Abortion

[GenSeneca]

so since it is NOT attached, and since the science is "unsettled", it's still not an "abortion" if it is lost while providing essential medical care for the rape victim.

To you and your "thousands of biologists" its not an abortion but to Pale and his "thousands of biologists" it is.

 

[palerider]

Answer this one question: Is Welfare Constitutional? (the government forcing individuals who can provide for themselves to also provide for those who cannot provide for themselves)

No, I don't believe welfare is constitutional. In this issue, however, you must be very carefull in picking your analogies. Welfare isn't a valid analogy to pregancy as welfare involves an attack by an outside source and confiscation of actual property to be distributed, via a bureaucracy, to someone else. That does not describe pregnancy. If you are going to analogize, the anlogy must be apt and believe me, an apt anlogy to pregnancy is a tough nut to crack. The closest I have come in which actual legal precedent exists is that of dependent conjoined twins. The court views that situation as a clash of rights between individuals in which no real property is in contest. The right of the one must give way to the more fundamental right of the other unless the one represents an imminent threat to the other.

 

[palerider]

The problem as I see it is that once you establish that the unborn has rights equal to the mother, then someones rights are going to be violated if the mother does not want the child.

Rights get violated all the time. It is the nature of any just system that when there is a clash of rights that exists between individuals, the right of the one must give way to the more fundamental right of the other.

Under those circumstances: Those who support welfare cannot argue against banning abortion without being hypocrites. Those who are against welfare cannot argue for bans on abortion because such a position makes them hypocrites. Its a real catch 22 for both sides because they typically support one and do not support the other.

As I ponited out, pregnancy is not analogous to welfare. Welfare involves an assault by an outside source and the confiscation of real property that is to be distributed via a bureaucracy to another individual or group. That is not analogous to pregnancy. If you are going to analogize, you must find a situation that is, in fact, analogous in fact and not merely superfically analogous.

As I said, the only accurate analogy I have found that has actual legal precedent attached is a completely dependent conjoined twin. There exists between them a clash of rights where no real property is in contest. The right of the dependent twin to live outweighs a claimed right of the other to not share bodily resources as bodily resources are not real property. The supporting twin only has the right to demand separation if the dependent twin represents an imminent threat to his or her life.

 

[palerider]

Sorry Gen, but he hasn't bested me, he's simply continually refused to address the point I raised as asked, and instead inserting all manner of unrelated information in order to try the age old "data overload" manner of winning debates, and apparently his subterfuge worked on you.

The point you clung to was not a point at all. No one was arguing that the child couldn't grow if it was denied access to the uterus. The point was that it is a child whether it is given access to the uterus or not.



I asked you a question that you have not answered.

Do you support embryonic stem cell research? Are you fine with creating embryos for the express purpose of killing them?

 

[Dr.Who]

It says we have a right to live, not that we have a right to force others to provide us with that which is necessary to live.

So lets draw the logical conclusion from that assuming it is true.

We can't inject poison into a fetus, we can't rip it's limbs off, We can't stab it in the back of the head.

The mother is then free to will her body to stop supporting the growing fetus all she wants to. She will be at odds with her body since it will actively be supporting the unborn living human with all of its resources even if she tries to starve it to death. Even her brain will get in on the revolt against her will as it will actively tell her body to produce certain hormones to support pregnancy.

No one will have forced her to support the child yet her body will do just that no matter how hard she tries not to.

But is that true? If a mother neglects her born child and allows it to starve to death is she not guilty of neglect? Why should she be allowed to neglect the unborn living human but not the born one? The difference is often only a matter of minutes and only a matter of the experience of passing through the birth canal.

And of course mothers are tried if they use cocaine while pregnant.

 

[GenSeneca]

We can't inject poison into a fetus, we can't rip it's limbs off, We can't stab it in the back of the head.

I'm not disputing that if we operate from the premise that the unborn have rights equal to those born that there will be a conflict of rights, I acknowledge this fact.

If that is the premise, then forcing the mother to remain pregnant is a violation of her rights but if she is allowed to abort, then its a violation of the child's rights. Recognizing both parties as having equal rights creates both legal and ethical questions that cannot easily be resolved.

She will be at odds with her body since it will actively be supporting the unborn living human with all of its resources even if she tries to starve it to death. Even her brain will get in on the revolt against her will as it will actively tell her body to produce certain hormones to support pregnancy.

Her body acts automatically and is not subject to the whims of her free will.

No one will have forced her to support the child yet her body will do just that no matter how hard she tries not to.

I don't disagree that our bodies operate independently of our free will but to use that as an excuse to claim her will is irrelevent would be a negation of her rights.

But is that true? If a mother neglects her born child and allows it to starve to death is she not guilty of neglect?

Absolutely she would. Once a child is born, it has rights that are to be protected.

Why should she be allowed to neglect the unborn living human but not the born one?

Well according to a legal argument made by Jefferson, the child has no rights until it is born:

"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770.

Pale had eluded to something earlier, that we do not have a right to our own person, we do not "own" ourselves or our body to use at our own will but Jefferson explains this as personal liberty and insists that is it our right by nature.

 

[GenSeneca]

As I ponited out, pregnancy is not analogous to welfare.

I'm sorry Pale, were you actually trying to make the case that my analogy of banning abortion and welfare was an inaccurate one?

Rights get violated all the time. It is the nature of any just system that when there is a clash of rights that exists between individuals, the right of the one must give way to the more fundamental right of the other.

That's an argument in support of welfare if ever I've heard one! According to what you just said, our right to personal liberty, and even our right to property, takes a back seat to another persons "more fundamental right" to life.

Welfare involves an assault by an outside source and the confiscation of real property that is to be distributed via a bureaucracy to another individual or group.

You are arguing about the operational practice, not the principle underlying the practice. I will not deny that in its application, there are stark differences and in that it's not analogous but the principle is precisely the same as you, yourself, have elucidated.

However, I don't doubt for a moment that if a politician could worm his way into the womb and play the role of bureaucratic middle man, intercepting nutrition from the mother and distributing it to the child, that he would do so and the practice too would become analogous. Since he cannot play the middleman, he can only force the mother to contribute directly to the child against her will, in violation of her rights, for the "more fundamental rights" of the unborn child.

If you are going to analogize, you must find a situation that is, in fact, analogous in fact and not merely superfically analogous.

As I have stated, the underlying principle of welfare is clearly analogous, its only the matter in which welfare is actualized that is superficial to the comparison.

As I said, the only accurate analogy I have found that has actual legal precedent attached is a completely dependent conjoined twin.

Which involves two individuals free of the womb and therefore both with full and equal rights. To recognize rights to those still in the womb begs the question for no such rights exist and there are no legal precedents that establish a child's rights inside the womb, absent of the volitional consent of the mother. If any such precedent existed, abortion would already be illegal.

"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770.

Jefferson argued here that our rights were established at birth.

All persons born in the British American Colonies are, by the laws of God and nature and by the common law of England, exclusive of all charters from the Crown, well entitled, and by acts of the British Parliament are declared to be entitled, to all the natural, essential, inherent, and inseparable rights, liberties, and privileges of subjects born in Great Britain or within the realm. Among those rights are the following, which no man, or body of men, consistently with their own rights as men and citizens, or members of society, can for themselves give up or take away from others. -- Samuel Adams, Rights of Colonists

Adams too recognized that our rights were conferred at birth as a law of nature.

Every generation is equal in rights to generations which preceded it, by the same rule that every individual is born equal in rights with his contemporary. -- Thomas Paine, Rights of Man

I can continue to cite founder after founder that all agreed our rights were that of nature and only recognized upon our birth and no sooner. I do not deny that contained in our declaration of independence exists a clause that states "all men are created equal" but to take that statement alone and ignore the writings of these men that explain the principles upon which they came to recognize our rights, and where they begin, is a self serving act of negation.

 

[palerider]

I'm sorry Pale, were you actually trying to make the case that my analogy of banning abortion and welfare was an inaccurate one?

Merely pointing out that welfare is not analogous to abortion.

That's an argument in support of welfare if ever I've heard one! According to what you just said, our right to personal liberty, and even our right to property, takes a back seat to another persons "more fundamental right" to life.

Pregnancy does not have anything to do with liberty nor does it have anything to do with property and I have never suggested anything of the sort. You are relying on your analogy of pregnancy to welfare to make that leap and as I have pointed out, they are not analogous.

You are arguing about the operational practice, not the principle underlying the practice. I will not deny that in its application, there are stark differences and in that it's not analogous but the principle is precisely the same as you, yourself, have elucidated.

The underlying, overlying, and aroundaboutlying principle and practice of welfare involves government confiscating real property from one individual and giving it to antoher. Abortion simply is not analogous because no real property is in contest. Any argument that relies on welfare and pregnancy being the same is flawed at its very foundations.

As I have stated, the underlying principle of welfare is clearly analogous, its only the matter in which welfare is actualized that is superficial to the comparison.

I dont believe so. Welfare is the taking of actual property. No actual property is in contention. Welfare can be shown to be unconstititonal because it involves real property and no such argument can be successfully made in regards to pregnancy.

Which involves two individuals free of the womb and therefore both with full and equal rights. To recognize rights to those still in the womb begs the question for no such rights exist and there are no legal precedents that establish a child's rights inside the womb, absent of the volitional consent of the mother. If any such precedent existed, abortion would already be illegal./quote]

At this point you are assuming that rights are aquired on that 7 inch magical journey down the birth canal. Till you prove it, there is no place in the argument for it. Assumptions don't constitute rational arguments.

Jefferson argued here that our rights were established at birth.

Jefferson put his signature to a document that said that we come into being with certain rights. That is, we are endowed by our creator.

Adams too recognized that our rights were conferred at birth as a law of nature.

Adams also put his signature to a document that said different.

I can continue to cite founder after founder that all agreed our rights were that of nature and only recognized upon our birth and no sooner. I do not deny that contained in our declaration of independence exists a clause that states "all men are created equal" but to take that statement alone and ignore the writings of these men that explain the principles upon which they came to recognize our rights, and where they begin, is a self serving act of negation.

I know the list well because they all put their signatures to a document that founded a nation based on the principle that we come into being with certain unalienable rights, not that we are born with certain inalienable rights. When those men put thier signature to that document, their personal feelings became nothing more than personal feelings and the words of the document were made into the legal reality.

I asked before and you didn't answer. If it were your life on the line in a court of law, would you allow the prosecution to admt the sort of argument you are making into evidence against you, or would you insist that if your life is to be forfiet, you must be convicted on the facts.

Personally, I make no arguments that I would not accept against me if I were in a court of law. This is an actual legal issue and actual lives are being lost because judges decided a case based on theoretical thinking and violated their ethical and judicial responsibilities.

 

[GenSeneca]

Merely pointing out that welfare is not analogous to abortion.

Strawman. That was not my comparison.

You are relying on your analogy of pregnancy to welfare to make that leap and as I have pointed out, they are not analogous.

Strawman. This too was not my comparison. There is a distinct difference between a voluntary pregnancy and a forced pregnancy.

Any argument that relies on welfare and pregnancy being the same is flawed at its very foundations.

Strawman. Again, same. A voluntary Pregnancy is to Charity what a forced pregnancy is to welfare.

My analogy was very clear; forcing a woman to carry a child against her will (banning abortion) is analogous to welfare in that both look at the disadvantaged individuals "Right to Life" as an entitlement to be fulfilled by violating the rights of the advantaged.

...when there is a clash of rights that exists between individuals, the right of the one must give way to the more fundamental right of the other.

You are recognizing our right to life as an entitlement, that our "right to life" is a guarentee that we will be provided with what we need to live (not just a right to not be killed), that other people are obligated to provide us with what we need to live and their failure to provide us with what we need to live constitutes a violation of our "right" to life. This is the essence of the entitlement mentality that has given us the welfare state we have today.

Pregnancy does not have anything to do with liberty nor does it have anything to do with property and I have never suggested anything of the sort.

Are you suggesting that our free will has nothing to do with our liberty, that own bodies are not our own property, that the food we buy is not our own property, the liquids we purchase are not our own property, the life sustaining nutrients derived from that food and drink as well as the blood that courses through our veins is not our own property? Please make this case on something more substantial than your assertion.

The underlying, overlying, and aroundaboutlying principle and practice of welfare involves government confiscating real property from one individual and giving it to antoher.

Now you're just being intellectually dishonest... I will repost what you have said:

...when there is a clash of rights that exists between individuals, the right of the one must give way to the more fundamental right of the other.

This is precisely the argument made in support of welfare, it is the WHY. The methodology for the collection and distribution of welfare, is the HOW. To claim the principle and the practice (why and how) are the same thing is very disingenuous.

Both you and the Welfare crowd recognize our "Right to life" as more than simply a right to not be killed; you see it as a "right" that obligates others to provide whatever is necessary for another to live. The methodology by which that is accomplished is irrelevent and therefore not part of my comparison.

Welfare is the taking of actual property. No actual property is in contention.

See above where I ask about who owns our bodies, who owns the food we purchase and consume and the resulting nutrients derived from the food that we purchase and consume.

At this point you are assuming that rights are aquired on that 7 inch magical* journey down the birth canal.

I have several legal references from the founders in support of my statements that rights begin at birth, while you are assuming rights are aquired at conception based on a single clause contained in a statement of formal explanation with no legally binding authority.

*Pale's use of the word "magical" is what's known as Judgmental Language which is employed as a type of Appeal to Ridicule.

Till you prove it, there is no place in the argument for it.

You are operating on multiple assumptions. If we are to throw out your assumptions, you will have nothing left to argue with me about.

Assumptions don't constitute rational arguments.

Yet you are relying on more than one assumption: Our rights should be recognized from conception on and that the Declaration of Independence has some legal authority to support that position.

When those men put thier signature to that document, their personal feelings became nothing more than personal feelings and the words of the document were made into the legal reality.

The above statement is an assumption that is not supported by the legal reality:

The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of the United States. It is the foundation and source of the legal authority underlying the existence of the United States of America and the Federal Government of the United States.​

The United States Declaration of Independence is a statement adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, which announced that the thirteen American colonies then at war with Great Britain were now independent states, and thus no longer a part of the British Empire. Written primarily by Thomas Jefferson, the Declaration is a formal explanation of why Congress had voted on July 2 to declare independence from Great Britain, more than a year after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War.​

If the Declaration were a legal document, as is our Constitution, we would not be having this discussion. Abortion would already be illegal, our rights would be recognized at conception and this would be codified law based on the Supreme Court's recognition of the statements made in the Declaration.

I asked before and you didn't answer. If it were your life on the line in a court of law, would you allow the prosecution to admt the sort of argument you are making into evidence against you, or would you insist that if your life is to be forfiet, you must be convicted on the facts.

You may as well be asking when I stopped beating my wife. Such verbal parlor tricks may work on others but the fallacious nature of the question is blatantly obvious to me.

 

[Bob the Builder]

To you and your "thousands of biologists" its not an abortion but to Pale and his "thousands of biologists" it is.

How can it be an "abortion" if the sperm haven't even reached the egg yet?

Pale and his ilk foment the illogical, and totally immoral stance that by providing the necessary medical care for the victim, that it is an "abortion", when there is no EVIDENCE that the victim has even been impregnated....YET. Given the time frame involved, the odds of the sperm having reaced the egg are minimal at best, yet people like pale would far rather condemn the victim to carrying the child of their attacker by withholding the essential medical treatment to PREVENT her from becoming pregnant in the first place!!

Furthermore, until the science IS "settled", they continually obfuscate in the same manner that the AGW crowd obfuscate about their "evidence" (don't forget, they call the science "settled" too) and call anyone who disagrees with them "deniers" when there's nothing to deny since there are no FACTS to support their position! No, pale is intellectually disingenuous as the rest of the "true believers" in the world, they have made up their minds, and no amount of evidence to the contrary is going to change it.

 

[GenSeneca]

How can it be an "abortion" if the sperm haven't even reached the egg yet?

That was not the scenario which I was responding to:

so since it is NOT attached, and since the science is "unsettled", it's still not an "abortion" if it is lost while providing essential medical care for the rape victim.

Given that neither sperm or eggs attach themselves to the uterine wall prior to conception, I could only infer from your comments that you were referring to a fertilized egg (zygote).

Once fertilized, Pale believes its an abortion to kill the zygote by method of creating a "hostile environment" through the use of what you've referred to as "essential medical care" for the victim. You have argued that the zygote must attach itself to the uterine wall before this "hostile environment" can be considered an abortion.

 

[Bob the Builder]

That was not the scenario which I was responding to:


Given that neither sperm or eggs attach themselves to the uterine wall prior to conception, I could only infer from your comments that you were referring to a fertilized egg (zygote).

Once fertilized, Pale believes its an abortion to kill the zygote by method of creating a "hostile environment" through the use of what you've referred to as "essential medical care" for the victim. You have argued that the zygote must attach itself to the uterine wall before this "hostile environment" can be considered an abortion.

I understand pale's arguement, yet he based it totally on ignoring the facts of my position as clearly and repeatedly stated, that being that "a rape victim who is immediately taken to the hospital for treatment".

Given the time for fertilization to take place (anywhere between 30 minutes and 72 hours) the possibility of a woman actually being impregnated in the time necessary to get her to the hospital is remote in the extreme. Instead of dealing directly with the conditions of my statement, as made, he chose instead to ignore it, and instead insisted on going off on some wild tangent about a "child being killed for the sins of the father", which is completely illogical and intellectualy disingenuous. It is also morally repugnant to even contemplate compelling a woman to become impregnated by failing to provide the appropriate medical attention on the extremely unlikely condition that the egg may have in fact become fertilized in such a short period of time, especially given that were it to have been fertilized, it still would not have become attached to the uterine wall.

To reiterate my earlier statement, it is pale who is wrong.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Fine, you are free to associate any and all action as being based on emotion but I think you're 100% wrong and I'm not going to wander off topic with this tripe any longer.

Anyone who dismisses emotions when dealing with humans is a fool. Name one war, one uprising, one psychopath, or one murderer who wasn't fueled by emotion. Wars are always about emotion, there is nothing rational about war. And abortion is the same, all the science, logic, and law in the world will not address the emotions that drive people to kill their own children.

Until we find a way to cope with the emotions around abortion we'll never stop them. Education is a good first step, but it's only a first step. As our overflowing prisons prove: law does not deter crime, recidivism is pandemic, nothing short of capital punishment in our system reduces the number of re-offenders. Do you think that Caucesceu's mandatory death sentence stopped abortions? No, it didn't, but it did orphan thousands of children. That's what happens when you use the Pale Punisher's approach: the babies die and then the mothers do, two wrongs making an even greater wrong.

I think you are way too smart a person to ignore the power of human emotion in this discussion, Gen.

 

[palerider]

Strawman. That was not my comparison.

Sorry, I meant to say that pregnancy and welfare are not analogous. Till you come up with an apt analogy, your argument is doomed to failure.

Strawman. This too was not my comparison. There is a distinct difference between a voluntary pregnancy and a forced pregnancy.

Sorry but there is no difference at all between the pregnancies. No doctor on earth could tell one from another. Forced pregnancy suggests governmental impregnantaion centers. I haven't seen any around my locality, do they exist where you live?

Strawman. Again, same. A voluntary Pregnancy is to Charity what a forced pregnancy is to welfare.

Claiming strawman, even when you provide the already well known description does not make it so. Nothing about pregnancy is analogous to either charity or welfare. Pregnancy does not involve confiscation, or willing giving of real property from one to another and charity and welfare do. I can see how you may want to compare them because of a confusing superficial similarity, but the comparison is simply not apt. As soon as you get into the legalisms to prove your argument, the foundation collapses as there is no real property involved.

My analogy was very clear; forcing a woman to carry a child against her will (banning abortion) is analogous to welfare in that both look at the disadvantaged individuals "Right to Life" as an entitlement to be fulfilled by violating the rights of the advantaged.

The child is not a disadvantaged individual. The child is an individual who is doing exactly what is supposed to do. The fact that it may represent an inconvenience to someone does not make it disadvantaged and the woman is only advantaged in the situation if you are also analogizing that might makes right.

You are simply not going to be able to build a rational argument if the foundation involves comparing welfare to pregnancy. Superficially they may appear analogous, but in order to make the comparison you very quickly have to begin making great assumptions. "forced" "advantaged" "disadvantaged" and assuming property where none exists. The analogy doesn't word and the argument that depends upon the anology doesn't work. Sophistry, no matter how well constructed, is still sophistry.

...when there is a clash of rights that exists between individuals, the right of the one must give way to the more fundamental right of the other.

You are recognizing our right to life as an entitlement, that our "right to life" is a guarentee that we will be provided with what we need to live (not just a right to not be killed), that other people are obligated to provide us with what we need to live and their failure to provide us with what we need to live constitutes a violation of our "right" to life. This is the essence of the entitlement mentality that has given us the welfare state we have today.

Agin, you are suggesting real property. Entitlements involve taking real property from one and giving that property to another. No such thing is happening in a pregnancy. Nothing about my argument construes that the right to live is an entitlement.

Get yourself another analogy if you want to continue this line of thought because preganancy and welfare simply can not be honestly analogized.

Are you suggesting that our free will has nothing to do with our liberty, that own bodies are not our own property, that the food we buy is not our own property, the liquids we purchase are not our own property, the life sustaining nutrients derived from that food and drink as well as the blood that courses through our veins is not our own property? Please make this case on something more substantial than your assertion.

I am saying exactly that our bodies are not our own property. If your body were your property, it could be lost as damages in a suit. Further, since your argument depends upon our bodies being viewed as property, the onus is upon you to prove that our bodies are property. Asking me to prove that our bodies are not property is a request that I prove a negative.

I will give you a hint as to where to look. The law is clear that you can't own a thing and be the thing at the same time. The law views your relationship to your body as that of a caretaker. You may recieve monetary compensation for the donation of certain tissue that regenerates such as platelets, blood, hair, etc., but even those things are not technically purchaced. The law is funny about bodies being considered real property because a sharp legal mind could construct a rational, and air tight argument in a court of law requiring you to forfiet your body (property) if you have damaged someone beyond your ability to compensate them.

Now you're just being intellectually dishonest... I will repost what you have said:

...when there is a clash of rights that exists between individuals, the right of the one must give way to the more fundamental right of the other.[/B

This is precisely the argument made in support of welfare, it is the WHY. The methodology for the collection and distribution of welfare, is the HOW. To claim the principle and the practice (why and how) are the same thing is very disingenuous.

That might be true if pregnancy was analogous to welfare. Alas, it is not. You named the why and named the how, but the most important part of the equation is not present precisely because it doesn't exist within your analogy. That would be the what. Welfare involves real property and pregnancy does not. Without the what, you don't have an argument. The intellectual dishonesty (if you want to call it that) lies with you. I don't say that I blame you because any argument that argues in favor of allowing one individual to kill another without judical review and without legal consequence for any or no reason must, by definition, be founded in dishonesty.

Both you and the Welfare crowd recognize our "Right to life" as more than simply a right to not be killed; you see it as a "right" that obligates others to provide whatever is necessary for another to live. The methodology by which that is accomplished is irrelevent and therefore not part of my comparison.

Again, sorry. Pregnancy is not analogous to welfare. No real property is at issue. So long as you persist in your attempt to analogize welfare and pregnancy, the argument can not proceed. Unless, of course, you prove that our bodies, and their contents are, in fact, real property.

See above where I ask about who owns our bodies, who owns the food we purchase and consume and the resulting nutrients derived from the food that we purchase and consume.

Again, the contents of your body are not property. If that were so, then the child itself could be considered property. I understand where your mind is in constructing this argument, but you are making assumptions that you simply can not prove. I believe that if you could, you would have already done it.

I have several legal references from the founders in support of my statements that rights begin at birth, while you are assuming rights are aquired at conception based on a single clause contained in a statement of formal explanation with no legally binding authority.

No. You have several quotes from the founders expressing their opinions, which they compromized when they signed a legal document that said something else.

*Pale's use of the word "magical" is what's known as Judgmental Language which is employed as a type of Appeal to Ridicule.

You are claiming that some "change" happens along that 7 inch journey in which a creature of one sort that has no rights becomes a creature of another sort who has inalienable rights. If that isn't magic, what is it? Describe this metamorphosis in physiological terms and I will use a different word.

You are operating on multiple assumptions. If we are to throw out your assumptions, you will have nothing left to argue with me about.

I am making no assumptions at all and calling them assumptions does not make it so.

Yet you are relying on more than one assumption: Our rights should be recognized from conception on and that the Declaration of Independence has some legal authority to support that position.

The supreme court itself has stated that the constitution may be read in the spirit of the declaration. Further, the declaration was, and is a legal document as it was never appealed, overturned, or terminated. It establishes the legal mission of the entity known as the USA. I make no assumptions.

If the Declaration were a legal document, as is our Constitution, we would not be having this discussion. Abortion would already be illegal, our rights would be recognized at conception and this would be codified law based on the Supreme Court's recognition of the statements made in the Declaration.

So abortion would never have happened just like slavery never happened? Who is being intellectually dishonest?

 

[palerider]

How can it be an "abortion" if the sperm haven't even reached the egg yet?

That is an assumption. I provided credible proof that sperm can reach the egg in as little as 30 minutes. There is no way you could know whether the child already exists or not.

Furthermore, until the science IS "settled", they continually obfuscate in the same manner that the AGW crowd obfuscate about their "evidence" (don't forget, they call the science "settled" too) and call anyone who disagrees with them "deniers" when there's nothing to deny since there are no FACTS to support their position! No, pale is intellectually disingenuous as the rest of the "true believers" in the world, they have made up their minds, and no amount of evidence to the contrary is going to change it.

Serttled? Settled?? Settled??? Are you kidding? You grab one medical dictionary, that isn't even among the most prominent that disagrees with the 6 prominent sources I provided and claim that the science is settled? I am laughing in your face again.

And once more, what is your position on embryonic stem cell research?