Abortion

[numinus]

Then you lied when you said that you would not want the philosophical concepts of guilt and innocence and rights themselves entered into evidence against you if it were your life on the line?

LOL.

I said no such thing. A legal system under question does not have any power over me. The reason for this - AGAIN - is PHILOSOPHICAL.

Once again, my statements are not self referencing. They reference materials that I did not create. And there is no paradox within my position.

Then you are more guilty of intellectual dishonesty than you can ever hope to assign to me.

Considering the amount of writing that has been done on the case of Roe v Wade by both the justices and outside sources referencing the writings, interviews, and statements by the justices, one need not "presume" to know the intent of the judges.

Apparently, you do presume to know their intent in the most dishonest manner possible.

The majority opinion penned by blacknum says 'the judiciary....IS NOT IN A POSITION TO SPECULATE AS TO THE ANSWER...'.

It is the height of dishonesty to attach any other meaning or intent to the statement other than what it ostensibly says.

Your dishonesty is tiresome. The only paradox you have found was within a strawman of your own making. There is no paradox within my position.

You are not fooling anyone.

From the majority decision:

"[I]IF[/I] this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [p157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. [n51] On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument [n52] that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."

The proposition of personhood for a PRE-NATAL human being is in QUESTION (from the word 'IF').

Rather than prove the proposition, you MERELY STATE THE PREMISE - a (post-natal) human being is a person.

I would challenge you to provide a bit of credible science circa 1972 that suggests that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being or that the unborn is not alive from the time fertilization is complete. I can save you some time by telling you that there is none. Of course, feel free to find it, bring it here and prove that the justice who said that was not a bald faced lar.

LOL.

The priimary reason for the radical taxonomical re-classification comes from observations arising from the HUMAN GENOME PROJECT.

Excluding genetic sequence with unknown properties, WE ARE 99% GENETICALLY ALIKE WITH OUR CLOSEST PRIMATE COUSINS - THE COMMON CHIMPANZEE AND BONOBO.

And if you consider the differences in the genes of human beings of various ethnicity, something that occur without any identifiable pattern, then the STANDARD FOR PERSONHOOD takes on an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT BIOLOGICAL DIMENSION.

No case could be cited in 1972. That statement is not true today so refer back to the justice's acknowledgement that IF this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [p157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. Since there is now case law that establishes personhood, roe has become invalid.

From your clear dishonesty in this debate, I think that you need to cite your source. I wouln't take the statements of someone for granted - especially those who insists on the validity of circular arguments.

And here, you need a precedent that states UNEQUIVOCALLY (and not merely alludes) that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the 14th ammendment.

Yeah, you said it, but as of yet, have failed to prove it. A scientist arguing that chimps are people too hardly constitutes proof of anything; especially that the science of taxonomy is arbitrary.

I underscored and bold the sentences and you still fail to comprehend????

They are not re-classifying anything since it would be 'problematic' to the classification of other species - even those that are already EXTINCT.

So, taxonomy is more interested in the 'orderliness' rather than the truth-value implied in classification - the very classification you are using as basis for personhood.

ARBITRARY. And you know it.

Nothing at all if you don't mind referencing questionable material. Wiki is hardly a bastion of credibility.

So, the article isn't true since wiki has a reputation for being not credible???

You never learn do you? You just feel the need to dish out one fallacy after another in an effort to prove your point.

Still waiting for you to prove that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being.

What about a grossly mutated human being? What about zygotes subjected to genetic manipulation? Do you have a distinct genetic sequence that would infallibly set the standard for 'humanness'?

The propensity of your argument to go into circles must have you spinning dizzy by now.

Your apparently congenital dishonesty has grown very tiresome. I will be happy to continue the conversation with you, but if you misrepresent my position one more time, I am through with you. I don't mind discussing the issue, but constantly correcting your misrepresentations plus discussing the topic is too much. If you can't be honest, then I am not interested in talking to you.

Then discuss, and leave out your constant editorializing.

If my argument is sophistry or philosophical sleight of hand, then PROVE IT.

If you wish to define personhood as something extending to the point of conception, PROVE IT.

If your statements are not circular, PROVE IT.

But you can't, and you won't. The credibility of the person in this forum, whose opinion I have much respect for is considerably diminished.

By the way, unless you can come up with an argument that denies the right of the unborn to live that you would not accept if it were being used against you if it were your life on the line, we don't have much to talk about anyway as that is evidence enough that both your position, and the arguments you are making to support it are both shams.

What is my acceptance have to do with it?

The standard of personhood that allows the next of kin of a comatose individual to kill the person also allows the mother to terminate her unborn child.

That is jurisprudence and legal precedent for you!

 

[palerider]

I said no such thing. A legal system under question does not have any power over me. The reason for this - AGAIN - is PHILOSOPHICAL.

Yeah, you said it, but saying a thing doesn't mean much. The fact is that if you were in a court of law and tried to get up and walk out because you "believe" that the court has no power over you, you would find yourself in shackles waiting to see if the judge were going to jail you for contempt.

If a prosecutor attempted to make the sorts of arguments that you are making if it were your life on the line, you would howl to the heavens and you know it.

Then you are more guilty of intellectual dishonesty than you can ever hope to assign to me.

You like to say that, but the fact that you wouldn't stand for arguments of the sort you are making to be entered into evidence against you if it were your life on the line tells a different story.

The fact is that when one's life is on the line, only the facts matter. Philosophical arguments are fine fun, but when lives are on the line, facts and not philosophical wrangling are the order of the day and the facts simply don't support the pro choice side of the discussion.

Apparently, you do presume to know their intent in the most dishonest manner possible.

As I said. Plenty of writing and talking has been done by the judges over the years so one doesn't need to presume or assume.

The majority opinion penned by blacknum says 'the judiciary....IS NOT IN A POSITION TO SPECULATE AS TO THE ANSWER...'.

But the available evidence even in 1972 puts the lie to that statement. They chose to decide the way they did in spite of the evidence, not in agreement with it. Read the dissenting opinion.

It is the height of dishonesty to attach any other meaning or intent to the statement other than what it ostensibly says.

It is the height of dishonesty to apply arguments that deny the most fundamental rights to others that you would not accept as fair if they were applied to you if your life were on the line.

You are not fooling anyone.

That is the thing. Since my position is honest, I don't need to fool anyone. It is the pro choice side of the discussion that needs to continue to fool people for the appearance of credibility.

From the majority decision:

"[I]IF[/I] this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [p157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. [n51] On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument [n52] that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."

The proposition of personhood for a PRE-NATAL human being is in QUESTION (from the word 'IF').

You keep repeating exactly what I have said as if it proves your case. The justice said that "if" the suggestion of personhood is established, roe collapses. Well, that suggestion of personhood has been established. What is your point.

Rather than prove the proposition, you MERELY STATE THE PREMISE - a (post-natal) human being is a person.

No. I have provided ample credible evidence to prove that unborns are human beings, and have provided multiple legal dictionaries that state explicitly that human being and person are interchangable terms.

I have "merely stated" nothing as opposed to you whose argument is based on nothing more substantial than the ether.

Excluding genetic sequence with unknown properties, WE ARE 99% GENETICALLY ALIKE WITH OUR CLOSEST PRIMATE COUSINS - THE COMMON CHIMPANZEE AND BONOBO.

Are you really saying that you are unable to tell the difference between a human being and a chimp? Are you going to argue for personhood for animals while denying it to human beings?

From your clear dishonesty in this debate, I think that you need to cite your source. I wouln't take the statements of someone for granted - especially those who insists on the validity of circular arguments.

Funny. Still calling me dishonest when I am the only one who is providing credible material to support my position. And it is damned funny that you state that you wouldn't "take the statements of someone for granted" when by your own admission the sorts of arguments you are making would not be acceptable to you if it were your life on the line. But far be it from me to make arguments that I can't support.

Here is the text of Laci and Connor's law. It is the law by which you can be charged, tried, and sentenced for killing an unborn. Note that the crime one is charged of and sentenced for is to be the same as the charge and sentence for killing the mother.

Clip:

As used in this section, the term `unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or `child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.'.

(continued)

 

[palerider]

(continuation)

And here, you need a precedent that states UNEQUIVOCALLY (and not merely alludes) that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the 14th ammendment.

The fact that one can be charged with either manslaugher or murder for killing an unborn is exactly that precedent. You can only be charged for manslaughter or murder in this country if you kill a person. Maybe establishing personhood for the unborn was not the intent, but it is the result.

ARBITRARY. And you know it.

Get yourself a real argument. Stating that chimps are people too hardly helps your case.

What about a grossly mutated human being? What about zygotes subjected to genetic manipulation? Do you have a distinct genetic sequence that would infallibly set the standard for 'humanness'?

Are we talking about abortion or human experimentation. When the pro choice side loses the abortion debate, the conversation invariably steers to frankenstein.

If my argument is sophistry or philosophical sleight of hand, then PROVE IT.

I already have. When you admitted that your arguments would not be acceptable to you if they were used against you if your life were on the line. You know damned well that you would only accept fact being entered into evidence against you and your argument is most certainly fact challenged.

If you wish to define personhood as something extending to the point of conception, PROVE IT.

I have. Laic and Connors law states explictly:

As used in this section, the term `unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or `child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.'.

The fact that you can be charged and sentenced for killing an unborn who is a member of the species homo sapiens at any stage of development is exactly proof of that since you can't be either charged of manslaughter or murder unless you have killed a person.

If your statements are not circular, PROVE IT.

I have. The fact that you don't accept that proof is irrelavent to me.

I have done that also, but you don't seem to get it. If I stated that unborns are human beings because all human beings are persons then I would be engaging in circular reasoning as the entire basis for the argument would be based on what I said.

Let me give you a few examples of circular arguments from sites that describe logical fallacies.

“You can’t give me a C. I’m an A student!”

Circular reasoning is evident here because the claim is made on grounds that cannot be accepted as true — because those very grounds are in dispute. How can a student claim to be an A student when he just earned a C?

The student has defined himself as an "A" student and has referenced his own definition in defense of his argument.

Another:

“Richardson is the most successful mayor the town has ever had because he's the best mayor of our history.”

The second part of this sentence offers no evidence — it simply repeats the claim that was already presented. Don’t be fooled into believing that using the word “because” in an argument automatically provides a valid reason. Be sure to provide clear evidence to support your claims, not a version of the premise (the initial statement in an argument).

Another:

“Can a person quit smoking? Of course — as long as he has sufficient willpower and really wants to quit.”

This statement contains a more subconscious version of circular reasoning. The intended argument simply repeats itself, disguised as a logical statement. The warrant is simple: “A person can quit because he can.” True, any smoker can quit, but the task is not as obvious or as easy to accomplish as the statement suggests. The arguer must provide reasons to suggest how a person can overcome an addiction, not to simply identify the obvious use of will power. This example also falls into distortion and the only reason fallacies.


Clearly, my position is not circular. It does not begin and end with me. In the descriptions above, there is a clear statement to be sure to provide clear evidence to support your claims, not a version of the premise

When I said that unborns are human beings, I provided clear and credible evidence to support that statement in the form of medical text books on the subject of embryology and human development. And when I said that in the eyes of the law the term human being and person are interchangable, I provided reference to multiple legal dictionaries. My claim that unborns are persons is no more circular than if I said that a wheat seed and a wheat plant are one in the same except for their level of maturity and then provided clear and credible scientific evidence that supports that statement.

As I pointed out before. In order for my position to be circular, it must begin and end with me and my definitions. My argument is linear. I make a claim and then reference credible outside materials in order to support that claim. I am sorry that you don't grasp that, but your inability to understand that you are wrong doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.

But you can't, and you won't. The credibility of the person in this forum, whose opinion I have much respect for is considerably diminished.

At this point, you aren't exactly pegging the meter on my respect-o-meter either. Your constant sniping about circular arguents when you evidently don't fully grasp what constitutes a circular argument leaves something to be desired. When I made a statement, I provided credible evidence to support that statement. That in an of itself rules out the possiblilty of a circular argument.

What is my acceptance have to do with it?

Is that a serious question? It has everything to do with it. The fact that you apply an argument that denies the right to live to an entire group that you would not accept if the same argument were applied in denying your right to live is blatant evidence of your hypocricy. The pro choice side of the argument is mired in hypocricy as none of those who argue pro choice would accept their arguments if those arguments were applied to them.

The standard of personhood that allows the next of kin of a comatose individual to kill the person also allows the mother to terminate her unborn child.

I wondered how long it would be before you found it necessary to compare a growing, healthy human being to one who is so injured or sick that he or she has no reasonable chance of recovery. Now I know. You are talking about two entirely different things. Make that comatose indidual healthy and strong and growing and the right to end that life dissappears like a whisp of smoke. One other problem with your analogy is that in the case of the comatose individual, the next of kin is not allowed to kill him. They can let him die, but not attack him or her bodily and cause death.

 

[numinus]

Yeah, you said it, but saying a thing doesn't mean much. The fact is that if you were in a court of law and tried to get up and walk out because you "believe" that the court has no power over you, you would find yourself in shackles waiting to see if the judge were going to jail you for contempt.

If a prosecutor attempted to make the sorts of arguments that you are making if it were your life on the line, you would howl to the heavens and you know it.

What nonsense.

When the prosecutor succeeds to prove his argument, is that point when the court no longer has any power over me.

You like to say that, but the fact that you wouldn't stand for arguments of the sort you are making to be entered into evidence against you if it were your life on the line tells a different story.

So, whatever the result of your hypothetical argument, made by a hypothetical prosecutor in a hypothetical courtroom, I go free.

Round, and round, and round....

The fact is that when one's life is on the line, only the facts matter. Philosophical arguments are fine fun, but when lives are on the line, facts and not philosophical wrangling are the order of the day and the facts simply don't support the pro choice side of the discussion.

The idea that people are born with inalienable rights is a fact???

It is NOT a fact. It is a PHILOSOPHICAL ASSERTION.

As I said. Plenty of writing and talking has been done by the judges over the years so one doesn't need to presume or assume.

You mean the sort of talking and writing you are doing here?

Ho-hum. Is there proof yet?

But the available evidence even in 1972 puts the lie to that statement. They chose to decide the way they did in spite of the evidence, not in agreement with it. Read the dissenting opinion.

There is nothing in the dissenting opinion about personhood for the unborn within the meaning of the 14th ammendment. Its about the autonomy of the states to impose laws that would limit abortion.

It is the height of dishonesty to apply arguments that deny the most fundamental rights to others that you would not accept as fair if they were applied to you if your life were on the line.

This is beginning to sound like a broken record. Logic has nothing to do with what one would or wouldn't accept under this or that circumstance.

Which makes me wonder as to its intent. Appeal to emotion, perhaps?

That is the thing. Since my position is honest, I don't need to fool anyone. It is the pro choice side of the discussion that needs to continue to fool people for the appearance of credibility.

Honesty is something one cannot attach to a position that employs circular arguments - except honestly ignorarnt, perhaps.

You keep repeating exactly what I have said as if it proves your case. The justice said that "if" the suggestion of personhood is established, roe collapses. Well, that suggestion of personhood has been established. What is your point.

It has not been established within the meaning of the 14th ammendment. If it were, then it would be a simple matter to post it here. No such luck, I'm afraid.

No. I have provided ample credible evidence to prove that unborns are human beings, and have provided multiple legal dictionaries that state explicitly that human being and person are interchangable terms.

You have provided NOTHING - except legal dictionaries you presume has MORE AUTHORITY THAN THE SC.

I have "merely stated" nothing as opposed to you whose argument is based on nothing more substantial than the ether.

Glad to see you admit your fallacies for a change.

Are you really saying that you are unable to tell the difference between a human being and a chimp? Are you going to argue for personhood for animals while denying it to human beings?

Not at all. I am merely demonstrating that your taxonomical classification as the basis for personhood is, at best, DEFECTIVE. Dialectics, remember?

You said as much yourself, when you said your position was not based on genetics.

Funny. Still calling me dishonest when I am the only one who is providing credible material to support my position. And it is damned funny that you state that you wouldn't "take the statements of someone for granted" when by your own admission the sorts of arguments you are making would not be acceptable to you if it were your life on the line. But far be it from me to make arguments that I can't support.

More editorializing in lieu of debate.

Here is the text of Laci and Connor's law. It is the law by which you can be charged, tried, and sentenced for killing an unborn. Note that the crime one is charged of and sentenced for is to be the same as the charge and sentence for killing the mother.

Clip:

As used in this section, the term `unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or `child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.'.

(continued)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

"The legislation was both hailed and vilified by various legal observers who interpreted the measure as a step toward granting legal personhood to human fetuses, even though the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child."

It proves my argument all along - the personhood of the unborn is NOT ABSOLUTE, hence FUNDAMENTALLY DEFECTIVE.

 

[numinus]

(continuation)
The fact that one can be charged with either manslaugher or murder for killing an unborn is exactly that precedent. You can only be charged for manslaughter or murder in this country if you kill a person. Maybe establishing personhood for the unborn was not the intent, but it is the result.

You presume too much -- even when your source explicitly says otherwise.

In my opinion, this law only supports the notion that an unborn's personhood is dependent on the mother.

Get yourself a real argument. Stating that chimps are people too hardly helps your case.

And yet, nothing in your argument excludes chimps, hmmm? Which casts an impenetrable doubt as to the truth-value of your argument.

Are we talking about abortion or human experimentation. When the pro choice side loses the abortion debate, the conversation invariably steers to frankenstein.

When you present an erratic definition of personhood, it does nothing except to bolster the opposing position.

I already have. When you admitted that your arguments would not be acceptable to you if they were used against you if your life were on the line. You know damned well that you would only accept fact being entered into evidence against you and your argument is most certainly fact challenged.

You call that proof? Lots of people debate the position they do not agree with. That's the fundamental rule of formal debate.

I have. Laic and Connors law states explictly:

As used in this section, the term `unborn child' means a child in utero, and the term `child in utero' or `child, who is in utero' means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.'.

The fact that you can be charged and sentenced for killing an unborn who is a member of the species homo sapiens at any stage of development is exactly proof of that since you can't be either charged of manslaughter or murder unless you have killed a person.

Sigh.

Except the mother exercising a constitutional right. What does that suggest to you, hmmm?

Is it not precisely an arbitrary law? Worst, it is a law that contradicts itself. And what sort of truth-value can any reasonable individual obtain from a contradiction, hmmm?

I have. The fact that you don't accept that proof is irrelavent to me.

I have done that also, but you don't seem to get it. If I stated that unborns are human beings because all human beings are persons then I would be engaging in circular reasoning as the entire basis for the argument would be based on what I said.

Let me give you a few examples of circular arguments from sites that describe logical fallacies.

“You can’t give me a C. I’m an A student!”

Circular reasoning is evident here because the claim is made on grounds that cannot be accepted as true — because those very grounds are in dispute. How can a student claim to be an A student when he just earned a C?

The student has defined himself as an "A" student and has referenced his own definition in defense of his argument.

Another:

“Richardson is the most successful mayor the town has ever had because he's the best mayor of our history.”

The second part of this sentence offers no evidence — it simply repeats the claim that was already presented. Don’t be fooled into believing that using the word “because” in an argument automatically provides a valid reason. Be sure to provide clear evidence to support your claims, not a version of the premise (the initial statement in an argument).

Correct.

Another:

“Can a person quit smoking? Of course — as long as he has sufficient willpower and really wants to quit.”

This statement contains a more subconscious version of circular reasoning. The intended argument simply repeats itself, disguised as a logical statement. The warrant is simple: “A person can quit because he can.” True, any smoker can quit, but the task is not as obvious or as easy to accomplish as the statement suggests. The arguer must provide reasons to suggest how a person can overcome an addiction, not to simply identify the obvious use of will power. This example also falls into distortion and the only reason fallacies.

Clearly, my position is not circular. It does not begin and end with me. In the descriptions above, there is a clear statement to be sure to provide clear evidence to support your claims, not a version of the premise

What nonsense?

You offer a circular argument and claim it is not circular because you're not the author?

When I said that unborns are human beings, I provided clear and credible evidence to support that statement in the form of medical text books on the subject of embryology and human development. And when I said that in the eyes of the law the term human being and person are interchangable, I provided reference to multiple legal dictionaries. My claim that unborns are persons is no more circular than if I said that a wheat seed and a wheat plant are one in the same except for their level of maturity and then provided clear and credible scientific evidence that supports that statement.

As I pointed out before. In order for my position to be circular, it must begin and end with me and my definitions. My argument is linear. I make a claim and then reference credible outside materials in order to support that claim. I am sorry that you don't grasp that, but your inability to understand that you are wrong doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.[/QUOTE]

For the last time:

We are arguing the truth-value of personhood throughout the entire development of a human being - specifically, a pre-natal human being.

You present as proof, the interchangeability of the word person and (post natal) human.

So, you are, in fact, merely asserting truth-value to the proposition in question.

Additionally, you offer as proof that the offspring of two human beings is never anything but human - as if that is any credible proof that a pre-natal human is indeed a person.

If you still cannot understand how that is circular, then you are hopeless.

At this point, you aren't exactly pegging the meter on my respect-o-meter either. Your constant sniping about circular arguents when you evidently don't fully grasp what constitutes a circular argument leaves something to be desired. When I made a statement, I provided credible evidence to support that statement. That in an of itself rules out the possiblilty of a circular argument.

Again:

What is the STANDARD BY WHICH ANYTHING OR ANYONE IS CONSIDERED A PERSON WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE 14TH AMMENDMENT?

Is that a serious question? It has everything to do with it. The fact that you apply an argument that denies the right to live to an entire group that you would not accept if the same argument were applied in denying your right to live is blatant evidence of your hypocricy. The pro choice side of the argument is mired in hypocricy as none of those who argue pro choice would accept their arguments if those arguments were applied to them.

No.

The personhood for a POST NATAL human being is already established. Since I am a post-natal human being, then I am a person.

We are establishing the personhood for a PRE-NATAL human being - the SAME exercise the sc undertook in deciding roe v. wade.

I wondered how long it would be before you found it necessary to compare a growing, healthy human being to one who is so injured or sick that he or she has no reasonable chance of recovery. Now I know. You are talking about two entirely different things. Make that comatose indidual healthy and strong and growing and the right to end that life dissappears like a whisp of smoke.

Have you not, in fact, argued for the right of the next of kin to terminate a comatose's life?

If so, then do you, in fact, base your standard of personhood to the circumstances a human being finds himself in?

The only whisp of smoke around here are your nebulous answers.

One other problem with your analogy is that in the case of the comatose individual, the next of kin is not allowed to kill him. They can let him die, but not attack him or her bodily and cause death.

No.

The next of kin is allowed to determine the kind of medical treatment to be applied to the individual.

In what medical fantasy world do you suppose a procedure that results in the inevitable death of an individual considered a medical treatment, eh?

Right here, you are already applying two standards of personhood for different individuals of the SAME species.

Talk about dishonest!

 

[palerider]

I have grown quite tired of this discussion with you. At this point, you have failed to provide a legal dictionary that states that human being and person are not interchangeable terms. Like it or not, words mean what they mean and when judges make decisions based on faulty definitions, they have made faulty decisions.

Roe is, without a doubt, one of the sloppiest decisions since Dred Scott and if you have a shred of honesty within you, then you will have to admit that and the debate that rages around roe isn't about the personhood of the unborn, the debate that rages around roe is that, based on the facts, it was an unconstitutional decision.

When the prosecutor succeeds to prove his argument, is that point when the court no longer has any power over me.

So you would stay your lawyers hand and let the prosecutor introduce philosophical musings into evidence against you? You would let him attempt to sway the jury by introducing philosophical "evidence" to them that suggests strongly that they have no right to interfere with the state's business with you? You would not insist on just the facts if it were your life on the line?

First you would, then you wouldn't then you would? Which is it?

So, whatever the result of your hypothetical argument, made by a hypothetical prosecutor in a hypothetical courtroom, I go free.

Round, and round, and round....

Unless the arguments convince the jury in which case you don't and you have been denied your very right to live not as a result of the perponderance of the evidence, but based on philosophical slight of hand as was the case in Roe.

Judges and juries are human beings and they can make mistakes. Even supreme court judges. In fact, the high court has reversed itself some 200 times in its history so the idea that something is right and constitutional just because they say it is flawed from the start.

The idea that people are born with inalienable rights is a fact???

Not born with inalienable rights, created with inalienable rights. This nation was founded on the idea that we come into being with inalienable rights. Perhaps that is a philosophical idea, but it is the idea upon which the rules of this nation were built and you are never going to be able to get around that. The rules are the rules and unfortunately, even judges have to play within the rules. In the case of roe, they didn't, hence, the unconstitutional roe decision.

Honesty is something one cannot attach to a position that employs circular arguments - except honestly ignorarnt, perhaps.

Exactly my thoughts on you and your performance. No evidence that rebutts a thing I have said. Just you talking, and talking, and talking, and talking. Prove that unborns are not human beings or prove that according to legal dictionaries (the final arbitrar when two sides have a dispute over a legal definition) human being and person are not interchangable terms. Stop talking and talking and talking and prove something.

It has not been established within the meaning of the 14th ammendment. If it were, then it would be a simple matter to post it here. No such luck, I'm afraid.[/qote]

The 14th amendment 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.

The 14th amendment doesn't make any allusion to what a person is, or what constitutes a person. The 14th amendment merely states that no person shall be deprived of his or her rights without due process. If you wonder what a person is, look up the word in a legal dictionary. Or refer to the growing body of legal precedent in which people have been convicted of manslaugher and murder for killing unborns when it is only possible to be charged for manslaugher and murder if you have killed a person.

You have provided NOTHING - except legal dictionaries you presume has MORE AUTHORITY THAN THE SC.

Funny you should mention that. Do you believe that the SC has the power to arbitrarily redefine words in order to make a case fit the decision they have already made before they hear the first word of testimony?

It proves my argument all along - the personhood of the unborn is NOT ABSOLUTE, hence FUNDAMENTALLY DEFECTIVE.

I will get back to this.

In my opinion, this law only supports the notion that an unborn's personhood is dependent on the mother.

OK. I am back to it. You argue that the personhood of the unborn is not absolute and therefore it is fundamentally defective. I submit that the fact that the court has granted that unborns are persons but that personhood is dependent upon whether someone else says that they are a person is the defect. That alludes to a master / slave senario in which mom owns the child and because of that, it is what she says it is. Since slavery went out of vogue in this country quite some time ago, any situation that even hints that the woman owns the child is certainly unconstitutional. Just one more contradiction as a result of the very sloppy nature of the roe decision.

The further we get away from that case the more obvious it becomes that the justices had already decided the case before they heard the first evidence introduced and as a result, found that they did indeed have to unilatarally redfine words in order to make the decision they had already made fit the words that they heard.

And yet, nothing in your argument excludes chimps, hmmm? Which casts an impenetrable doubt as to the truth-value of your argument.

So now you are saying that chimps are people too? Make up your mind.

Every bit of evidence I have presented to support my argument excludes chimps. Show me some credible evidence that states that the offspring of two human beings is at some point a chimp. Show me a legal dictionary that states that human being and chimp are interchangable terms. Show me in the founding documents of this nation that all chimps come into being with certain rights.

When you present an erratic definition of personhood, it does nothing except to bolster the opposing position.

If I had done that, then you might have an argument. I, however, didn't. I got my definition from a legal dictionary and then went to the trouble of looking at every legal dictionary that I could find just to be sure that I didn't get a defective one. Guess what, they all say the same thing. Not eratic.

Except the mother exercising a constitutional right. What does that suggest to you, hmmm?

I have looked in my constitution for a woman's "constitutional right" to kill her child. No such right is defined in mine. Perhaps you can tell me where I might find that right. This is your final chance to make a case for yourself. Either you can show me the paragraph and line in the constitution that gives a woman the right to kill her child or you can't. If you can't, why bother to continue?

What is the STANDARD BY WHICH ANYTHING OR ANYONE IS CONSIDERED A PERSON WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE 14TH AMMENDMENT?

Again. The 14th amendment doesn't allude to what is and isn't a person. The 14th amendment only states that all persons have the right to due process before they are denied life, liberty, or property. If you want to know what is a person, and who has rights, and at what point you get those rights, refer to my argument. I have already stated as much and to date, you have not said a single word that effectively rebutts any of it.

The personhood for a POST NATAL human being is already established. Since I am a post-natal human being, then I am a person.

Based on what? Your geographical location. Inside vs outside. Show me that in the constitution. Denying personhood to someone who is exactly as human as you based on geographical location is just one more bit of evidence that Roe was sloppy and unconstitutional.

The rest of your argument dealing with end of life issues is just so much tripe with regard to beginning of life issues and has no place within this discussion.

At this point, either rebutt my position or we are done. To reiterate. Unborns are human beings. In the eyes of the law, as defined by legal dictionaries that the legal system depends upon to settle such disputes, human being and person are interchangable terms. Legal precedent has been established for the personhood of the unborn. Prove any of these wrong and we can contine, otherwise we are right back at the beginning.

By the way, at the beginnning, I had a position and we were waiting to see if you could effectively rebutt it. At this point, it is clear that you can't.

 

[bewitched]

unless you have a uterus your opinions aren't really worth that much numunus.

 

[9sublime]

Bewitched:

If you had actually been following the argument you would have realised numinus is arguing for abortion and palerider against.

Not to mention that your argument is the worst one of the lot.

 

[numinus]

I have grown quite tired of this discussion with you. At this point, you have failed to provide a legal dictionary that states that human being and person are not interchangeable terms. Like it or not, words mean what they mean and when judges make decisions based on faulty definitions, they have made faulty decisions.

Not as tired as I am with you and your penchant to go in circles.

Roe is, without a doubt, one of the sloppiest decisions since Dred Scott and if you have a shred of honesty within you, then you will have to admit that and the debate that rages around roe isn't about the personhood of the unborn, the debate that rages around roe is that, based on the facts, it was an unconstitutional decision.

Now you're singing a different tune.

"If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [p157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. [n51] On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument [n52] that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Were you not the one who brought this up? Is that not the standard by which a fetus' right to life is guaranteed? Is that not a debate of personhood?

So you would stay your lawyers hand and let the prosecutor introduce philosophical musings into evidence against you? You would let him attempt to sway the jury by introducing philosophical "evidence" to them that suggests strongly that they have no right to interfere with the state's business with you? You would not insist on just the facts if it were your life on the line?

First you would, then you wouldn't then you would? Which is it?

I would do nothing, except perhaps leave the courtroom -- as I explicitly said.

Unless the arguments convince the jury in which case you don't and you have been denied your very right to live not as a result of the perponderance of the evidence, but based on philosophical slight of hand as was the case in Roe.

LOL. How is my life forfeit by attempting to question (and succeeding) the foundation of jurisprudence, eh?

If jurisprudence isn't valid, the court has no power over me. If jurisprudence is valid, I am innocent within its rules. Its win-win for me and I don't even have to do anything.

So much for your hypothetical nonsense.

Judges and juries are human beings and they can make mistakes. Even supreme court judges. In fact, the high court has reversed itself some 200 times in its history so the idea that something is right and constitutional just because they say it is flawed from the start.

Are you questioning the supreme court's function of interpreting the law? Unless the sc reverses itself, then its interpretation stands -- however much you might disagree with it.

Not born with inalienable rights, created with inalienable rights. This nation was founded on the idea that we come into being with inalienable rights. Perhaps that is a philosophical idea, but it is the idea upon which the rules of this nation were built and you are never going to be able to get around that. The rules are the rules and unfortunately, even judges have to play within the rules. In the case of roe, they didn't, hence, the unconstitutional roe decision.

Do you admit that you were mistaken by calling that particular idea as fact? It is pointless to continue if you keep on with your bare-faced lies.

Exactly my thoughts on you and your performance. No evidence that rebutts a thing I have said. Just you talking, and talking, and talking, and talking. Prove that unborns are not human beings or prove that according to legal dictionaries (the final arbitrar when two sides have a dispute over a legal definition) human being and person are not interchangable terms. Stop talking and talking and talking and prove something.

LOL.

I need prove no such thing. I merely need to prove that your standard of personhood, as stated above, is DEFECTIVE.

When your standard of personhood applies to the unborn, but does not apply to a comatose individual, then there is something wrong with your standard and no amount of editorializing would hide this fact.

The 14th amendment doesn't make any allusion to what a person is, or what constitutes a person. The 14th amendment merely states that no person shall be deprived of his or her rights without due process. If you wonder what a person is, look up the word in a legal dictionary. Or refer to the growing body of legal precedent in which people have been convicted of manslaugher and murder for killing unborns when it is only possible to be charged for manslaugher and murder if you have killed a person.

LOL.

The 14th ammendment is the reconstruction ammendment meant to extend personhood to former slaves. According to the majority opinion penned by blacknum, you need to find a legal precedent based on the meaning of the 14th ammendment that would apply to the unborn.

You really are lost if you need me to chart your debate strategy for you.

Funny you should mention that. Do you believe that the SC has the power to arbitrarily redefine words in order to make a case fit the decision they have already made before they hear the first word of testimony?

Funny that you should ask this. Didn't anyone tell you in highschool civics that that is EXACTLY the function of the judicial branch of government -- to interpret the meaning of the law.

 

[numinus]

I will get back to this.

OK. I am back to it. You argue that the personhood of the unborn is not absolute and therefore it is fundamentally defective. I submit that the fact that the court has granted that unborns are persons but that personhood is dependent upon whether someone else says that they are a person is the defect. That alludes to a master / slave senario in which mom owns the child and because of that, it is what she says it is. Since slavery went out of vogue in this country quite some time ago, any situation that even hints that the woman owns the child is certainly unconstitutional. Just one more contradiction as a result of the very sloppy nature of the roe decision.

Thank you for admitting exactly what I said.

So, the 'ever growing' legal precedent that would support your argument is, in fact, based on a law that contradicts itself?

You may take your time to fashion another intellectually dishonest response, since another dishonesty wouldn't matter in view of the slew of dishonesty you have already presented

The further we get away from that case the more obvious it becomes that the justices had already decided the case before they heard the first evidence introduced and as a result, found that they did indeed have to unilatarally redfine words in order to make the decision they had already made fit the words that they heard.

No. It was incompetent argument -- as texas admitted.

So now you are saying that chimps are people too? Make up your mind.

Is there any particular reason they shouldn't be granted a right to life?

Your taxonomical standard for personhood suggests as much.

Every bit of evidence I have presented to support my argument excludes chimps. Show me some credible evidence that states that the offspring of two human beings is at some point a chimp. Show me a legal dictionary that states that human being and chimp are interchangable terms. Show me in the founding documents of this nation that all chimps come into being with certain rights.

What nonsense!

What is the purpose of precedents when points of law are infallibly settled by a legal dictionary, eh?

Any academic used to first-order logic as standard of proof would be amused with your continuous reference to the legal dictionary. As if there is nothing more to jurisprudence beyond freshman law school.

Legal dictionary, indeed!

If I had done that, then you might have an argument. I, however, didn't. I got my definition from a legal dictionary and then went to the trouble of looking at every legal dictionary that I could find just to be sure that I didn't get a defective one. Guess what, they all say the same thing. Not eratic.

So, the idea to extrapolate this definition up to the time of conception was your own nonsense.

I have looked in my constitution for a woman's "constitutional right" to kill her child. No such right is defined in mine. Perhaps you can tell me where I might find that right. This is your final chance to make a case for yourself. Either you can show me the paragraph and line in the constitution that gives a woman the right to kill her child or you can't. If you can't, why bother to continue?

Privacy is implied in ammendment IV, pending personhood for the unborn -- which, you haven't proven, by the way.

Again. The 14th amendment doesn't allude to what is and isn't a person. The 14th amendment only states that all persons have the right to due process before they are denied life, liberty, or property. If you want to know what is a person, and who has rights, and at what point you get those rights, refer to my argument. I have already stated as much and to date, you have not said a single word that effectively rebutts any of it.

Well, the sc didn't say 'personhood within palerider's meaning' now, did they? This line of argument didn't even come from me. It came from you, after much misrepresentation and dishonesty.

Based on what? Your geographical location. Inside vs outside. Show me that in the constitution. Denying personhood to someone who is exactly as human as you based on geographical location is just one more bit of evidence that Roe was sloppy and unconstitutional.

Geographical location?????

Where the hell did that come from?????

The rest of your argument dealing with end of life issues is just so much tripe with regard to beginning of life issues and has no place within this discussion.

Tripe? You are caught in an obvious contradiction and that is the only thing you have to say for yourself?

At least you are consistently dishonest.

At this point, either rebutt my position or we are done. To reiterate. Unborns are human beings. In the eyes of the law,

Apparently not -- from roe.

as defined by legal dictionaries that the legal system depends upon to settle such disputes,

Of course not. The legal system depends on precedents, not on a freshman law school dictionary.

human being and person are interchangable terms.

Correction. Post-natal human being is a person. Extending personhood to the point of conception is the proposition requiring proof.

Legal precedent has been established for the personhood of the unborn.

Legal precedent that, from your own admission, contradicts itself. More circles?

Prove any of these wrong and we can contine, otherwise we are right back at the beginning.

I have proven them ALL wrong.

By the way, at the beginnning, I had a position and we were waiting to see if you could effectively rebutt it. At this point, it is clear that you can't.

You wish.

 

[numinus]

unless you have a uterus your opinions aren't really worth that much numunus.

And I suppose you have been using your uterus to fashion your arguments all along.

 

[palerider]

unless you have a uterus your opinions aren't really worth that much numunus.

Having a uterus doesn't give you the right to kill another human being, without legal consequence for no better reason than convenience. Even to suggest that this debate should be restricted to women is one of the most sexist statements I have seen on this board.

Incidentally, roughly half of the children killed by their mothers for reasons that amount to no more than convenience are male.

 

[Coyote]

Pregnancy, abortion, childbirth could only be called a "convenience" or an "inconvenience" by someone who's never experienced it.

 

[palerider]

Not as tired as I am with you and your penchant to go in circles.

We keep coming full circle because you keep failing to effectively dismantle any part of my argument. There is no need to change it so long as you are unable to effectively rebutt it.

The 14th ammendment is the reconstruction ammendment meant to extend personhood to former slaves. According to the majority opinion penned by blacknum, you need to find a legal precedent based on the meaning of the 14th ammendment that would apply to the unborn.

Here is the applicable text of the 14th amendment. Show me where it extends personhood to anyone.

Section. 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.

Funny that you should ask this. Didn't anyone tell you in highschool civics that that is EXACTLY the function of the judicial branch of government -- to interpret the meaning of the law.

You don't grasp a difference between interpreting the law and unilatarially redfining words?

So, the idea to extrapolate this definition up to the time of conception was your own nonsense.

Is there a time, from conception on, when the unborn is not a human being?

Privacy is implied in ammendment IV, pending personhood for the unborn -- which, you haven't proven, by the way.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Which part of this gives a woman the right to kill her child without legal consequence for any or no reason?

Hell, for that matter, show me the word "privacy" anywhere within the constitution. It is a right made up of whole cloth by the court.

 

[bewitched]

Having a uterus doesn't give you the right to kill another human being, without legal consequence for no better reason than convenience. Even to suggest that this debate should be restricted to women is one of the most sexist statements I have seen on this board.

Incidentally, roughly half of the children killed by their mothers for reasons that amount to no more than convenience are male.

ummm, yes, abortion is legal so I can do what I want with my uterus. thanks.