then it's back to being just 8 human cells. A soul cannot be proven.

Abstinence['/quote]

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

No.

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

No such thing.

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?

It's not my logic. It's the law of the land. You are the one pushing the innocent party analogy. It all goes back to interpretation of status and the authority of the woman over her own body and anything therein. Fortunately the Supreme Court made the correct decision on this decades ago and it has held ever since. I see no possibility this ruling will change and as I said the fact that the current Birth Control Pill is brought into play and would be on the chopping block in your scenario makes it completely a nonstarter.

I've come to realize that the woman really means nothing to you. She is merely a baby incubator. If she has to be reminded every day the rest of her life that she was raped by her father you cannot feel for that situation because the only thing that matters to you is... no now available Birth Control Pills... no abortions. We just have to agree to disagree because I truly do disagree with you.

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?

I disagree with your premise. But the only consideration I allow for is that of the right of the woman to have the choice whether to bear children or not.

 

[palerider]

I'm just quoting what YOU said. You think the fair and correct course would be that any woman taking the traditional & current Birth Control Pill should face as you said... at least manslaughter charges. I guess "at least" means you feel even murder charges might be on the table. I'm quite sure this is what a reasonable person would expect to see happen in 2007 in America. Millions of women going up on murder/manslaughter charges for taking the current Birth Control Pill.

You haven't answered my question. Do you think that there is a difference between killing via surgical proceedure and killing via chemicals?

Of course these "other pills" you talk about don't exist... but it's a nice disguise of a nonsolution as a solution. It makes taking all current Birth Control Pills off the market seem doable when it's not... but that's the game.

Is killing via chemical better in some way than killing via surgury?

I don't know how many times I can say this. An arguement can be made in either direction on what the 8 cells are that try to implant into a uterus. From a religious point of view or from some medical building blocks point of view one could say it's a microscopic human being. Remembering being 8 cells would confirm what it is for sure. Everything else is just subjective conjecture. Scientifically we can name the parts. We can't identify a soul.

I don't argue from a religious or a moral point of view. I argue from a legal point of view and as it stands today, abortion is unconstitutional and the most terrible human rights violation this country has ever known.

I see nothing in the constitution that states that one must have a soul in order to enjoy the protections of the 14th amendment. Are people who don't believe they have souls less protected than those who do believe they have souls?

The vast majority of others see it as "8 cells" that at that stage is totally reasonable to stop it's progression. Using the word killing is fine with me.

A damning testament to public education that the vast majority do not understand even the basics of developmental biology.

I know Pale but it's painfully obvious where much of your ideology comes from you just prefer to not talk about that aspect. Only on religious grounds could someone say 8 cells have a soul. Without a soul then it's back to being just 8 human cells. A soul cannot be proven.

It is obvious that you think that you know where my ideology comes from. The fact is, however, that any thoughts you have about my ideology, or morals, or religious beliefs, are figments of your imagination, fabrications of your own design.

I have no interest in their souls if indeed they have them. I have an interest in the law. I know you would rather argue from an emotional point of view since that is where your position is centered, but I don't care to have a touchy feely conversation.

No such thing.

Are you sure? Have you examined all of the reserve patents for all of the major and minor pharm companies in the world?

It's not my logic. It's the law of the land. You are the one pushing the innocent party analogy. It all goes back to interpretation of status and the authority of the woman over her own body and anything therein. Fortunately the Supreme Court made the correct decision on this decades ago and it has held ever since. I see no possibility this ruling will change and as I said the fact that the current Birth Control Pill is brought into play and would be on the chopping block in your scenario makes it completely a nonstarter.

You are right. There is no logic in your argument. And it is a court decision, not the law of the land. The law of the land comes from the houses of congress.

If you are speaking about roe, it goes back to the argument made in 1972 that unborns were not human beings and therefore not entitled to the protection of the 14th amendment. Such an argument can no longer be made with any credibility. Clearly the basis for their decision was incorrect exactly as the basis for the court's decision in dred scott was incorrect.

And of course you see no possibility of change. You can't. 3 years ago I imagine you would have said that there was no possibility that partial birth abortion would be outlawed. The fact is, top gun, that legal precedent has been established for the personhood of the unborn and the framework of roe depends entirely upon the non personhood of the unborn. What you see or don't see is entirely irrelavent.

I've come to realize that the woman really means nothing to you. She is merely a baby incubator. If she has to be reminded every day the rest of her life that she was raped by her father you cannot feel for that situation because the only thing that matters to you is... no now available Birth Control Pills... no abortions. We just have to agree to disagree because I truly do disagree with you.

Like everything else, you are wrong in this statement as well. If her life is in danger, she has the right to terminate the pregnancy to defend herself. Otherwise, the child's right to live outweighs her right to not be inconvenienced.

You keep bringing up rape. Are you willing to denounce all abortion that is not due to rape or incest or cases in which the mothers life or long term health is in danger, or is your incessant reference to rape just a hypocritical diversion on your part?

I disagree with your premise. But the only consideration I allow for is that of the right of the woman to have the choice whether to bear children or not.

My premise is that unborns are human beings and human beings have a right to live that outweighs another's right to not be inconvenienced. Exactly which part of my premise do you believe that you can prove in error? The part that unborns are human beings or the part that suggests that one human being can't kill another human being for reasons of convenience?

 

[top gun]

palerider;17989]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.

I believe anytime a woman has to obey with consequences, to a man, married or not that is being treated like a slave.

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

Confiscation of the only current form of Birth Control Pills on the market and away from tens of millions of American women. Then throwing those women into penitentiaries for murder/manslaughter if they continue to find and use what is now one of this nations most prescribed medications.

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?

Show me where the 14th Amendment states that it specifically protects the unborn. I see where it says... All persons born...
The life... in life liberty, or property seems to mean taking their life after birth.

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 14

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.

On the rocket science comment I'd say this. If I were you and I believed what I said I would rush my 8 cell argument into court and correct its legal standing. I await the news break.

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.

Your position mirrors the long held Catholic tradition that is highly disregarded in the United States.

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.

Prove to me the 8 cells have a soul. It's not a matter of proof. Most people myself included do not believe that 8 human cells have the same standing as a complete person... nor should they.

You prefer abortificients?

I prefer the one that's real.

 

[dahermit]

question?

Palerider:
...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...

I might have missed this in a previous post, but none the less:
Can you cite any law or Constitutional Amendment that defines unborns as human beings?

 

[Coyote]

I might have missed this in a previous post, but none the less:
Can you cite any law or Constitutional Amendment that defines unborns as human beings?

...your going to lose on this one...I guarantee it...

 

[ArmChair General]

...your going to lose on this one...I guarantee it...

Strange isn't it, I was pretty violent to the thought myself since it turned my entire view about this upside down.

But I don't think we can find a conclusion on this question, without touching on morality and ethics.

Which is why I created a new thread:

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1629

 

[Coyote]

Strange isn't it, I was pretty violent to the thought myself since it turned my entire view about this upside down.

But I don't think we can find a conclusion on this question, without touching on morality and ethics.

Which is why I created a new thread:

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1629

Yes...I found myself stalemated and reconsidering my position. As you say, my entire view was also turned upside down. Interesting thread you started

 

[top gun]

palerider;18101]You haven't answered my question. Do you think that there is a difference between killing via surgical proceedure and killing via chemicals?

I answered your question on what the previous post was about. See the previous post.

Is killing via chemical better in some way than killing via surgury?

No one is debating a difference. We're debating it's acceptability in regard to 8 cells v. a complete person.

I don't argue from a religious or a moral point of view. I argue from a legal point of view and as it stands today, abortion is unconstitutional and the most terrible human rights violation this country has ever known.

You do argue in a religious, moral point of view but if you consider that a legal point of view then all I can say is the legal authority and precedent has been established and ongoing for decades now. Or in other words your position lost.

I see nothing in the constitution that states that one must have a soul in order to enjoy the protections of the 14th amendment. Are people who don't believe they have souls less protected than those who do believe they have souls?

I see the 14th saying...All persons born... not all persons at conception. The life... in life, liberty or property appears to mean life after birth.

A damning testament t
o public education that the vast majority do not understand even the basics of developmental biology.

OR... another way to say you're in the vast minority.

It is obvious that you think that you know where my ideology comes from. The fact is, however, that any thoughts you have about my ideology, or morals, or religious beliefs, are figments of your imagination, fabrications of your own design.

I have no interest in their souls if indeed they have them. I have an interest in the law. I know you would rather argue from an emotional point of view since that is where your position is centered, but I don't care to have a touchy feely conversation.

Well usually when someone climbs out on the conception limb a soul is somehow involved. But I'll talk law if you like.

What is the long standing United States Supreme Court ruling on the matter of women having choice?

See it's a really short discussion that way.

Are you sure? Have you examined all of the reserve patents for all of the major and minor pharm companies in the world?

Yes I have, every single one.

If you are speaking about roe, it goes back to the argument made in 1972 that unborns were not human beings and therefore not entitled to the protection of the 14th amendment. Such an argument can no longer be made with any credibility. Clearly the basis for their decision was incorrect exactly as the basis for the court's decision in dred scott was incorrect.

And of course you see no possibility of change. You can't. 3 years ago I imagine you would have said that there was no possibility that partial birth abortion would be outlawed. The fact is, top gun, that legal precedent has been established for the personhood of the unborn and the framework of roe depends entirely upon the non personhood of the unborn. What you see or don't see is entirely irrelavent.

Well then get off this board and get out there in the judicial system with your 8 cell argument. I await the press release!

Like everything else, you are wrong in this statement as well. If her life is in danger, she has the right to terminate the pregnancy to defend herself. Otherwise, the child's right to live outweighs her right to not be inconvenienced.

SEE: Roe v. Wade

You keep bringing up rape. Are you willing to denounce all abortion that is not due to rape or incest or cases in which the mothers life or long term health is in danger, or is your incessant reference to rape just a hypocritical diversion on your part?

No but I am willing to bring up every contingency.

My premise is that unborns are human beings and human beings have a right to live that outweighs another's right to not be inconvenienced. Exactly which part of my premise do you believe that you can prove in error? The part that unborns are human beings or the part that suggests that one human being can't kill another human being for reasons of convenience?

Please quit asking me the same questions. I've answered this several times now. I do not believe in many cases it is any matter of just convenience. In the case of Birth control pills I don't believe 8 human cells have or should have the same standing as a complete person. On abortion itself I believe anytime up to a point where the fetus could live on its own outside the womb the woman must legally be allowed to maintain control.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

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.

Yes, yes, we all know what you think of me, and you know what I think of you too. Your Catholicism is so extreme as to be painful, fetal life is sacred but torture for the greater good is too. Sh*t, that's practically word for word what the Inquisition preached.

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.

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. Not to mention the fact that you have, in my opinion, about half the sensitivity of the average dung beetle.

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.

So how long after you ejaculate into a fertile woman that you are raping does she have to prevent the pregnancy? One hour? Two hours? Exactly how long? According to what you have written, if she does ANYTHING to prevent the process of producing a fetus she is a murderer. Am I wrong?

If you have a thing growing inside you and you cannot have it removed, instead you are required to care for it at the expense of EVERYTHING else in your life--the children you already have, the job you have to go to in order to support those children, etc.--then that looks a lot like brood-slavery, only slightly less confining than farrowing cages. If it was happening to you it would feel like slavery, but it's not you so it doesn't matter, women are just things to stick your cock into and raise your progeny.

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?

I don't like abortion any more than you do, but if you and I can't even agree on rape, then what chance do we have to come to some understanding on the rest of the abortion issue? Let's deal with rape first--we may have a better chance of finding common ground there. In rape there are two victims, the woman and the child, the man is responsible for damage to both of them. The woman who is required to be the mother to a baby forced into her against her will is raped twice--once by the man and once by the law that prevents her from controlling her own body against assault. The fetus is innocent, but it is the man who placed it in the woman's body against her will that is responsible for its death if she wishes it removed. I would compromise this far with you, my pale Catholic friend, a mandatory death sentence to any man who rapes a woman and gets her with child if the law requires her to carry it to term, in addition the same law that forces her to spend a year of her life in the service of a rapist should pay her wages, all her expenses, and pay reparations to her for society's inability to protect her, and take full responsibility for the baby immediately after birth if she wishes them to do so. Sound fair to you?

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.

We have already established that you don't understand. We have established that you deliberately mischaracterize in an attempt to arouse emotion. Your pious breast-beating about the "innocent" lives being taken is an emotional argument, you're practically bleeding through the eyes with compassion for unborn life. How is it that an emotional appeal for the women is discounted?

There are many kinds of slavery, even wage slavery and love slaves, but when a woman is raped and forced to spend a year of her life and a portion her health nurturing a rapist's baby THAT is slavery, maybe only for that year, but it will influence her for her whole life. When was the last time you put your whole life on hold to carry an unwanted baby forced upon you violently. Think of it this way, you want the law to make it so that a man can pick any woman and rape her, forcing her to carry his child and birth it, about a years worth of 24 hour work for her, not to mention pain and expense. Let's turn it around then and make the law so that any woman with a baby can pick out any man and hand him the baby and he is LEGALLY required to care for that baby for one year--no escape clause--he has to do it, he cannot hire it done. That still wouldn't be as onerous as being raped, but I couldn't think of a better scenario. That sound fair to you?

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

I like men alright, but many of their attitudes and actions are despicable--and you seem to embody most of them. If someone puts a tapeworm proglotid into your food and you eat it, the tapeworm will set up shop in your intestinal tract. If it is a man who is larger and stronger than you who holds you down and forces you to swallow, will you take out your rage on the innocent tapeworm?

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?

I told you before that I would like to see programs put in place to reduce the need for abortions, but you rejected that out of hand. Once there is no need for abortions, once all women have reasonable, affordable access to alternatives I will agree that abortions should not take place except for rape and medical reasons. The problem I have with your misogynist approach is that you want to outlaw abortions without doing the prepratory work first to give women a way to deal with the problems of unwanted pregnancy. The problem with doing it the way you are proposing is that once the laws you want are in place there will be no incentive to do anything else, you will simply beat the Hell out of women and continue letting men go scot-free. Your laws will make people think that the problem has been dealt with when in fact it will make things worse not better.

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.

Yeah, yeah, and you're still bleating like a pale Caltholic sheep.

 

[palerider]

I believe anytime a woman has to obey with consequences, to a man, married or not that is being treated like a slave.

Then you are prone to exageration. Slaves were owned by someone else and could be treated as their owner deemed fit without legal consequence. Slaves were beaten to death regularly, fed table scraps and slop, housed in barns or shacks, not allowed to own anything without their owners permission. If you believe being pregnant in a free society is like being treated like a slave, then you are either hysterical or don't know how slaves were treated.

Confiscation of the only current form of Birth Control Pills on the market and away from tens of millions of American women. Then throwing those women into penitentiaries for murder/manslaughter if they continue to find and use what is now one of this nations most prescribed medications.

If the personhood of unborns is established then any medication that would kill them deliberately would constitute manslaughter at the very least. If the fact that abortive birth control pills would be pulled from distribution should personhood be established for unborn children has escaped you, then it is clear that you have never put much thought into this issue. Your position is emotional rather than rational.

Show me where the 14th Amendment states that it specifically protects the unborn. I see where it says... All persons born...
The life... in life liberty, or property seems to mean taking their life after birth.

The nature of our legal system is that if someone is to be denied a right, law must specifically enumerate fro WHO the right is to be denied, WHICH right is to be denied, and for WHAT reason the right is to be denied. Show me in the constitution where it "specifically" grants first amendment rights to women.

U.S. Constitution - Amendment 14

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.

On the rocket science comment I'd say this. If I were you and I believed what I said I would rush my 8 cell argument into court and correct its legal standing. I await the news break.

Cases are winding their way through appeal right now top gun. Cases that point out the legal precedent for personhood of the unborn. I eagerly await their arival at the supreme court.

Your position mirrors the long held Catholic tradition that is highly disregarded in the United States.

Are you saying that the idea that molesting priests should rot in jail is a highly disregarded idea in the US?

[/quote] Prove to me the 8 cells have a soul. It's not a matter of proof. Most people myself included do not believe that 8 human cells have the same standing as a complete person... nor should they.[/quote]

I don't know anything about souls with regard to the law. Show me some law that requires a soul and we can talk about it. Have you noticed that it is you who is talking religion here?

I prefer the one that's real.

Shuck and jive. Duck and weave. Dodge dodge dodge. You are losing here topgun.

I answered your question on what the previous post was about. See the previous post.

I saw you dodge, not answer the question.

No one is debating a difference. We're debating it's acceptability in regard to 8 cells v. a complete person.

This point fails on its face. Newborns enjoy the protection of the 14th amendment but they are not "complete" . None of us is complete until we are nearly 30 years old when our biological maturation is finished.

Biological point. The unborn has progressed far beyond 8 cells by the time it reaches the uterus, not that it matters.

(continued)

 

[palerider]

(continuation)

You do argue in a religious, moral point of view but if you consider that a legal point of view then all I can say is the legal authority and precedent has been established and ongoing for decades now. Or in other words your position lost.

You are the one asking for proof of souls and such. My argument is founded in the law and logic. I know you want to argue religion and morality because they closely resemble your emotional view. I don't play that game. If you can't make a rational argument, you have lost already.

With regard to precedent. Precedent for the personhood of the unborn has been established quite nicely in the past few years, and the high court is a bit more conservative than it once was. Did you notice that they banned partial birth abortion? Pro choicers claimed that would never be outlawed as well.

I see the 14th saying...All persons born... not all persons at conception. The life... in life, liberty or property appears to mean life after birth.

Your taunting games were slightly sad initially, but the more you post, the more pathetic they become. This is your constitution top gun, do you really know so little about it? Must everything be explained to you as if you were a child? Allow me to explain the 14th amendment to you.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; 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.[/quote]

You may or may not have noticed that the amendment is written in two sentences. There is a reason for that.

At the time the amendment was added, states were in charge of citizenship, not the federal government and as such, people were first and foremost, a citizen of their particular state and second a citizen of the US. There were several states that were denying their citizens ther basic human rights on this basis. The first sentence establishes that we are first and foremost citizens of the US and secondarily citizens of our state and since we are primarily citizens of the US, our rights are protected by the constitution.

Clearly the first sentence states that only persons born or naturalized are citizens but one doesn't have to be a citizen in order to enjoy the protections of the 14th amendment as you will see.

The second sentence is written in three clauses. There is a reason for this.The first clause is to enhance and punctuate the first sentence. It states clearly that no state law can override the rights protected by the constitution.

Did you notice that the clauses are separated with semicolons instead of commas? Do you recognize the signifigance of semicolons vs commas. Maybe I better explain that to you as well since it is clear that you don't understand the language. A semicolon used to indicate a major division in a sentence where a more distinct separation is felt between clauses or items on a list than is indicated by a comma, as between the two clauses of a compound sentence.

The second clause states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. This clause states that no person shal be deprived of life, liberty, property without due process, not "no citizen". The first clause points out and states that citizens have certain privledges and immunities attatched to their citizenship where as the second states that NO PERSON shall be deprived of life liberty or property.

This theory was first tested in the case of Yick Wo v Hopkins in 1876. The court clearly stated that "The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens."

There are numerous cases after this one that affirmed this fact. If you need to see them, I can look some of them up for you.

Finally, the third clause. "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Tell me that you aren't aware of the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE. This is it. It is why you can't kill, rape, beat, or steal from non citizens. Stated simply, one doesn't have to be a citizen of the US for one's right to live to be protected in the US.

OR... another way to say you're in the vast minority.

Sad isn't it, that the vast MINORITY understand biology and that you proudly stand with the majority that don't?

What is the long standing United States Supreme Court ruling on the matter of women having choice?

Long standing is a relative term. The court rulings that made non humans out of blacks stood far longer than the 30 years since roe before they were overturned. One could fill a book with the court cases that have been overturned after standing longer than roe so that, on its face, is a non issue.

Yes I have, every single one.

That might be cute if it weren't so sad.

Please quit asking me the same questions. I've answered this several times now. I do not believe in many cases it is any matter of just convenience. In the case of Birth control pills I don't believe 8 human cells have or should have the same standing as a complete person. On abortion itself I believe anytime up to a point where the fetus could live on its own outside the womb the woman must legally be allowed to maintain control.

No, you haven't answered. You have dodged a lot, but not answered. How about you describe some cases other than situtations in which the mother's life or long term health is in danger that do not amount to convenience.

Here is the definition of convenience:

convenience - 1. the quality of being convenient 2. anything that saves or simplifies work, adds to one's ease or comfort, etc. 3. a convenient situation or time. 4. advantage or accommodation.

Have fun.

 

[palerider]

Yes, yes, we all know what you think of me, and you know what I think of you too. Your Catholicism is so extreme as to be painful, fetal life is sacred but torture for the greater good is too. Sh*t, that's practically word for word what the Inquisition preached.

We know that I have little respect for you debating abilities and think that you go to name calling far too quickly. Beyond that, anyting you believe is a figment of your imagination.

I am not a catholic. An example of a figment of your imagination. I have been in a catholic church once in my long life for a wedding.

Your reference to the inquisition is just one more examply of your hysterical hand wringing.

So how long after you ejaculate into a fertile woman that you are raping does she have to prevent the pregnancy? One hour? Two hours? Exactly how long? According to what you have written, if she does ANYTHING to prevent the process of producing a fetus she is a murderer. Am I wrong?

Since I have never raped a woman, I couldn't say. If the time gap between ejaculation is the same for consensual sex and rape then about 24 hours pass. The problem is that if she is fertile, it is not possible to prevent fertilization at that point. The "morning after" pill and drugs of that sort don't prevent fertilization and therefore don't prevent the pregnancy. They create an inhospitible environment for the child and it dies.

If you have a thing growing inside you and you cannot have it removed, instead you are required to care for it at the expense of EVERYTHING else in your life--the children you already have, the job you have to go to in order to support those children, etc.--then that looks a lot like brood-slavery, only slightly less confining than farrowing cages. If it was happening to you it would feel like slavery, but it's not you so it doesn't matter, women are just things to stick your cock into and raise your progeny.

More hysterics. I see pregnant women out and about every day up until their time of delivery. My wife walked 18 holes with me on the morning out sone was born on her doctor's advice. Clearly she, nor any woman does not give up everyting to the child. Why don't you try making a rational argument rather than all of these irrational and untrue appeals to emotion?

I don't like abortion any more than you do, but if you and I can't even agree on rape, then what chance do we have to come to some understanding on the rest of the abortion issue?

Tell me what the child has done that its life should be forfiet? Make me understand why the child should be punished for the crimes of its father.

Let's deal with rape first--we may have a better chance of finding common ground there. In rape there are two victims, the woman and the child, the man is responsible for damage to both of them. The woman who is required to be the mother to a baby forced into her against her will is raped twice--once by the man and once by the law that prevents her from controlling her own body against assault.

She is raped once. To suggest that the child also rapes her is more hysterics and simply untrue.

The fetus is innocent, but it is the man who placed it in the woman's body against her will that is responsible for its death if she wishes it removed. I would compromise this far with you, my pale Catholic friend, a mandatory death sentence to any man who rapes a woman and gets her with child if the law requires her to carry it to term,

I am not catholic. And if the rape is violent, then I would agree that the death penalty is an equitable punishment. If it is not violent, however, I wouldn not be willing to see a man put to death because a woman cried rape after what was really consensual sex.

in addition the same law that forces her to spend a year of her life in the service of a rapist should pay her wages, all her expenses, and pay reparations to her for society's inability to protect her, and take full responsibility for the baby immediately after birth if she wishes them to do so. Sound fair to you?

Pregnant women regularly go to work unless they have a high risk pregnancy that threatens her health. If she is able to work, then society owes her nothing and she has recieved her retribution for society's inability to protect her in the form of punishment for the rapist. Society already picks up expenses for women who can't pay for thier own medical expenses, and women already have the right to give up chidren they do not want.

We have already established that you don't understand.

We have established no such thing.

We have established that you deliberately mischaracterize in an attempt to arouse emotion.

Again, we have established no such thing. I have challenged you numerous times to bring forward examples of my doing the sorts of things you accuse me of and you have yet to do so. Put up or shut up.

Your pious breast-beating about the "innocent" lives being taken is an emotional argument, you're practically bleeding through the eyes with compassion for unborn life. How is it that an emotional appeal for the women is discounted?

More emotional handwringing.

There are many kinds of slavery

No, there is one kind of salvery and many emotional appeals to slavery.

I like men alright, but many of their attitudes and actions are despicable--and you seem to embody most of them. If someone puts a tapeworm proglotid into your food and you eat it, the tapeworm will set up shop in your intestinal tract. If it is a man who is larger and stronger than you who holds you down and forces you to swallow, will you take out your rage on the innocent tapeworm?

No. I will see the man punished by the law and dispose of the tapeworm as it represents a very real threat to my health. Tapeworms are not human beings and do not have an inalienable right to live.

Yeah, yeah, and you're still bleating like a pale Caltholic sheep.

Once again, my catholicism is a figment of your imagination exactly as most of your argument against me is.

 

[dahermit]

win/lose not the question.

Originally Posted by dahermit
I might have missed this in a previous post, but none the less:
Can you cite any law or Constitutional Amendment that defines unborns as human beings( or gives any status to the unborn at all)?

...your going to lose on this one...I guarantee it...

I did not ask the question as a point of argument. I wish to understand pale rider's basis for his stand on this issue.